The Thing about UFOs...

[SkinWalker]

Whatever it is, it cannot be "UFO" since one of the letters ("O") stands for "object."

Many alleged sightings of UFOs aren't objects at all but, simply, reflections of light, delusion, or fantasy. Or just out-right lies. There are several other explanations that invalidate the "object" portion of UFO as a valid, objective label.

The most common use of the label, UFO, is to equate with space aliens and extraterrestrial craft. That's what electrafixtion is referring to for the most part.

 

[nietzschefan]

That's because skeptics and the wingdings out there have made it so.

What would a military guy call the new russian jet doing mach 10 in his airspace nowdays...anyone know?

Unidentified, Flying, WHAT?

 

[SkinWalker]

A bogey.

And its the woo-woo's, cranks and crackpots that have insisted so much on the space alien and extraterrestrial hypothesis.

 

[nietzschefan]

Oh forget it.

 

[jpappl]

To Skinwalker and Ophiolite:

First sorry to Ophiolite for the abbreviations. MSM is main stream media, MUFON is a scientific based ufo reporting and researching group, the MUFON report on Stephenville was done with the data obtained from the FAA and weather service during the time of the reported sightings from the witnesses. They have filed along with others to get the military to release the USAF data. I personally have written to 5 local congress reps and to General Schwartz regarding the incident and to why no actual engagement to stop the ufo ( craft without a transponder ) while in restricted air space.

As far as the witnesses, yes if it was only the witnesses then I can understand your point of arguing that they may have seen an illusion, although even the idea of that many people seeing the same object at the same time is cause for some investigation.

But I keep reading statements that ask for some kind of evidence that is outside of the witness sightings and reports. Well now we have that evidence in hand. It's on the radar picked up by the FAA and corresponds with the witness reports of what happened.

I was not trying to come accross as emotional but to me this is really sad and frustrating that the MSM ( main stream media ) is not picking up this story and demanding answers from the military. But it is also not a surprise.

This is not just a ufo incident it is a national security incident. This incident with radar data is very similar, almost identical to all of the serious multiple witness sightings of the past 50 years. These ufos are not changing their approach to us. The history of these sightings has been supported by radar in many instances before, however, it all came down to " then some guys in grey suits took the evidence and we were told not to ever talk about it ". With that we have nothing more to discuss other than maybe this or maybe that.

But now we have in hand the radar evidence and it appears to me that nobody wants to look at it. To me that is just cowardly. It is the same way you as a skeptic feel when someone wants to stick by their religious stance even when presented with scientific proof to the contrary. It is intellectually dishonest to do so and then continue to argue against that which you have not researched with an open mind.

I stated before that it is a national security issue. This ufo with no transponder, was flying towards to the crawford ranch, it had amazing capabilities based on the radar report and the witnesses. It was not only chased by f-16s according to the witnesses, 2 of the f-16s flew into passenger jet space during the event. Yes passenger airline space, they were completely out of their training area during this event.

Why would they do that ?

A local rep has filed a complaint against the military for this action based on the MUFON report.

For those who again want to discount the witnesses, do so at your own risk. One day, hopefully for you, you may be a part of a large group of people who witness such a craft and then you will be the one who has the skeptics questioning you. But I futher question why you would not respect them, who have stuck to their original statements and not question the military not only in this event, in which they LIED. But what about all of the other reports which the military has claimed it never happened.

I use a very simple basic rule when I research. If I come across a hoxer, someone who has lied, mislead or not presented other truths relevant to the discussion I discount them entirely. There are many characters that I have discounted who claim to know ufo's exist, however, the military is no longer a reputable, believable entity. I no longer trust them, and it's because of their actions not a steadfast belief in ufos.

How do we know what is out there really. You and others who deny outright that these events have occurred are stuck in our time and our reality. You are not being honest with yourself.

