Breaking News: vallee 40 years "behind the times"

[Angel of Ioren]

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

No. That's not speculation, that's calling these pilots liars.

Nope - they're not lying - they made a mistake. That's a possibility. And I'm not saying that's what happened - I'm speculating as I was asked to do. My preference is to say, I don't know what happened.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

That's the problem with this field: you make a speculation that doesn't jive with what people want to hear, you get labelled a monster skeptic debunker dream killer. You want me to say it was a non-human powered craft? I can't say that because there is no precedence for that. There is precedence for pilot error and for mis-identification. The human memory is terrible, especially in stressful situations which is what these pilots were facing.

Am I saying I am right? Nope. Am I saying you guys are wrong? Nope. But it sure does sound like you guys are shooting down what I think is possible just because you feel as though it has to be something paranormal. That's basically reverse debunking!

 

[Polterwurst]

Nope - they're not lying - they made a mistake.

Yeah they did. In telling what happened instead of keeping their mouths shut. And the error resulted in them being called (again, not openly of course, just by implication) incompetent, fantasy-prone, bad observers and liars.

You want me to say it was a non-human powered craft?

No, I wouldn't go that far. Just "intelligently controlled object of unknown origin and superior manoeuverabilty" would suffice, thank you. Maybe there was no-one in it. Or maybe there was a human from the year 20.000 in it. That's speculation btw.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

No worries. We can each have our own ideas about what actually happened - that's the interesting thing about the topic. This is why I just prefer to say that we're not sure what happened.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

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

That is a bit of a cop-out! If the pilots are telling the truth, it is either something non-human, or something human but ridiculously advanced, which is equally exciting.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I have no doubt that they are telling the truth - they have nothing to gain from lying. However, they can be mistaken. Let's look at it this way - how many pilots have flown since those sightings happened? These are two cases that seem to have strong eye-witness testimony, among many others - let's say it's hundreds for arguments sake. That's hundreds among how many flights and pilots since 1976? Millions? That's a possibility that we have to take into consideration; at least as much as non-human craft/ high strangeness.
We can't rule out the possibility they misidentified what they saw and experienced. It does not mean that they are incompetent or foolish or anything else. It means they are human and we all makes mistakes. I do not see an issue with that. Sometimes whole situations happen because multiple mistakes are made by multiple people - it does not make them any less competent.

 

[Pegusta]

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.

Agreed. But however exciting it may be to find planets capable of producing life, the fact that we find evidence of the existence of such planets does not necessarily equate to evidence supporting the ETH. It pretty much confirms a statistical probability.

And I agree, the interdimensional hypothesis suffers from lack of supporting evidence, perhaps even more so than the ETH. But it does not change the fact that we do not presently have sufficient evidence supporting any hypothesis, to the point that we with a considerable amount of certainty can say it is even remotely convincing. In short: we have no idea at this point. Well we have ideas but not enough supporting evidence to back them up.

I partly agree with Jerome Clark who said something to the effect that it is possible that it is in advancements in physics that we may find more answers (I hope I quoted him correctly). I would add that I think advances in psychology may offer further pieces of the puzzle.


Sorry for completely derailing this thread.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I think it was derailed a long time ago, but that often creates the most interesting discussions.

 

[Polterwurst]

We can each have our own ideas about what actually happened - that's the interesting thing about the topic.

Absolutely. Yay for tolerance.

That's the problem with this field: you make a speculation that doesn't jive with what people want to hear, you get labelled a monster skeptic debunker dream killer

That's the problem with debunkers: you've had an experience that doesn't jive with their "realistic" world-view and decide not to shut up about it (because maybe you think it's important) and you get labeled a fantasy-prone charlatan kooky true believer.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Absolutely. Yay for tolerance.

That's the problem with debunkers: you've had an experience that doesn't jive with their "realistic" world-view and decide not to shut up about it (because maybe you think it's important) and you get labeled a fantasy-prone charlatan kooky true believer.

