C. Scott Littleton

[justcurious]

Originally Posted by lancemoody

The photo in question does not show an object unless you wish really hard and tap your feet three times--something many people are very willing to do to make their saucer dreams come true.

Hi lance, still around ? What about your retirement from all this UFO "nonsense" ? You deserve it, take it.

I don't remember wishing anything or tapping my feet before this flying saucer decided to park itself a few yards in front of my window and do a light show for 20 minutes... I wish your technique was working, I might try it anyway.

In the meantime continue to call crazy the thousands of witnesses CEI, II, III etc, including highly trusted personnel to whom we entrust nuclear weapons, the life of hundreds of passengers, etc. You see, not everybody is willing to doubt their sanity because lance (or Klass or Brian Awesome Dunning, etc) says so. I kinda feel bad for you that you are really missing the most interesting topic of study of our time, just because you think being smart is to use only the left half of your brain.

Apart from that, how's life ? Are you seeing the end of this depression ? Need some help ? PM me if you need to talk to someone...

 

[Lauren Jones]

I never once said it was a space ship or an alien invasion, you jumped to that conclussion.

I let my case rest. If your not even willing to listen to the first hand account of a PH.D. and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, who by his own words said this was the one of the most amazing thing he had ever witnessed, then you really aren't interested into looking into this case.

Asking you to listen to the show is just to much effort for you, ok fine, just makes you appear closed minded and lazy in my opinion.

I'm not going to pick a fight, and I'm done on this subject I've made my rational argument. I do however now know your mindset, that rather then getting a first hand account you'd rather Google sources that say it was something other then the primary witness and his family saw.

'Nuff Said.

Ward,

What does the fact that Littleton is a Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus have to do with his credibility as a witness?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Ward,

What does the fact that Littleton is a Ph.D. and Professor Emeritus have to do with his credibility as a witness?

It's an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. He's smart, so we should trust that his memories as a boy are accurate.

Also, since everyone agrees that this wasn't come sort of alien space craft, we really shouldn't be arguing right? I'm being told that I'm the one that brought up aliens, and I did so because it seemed to me that's what was being insinuated - I guess I was wrong. It was a UFO at the time (identified by the air force as a balloon). My only issue is that the famous picture does not show anything except search lights reflected off off AA gun smoke.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Hi Justcurious,

I am going to stick around until I publish my modest possible explanation for the Kelly Johnson case (may be month or two). But I have cut back my participation quite a bit already so take some strength from that: Bad Man not say mean things about U-foes so much!

Best wishes,

Lance

Oh, we can hardly wait for that!! Anytime there is "lancemoodicus interruptus" on these forums is a time of fresh air breathing and strength gathering not to mention a good old case of civility.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Oh, we can hardly wait for that!! Anytime there is "lancemoodicus interruptus" on these forums is a time of fresh air breathing and strength gathering not to mention a good old case of civility.

You just don't like him because he has a completely different point of view - although Lance can be barbed at times, he usually brings up great points and one can hardly say that he doesn't do his homework before he talks about something. Also, I like a person that has no problems apologizing when necessary, and Lance has done that in the past.

I'm just hoping that the smiley face meant that you were joking.

A

 

[Anaximander]

I think was an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.

An 'UAP'....



So now we can talk about it without arguing over the word 'object'. Right?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

You just don't like him because he has a completely different point of view - although Lance can be barbed at times, he usually brings up great points and one can hardly say that he doesn't do his homework before he talks about something. Also, I like a person that has no problems apologizing when necessary, and Lance has done that in the past.

I'm just hoping that the smiley face meant that you were joking.

A

Aww come on now Angel, i have no problems with the good old Lance. He is entitled to his own point of view and his prickly responses as barbed as those can be at times. (Hmmm. Barbed?, Prickly?, Lance?..."Lance can be barbed at times"..sounds like some kind of mediaeval battle weapon!) And yes he has appologised on occasions and kudos to him for that.
I promise to put at least 3 smiley faces in my future posts regarding him, from now on.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Aww come on now Angel, i have no problems with the good old Lance. He is entitled to his own point of view and his prickly responses as barbed as those can be at times. (Hmmm. Barbed?, Prickly?, Lance?..."Lance can be barbed at times"..sounds like some kind of mediaeval battle weapon!) And yes he has appologised on occasions and kudos to him for that.
I promise to put at least 3 smiley faces in my future posts regarding him, from now on.

Okay, that's much better

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well Gentlemen .. since this is MY FORUM .. (The Best of Dark Matters Radio Forum on The Paracast) .. allow me to jump in here for just a sec ...

U F O .. Angle .. I witnessed .. right here .. that tricky little skeptical trick .. that I have seen the very best of them try to pull.