Very low on the logic side. A little arrogance there I would say. Please don't use the word hysterical to describe my statements. They are not, and it implies that I am somehow out of sorts and it is also a political type jab. I don't appreciate it. I could use a logical statement that you should know who MUFON is if you going to discuss the ufo subject with any intelligence but I am not going to do the same, that wouldn't be fair. I appreciate your interest, ideas and thoughts, as another human being I respect you first and will continue to as long as you don't give me reasons to change that opinion.

I was very logical. I used an analogy to offer ideas on why they wouldn't just land on the white house lawn.

I used an example as to how much technology has changed in the last 100 years, now consider the possibility that there is a species that is 1000's of years beyond us.

Or do you think we as the human race and you being part of the human race are the smartest things ever to exist in the universe.

I understand that the number of stars likely to have at least several planets orbiting them is on the order of the number 1 followed by 23 zeroes.

Other than the fact that this Stephenville incident was caught on radar that confirmed the witness accounts, I don't know Sh*t about the universe and neither do any of you compared to what we are to learn in the future.

That is as long as science keeps an open mind and plows forward.

Thanks for listening.
JA

 

[electrafixtion]

Why are you both hung up on semantics for? Roughly 70%of reported UFOs do turn out to be "objects" when investigated. Whether those "objects" are known air craft or of unknown origin. WTF? Holy spinning your wheels to go backward.

 

[jpappl]

To John99,

Good question. I have no idea and obviously since we can not it is some way of traveling the great expanses of space that we are not aware of yet.

It does not mean that it is impossible as some suggest, flying to the moon 200 years ago would have been impossible
It does mean that we are far behind them in our technological capability.
It does not mean they are here to hurt us or save us.
It does not mean anything because if we are so far behind them technologically then we are also very far behind in social evolution as well and in that case can only guess as to what and how they view us.
So your guess is as good as mine.

Based on the history of the sightings and the likeness of the events in the past compared to the Stephenville incident with RADAR evidence of an OBJECT (skinwalker)
I am convinced that IF we ever have full disclosure on what appears to be UFO's in our air space or a significant change event like a major landing etc, may not happen in our lifetime. We are dealing with ET not military The reason is that we just did not have the technology 50-60 years ago and beyond. If they just started happening now I would be more inclined to think military.

Another post about 120 years. Yes there have been photo and witness reports going back at least that far. Not just since the late 40's. Please do the research.

Thanks again for listening.
JA

 

[electrafixtion]

If it's not obvious to everyone, SkinWalker is just doing his best to discredit the credibility of the extremely solid case that has been made for UFOs. That's all. He has zero facts to back up his contentions. Which is far less than those claiming that UFOs are in fact technology based devices either of man made origin or from a source of intelligent design other than human beings. SkinWalker has also claimed that I purport UFOs to be of extraterrestrial origin, Space Aliens I believe is the term he uses. This is nonsense. I not only claimed that I voted for both sources of the possible origin of UFOs in this poll, but I have stated emphatically that neither point of possible origin is something I consider likely. The only shred of hope that pseudo skeptics like SkinWalker can claim for their repeated attempts to discredit individuals such as myself is the old "I'm right because It's my contention that all other sources of input on the issue opposing mine cannot be validated" argument. Well, guess what? People like SkinWalker can't validate their position any more effectively than their debated opposition. So where does that leave us? Nowhere. Are you satisfied with Nowhere like SkinWalker? If you answer no to that question, please evaluate your options and see what your variable potentials are with respect to a working hypothesis. It will become clear to you as it did to MANY highly respected witnesses to this incredible phenomenon. That clarity will abundantly reveal that UFOs are real, as real as those posting on this forum, but their source of control is yet to be made public. Whether that is because "they" themselves have not chosen to publicly reveal themselves or a sum of hard evidence does in fact exist and is being purposefully covered up by the powers that be. I don't know. But I do know that only an obstinate fool would argue that they don't exist at all or that there is no question as to the fact that they are man made and controlled. WAY too much evidence counters that supposition.

 

[moementum7]

Now you have disappointed me. It was emotional, hysterical and very low on the logic scale.

.

Lol, sorry to have dissapointed you Big O.
So we disagree on his value...big deal.