The problem arises when someone has trouble admitting that their idea could possibly be wrong. Is there a chance that sightings like the ones Chris asked me to speculate about are non-human craft? Sure. Is it more probable than human error? In my opinion, no, but if someone were to show me hard evidence (multiple angles of videos, wreckage, etc), I would gladly say - look at that, I was wrong. That's an important point - I have no problem changing my view if evidence is presented. It has happened before and it'll happen again. It just needs to be good evidence and no one has any.
Seriously, the holy grail to me is something like what we saw with the Russian Meteor.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

We can't rule out the possibility they misidentified what they saw and experienced. It does not mean that they are incompetent or foolish or anything else. It means they are human and we all makes mistakes. I do not see an issue with that. Sometimes whole situations happen because multiple mistakes are made by multiple people - it does not make them any less competent.

Sure Angelo, ANYthing's possible, right? But in these two cases: Lets see... multiple eyewitnesses, radar returns (in the case of Iran—satellite data) 64 rounds of "point-blank" 30 mm canon fire, simultaneous equipment failures... yeah, it MUST have been something misidentified...a mirage, a flock of birds, swamp gas, or perhaps the tooth-fairy—no wait, when was this? Perhaps it was Santa Claus's sleigh... if so, that canon fire must given Rudolph an extremely bloodied, red nose.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

We just don't know, do we Chris. That's really all we can say. Unless you know something the rest of us don't.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

JAL had multiple witnesses, and more than one radar station tracking the object(s), it was a prolonged sighting.

The English Channel sighting with Capt Ray Bowyer, that had multiple witnesses, from different vantage points plus radar.

It may not happen often, but there are these cases in which I think it is very hard to get away from the conclusion that something exceptional happened.

Angelo, I've noticed you equate UFO with paranormal? Is that correct? Forgetting any associated high-strange, in these cases, I don't really wish to 'include' paranormal in the description because it UFO's may indeed sometimes just be super-advanced craft of unknown origin. I suppose it depends on our individual definition of paranormal.

Certainly with the above 2 cases it's hard to include pilot error in the possibilities because in the Channel case, it would mean Pilot+Pilot+passenger+passenger+passenger+passenger....error and to me that quickly becomes more unlikely than say, super-advanced craft from unknown origin.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Goggs, it could definitely be an advanced craft from another country that the pilots had no knowledge of - that is a plausible possibility. I don't think UFOs have anything to do with the paranormal. Not high strange, not alien, not interdimentional.

 

[Jimi H.]

This thread has potential!

No worries. We can each have our own ideas about what actually happened - that's the interesting thing about the topic. This is why I just prefer to say that we're not sure what happened.

I think you have some good points, and I follow you most of the way. I've always felt the Teheran case was shaky, in part because I know a bit about flying (though I'm not a pilot) and how much can go wrong if the gear and pilot is ill-prepared for the situation. Interesting case, and very curious, but shaky. One thing, if the AF thought they were on to an alien radio beacon wouldn't they put all their might into securing and recording and interpreting that? I know I would!

On the other hand, I think the JAL case is very hard to debunk. My only immediate explanations would be either of two possibilities:

1) An extremely massive and basically undescribed electrical/atmosperic phenomenon flipping and spinning around the aircraft, in a manner that spooked the entire crew to a degree that they started thinking/seeing aliens in a near-state of chock. And to a degree that radar picked it up, if it can? This would basically be like a super-large ball lightning and a crew scared shitless. I find it very unlikely.
2) A hoax by old-school fabrication. It would require a few things:
- An agreement between the crew and the controller to create a hoax, for reasons that I cannot fathom. (Bad career move...)
- The controller would need to fabricate the radar images containing the radar returns, and count on not being challenged on his accounts in public , e.g. by the other radar operators. I find the combination of those very unlikely.

Obviously, alien visitation is also very unlikely (or not, I dunno), but it's really one of those cases where debunking attempts seem a bit forced!

