How We Staged The Morristown UFO Hoax

[David Biedny]

Anyone thinking of science as a religion is mistaken.

Someone better let Bill Nye know, he'll be crushed.

I enjoy your posts, please keep those cards and letters coming! And please consider sharing the fruits of your renders. What are you working on? What do you use?

dB

 

[skunkape]

Anyone thinking of science as a religion is mistaken.

Tell that to this guy.

Artist Builds Temple of Science | Wired Science from Wired.com

 

[Stillborn]

For those interested in science as a religion etc, check out a movie called Mindwalk sometime. Here's a clip I found.

I didn't look into Morristown much, so won't comment on it in any great detail. I just recall not being impressed with what little I heard or read on it.

 

[Gen]

If we're going to get to the bottom of the UFO mystery, we do need to better understand the ways that our eyes can trick us when witnessing aerial phenomena. Scientists still don't even understand why the moon appears as big as it does when it's close to the horizon, so there's a lot that we just don't know. In that sense, I appreciate any contribution to the furtherance of knowledge.

But I have to say this too: professional debunkers drive me nuts. This stunt is about as anecdotal as it gets (one pilot failing to recognize a hoax doesn't mean that pilots are useless as eyewitnesses), which is fine, but as far as the media is concerned, the debunkers have now definitively "proven" something important (even though they really haven't; they've just come up with suggestive evidence), and everyone's minds can just close up tighter now.

In the age of the Internet, it seems to me that it wouldn't be so hard to get a peer-reviewed UFO research journal going online with some real researchers and thinkers as editors. Until someone does that, we're going to run into this kind of thing over and over. Letting the likes of Fox News have the last word isn't going to help anyone get closer to finding any answers.

 

[Frank Warren]

Good Day Lance,

Hilariously Frank Warren sees this incident as an example of HOW GOOD eyewitness testimony is!!!!!

Except for the wildly inaccurate reports on the size, speed, altitude and motion, I would say Frank is right on the UFO money with that one!

The reports that I reviewed were very accurate to what witnesses were seeing, i.e., a group of red, slowing moving lights; as it was with this case, and as it is historically, people for the most part accurately describe what they see; "my point as I stated at Newsweek" is that the criticism should be directed at the "interpretation" of the event, not the description.

Here is exactly what I wrote:

Good Day Sharon,

Couldn't let this one go without making some observations:
First you wrote, "They cooked up a spaceship hoax 'to show everyone how unreliable eyewitness accounts are, along with investigators of UFOs.'"

I would argue just the opposite; although I don't condone the experiment, i.e., illegally launching incendiaries into the atmosphere, contrary to the perp's conclusions, in my view "it reinforces how accurate eyewitness declarations can be" in regards to seeing aerial phenomenon.

I think that the perps' can rightfully criticize the ignorance of a few, whom assigned an "extraterrestrial presence" to "lights in the sky"; however, this is a matter of an evaluation of what they witnessed, not the "description" of what they witnessed, which if one goes over the eyewitness accounts is fairly accurate of what occurred.

Finally, using an "entertainment show" and their respective opinions as a benchmark on an alleged UFO event isn't prudent in my view, and adds no weight to their argument. Most sober investigators would make no conclusions without further evidence, and in my view, that same group would have presumed that they were flares to begin with, as this type of hoaxing is not uncommon.

What stands out in my mind is why these guys haven't been arrested, since obviously launching uncontrolled incendiaries is against the law, and they have incriminated themselves, as well as provided evidence of their crimes publicly. One can only wonder if something had gone wrong and someone's house caught on fire, or even worse . . ..

To his credit, he didn't categorically state that the flare could not possibly be a flare as Birnes did.

As I stated in my rejoinder to the author, "using an 'entertainment show' and their respective opinions as a benchmark on an alleged UFO event isn't prudent in my view . . .."

His suggestion (which I sort of agree with) that launching burning flares into the sky is a bad idea comes across a little like sour grapes in his letter.

Having been acquainted with people who have had their home damaged (to the tune of over $100, 000) because of kids playing with "bottle rockets" I'm very cognizant of the dangers that are presented from uncontrolled incendiaries being launched into the atmosphere; generally these are the antics of ignorant teenagers.

I stand behind what I said, and feel that these people should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law . . . not that it would be a difficult task, given that they've admitted guilt and provided all the evidence needed to do so successfully.

The sour grapes comes into play when "it's your house that burns down!"