Philip Klass .. Jim Oberg .. Curtis Peebles .. Mike Shermer .. and all with little ol' me. Ward posts that he really enjoyed the Scott Littleton show and WOW! what an interesting conversation and right away Amigo .. What is some of the first stuff outta you? Why a FREAKEN' alien invasion by God! Nope Amigo ... not one swinging dick here said a word about aliens .. spaceships .. or invasions.

Lots of folks said .. sumpin' was there but sheesh .. don't think it really was any of those sneaky ol' Japanese airplanes... don't think it was one of those ol' Blimps .. Hell .. folks claimed they witnessed anti-aircraft shells hittin' ol what ever it was ...

Can we just say that MAYBE .. notice I did say MAYBE .. it was a U F O...... Member what the Air Force Boys said that stood fer?? Unidentified Flying OBJECT. Lets just say there was a Royal screw-up all the way around that night.

Decker

Hi Don,

I listened to the episode, and Professor Littleton clearly says that he thinks that the object he saw as a young child was extra terrestrial. That means alien space ship, no? He thinks that's the best explanation, and clearly says so in the interview. Both you and Ward jumped down my throat as soon as I mentioned that it had to do with aliens, and that I was the one bringing it up and I was asked to listen to the episode. Well, I did, and the guest said it.
I'm sorry, but alien spaceship is not a good explanation for what happened that night. What if I said it was Mothra? There's the same amount of "evidence" pointing to that, no? Or is that too much of a strawman? Regardless, I agree with Paul's assessment:

In other words, yes, the military was shooting at just about anything that moved in the sky... and a lot of things that didn't.

As for Littleton, no offense, but an 8 year old witness recalling something that happened almost seven decades ago is worthless. Heck, an 8 year old witness recalling something that happened seven days ago is pretty close to worthless.

Thanks,

Angelo

 

[tyder001]

Well, everybody here has made good arguments for their case. But, like most ufo cases it can be debated "till the cows come home." Now, I would "Love" to actually have "proof" of a ufo. But, so far it hasn't happened. I don't think we are being visited. But, if we are then I will glady be first in line to meet em. However, I did (wasn't able to link it for some reason) come across an interview with a British airline pilot on Lesley Keene's facebook page. He truly saw something. I don't know what but he was the most convincing that I have heard. Course, I'm not a "skeptical debunker" I just honestly don't think there are people here from other planets. Fun to speculate though.

 

[Decker]

Hi Don,

I listened to the episode, and Professor Littleton clearly says that he thinks that the object he saw as a young child was extra terrestrial. That means alien space ship, no? He thinks that's the best explanation, and clearly says so in the interview. Both you and Ward jumped down my throat as soon as I mentioned that it had to do with aliens, and that I was the one bringing it up and I was asked to listen to the episode. Well, I did, and the guest said it.
I'm sorry, but alien spaceship is not a good explanation for what happened that night. What if I said it was Mothra? There's the same amount of "evidence" pointing to that, no? Or is that too much of a strawman? Regardless, I agree with Paul's assessment:
Thanks,
Angelo

Quit parsing words Angelo. Ward didn't say spaceship and neither did I. You hadn't heard Littleton's interview yet but you made the typical "debunker" Lear Leap In Logic. You are so negative you immediately ASSUMED we were talking about spaceships and aliens.

When have you EVER HEARD Me make that leap? Well Angelo I will tell you ... NEVER. Littleton is entitled to his opinion as you are. But NOBODY here (except you) ever made the leap to aliens and spaceships.

Decker

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Quit parsing words Angelo. Ward didn't say spaceship and neither did I. You hadn't heard Littleton's interview yet but you made the typical "debunker" Lear Leap In Logic. You are so negative you immediately ASSUMED we were talking about spaceships and aliens.

When have you EVER HEARD Me make that leap? Well Angelo I will tell you ... NEVER. Littleton is entitled to his opinion as you are. But NOBODY here (except you) ever made the leap to aliens and spaceships.

Decker

Wow Don, you're really touchy with this stuff. Your guest guest said it was aliens. So was I wrong when I assumed that Littleton was talking about spaceships and aliens? I may have assumed that's what he was saying, but I was also right about it. Look back at what I wrote in this thread - I never said that you or Ward said it was aliens, but I assumed that's what Scott Littleton. I was asked to listen to the interview, and i have. I like your show Don, I like the way you interview, but I have to say that it can be frustrating when you jump down my throat like that just because I'm a skeptic and I have trouble accepting implausible explanations such as the one put forth by Professor Littleton. He says it in the interview, at 52:51 ("we're dealing with an ET phenomenon here"). He said it - I didn't say it. You're right to say that I assumed it without listening to the interview, but by the way you were talking, I thought I was completely wrong, so I listened to the interview so that I could say, "sorry, I was wrong about your guest." After listening to it, I can say that my assumption was right on the money.

Angelo

 

[Decker]

QUOTE=Angel of Ioren;96488]Wow Don, you're really touchy with this stuff.
Angelo[/QUOTE]

Touchy nah, emphatic yes.

