C. Scott Littleton

[Paul Kimball]

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...

The fixation with hypothesizing is the problem - it doesn't really matter what the so-called hypothesis is (I was simply using the ETH as an example, as it's by far the most predominant one). Tricksters, aliens from Zeta Reticuli, extradimensionals, time travelers - it's all putting the cart way before the horse, and it's almost always done by people who don't really have a clue as to what they're talking about... me included. But at least I know enough to do it with a wink and a nudge, as a "just shootin' the breeze with my pals over a few beers" kind of conversation, as opposed to those people who present it as some sort of serious scientific discourse, or even a serious non-scientific discourse.

 

[Skymon876]

Lets put this thread to rest this is ridiculous. Ward just posted a thread about a show he heard and people came in and started bickering.

This thread just won't go away.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

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.

I'm assuming you think I'm a "skepticabunker" so I would appreciate for you to point out where I fall back on a personal attack - here or in any other thread. I usually try to stay away from that, especially since I was asked to be a moderator.

Anyway, I don't want this thread closed until Don responds to what I said in post #38 - I would appreciate that since my assumption about the guest and what he was discussing wasn't wrong.

I agree with Paul and Lance that there are genuinely bizarre cases out there that can't yet be explained. I take issue when we create a phenomenon that hasn't been proven to exist to explain them.
The official explanation to "The Battle of Los Angeles" seems to make sense. Why we have to complicate it with alien invasions and unknown aircraft is beyond me.
And with regards to the bullet proof balloon, I do believe that you are putting words into Lance's mouth - no one ever said that.

 

[Skymon876]

I am done with these back and fourth debates. It appears to be a constant debate that can continue for another 10 years without any resolution.

you can debate this till the sun rises

but I am backing out of it

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I am done with these back and fourth debates. It appears to be a constant debate that can continue for another 10 years without any resolution.

you can debate this till the sun rises

but I am backing out of it

That's fine, although I don't really see the need to back out of a debate that you feel is a slam dunk case for proof of alien visitation, as that's what you seemed to have implied in your previous posts. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you support Littleton's assertion that there was an object of extra-terrestrial origin that was being fired on, no?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So I guess we're all done with this discussion? We can all agree that whatever happened in LA that night that it wasn't aliens.

 

[justcurious]

So I guess we're all done with this discussion? We can all agree that whatever happened in LA that night that it wasn't aliens.

You really don't get it, some of us here are not willing to conclude either way because it's the right and true skeptical attitude to have. Something happened and no, we cannot conclude that it wasn't alien, no more than conclude that it was... Okay ? It's called skepticism. You can conclude that it wasn't alien, it's your right, but it's not a skeptical attitude given the data, it's the manifestation of your own bias.

 

[Skymon876]

So I guess we're all done with this discussion? We can all agree that whatever happened in LA that night that it wasn't aliens.

I think you and 1 or 2 others believe that. I prefer to use a scientific method, but whatever floats your boat. If you want to use your belief system then go for it.

---------- Post added at 04:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 AM ----------

Lets take this back and forth debate to this thread https://www.theparacast.com/forum/t...ey-are-not-mutli-page-civil-war.?goto=newpost

so Don doesnt have to put up with it on his forum

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I'm glad that you both think you're skeptics and are using the scientific method. I guess my understanding of both is flawed. Thank you for enlightening me.

Seriously though, you can go ahead and believe that you are using the scientific method and skepticism, but rest assured that you are doing neither.

I think you and 1 or 2 others believe that.

According to both Ward and Don, they don't think it's aliens either, since they both jumped on my for even suggesting the notion that they thought so.

 

[justcurious]

I guess my understanding of both is flawed. Thank you for enlightening me.

It clearly is.

Don't thank us, we haven't succeeded yet.

 

[Ron Collins]

I am waiting the details on your "bulletproof balloon" hypothesis.

The theory is a popular one. I don't particularly agree with it but it can not be discounted just the same as a UFO cant be discounted. Macabee's works on this photo is very good and should be the focal point of this discussion. Lets just agree that the balloon theory is going to be prominent in any UFO related sighting. Until someone does balloon release research for 1940 - 1999 and corresponding prevailing winds analysis to plot probable balloon flight patterns we will have to live with this. I suggest you let it go as arguing about it only detracts from the case.

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

Hi Paul,

I have been meaning to mention to you that the RB47 case is a really good one--I just reread Roy Craigs' (from the Condon team) account and it is an unexplainable episode. Perhaps that is just because we don't have all the evidence (and are unlikely to ever get it) but it is a cool UFO story.

Yeah, and there are multiple RB47 cases. That is the best part.

