Breaking News: vallee 40 years "behind the times"

[Goggs Mackay]

I have to admit that should any official acknowledgement of UFO's come, I would indeed derive a great deal of satisfaction, but only from the debunkers. Skeptics, no, cos there is plenty logic there, the public, no, some folk just aren't interested but the debunkers. Oh I'd savour that.

Having said that, isn't it already implied that UFO's are real? I mean we always get the 'no defence significance' line trotted out but I'm unaware of my own country ever trying to deny UFO's exist? Perhaps we should make more of that point?

 

[Randall]

I have to admit that should any official acknowledgement of UFO's come, I would indeed derive a great deal of satisfaction, but only from the debunkers. Skeptics, no, cos there is plenty logic there, the public, no, some folk just aren't interested but the debunkers. Oh I'd savour that.

Having said that, isn't it already implied that UFO's are real? I mean we always get the 'no defence significance' line trotted out but I'm unaware of my own country ever trying to deny UFO's exist? Perhaps we should make more of that point?

It's hard not to recognize the tacit confirmation that UFOs are real in the statement, "UFOs don't represent a threat to national security". Friedman was the first ufologist I heard that point it out to a public audience. Of course the usual counterpoint is the typical misinformation that UFOs could be anything at all bla bla bla. So again, it's a semantics game.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I have to admit that should any official acknowledgement of UFO's come, I would indeed derive a great deal of satisfaction, but only from the debunkers. Skeptics, no, cos there is plenty logic there, the public, no, some folk just aren't interested but the debunkers. Oh I'd savour that.

Having said that, isn't it already implied that UFO's are real? I mean we always get the 'no defence significance' line trotted out but I'm unaware of my own country ever trying to deny UFO's exist? Perhaps we should make more of that point?

That's my deal - right now I don't think UFOs are anything but misidentified mundane things, and they are real - but as soon as I see something that tells me otherwise, I have no problem changing my opinion that the may not be so mundane.

Here's an example of something I saw today that could have fooled me if I saw it a few seconds later. There was a vulture flying over the mountain near my house and I saw it was a bird. However, a few seconds later is changed direction and the angle I was viewing it from made it seem like it stopped in mid air and changed direction like no aircraft ever could and then it disappeared into the mountain so it looked like it de-materialized. The thing is, it no longer looked like a bird, but it looked like a saucer shaped craft.

 

[Pegusta]

I just think those with the anti-E.T. hypothesis have a massive problem supplying evidence.

Sure I can go with theorizing about extra-dimensionality, especially the day George Knapp et. al. supply a shred of evidence.

But until then, despite much perceived high strangeness (high speed/maneuvreability/cloaking abilities), the ETH has something resembling evidence (rader + ATC for instance), the others don't.

Well, sure there is some evidence around. But it only points to the fact that something is going on.

It is more or less neutral evidence. It essentially tells us f*** all about the origin of the phenomenon. It can be used to bolster any hypothesis really, ETH, interdimensional or whatever. To assume that it is ET to make a huge leap of faith. A leap I for one am not willing to make considering the evidence at hand. This when we in fact have no substantial evidence supporting any hypothesis to a satisfying degree. We more or less know something funky is going on but we can not say what it is at this point.

Regarding Bassett:

Not surprising to hear him dismiss Vallee. After all, Vallee took the time to think critically, actually questioning the ufological establishment and its unrelenting knee jerk reaction to immediately categorize everything remotely out of the ordinary ET. I mean why bother thinking for yourself when the answers are provided in neat packages. No need to bother with such things as vetting speakers, or critical thinking when we know what it is. After all, the space dudes told us where they came from damnit!

 

[Frank Stalter]

One thing we can say for sure is that our exo-planet hunt and finds are backing up the ETH, theoretical possibilities regarding interdimensions and the like are still just that.

 

[Randall]

That's my deal - right now I don't think UFOs are anything but misidentified mundane things, and they are real - but as soon as I see something that tells me otherwise, I have no problem changing my opinion that the may not be so mundane.