Decker

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Touchy nah, emphatic yes.

Decker

Okay, but we can agree that my assumption about Professor Littleton was correct, no? Also, that I NEVER said in this thread that you or Ward were saying it was spaceships. I'd appreciate that you acknowledge that instead of painting me as an evil skeptic. I respect you a lot Don, so I don't want you to think that I was putting words in your mouth. I was only speaking about your guest.

Thanks,
Angelo

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Just a quick note about the Battle of Los Angeles photo.

The one that most people have seen is the nice one that Frank Warren released in 2002.
Along with that release Frank said that the image was made from a print that was made from the original negative.
I wrote Frank to ask about the provenance of that negative and immediately learned that Frank never actually handled or even saw the original negative. Frank's answers to the most basic questions about it were not illuminating.

I am not saying that Frank's print didn't come from the original negative (and I have an email in to the people at the Tribune to see what they have to say about the negative). I simply say he has not given enough information to confirm that.

This won't give even the slightest pause to those already drawing domed saucers around the white blob we see in the image. Soon I am sure that we will learn that the pilot of the saucer can be seen as well--if you look just right.

Lance

Debunker's Incorporated

 

[Skymon876]

So far I am unimpressed with any argument put forward by the skepticabunkers. I am reading skepticabunkers avoid anything factual.

Nothing the skepticabunkers in this thread advance their explanation, "that the weather balloon was bulletproof"

After I ask Lancemoody to provide data to support his "bulletproof balloon" HE SUDDENLY AVOIDS REPLYING

I am still waiting Lance but you cannot step up with your data.

Whats the problem Lance?


In addition I am going to try and remain civil on this board and not launch into personal attacks that the skeptabunkers fall back on.

So sorry if some stuff I posted was flaming.

Don I am going to try and remain civil when dealing with these uninformed skeptabunkers who bring nothing solid to the argument.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I have no opinion of this case. It could have been something extraordinary, it could have been nothing.

But I see that the "I know what everyone sees and doesn't see with absolute certainty and don't need to have been there to do it" crowd is hard at work on it.

 

[NTS]

I posted this on another thread but I didn't see it posted here (which doesn't mean it wasn't!)

What may be the original published version of the picture is here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...es_LATimes.jpg

The caption appears to read:

"SEEKING OUT 'OBJECT' -- Scores of searchlights built a wigwam of light beams over Los Angeles early yesterday morning during the alarm[?]. This picture taken during black-out shows nine beams converging on an 'object' in sky in Culver City area. The blobs of light which glow at apex of beam angles were made by anti-aircraft shells."

 

[Paul Kimball]

Before I will discuss this with you, you are going to have to show me (by quoting) where I described a bulletproof balloon.

The "Battle of Los Angeles" was likely a combination of things at a very excitable and anxious time.

Those who pretend that the chaotic incident can be carefully described (especially using the "memories" of an 8 year old) are just fooling themselves.

Among paranormal believers (and conspiracy theorists) facts that tend to support their belief systems are accepted uncritically. Facts that tend to discredit their belief system (like the contemporary report that the whole thing was a false alarm) are always discarded.

Unfortunately the field is full of big talkers (witness the Ted Phillips incident in these forums) content to just shoot wildly into the air. Which reminds me of something...

The funny thing is that their audience is usually so undiscriminating that (if they stick around long enough) they become respected "researchers" with a body of evidence that really amounts to little more than smoke wafting up into the air, leaving only a faintly unpleasant odor.

Lance

Now Lance, you had me agreeing with you for the first five paragraphs, but as usual you over-egg the pudding (as my British pals would say) in your final paragraph. The broad-brush approach is beneath you - you would fare much better with reasonable people like myself if you would just admit that there are some UFO cases which remain genuinely puzzling, and unexplained (RB47, or Tehran, for example) - just as "believers" would get more respect from me if they would just concede that the vast majority of cases can be or have been explained, and there is no definitive proof on offer yet of alien visitation.

In short, if only both side would embrace an informed and healthy agnosticism about all of this.

Alas, I've learned that it's too much to hope for.

 

[justcurious]

... just as "believers" would get more respect from me if they would just concede that the vast majority of cases can be or have been explained, and there is no definitive proof on offer yet of alien visitation.

In short, if only both side would embrace an informed and healthy agnosticism about all of this.

Alas, I've learned that it's too much to hope for.

Paul, I feel you are being far too negative, not everybody has concluded on the origin of the phenomenon, I certainly haven't. If by "alien visitation" you mean ETH, what about other hypotheses ? They may all be wrong, but some totally new ideas might come up too. Judging the phenomenon by the failure of one single hypothesis is premature IMHO. Or you might need to re-examine and broaden your own brand of agnosticism.

If I get your respect, good, I'll be glad, if not I might give it another try, then ... well...