RYGYWA & Blowfish--do you have the provenance of the motion (?) film you posted. I mean something other than "saw it on YouTube"? Not that it shows anything anyway other than the kinds of blobs that paranormal enthusiasts weave into dragons and ghosts and saucers at the every opportunity.

Give the original image, Adobe After Effects, and Andrew Kramer tutorials, and various effects suites like Trapcode's Particular and The Video Copilot stuff and in a few days my friends and I could probably make something look almost identical. Meaning, I agree that the provenience of this film needs to be established. I have never seen it before and that bothers me. If this is legit, then Macabee should be analyzing it instead of a single still from a newspaper.

---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 PM ----------

I am also enjoying the unfolding Ted "Super Respected and Highly Regarded Cream of the Crop Paranormal Researcher" Phillips fiasco as it unfolds. Don't deny me the opportunity to enjoy the cognitive dissonance as this example of paranormal "research" is cruelly exposed for what it really is.

Come on now, the only thing you are basing this on is his inability to get his stuff on the web. I agree that it is a bit frustrating but if you are going to tear the man a new one, do it on the evidence not his technical ability.

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

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

So.... what did he say? Can you post the response?

---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

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.

Could not have said that better if I tried.

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 PM ----------

Lets put this thread to rest this is ridiculous. Ward just posted a thread about a show he heard and people came in and started bickering.

This thread just won't go away.

I think its because things got focused on the wrong data. We should be looking at Macabee's work on the image and debating that. It aint sexy and the quip value is low but it contains something sorely lacking in this case and that is real data presented with science. Instead of dropping it, lets focus on that.

---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------

I'm assuming you think I'm a "skepticabunker" so I would appreciate for you to point out where I fall back on a personal attack - here or in any other thread. I usually try to stay away from that, especially since I was asked to be a moderator.

Anyway, I don't want this thread closed until Don responds to what I said in post #38 - I would appreciate that since my assumption about the guest and what he was discussing wasn't wrong.

I agree with Paul and Lance that there are genuinely bizarre cases out there that can't yet be explained. I take issue when we create a phenomenon that hasn't been proven to exist to explain them.
The official explanation to "The Battle of Los Angeles" seems to make sense. Why we have to complicate it with alien invasions and unknown aircraft is beyond me.
And with regards to the bullet proof balloon, I do believe that you are putting words into Lance's mouth - no one ever said that.

For the record, I dont think you attacked anyone. You are labeled and I see many that resent your participation here as they interpret it as you trying to spread your point of view indiscriminately. I think that is unfair.

As to the 'object' I think this thread missed the boat and should have been talking about the work of Macabee on this photo. I would like to see a rebuttal of his analysis if one exists. I thknk he makes a great case.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

As to the 'object' I think this thread missed the boat and should have been talking about the work of Macabee on this photo. I would like to see a rebuttal of his analysis if one exists. I thknk he makes a great case.

Thanks Ron.
My main objection is to the fact that I correctly assumed that Littleton said it had to be an alien spaceship, and people jumped on me for criticizing the alien hypothesis, saying I'm the one that said it. That really bothered me and the people that accused me of it have not acknowledged it.

I have no doubt that Macabee analysed the photo to the best of his ability, and maybe there was something there, but he could also be wrong, with the spotlights converging on nothing more than smoke from the AA guns. I remember reading an article pointing out some mistakes in his analysis, but I can't find it, so I may be thinking of something else. Even if he is right about it - my main issue is jumping to the conclusion that it MUST be aliens.

 

[justcurious]

My main objection is to the fact that I correctly assumed that Littleton said it had to be an alien spaceship, and people jumped on me for criticizing the alien hypothesis, saying I'm the one that said it.

So what ? He was there, and he's "assuming" that it was alien, you were not there and you are "assuming" that it was not. So at best we can call it a draw okay ?

Angel, do you realise that you're the one that's writing the word "alien" the most often in this forum ? (seriously, and by several orders of magnitude, I can prove that easily) Even if you're writing the word "not" before it, you're still having the record of "a" word count here, so stop "assuming" and be a true skeptic and say that you don't know what it was, because truly you don't. Is that too much to ask ? Skepticism, just skepticism, no bias... Skepticism works both way, that's the beauty of it.

Justcurious,
true non-biased skeptic

Ron, thank you for your moderating and conciliating tone, you would be terrific in a political career...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So what ? He was there, and he's "assuming" that it was alien, you were not there and you are "assuming" that it was not. So at best we can call it a draw okay ?