Again, another well rounded post jpappl.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yep, common sense is a real shocker at times. Darn right efficient too.

SkinWalker provided a detailed post in which he addressed the contention (shared by me, rejected by you) that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Your entire belief in UFOs as something other than quite natural or man made phenomena is contingent upon eyewitness testimony. My position is - and will remain - that eyewitness tetimony is unreliable, that this has been established by many thorough scientific studies, and that to continue to deny this is a subjective, emotional, illogical stance.

You also say I have not examined the reports sincerely and objectively. I have been examing the reports since the late 1950s, when my age was still in single figures. I had read and re-read the Condon report from cover to cover within a couple of weeks of its publication. I had every one of von Dainiken's books. I was 'want to be a believer'. During this period your accustion was accurate. I was not reading the reports (whether for or against) with an objective stance.

Fortunately I grew out of that self delusion. I never lost the passionate wish that we were being visited by aliens, but I found to my enromous and continuing disappointment that there was no bloody evidence for it. That still pisses me off - almost as much as it pisses me off to see adults arguing the case the way I did as a young teenager.

Grow up guys. It's not that painful.

 

[Ophiolite]

jpappl,
thank you for the clarification of the abbreviations. Your post was much more balanced and reasonable in tone. I shall read what you have written more carefully, ponder on it and respond if appropriate.

 

[jpappl]

to Ophiolite,

Thank you for your comments. I look at your interest as one in the same. Continue to follow the information until it is a proven dead end and then move on. Don't make something there that isn't. I agree and appreciate the research you have done over the past 50 years. Wow.

This is why I am intriqued by the MUFON report. I want to know how valid this is, it needs a review by persons who better understand the radar data and it's interpretation than me. This may lead to an eventual dead end as well but I feel that we owe it to the witnesses who at the very least have something of value backing their story. Without it there was nothing they could prove in my opinion. The USAF data is what is needed now and that is unlikely to come out. That is what my main goal is to try and get people motivated to start asking questions of the USAF as to what they know.

Thanks again for listening.
JA

 

[Read-Only]

to Ophiolite,

Thank you for your comments. I look at your interest as one in the same. Continue to follow the information until it is a proven dead end and then move on. Don't make something there that isn't. I agree and appreciate the research you have done over the past 50 years. Wow.

This is why I am intriqued by the MUFON report. I want to know how valid this is, it needs a review by persons who better understand the radar data and it's interpretation than me. This may lead to an eventual dead end as well but I feel that we owe it to the witnesses who at the very least have something of value backing their story. Without it there was nothing they could prove in my opinion. The USAF data is what is needed now and that is unlikely to come out. That is what my main goal is to try and get people motivated to start asking questions of the USAF as to what they know.

Thanks again for listening.
JA

I would just like to say that I, also, appreciate your level-headed and objective approach to the matter. It's the emotional and lack of objectivity that disturbs me most about other's views - and the expresion of those views. Truth will eventually be revealed through logic, not emotional appeal.

Perhaps more later, but just a couple of quick comments for now. First, radar tracking isn't quite the perfect science that some believe it to be. Radar can be fooled into producing false echos from thermoclines and temperature inversions and other things. But when it's supplimented by observations done by other means, as is the case here with eyewitnesses and independent aircraft, it takes on a much stronger ring of validity.

One famous (or infamous) incident from the Cold War period points this out all to clearly. The entire U.S. military was placed on high alert when the DEW line reported something unidentified approaching the U.S. mainland at a very high rate of speed. SAC put everything they had into the air to suppliment what was always airborne at any given time, missle silos were activated to fire on a moment's notice as were missle-equipped subs around the globe. Various targets in the U.S.S.R were fed into the guidance computers. In fact, the SAC bombers were ordered to procede toward their "committed" locations.

And Russia took immediate notice of what looked to them like a first-strike plan going into action and began preparing a retaliatory strike.

It all wound down during a period of major embarrasment when it was finally discovered that the "bogey" was the rising Moon.

