Magical Realist:
You have all the documentation you need to decide this case.
No. I don't, and I have carefully explained to you what's missing.
It is now clear that you don't have enough to make a rational decision on this any more than I do. I now actually know more about this case than you ever did.
But you keep making statements of faith, regardless.
I already posted original documents, first hand eyewitness accounts, drawings, and a photo. If you can't find anything more, so what?
Then the information that is available is insufficient to decide whether this was a mistaken sighting of the planet Venus, or a case of fakery, or a real alien encounter.
The case stands as compelling evidence of ufos.
By which you mean a craft that moves faster than any known human craft, blah blah blah. No, there's zero evidence of that kind of thing here.
I'm not looking for that information and don't need it.
You don't need it because your belief that this was aliens or whatever is a faith-based belief, and that's good enough for you. You've never been interested in finding out the truth.
If you need more, pursue it yourself. The internet is large. I'm sure there's something more you haven't found yet.
I've spent some time on it - more time than you've spent on it, that's for sure. My considered judgment, based on what I've seen, is that the evidence is inconclusive. And since you can provide nothing I haven't seen, I conclude that you have no basis other than faith to think this had anything to do with alien spacecraft or the like.
You're contradicting yourself. You already said you didn't think it was faudulent.
No. I have an open mind as to the possibility of fraud, because I need more evidence to decide that matter. Regarding the photograph, for example, see my post above.
I said I have no evidence of fraud (yet).
It is you who jumps to conclusions without evidence, not me.
I have no idea what more you want.
I don't know why you have no idea. I have been very explicit in my previous posts about what more I want.
Are you stupid, or forgetful, or is this just a pretense of ignorance on your part?
I suspect you're just procrastinating and making up excuses for not admitting the case is a solid one and proves the existence of ufos.
By which you mean alien spacecraft that outperform all human craft, etc. No, this case does not prove anything like that.
You have enough information to make a decision. If you can't still, then you're just hiding from the truth.
You don't have enough information to make a decision. I know this because I know more about the case than you do, and I don't have enough information.
So you can't know "the truth" of this. You can only have a faith-based belief, which is what you've had all along, of course. You've never cared about evidence.
All my experience of viewing the evidence for ufos has taught me that they are real and unknown phenomena that are still happening in our time. I don't need you to tell me that one fake photo means ufos aren't real. That's insane.
I know it's hard for you, but try to focus on this one case. We can get to the thousands of others you believe unquestioningly later.
Of course, if you're willing to drop your silly claim that this particular case provided compelling proof of aliens, then maybe we can move on to something else.
No..the case is not questionable and is solidly evidenced and documented.
Great! I'm so glad to hear yet again from you that there's solid documentation of all aspects of this case.
When are you going to produce that documentation and other evidence?
You're not going to, are you? Because the fact is: you haven't seen anything I haven't seen about this case. Your refusal to ask questions about this case relates to your faith-based belief that those policemen saw an alien spaceship. You don't want to risk that belief by opening your mind to other possibilities.
We've been over this. And you asking bullshit questions you know can't be answered without actually hunting down the eywitnesses themselves doesn't make the case questionable.
If the case was as solidly documented as you say it is, there'd be no need to hunt down the eyewitnesses. Answers to all sensible questions would be readily available in the solid documentation.
But that's not what we're seeing here, is it?
This isn't solidly documented at all. There's evidence of
some investigation by certain people, but even that evidence is incomplete, and the people who set out to investigate this at the time admit that parts of the evidence are questionable.
But you? No. 50 years later you're claiming that it's an open-and-shut case. Based on what? Nothing. You have no more information about the case than I have.
The U.S. Airforce and that ufo investigation group I forget the name of. I thought you said you studied this already.
I did. The Airforce investigation was Project Blue Book, which put the sighting down to mistaken perception. That conclusion was heavily criticised and some information was submitted to the Condon committee. Condon found that, overall, there was no evidence of alien visitation, based on the entirety of the cases reviewed (including this one).
Then there's NICAP, which was apparently a group of UFO-enthusiast civilians. That's the source of the documents you linked to earlier. As far as I'm aware, they didn't investigate the case independently.
To what extend have
you studied all this? I seem to know far more than you do about it.
LOL! You haven't debunked a thing about this case yet.
Correct. To do that, I need far more information, as I have been saying consistently.
And suddenly I'M at fault here? Seems the only one who has failed miserably is you.
I have shown that this case, like many UFO cases, is hampered by a long time lag, a lack of access to relevant evidence, and a less-than-optimal initial investigation, combined with a paucity of extant records dating back to the incident itself.
This is not a failure. I have highlighted exactly why your belief that it's aliens for sure is untenable when it comes to this case. You have a faith-based belief, not one based on evidence or analysis.
Your shoddy standards have been exposed for all to see - again. So who failed miserably? Somebody sure did, and I don't think it was me.
Instead of whining, you can move on now and study the next two cases I've posted.
I think not. I think I'll see what else comes out in the wash about this one, first.
I see no reason to buy into more of your flighty distractions - the search for a shinier bauble.
I'm pretty sure you'll find them even harder to debunk that this one.
Every single one of your cases that I've looked at in any detail has always displayed major flaws in evidence almost immediately. This one is just more of the same, and I'm confident any others I examine will most likely follow the same pattern.
You haven't really researched this at all have you? Go look for the report under Project Blue Book.
I'd love to read what they had to say. Got a link?
Having said that, I would have thought you'd be very critical of Project Blue Book on this. Are you telling me you're willing to accept that investigation as authoritative on this case?
You don't have to study these cases if they are getting to you.
The cases don't bother me in the slightest. They are standard UFO-nut fare.
Some people can't handle the truth of ufos and the paranormal. I get that.
Some people don't know how to go about finding truth, or they don't want truth in the first place. I get that.
Maybe you're not mentally constituted to live with such uncertainty.
LOL. Nice irony there, Magical Realist.
Recall that it is
you who has zero uncertainty here, not me. I'm coping just fine with the uncertainty. You, on the other hand, have a desperate, aching need to just
believe in something.
Which is probably why you cling to science like a religion.
Science is all about uncertainty. UFOology, on the other hand, is mostly underpinned by an abiding faith among its true believers. You are a good example of that.
Where have I lied? Quote it.
I'll wait for your comments regarding the photograph.
But it is sad. 