Cheers,
Frank

 

[dhatz]

lancemoody,

The so called "UFO skeptics" are mostly people trying to uphold orthodox establishment views and have not researched the subject at all (or "researched" it like the late Phil Klass, who you display on your avatar, "explaining" the James Lucci photo - if that's who you consider your role model, fine ...).

Science is practiced by people, and they're far from perfect. Try reading a bit on the History of Science.

The situation with UFOs is very much like the cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

 

[Stillborn]

lancemoody,

The so called "UFO skeptics" are mostly people trying to uphold orthodox establishment views and have not researched the subject at all (or "researched" it like the late Phil Klass, who you display on your avatar, "explaining" the James Lucci photo - if that's who you consider your role model, fine ...).

Science is practiced by people, and they're far from perfect. Try reading a bit on the History of Science.

The situation with UFOs is very much like the cardinals who refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

I recall Hynek saying, Scientists don't always act scientifically. I agree.

 

[CapnG]

From my perspective, stepping away from reason would not be a wise direction.

How is it "unreasonable" to consider a UFO or ghostly encounter to be something other than a tumour-enduced hallucination or other such case of mistaken identity? This sort of thinking always smacks to me more of wanting to explain away rather than explain. If a particular UFO actually IS a space craft from another world, then that's what it is.

Eyewitness testimony of things in the sky is of almost no value.

The old "Who do you believe? Me or your lying eyes?" argument, eh? I take it you've never seen anything of consequence yourself then?

I can't even imagine what you mean here. What is a scientific fundamentalist? There are no degrees of science, no factions, no sects. It's kind of an either/or. It's like saying "fundamentalist thinker."

Anyone thinking of science as a religion is mistaken.

Really....? Seriously? I have two words for you: global warming- pick a side... IF YOU DARE!! I guarantee no matter which team jersey you wear you'll find yourself caught in a conflict as bitter as any religious war.

Science itself may be without bias but the human scientists conducting are not.

 

[dhatz]

Disingenuously, you mention Phil's 1st photo investigation but inadvertently you prove my point. Here is Phil's account of that:

Lance,

I give the same credence to "analyses" by Phil Klass (or Schaeffer etc) which I'd give to say ... Michael Horn's analysis of Billy Meier's case. As far as I'm concerned they have no credibility.

And in fact I had read Klass' account of that case and tried to verify his claims that Lucci "confessed the hoax" to a third party. Who was that investigator ?

 

[David Biedny]

From my perspective, stepping away from reason would not be a wise direction.

Well, when you have seen the kinds of things I have seen - with other witnesses for corroboration - and have gone through the experiences I've had, let's see how well linear "reason" works for ya. I agree, much of this is stuff that science hasn't figured out yet, and that's the whole point, when science is excessively dismissive, that's just not very constructive. And I certainly don't consider myself some sort of gullible, irrational believer of BS - there are enough of those people who hate my guts at this point - so it's not like I accept every bit of nonsense that comes along.

Oh, and as far as science and the objectivity of the scientific mind, this Sunday's new Paracast episode is going to make some people spontaneously combust. You'll see.

dB

 

[Stillborn]

No question. I agree, too.

Note that Hynek didn't then say "so let's get out our magic spell books and do some magic."

Lance

I wasn't implying he did. Just trying to some up the difference between method and execution of that method.

 

[Paul Kimball]

That says a ton about you. Equating a fingernail painter with the editor of Aviation Weekly. Do you pull the tin hat down over your ears or do you let your ears hang out?

Phil's work did not often relate to photos. In the early days Phil, like so many people, trusted that most witnesses were just telling the truth and he looked for a scientific reason for what was being reported. He began to think that plasma (from electrical storms and power lines, as I recall) could be an answer. He had a hard time giving up that theory but eventually saw that it was untenable.

He did great work on many cases--helping expose problems in the Travis Walton (with much help from Jerry Black), Ed Walters, and the Roswell case among many many others.

His work on the MJ-12 papers convinces me that not only are they fakes but that Bill Moore is the likely counterfeiter.

But I know that you won't bother to actually look at his work and refute his evidence--it is so much easier to say "DEBUNKER" in a place like this, where that means "liar".

I feel sorry for you.