So, as the saying goes, haste can make waste - and jumping to unfounded conclusions (as many here are so prone to do and have done) is almost always an act of gross foolishness. Sure and steady is the ONLY way to proceed.

 

[jpappl]

To read,

I couldn't agree more.

There is enough information on the Stephenville incident with the FAA data to warrant further inquiry.

That said, I am waiting for further review. I think that having one or two other independent reviews of the report and the FAA data itself is very important in finding any discrepancies. If 2 other serious radar engineers back this up then it should be looked into.

That might expose a major weakness in the report itself or require the USAF to respond.

Either way we get to an answer that is more complete than it is now.

Thank you.
JA

 

[SkinWalker]

If it's not obvious to everyone, SkinWalker is just doing his best to discredit the credibility of the extremely solid case that has been made for UFOs.

I'm only asking questions and pointing out logical fallacies. One of these questions is "where is this solid case made for UFOs?" and "what, precisely, is the case that's being made?"

You seem to be saying, on the one hand, that UFOs are extraterrestrials, and on the other (when it's clear this is not a tenable position?) that they're just not identified. Either way, you're applying undo significance.

That's all. He has zero facts to back up his contentions.

My contentions, so far, have been that UFOs can be explained by weather, planes, satellites, fallible memory of eyewitnesses, liars, hoaxers, the deluded, the confused, and assorted other natural and human phenomena that are, albeit interesting, very mundane and prosaic when compared with speculative hypotheses of space aliens and extraterrestrials. What "facts" must I supply to support these contentions? Which of these do you find improbable?

My further contention was that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. I did, indeed, provide a litany of facts. Facts which were not derived from my own mind nor completely from UFO skeptics. Some of those facts were derived from the legal industry.

You're insinuation that I'm not able or willing to provide facts is, therefore, fallacious.

SkinWalker has also claimed that I purport UFOs to be of extraterrestrial origin, Space Aliens I believe is the term he uses. This is nonsense.

This is false. At the very least, you've deceived us (intentionally or unintentionally) with your comments in post #403 where you state: "Just to be clear, my answer to the polled question was assuredly both.

You "assuredly" believe UFOs are of both man-made and extraterrestrial origin if we are to believe your own words.

I find that when UFO enthusiasts arrive at a science forum like SciForums, they realize that the ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) hypothesis is a crackpot theory in and of it self. They, therefore, make some weak attempt at maintaining the high ground along with skeptics who are rationally minded about such matters by claiming "I'm just saying there are a lot of sightings and they're unidentified."

I not only claimed that I voted for both sources of the possible origin of UFOs in this poll, but I have stated emphatically that neither point of possible origin is something I consider likely.

So clarify for us: what, then, do you consider to be likely and why? Now you're stating that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is unlikely along with the man-made hypothesis. Are we suddenly in agreement that the causes of UFO sightings alleged by so people are related to weather, planes, satellites, fallible memory of eyewitnesses, liars, hoaxers, the deluded, the confused, and assorted other natural and human phenomena?

The only shred of hope that pseudo skeptics like SkinWalker can claim for their repeated attempts to discredit individuals such as myself is the old "I'm right because It's my contention that all other sources of input on the issue opposing mine cannot be validated" argument.

This is the first I've heard of this "argument," moreover, it appears to be a complete straw man on your part. But, if you feel differently, I'd like to see you construct that argument in logical form with premises and conclusions, showing where I've made this sort of "argument."

Well, guess what? People like SkinWalker can't validate their position any more effectively than their debated opposition.

What, specifically, *is* my position? I'm only asking questions and attempting to get a claimant (that would be you, chap) to clarify and support *his* position. Where I've made any contentions at all is to remind the claimant(s) that the discourse cannot be limited to the possibilities in the poll. I've criticized the poor construction of the OP's poll; I've been critical of the very poorly constructed arguments presented by significance-junkies and mystery-mongers.

But I have not made any positive claims with regard to UFOs. Indeed, I agree that the ETI hypothesis is a possibility. I've never stated it wasn't.

In short, I have no position to "validate."