..I've heard a debunk of JAL (which was ridiculous) ...

What was it? I'm curious! So far, I haven't seen any convincing debunks either.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Jimi, go to Bruce Maccabee's page, in it he mentions the debunk, which is ridiculous.

 

[Jimi H.]

Ok, it's towards the very bottom of the article (FLIGHT OF JAL1628), Philip Klass trying turbulent ice-crystals in connection with Jupiter and Mars. Nah, certainly doesn't seem very likely.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Phillip Klass, I steal your K and your L - bah!

 

[Jimi H.]

Lol

 

[Randall]

@Angel of Ioren
What we're seeing here is the classic case of what qualifies as valid evidence combined with the stigma associated with telling it like it is. So let's tell it like it is. First off, we ( the public ) don't have sufficient scientifically verifiable material evidence to back up the JAL or Tehran cases ( or any other case for that matter ). Therefore Angelo is correct with respect to that level of certainty. However that still doesn't mean we can't make a reasonable case for the reality of alien visitation. And let's be clear here. The word "alien" is in every respect a perfectly valid English language word to use to describe these kinds of encounters, and when they involve sufficiently detailed observation and/or detection some sort of craft, then we're dealing with UFOs, not UAPs or some nebulous phenomena. For those who claim to have respect for ufologist Jacques Vallée, consider the following:

THE MYTH OF "UNIDENTIFIED" OBJECTS

"Identification is realized when a certain event or object is recognized by human intelligence as belonging to a class. What this class is is irrelevant ... I cannot think of anything more treacherous than this label 'unidentified'. " - Anatomy of a Phenomenon

Vallée then goes on to cite a number of classic cases associated with UFOs that clearly describe the class of objects we're interested in along with the designations they were assigned at the time. Vallée doesn't explicitly state "alien" as a classification, but he does use the word unknown for which "alien" is a top synonym that describes with much less ambiguity the class of object we're primarily interested in. When dealing with a topic of serious study, I don't know of any instance when more ambiguity is preferable. So let's be perfectly clear. We're not simply interested in "Unknown Flying Objects". The core of ufology is centered on establishing the truth regarding alien visitation. Therefore according to Vallée's logic, there's no reason for us not to use the word "alien" unashamedly and without reservation. The day we're silenced out of humiliation for using the most accurate language to describe what we're talking about is going to have to wait until this non-apologist ufologist has either retired or expired.

So where does this leave us with respect to evidence? As mentioned before, we can make a reasonable case for the reality of alien visitation based on the sum total of the accumulated evidence. This is a statistical approach based on a combination of firsthand visual and/or technical data. This rationale has been backed up by Don Donderi, an expert in human memory, and by other historical studies ( e.g. The Battelle Memorial Institute study ). While skeptics are quick to assert that statistics aren't material evidence, that's not relevant to the question of proof. Proof is simply the accumulation of enough evidence to make it reasonable to believe a theory is true, and statistical analysis is often used to make such determinations. The approach of science to this method is called falsifying the null hypothesis. Without going into a lot of detail on that methodology, the average reasonably intelligent person can do the same thing by studying ufology and weeding out what is reasonable from what isn't and then honestly asking themselves if the remaining content is deserving of serious consideration.Those who claim it isn't are simply deniers, not skeptics, and their continued denials carry no rational weight.

On the other hand, those who do believe it's reasonable to grant serious consideration to the remaining content are still in no position to say that all the remaining data is true either. It is entirely possible that some of it contains errors as well. But that's still not the bottom line. The real question isn't whether or not some of the remaining content is not accurate, but whether or not is reasonable to assume that it's all inaccurate. When we do this with an open mind and in a constructively skeptical manner ( rather than simply making repetitious opinionated statements ), no reasonable person can deny that alien visitation is taking place ... even if any random drawing from the remaining pool cannot be verified with 100% certainty.