So does that mean you're going to have to see one yourself before you believe any of the mountain of reports from other people? I appreciate that having a firsthand experience is most often the most convincing, but to think so many other people besides yourself are just wrong doesn't seem very reasonable.

Here's an example of something I saw today that could have fooled me if I saw it a few seconds later. There was a vulture flying over the mountain near my house and I saw it was a bird. However, a few seconds later is changed direction and the angle I was viewing it from made it seem like it stopped in mid air and changed direction like no aircraft ever could and then it disappeared into the mountain so it looked like it de-materialized. The thing is, it no longer looked like a bird, but it looked like a saucer shaped craft.

Birds certainly can fool people. I got a call from some people who had reported numerous silent glowing objects passing over their downtown apartment. So I went down that evening to check it out. I went out onto the balcony which faced over a dark alley and looked up. A few moments later a group of about 10 geese flew over, their undersides were reflecting the glow from the bright lights from the other sides of the buildings, and they weren't honking so they were completely silent. I called out the witness and asked him to watch, and a few minutes later some more flew over, and he said that's what he had seen. When I mentioned they were birds he said his eyes weren't perfect so to him they looked more blurry than they did to me. So there you go. Case closed.

On the other hand, I once interviewed a retired RCAF airman who had gone into real estate. He said that one day he and his assistant were out checking out houses in a new neighborhood on the edge of town and noticed what he thought was some sort of new-fangled playground where some children were poking around. The only problem with that assumption was that as he was watching them, they went into the domed "playhouse" and the thing took of straight up and out of sight in a few seconds. He didn't come across as pulling my leg at all. He seemed perfectly serious about it. There are hundreds ( if not thousands ) of other reports that have a ring of authenticity to them. I'm sure you must be aware of them, so how can you rationalize them all away as misidentified mundane objects when highly competent qualified people who experienced the event can't ... let alone those that are also supported by follow-up investigation?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

That's not what I said Ufology. Right now, there really isn't any good evidence (in my hard to please opinion) - no pictures, no videos, no wreckage, nothing. All of it relies on eyewitness testimony and some inconclusive photos. We can't be sure of what people have seen, or what we see in the pictures. I don't think people are lying, but human memory is absolutely awful.
My ideal scenario would be a sighting that has multiple photographs and videos, corroborated by a huge number of people. Let's say the Phoenix lights but with HD video and pictures - something that is easily possible now since everyone pretty much has an HD camera on them at all times. Sort of what happened with the Russian meteor. That's an extraordinary event that was caught on hundreds of cameras - why not anything like that with UFOs if they seem to be seen more often that a meteor? I asked that question on a recent show and Chris chastised me about it saying there's plenty of footage like that - I still haven't seen it. Of course I'm too lazy to do the research myself...

 

[Randall]

That's not what I said Ufology.

You said: "That's my deal - right now I don't think UFOs are anything but misidentified mundane things ..."
I said: "How can you rationalize them all away as misidentified mundane objects?

Where's the difference? I don't see it.

Right now, there really isn't any good evidence (in my hard to please opinion) - no pictures, no videos, no wreckage, nothing. All of it relies on eyewitness testimony and some inconclusive photos. We can't be sure of what people have seen, or what we see in the pictures. I don't think people are lying, but human memory is absolutely awful.

I still don't see the difference. But let's bookmark the topic of memory for some further discussion. Its not nearly as awful as the skeptics typically promote it as being.

My ideal scenario would be a sighting that has multiple photographs and videos, corroborated by a huge number of people. Let's say the Phoenix lights but with HD video and pictures - something that is easily possible now since everyone pretty much has an HD camera on them at all times. Sort of what happened with the Russian meteor. That's an extraordinary event that was caught on hundreds of cameras - why not anything like that with UFOs if they seem to be seen more often that a meteor? I asked that question on a recent show and Chris chastised me about it saying there's plenty of footage like that - I still haven't seen it. Of course I'm too lazy to do the research myself...

I still don't see the difference. But let's bookmark the topic of evidence for future discussion as well.