Lance

You're right about Klass, and you're also wrong. He did indeed do some good work over the years, which was (in some cases grudgingly) acknowledged by most serious UFO researchers when he died. However, he also did some really lousy, patently ridiculous work too (his explanation for the RB47 case being just one contender), and he was mean-spirited about much of what he did (a sin that some UFO researchers are guilty of as well, of course). In the end, Bruce Maccabee was probably closest to the mark when he said, after Klass passed away, that he forced UFO researchers to be sharper in the work, and cross their "t's" and dot their "i's", even as he was wrong about a lot of things (I paraphrase). Incidentally, this was an assessment that the FBI shared (at least about his UFO work) - one memo noted: "In view of Klass’s intemperate criticism and often irrational statements he made to support it, we should be most circumspect in any future contacts with him.” See: http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2006/02/phil-klass-spy-for-fbi.html

Whatever his flaws, however, to equate Klass with someone like Horn is ludicrous.

Paul

 

[dhatz]

Lance,

Let's keep personal attacks ("tinfoil hat" etc) out of this discussion.

IMO Klass was a nasty old man with no class whatsoever, considering his Machiavellian actions against J.McDonald, Robert Jacobs, Stanton Friedman and others. In a recent podcast Don Ecker described his own unpleasant experiences with the man.

WRT the Lucci case, I also want to stress the fact that over the years, many alleged UFO witnesses who confessed to hoaxing, retracted their hoax claims. Some said they called it a hoax just to get the debunkers to stop harassing them. One such case I found about recently was Thad Fogl (Radio Officer's Amazing Story)

 

[Paul Kimball]

Paul Kimball said about Phil Klass:



I know what you mean here and Phil was not a good TV skeptic, often losing his temper, etc.

Since he is dead now I can suggest that his written work doesn't carry much of that and even if it did it doesn't matter as much as if it is accurate.

As you no doubt know, he could be devastating accurate when he was rooting out humbugs.

Lance

And he could be mean, petty, vindictive and cruel when he went after people who made him look foolish... like the late James McDonald.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Hey, I admitted some of it! Read these boards if you wanna see how common those characteristics can be among us humans.

I know. Klass just seemed to get more of those characteristics than your average human.

On the other hand, I remember Stan Friedman telling me more than once that Klass could be quite charming in person when he wanted to be... and Stan has been known to throw some pretty sharp elbows in his day as well, although not quite like Klass.

All things considered, however, I would take Klass over someone like M. Horn, or his arch-nemesis K. Korff, anyday of the week, and twice on Sundays!

 

[dhatz]

So you put those back into the "absolutely true" pile, right?

Given the nature of UFO reports, no single case can be called "absolutely positively 100% true".

The way I view it, there is testimony from many people all over the world, who appear sane and sincere, who assert they made their observations under conditions which virtually preclude misinterpretations.

Furthermore, there seems to be a pattern to these observations and researchers with background in physical sciences have tried to interpret them.

On the other hand, there is a certain ilk of skeptics, the so-called debunkers (or pelicanists or whatever one chooses to call them), who basically claim that all UFO witnesses must be mistaken, or deluded or lying. And they keep making that claim, again and again ad infinitum.

I have no time for this latter group of people, who in my opinion are either incompetent or intellectually dishonest or both.

 

[CapnG]

Hmm..."nasty old man" might be seen as a personal attack if Phil Klass was a person...wait...

He's dead, ergo not a "person", ergo no criticism of him can be considered a "personal attack". Defamation of character perhaps but only if you disagree with the criticism.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Is that like Frank Warren's "very accurate" witness statements (see above).

It is that kind of certainty that is the achilles heel of UFO "research". I have NO DOUBT that had this Morristown thing not been revealed as a hoax, that "researchers" would record and rely on the testimony that those flares were 4,5, or 6 times the size of an aircraft, that they zoomed off to New York and that misinterpretation would be virtually precluded!

Not all researchers. The good ones will tell you that the only cases which really matter, and which are truly interesting, are the ones with either (a) corroborative evidence, or (b) multiple, independent witnesses observing something over a prolonged period of time, perferably in different locations (a la the 1996 Yukon case). Also, daytime sightings are always preferred to night sightings, for what should be obvious reasons.

Can you name one thing of importance learned in these 60-odd years related to the above?

Sure. That there is an unknown phenomenon (or phenomena) found in our skies that is worthy of serious scientific study, particularly as it may present a hazard to civil aviation, or national security.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I really meant related to the patterns mentioned above but since you bring it up I have to note that that is a rather feeble 60 year result and the aviation hazard is kinda stretching it since the death/injury total stands solidly close to zero.