You, however, as the mystery-monger and significance-junkie that dares enter a science board with wild speculations, poorly constructed arguments that fit no sense of logic, limited willingness to consider negative hypotheses, preconceived biases, and conclusions to which he looks only for supporting data -you have much to validate.

Good luck with that.

For the remainder of this post, I'm not responding to electrofixtian but, rather, presenting discourse for those that read this thread, either from Google searches or while browsing SciForums. This discourse is a lesson in logical fallacy and how poorly constructed arguments and weak discourse are often created by "UFO enthusiasts." Links to the logical fallacies mentioned have been provided for your educational enjoyment.

It will become clear to you as it did to MANY highly respected witnesses to this incredible phenomenon.

More appeals to popularity and appeals to authority.

Note to the reader: This fallacious argument has been invalidated. Note how the woo-woo will continue to argue many of the same fallacious points without regard to already having its ass handed to it. This, gentle reader, is the woo-woo in its natural habitat. Unfortunately, such a creature is not an endangered species and all efforts to eradicate it as a pest or vermin have failed.[/humor]

That clarity will abundantly reveal that UFOs are real, as real as those posting on this forum, but their source of control is yet to be made public.

Most logical fallacies are, in fact, non sequiturs, since their conclusions do not follow from their premises. The conclusion above is that there is a mysterious "source of control" which is kept hidden from "the public" regarding UFOs. The premises regarding UFOs are sound: they are "unidentified;" they appear to "fly;" and they seem to have many observers and are, thus, "real" in the sense that most people really did observe, or think they observed something.

Yet to go from these premises to objects (most woo-woos say "craft"), control of which is intentionally withheld from the public by some unknown agent (an "active and efficient cause" not Men in Black), is fallacious.

But I do know that only an obstinate fool would argue that they don't exist at all or that there is no question as to the fact that they are man made and controlled. WAY too much evidence counters that supposition.

Two separate arguments are being rolled into a single argument, hiding a straw man fallacy. The straw man has the effect of becoming an ad hominem designed to poison the well. After all, no one wants to be a "fool" or even considered a fool. The arguer hopes that by equating "obstinate fool" with a position contrary or critical of his, that the line of inquiry will cease.

Since this isn't anything I've every suggested, implied, or stated, such an argument wouldn't apply to me and I can dismiss it. Clearly, and even when hoaxers and liars are considered, sightings of UFOs exist.

The second part of electrifixtian's statement above, however, is under-educated and ignorant. He states, "there is no question as to the fact that they are man made and controlled."

I say "ignorant" and "under-educated" because both of these conditions would need to be in place in order to completely overlook, dismiss, and fail to consider weather events, animals, light reflections, delusion, misidentification, poor memory, etc. Instead of including these, this woefully ignorant and undereducated person states it is a "fact" that UFOs are "man made and controlled."

He doesn't say some. He doesn't say most. His implication, by way of dismissing my criticisms is that they all are. Moreover, his own words in post #403 indicate that he thinks they are "extraterrestrial."

 

[SkinWalker]

jpappl,

Having lived and worked around Stephensville in the 1980s, I can tell you that it was, and still is, a very active military training region. I now live within a couple of hours from Stephensville, so -as you can imagine- all the news channels carried this so-called story for weeks. I've seen just about every video and heard nearly every account (some directly from those that alleged to have observed it first hand).

Not a single account or video was inconsistent with jet trainers deploying counter-measures. The flares they deploy are bright and hot (they're designed to attract heat-seeking missiles) and zip around at seemingly haphazard directions at night.

I half-expected someone to find chaff wrapped around mesquite or juniper trees, claiming it was fairy-dust or some nonsense, since these little strips of foil can get caught in trees when moving at high-velocity, wrapping around branches.

 

[Read-Only]

You, however, as the mystery-monger and significance-junkie that dares enter a science board with wild speculations, poorly constructed arguments that fit no sense of logic, limited willingness to consider negative hypotheses, preconceived biases, and conclusions to which he looks only for supporting data -you have much to validate.

Good luck with that.