In the meantime, can you please clarify what it is you are referring to in my post that misrepresents what you said. Perhaps I'm not looking at the correct segments. Once we get that straightened out, if you're up for it, we'll discuss memory and evidence.

 

[boomerang]

OK let's set logic aside and try to fathom the irrational ( be prepared for a rant ). Would acknowledgement by our father figures in Government amount to a public spanking for all the bullies who've made fun of us? Is that what we really want to see? Would it really bring us any satisfaction? Hell yes!

I like your honesty and feel the same way. See your point about Kean. Although, I suspect she may be holding options open for future work. Maybe she will pull a kind of J. Allen crazy Ivan one of these days and admit she is a ufologist at heart.

 

[Randall]

I like your honesty and feel the same way. See your point about Kean. Although, I suspect she may be holding options open for future work. Maybe she will pull a kind of J. Allen crazy Ivan one of these days and admit she is a ufologist at heart.

I think I've mentioned elsewhere that I want to believe in Leslie. In fact I suspect that she's been bitten by the same bug as the rest of us and that her public role is largely a performance to put on an air of respectability. But that still doesn't change the fact that she's marginalizing the rest of us and fragmenting the field further for her own gain. It's a huge disappointment.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So does that mean you're going to have to see one yourself before you believe any of the mountain of reports from other people?

That's what I was referring to. I didn't need to see the meteor to know that it happened - well documented evidence from multiple sources and video from many angles was what did it. It also helps that we know meteors are possible. Right now, we don't know for a fact that non-human vehicles are flying through our airspace. I hope that makes it clearer.
I realize now I wasn't very specific - I was writing that after a pretty intense MMA workout with George St-Pierre (he was on my TV and I was in my living room - Rishfit, great workout!). He was on Rogan's podcast lately and it sounds like he has had some interesting experiences with sleep, similar to mine.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Angelo, what do you think of cases such as Tehran or JAL? I've heard a debunk of JAL (which was ridiculous) but not heard a debunk of Tehran.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angelo, what do you think of cases such as Tehran or JAL? I've heard a debunk of JAL (which was ridiculous) but not heard a debunk of Tehran.

That's the thing - we don't know for sure what it was.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

That's the thing - we don't know for sure what it was.

It sure wasn't swamp gas, Venus, a mirage or a flock of snow geese. What else could it have been? According to Ron Regehr, the Tehran event was observed and documented by one of the US's spy satellites. I think DSP, if memory serves me correct. Ron claims to have seen the data that supports the incident's high-strange nature and I'm fairly certain that the Soviets did not have the technology observed by the pilots, traffic controllers and satellite sensor operators. I'm not suggesting that it was "aliens," or little green men, but it was something extremely high-tech and under some sort of intelligent control. What about Peruvian pilot Oscar Santa Maria Huertas flying an SU-22 in 1980 firing 64 rounds of canon fire at almost point blank range into a huge unidentified craft that seemed to absorb the cannon fire? Swamp gas? Venus? Yeah, I know, "we don't know for sure what it was," but I think it's safe to say that it was something high-strange..

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It sure wasn't swamp gas, Venus, a mirage or a flock of snow geese. What else could it have been? According to Ron Regehr, the Tehran event was observed and documented by one of the US's spy satellites. I think DSP, if memory serves me correct. Ron claims to have seen the data that supports the incident's high-strange nature and I'm fairly certain that the Soviets did not have the technology observed by the pilots, traffic controllers and satellite sensor operators. I'm not suggesting that it was "aliens," or little green men, but it was something extremely high-tech and under some sort of intelligent control. What about Peruvian pilot Oscar Santa Maria Huertas flying an SU-22 in 1980 firing 64 rounds of canon fire at almost point blank range into a huge unidentified craft that seemed to absorb the cannon fire? Swamp gas? Venus? Yeah, I know, "we don't know for sure what it was," but I think it's safe to say that it was something high-strange..

Like I said - we don't know what it was. We can speculate as much as we want.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Like I said - we don't know what it was. We can speculate as much as we want.