If it is worth scientific study, you have to admit that it is kinda hard to do so since it is such a jealous phenomena and hides itself from known methods of evidence gathering. Maybe it can't be studied at all.

Lance,

UFOs are comparable to earthquakes, or better yet tsunamis, when it comes to scientific study. You can't predict when it's going to happen, but you can analyze the data afterwards. The difference is that the government doesn't withhold tsunami data from the public, but it has clearly done this with UFO data (a conclusion that doesn't require one to be a true ET believer, or a conspiracy theorist).

Perhaps the best comparison is traffic accidents. Science can't predict when they're going to happen, but it can be used to determine, for example, what might have caused the accident.

Paul

 

[Frank Warren]

Lance,

Good Day Frank Warren!

Earlier you said:

I wrote down some actual quotes from the witnesses:

1. “Very strange pattern” (it was 3 lights and 2 lights)
2. “It took off—it was very strange”
3. “had a purpose:”
4. “Streaked down towards New York”
5. “the final one just went blip—disappeared”
6. “one appeared to take off”
7. “took off at a very fast pace”
8. “didn’t seem to be moving at all”
9. “had to be 4 5 6 times the size of a jet plane”
10. “almost as if they were communicating with each other”

Now is that what you describe as "very accurate"? If so, then we can just stop talking. But you can rest assured that many folks here will just agree with you since I am a skeptic and everything I say (and evidence I show) can be dismissed.

Again. let me reiterate: My initial response was to the author of the Newsweek piece. specifically, the statement: "They cooked up a spaceship hoax 'to show everyone how unreliable eyewitness accounts are, along with investigators of UFOs.'"

My argument is to distinguish "interpretation" from the "actual description."

Using your collected quotes fro example:

1. “Very strange pattern” (it was 3 lights and 2 lights)

Describing it as "strange" is an interpretation of what the individual saw; he or she may have seen just 2 or 3 lights for a variety of reasons.

2. “It took off—it was very strange”

See above.

3. “had a purpose:”

Same.

4. “Streaked down towards New York”

Entirely possible this person saw something "streak towards New York."

5. “the final one just went blip—disappeared”

Flare went out.

6. “one appeared to take off”

This is more common then one might think with lights in the sky; in this instance flares that go off; when one's interpretation is that they're seeing "a craft," when the light suddenly disappears, they think it (the craft) disappeared or sped off faster then the eye could see.

7. “took off at a very fast pace”

See # 6.

8. “didn’t seem to be moving at all”

This could be "how it seemed" for a number of reasons, beginning with the position of the witness in relationship to the flares.


9. “had to be 4 5 6 times the size of a jet plane”

See # 8.

10. “almost as if they were communicating with each other”

Again an interpretation, much like Birnes' take.

Of course these are just snippets and or sound-bites, and in reviewing the accounts in toto, the common consensus is red lights, in a geometric pattern, moving slowly across the night sky.

As for the rest of the prank, I found the two guys to be insufferably annoying. The fact that they presented themselves as witnesses was idiotic. And I agree about the launching of lit flares being wrong.

I see the value in the end result; however, I believe it could have done legally and safely; what happens in these instances when there are no penalties for these acts is that they will continue until someone's property gets damaged or worse; then the victim will ask, why these pranks weren't stopped to begin with.

That aside, I wholeheartedly agree that this prank lends credence to the notion that people will believe what they want to (this akin to people seeing Jesus in a potato [interpretation]); however, "most" of the descriptions will be reflective of what they actually saw. Moreover, no sober Ufologist worth their salt would have assigned a label to this without further investigation, and most would have called a "spade a spade" early on.

None of this negates the fact that the real witnesses said many things that were not "very accurate" unless you happen to have a different definition of "accurate". It is the interpretation along those lines that seems clear to me: eyewitness testimony about lights in the night sky is almost not worth writing down and should be given very little weight. Interestingly, it is clear that witnesses give the lights characteristics that they want them to have: strangeness, intelligence, etc.

Again, I'm thinking we may arguing semantics; the common consensus amongst the bulk of the witnesses is "red lights, in a geometric pattern moving slowly across the sky." I cede the fact that people's interpretations can be anything from an alien craft, to the hand of god or Slim Pickens riding a missile.

There is a difference in asking a witness to describe accurately what he or she observed, opposed to asking them what they "think they observed."

Re: Skeptics--In my experience, I have found that the best Ufologists are skeptics, and the best skeptics are Ufologists.

Cheers,
Frank