SK, I'm sure you realize that he will not understand half of what you've so rightly presented. He's proven time and again that he is badly lacking in the mental facilities needed to comprehend and address logical, objective thinking.

Quite bluntly, he just doesn't have what it takes to think outside his little dream world. And anything that threatens that dream world will be met with a blast of emotion - completely void of any logic. In his emotionally-driven state, he's contradicted himself several times (some of which you pointed out in this very post) and isn't even intelligent enough to realize it.

Like all other true woo-woos, he backs himself into a corner from which there is no escape and STILL cannot see that either. The only phrase I can think of that applies is "pitiful human being."

 

[jpappl]

To Skin,

Appreciate the info.

One of the things that I first looked for was the military planes. Could they have mistaken them for the object they saw. The witnesses were very clear the object was not a military craft of anykind they have seen before.

Having lived in the area, would you agree that people there are not the ufo types based on what most of the witnesses stated. That they actually never gave it much of thought until they saw this object ?

Just curious, I mean if is a hotbed of nuts than they could be seeing what they want to see.

The radar report has some flaws or assumptions that need to be looked into by a 2nd or 3rd party to determine the overall validity of the report.

It is not fair to witnesses who saw something beyond the typical military craft to just throw their testimony in the trash.

I used to go backpack camping up on this high ridge in Washington State which had this intense valley below. The military would have their fighter jets going down the narrow valley, so from our campsite you would literally be eye level with them. The hard part was catching them with your eyes because they were so fast you would see them before you heard them. If you heard them you look out in front of the noise and could sometimes see them. They are not that easy to spot even from close range.

We could see numbers and their helmets and everything, we were that close. It made you truly appreciate what our enemies must be going through facing these jets. You would be dead before you knew who was killing you.

So for my personal experience, I think I would be able to tell the difference between a craft they claim was 100's of feet across and a jet fighter. IMO.

The F16s according to the report were all over the Stephenville area, only 2 crossed into passenger jet space, however, I understand all of the F16s were not in their training area for the base. Why is that ? Is that normal. ?

An official complaint has been filed with the military for this offense.

There are several military bases in the area as you mentioned.

They should have very good radar data to offer better information to make the report more complete and possibly less biased.

That is all I am asking. Until that happens I won't be satisfied. The answer is not complete enough for me to accept anybody's version of what happened.

Thanks
JA

 

[jpappl]

To All,

This is the letter I sent to General Schwartz and my local reps.

_____________________________
9-3-2008

Air Force Chief of Staff, General Schwartz
1670 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1670

To General Schwartz,

I am writing to you as a concerned citizen regarding a report on the Stephenville UFO sightings that was released by an organization called MUFON.

MUFON is a group that does scientific research into the UFO phenomena and they just recently completed a comprehensive Radar report on the incident and it is truly alarming.

This is the first time I have written to a government official in any capacity for about 20 years. So this is not something I like to do otherwise I would do it more often.

I was aware of the Stephenville Texas sighting in 1-2008 but it was only witness sightings, that has changed.

The report details how several UFO’s were in the area, matching witness testimony. It should also be noted that the USAF claimed there were no planes in the area that evening and later retracted that statement and claimed there were 10 F-16s. According to the report 2 F-16s flew into passenger air space during the event. Several witnesses said they had seen the F-16s as well and these were nothing like the planes.

The bottom line is that apparently one or several UFO’s were flying with no transponders, 10 miles away and going directly to the Crawford, TX ranch of George Bush. The capability of the unknown craft was of being able to go from 50 mph to 2000 mph and even stop and then accelerate away again. No known craft can do that.

It was never intercepted by the USAF.

We will not know the answer until the military releases the radar data from the planes and ground source. There are several bases in the area that all should have been aware of the craft without a transponder. I would like to know if this report is bogus or if it can be verified.

All of the data in the report came from the FAA radar and a weather service radar and ground/air witness testimony.

Thank you for any assistance you can offer.


John Applegate, concerned citizen.

________________________________

 

[SkinWalker]

One of the things that I first looked for was the military planes. Could they have mistaken them for the object they saw. The witnesses were very clear the object was not a military craft of anykind they have seen before.