Angel, do you realise that you're the one that's writing the word "alien" the most often in this forum ? (seriously, and by several orders of magnitude, I can prove that easily) Even if you're writing the word "not" before it, you're still having the record of "a" word count here, so stop "assuming" and be a true skeptic and say that you don't know what it was, because truly you don't. Is that too much to ask ? Skepticism, just skepticism, no bias... Skepticism works both way, that's the beauty of it.

Justcurious,
true non-biased skeptic

Ron, thank you for your moderating and conciliating tone, you would be terrific in a political career...

So that you do not continue making the same mistake I will post the definition of skepticism, so that you no longer label yourself incorrectly:


Main Entry: skep·ti·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈskep-tə-ˌsi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1646
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

I do think that my attitude falls into this definition. As i have stated, my issue is that people are saying with certainty that the Battle of Los Angeles involved an extra-terrestrial (alien, if you will) aircraft. I am saying that there are other, more likely solutions.

Justcurious, I know my logic infuriates you because you like to make underhanded comments to many of my posts - however, before doing so, please make sure you know the definition of the words you are using.
Also, you passive aggressive attitude towards my moderating of the forum is insulting. If you do take issue with it, please let me know directly, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,
Angelo

 

[justcurious]

2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

No problem, I think you do not grasp the subtleties of point 2(a) and (b).

And yes I find it unnecessary that you intervene in every threads with basically the same post saying "oh but it doesn't have to be alien". We know that thank you, nobody actually concluded that here. We just deem the UFO topic to be worth studying, and not just dismissed with forest-roaming-lighthouses or super-sonic-titanium-weather-baloons.

PS: copying & pasting definitions does not mean that you understand them, sorry. Why don't you check "debunker" or "fanatic" ?

 

[Ron Collins]

Thanks Ron.
My main objection is to the fact that I correctly assumed that Littleton said it had to be an alien spaceship, and people jumped on me for criticizing the alien hypothesis, saying I'm the one that said it. That really bothered me and the people that accused me of it have not acknowledged it.

I have no doubt that Macabee analysed the photo to the best of his ability, and maybe there was something there, but he could also be wrong, with the spotlights converging on nothing more than smoke from the AA guns. I remember reading an article pointing out some mistakes in his analysis, but I can't find it, so I may be thinking of something else. Even if he is right about it - my main issue is jumping to the conclusion that it MUST be aliens.

I would absolutely stipulate that there is no proof that whatever it is in that photo was alien in origin. I doubt anyone of solid mental faculty could look at what is presented in this case and walk away using it as proof of alien life. On that point I agree with you completely. After reading Macabee's report I think the percentage chance of a real object being in the photo is about 75% in my mind. I would like to see any rebuttal of the report and have also been looking for one. I haven't found it thus far.

 

[justcurious]

I would absolutely stipulate that there is no proof that whatever it is in that photo was alien in origin. I doubt anyone of solid mental faculty could look at what is presented in this case and walk away using it as proof of alien life. On that point I agree with you completely. After reading Macabee's report I think the percentage chance of a real object being in the photo is about 75% in my mind. I would like to see any rebuttal of the report and have also been looking for one. I haven't found it thus far.

Wow, I'm glad you said that, I was uncomfortable with my own 25%.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

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

I guess that I am not going to be getting a response to this. I would really appreciate it though.

 

[Decker]

Angelo

Look, when you brought up spaceships and aliens not to mention invasions ... you had not even heard the interview with Dr. Littleton. So ... what is your beef? I never said you were an "evil skeptic" just another skeptical (occasional) debunker that enjoys trying to toss aliens, ET invasions, etc. around to secure your spot in the skeptical community!

So, just what is it that you would like me to say?

Decker

PS By the way, over the last 3 days I DID ANSWER your note 2 times but (and don't ask me why because I do not know) when I finished my note and hit "post reply" the damned note disappeared. True story.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angelo

Look, when you brought up spaceships and aliens not to mention invasions ... you had not even heard the interview with Dr. Littleton. So ... what is your beef? I never said you were an "evil skeptic" just another skeptical (occasional) debunker that enjoys trying to toss aliens, ET invasions, etc. around to secure your spot in the skeptical community!

So, just what is it that you would like me to say?

Decker

PS By the way, over the last 3 days I DID ANSWER your note 2 times but (and don't ask me why because I do not know) when I finished my note and hit "post reply" the damned note disappeared. True story.

I don't know Don - I guess it's just that you guys jumped on me for saying it was that, so when I listened to the interview I expected for him to have a different explanation. I was annoyed that I was called out even though I was in fact right. Anyway, I'm glad you replied.

Oh, and without proof that you tried to answer me, what you're saying is anecdotal and I can't accept it! Total sarcasm, just in case someone here doesn't get it.