So, based on what we do know about the two events mentioned of AF pilots in close proximity to these objects, I'd like to hear YOUR speculation. You always sit back and remind us that we don't really know and that we can speculate, but you never seem to speculate? Why is that? What do YOU think about these two events? What could they have been? Let's hear YOU speculate?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So, based on what we do know about the two events mentioned of AF pilots in close proximity to these objects, I'd like to hear YOUR speculation. You always sit back and remind us that we don't really know and that we can speculate, but you never seem to speculate? Why is that? What do YOU think about these two events? What could they have been? Let's hear YOU speculate?

See Chris, you're using something that is unexplained to create a scenario where the explanation is an alien space-craft, something which we don't know is actually possible. Perhaps one of your friends may think it was a Djinn.

However, if we keep to our own reality and stick to things that we know are possible, we can speculate that there was pilot error and equipment malfunction. I did some research from my chair in my office on my lunch hour (sorry, I could fly to Iran) and I found an interesting breakdown of the Iran case by Brian Dunning:

The Tehran 1976 UFO

He outlines some common errors that some Ufologists make when they reference this case as well as some speculation that is no more far-fetched than thinking it was aliens.

That makes more sense to me than jumping to aliens or "high-strangeness."

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

See Chris, you're using something that is unexplained to create a scenario where the explanation is an alien space-craft, something which we don't know is actually possible. Perhaps one of your friends may think it was a Djinn.

You don't seem to read very well, I just said: "I'm not suggesting that it was "aliens," or little green men, but it was something extremely high-tech and under some sort of intelligent control." I've been saying for years that we should factor all mundane and/or closed-system explanations before conveniently jumping off-planet.

However, if we keep to our own reality and stick to things that we know are possible, we can speculate that there was pilot error and equipment malfunction. I did some research from my chair in my office on my lunch hour (sorry, I could fly to Iran) and I found an interesting breakdown of the Iran case by Brian Dunning:

The Tehran 1976 UFO

He outlines some common errors that some Ufologists make when they reference this case as well as some speculation that is no more far-fetched than thinking it was aliens. That makes more sense to me than jumping to aliens or "high-strangeness."

What about the DSP satellite equipment? Equipment failure, as well? Hmm, lemme see, what would the odds be for ALL this high-tech gear to simultaneously malfunction at the same time... Of course, no response to my question about the 1980 Peruvian pilot event...64 rounds of 30 mm canon fire/no affect.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You don't seem to read very well, I just said: "I'm not suggesting that it was "aliens," or little green men, but it was something extremely high-tech and under some sort of intelligent control." I've been saying for years that we should factor all mundane and/or closed-system explanations before conveniently jumping off-planet. What about the DSP satellite equipment? Equipment failure, as well? Hmm, lemme see, what would the odds be for ALL this high-tech gear to simultaneously malfunction at the same time... Of course, no response to my question about the 1980 Peruvian pilot event...64 rounds of 30 mm canon fire/no affect.

Chris, you're being really aggressive as of late. Anyway, you said:

I think it's safe to say that it was something high-strange..

High strange by definition means something paranormal, right? I'm saying it does not have to be paranormal. Also, I would say the odds that all equipment failing is no better or worse than something "high-strange."

With the Peruvian pilot? Who knows - pilot error? Again, all speculation.

 

[Polterwurst]

However, if we keep to our own reality and stick to things that we know are possible, we can speculate that there was pilot error and equipment malfunction. I did some research from my chair in my office on my lunch hour (sorry, I could fly to Iran) and I found an interesting breakdown of the Iran case by Brian Dunning

I can't believe it ... you really wrote that... *sheds tears into facepalm*

With the Peruvian pilot? Who knows - pilot error? Again, all speculation.

No. That's not speculation, that's calling these pilots liars. What pilot error would result in an object zipping around your plane? Or was it maybe drunken flying? But of course, you and Brian Dunning would never call anybody a liar. Just imply it. A little. Through the backdoor.