Perhaps they'd never observe these particular planes engaged in these particular maneuvers at this particular distance. Or, perhaps they'd never observed military aircraft this close at all.

Most people have never, ever observed an A-10, F-16, etc. release flares. These flares burn hot and bright.

Having lived in the area, would you agree that people there are not the ufo types based on what most of the witnesses stated. That they actually never gave it much of thought until they saw this object ?

There are just as many nuts and kooks in the Stephensville area as anywhere else in the nation. Furthermore, the rural and ranch culture of the residents makes them a bit less informed when it comes to technological issues and more given to being "awed" when faced with such things. But they are people. Homo sapiens sapiens. And, as such, are poorly reliable as witnesses, particularly to extraordinary or rare events which last brief moments.

The military aircraft hypothesis is the most probable and the most likely. The military is known to use the airspace in the region. The video, eyewitness accounts, etc. where all consistent with military aircraft. Military aircraft are known to exist. The military aircraft hypothesis introduces the fewest new assumptions (i.e. we already know they exist, use the airspace, behave this way, etc.).

Just curious, I mean if is a hotbed of nuts than they could be seeing what they want to see.

People generally do see what they want to see. This is why eyewitness testimony is such poor evidence and rarely reliable. Particularly in extraordinary events, which this was.

It was extraordinary in the fact that it doesn't happen on a routine basis, not that it was "out of this world." Interestingly enough, one of my graduate classmates is from Stephensville and said that military jets practiced there again recently and at low altitudes, but it wasn't quite dark yet and the event was barely a curiosity discussed at the barber shop: "did ya see them Air Force jets last night?"

It is not fair to witnesses who saw something beyond the typical military craft to just throw their testimony in the trash.

No. It isn't. What they saw wasn't a typical military exercise. Such maneuvers are rare (they're expensive and dangerous) and witnesses should marvel at the sight and feel lucky to have had a personal air show.

So for my personal experience, I think I would be able to tell the difference between a craft they claim was 100's of feet across and a jet fighter. IMO.

Your experience, as you told it, was during the day. The experience of the Stephensville observers was at night, and I can tell you from my experiences that even knowing the aircraft you're looking at in the night sky are military, it's very hard to make sense of it. In addition, the Stephensville observers witnessed the deployment of missile counter-measures (flares, possibly chaff), which further confuses the scene since the flares become multiple points of light zipping about at different directions and, seemingly, differing speeds.

The F16s according to the report were all over the Stephenville area, only 2 crossed into passenger jet space, however, I understand all of the F16s were not in their training area for the base. Why is that ? Is that normal. ?

Who knows. Maybe the pilots were involved in a competition and strayed out of their box. An F-16 is a fast aircraft and doesn't exactly turn on a dime. When competing with other aircraft in a red vs. blue operation, they might improvise or overlook their position in relationship to the ground. Its not exactly a fact that the military would likely admit to very quickly and, if memory serves, initial requests of the military were met with an "it wasn't us" attitude and, only later, did the Air Force admit it was present.
An official complaint has been filed with the military for this offense.

There are several military bases in the area as you mentioned.

They should have very good radar data to offer better information to make the report more complete and possibly less biased.

There are several bases. And, no, they shouldn't release a damn thing. There's no reason. They already stated there were aircraft in the region on the day in question. They already admitted to a military exercise if I recall. We don't have any right to their radar records nor should they be made public. I, for one, do not want our nation's enemies or potential enemies to have any more information than they already have on our intelligence gathering capabilities. To release such radar data would give information about the capabilities of military radar in general.

That is all I am asking. Until that happens I won't be satisfied. The answer is not complete enough for me to accept anybody's version of what happened.

Then maybe you just don't get to be satisfied. But there's no reason to release data like that. Nor is there any reason to wonder what, exactly, was observed. The most efficient answer is military aircraft. That explanation requires the fewest new assumptions.

What, if not military aircraft, would you suggest the good residents of Stephensville observed?