James Carrion, Ghost Rockets, Roswell & the Hole in Ufology's Bucket

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Who else on the forum do you especially think writes creatively with great insight too, whether past or present, as I'd like to follow some of your suggestions. The great thing about your writing abilities too, with the visual beauty added, is that you're not totally over-my-head to understanding everything you're posting without feeling confused. That doesn't mean I rightly understand you, but at least I'm not lost thinking I don't. I would appreciate your recommendations. Please share anymore specifics beyond your previous post...

 

[Wade]

Sounds like somebody has a bit of a crush

 

[Wade]

I kid I kid OME, I have a bit of a man crush on Robert myself, not for nothing does he have that wonderful likes to posts ratio, I'm responsible for a number of them.

 

[Constance]

The majority of UFO reports are often insignificant reports of lights in the sky and while some of these may be intriguing at the end of the day they add up to just being lights in the sky and nothing more, unless someone's got radar on it.

I have to question your logic there. Anomalous patterns and behaviors of lights in the sky represent whatever they are or whatever produces them regardless of whether radar is focused on them. The skies surrounding earth are for the most part not monitored by radar, but they are wide open to the eyes of the billions of people living on the planet's surface. Thus many anomalous lights seen by witnesses on land and at sea and even in the air do not have radar directed toward them at the time of the events witnessed. That does not lead to the conclusion that these lights represent 'nothing'.

Light is physical and physically produced. Plasmas are physical and generated by a variety of physical processes, some of which we do not understand fully, some of which [recognized to exist around ufos] are evidently beyond the level of our current physical science to account for. So plainly we have no grounds on which to dismiss from further consideration eyewitness reports of unusual lights in the sky as "just lights in the sky." This phrase -- 'just lights in the sky' -- is frequently heard these days as if we have no reason to question the nature of anomalous lights, their formations, their behavior, their unaccountable speed, and so forth.

I think the details of the NARCAP report I posted last night bear out the point I'm making.

Are military planes still being scrambled to chase UAP? | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Burnt State]

I have to question your logic there. Anomalous patterns and behaviors of lights in the sky represent whatever they are or whatever produces them regardless of whether radar is focused on them. The skies surrounding earth are for the most part not monitored by radar, but they are wide open to the eyes of the billions of people living on the planet's surface. Thus many anomalous lights seen by witnesses on land and at sea and even in the air do not have radar directed toward them at the time of the events witnessed. That does not lead to the conclusion that these lights represent 'nothing'.

Light is physical and physically produced. Plasmas are physical and generated by a variety of physical processes, some of which we do not understand fully, some of which [recognized to exist around ufos] are evidently beyond the level of our current physical science to account for. So plainly we have no grounds on which to dismiss from further consideration eyewitness reports of unusual lights in the sky as "just lights in the sky." This phrase -- 'just lights in the sky' -- is frequently heard these days as if we have no reason to question the nature of anomalous lights, their formations, their behavior, their unaccountable speed, and so forth.

I think the details of the NARCAP report I posted last night bear out the point I'm making.

Are military planes still being scrambled to chase UAP? | The Paracast Community Forums

I saw that article - it's a good one. But what i'm talking about are lights in the sky doing odd things, or just doing normal things, like satellites and bolides will, but as far as a witness report goes those billions of eyes looking up are not yet a sophisticated mass of trainedobservors and so we just have a bunch of miscellaneous reports of lights in the sky. How could we possibly begin to prove anything more than that beyond the story that is being told? In fact, truth be told, it's nothing more than a story about seeing lights in the sky.

Without any hard, recorded data on these lights, or significant trace evidence, I don't see what possible good they are except to add onto the heap of other reports of lights in the sky. I suppose this might tell us how many different lights are being seen at any point in time, but whether or not they are Venus, Jupiter, or a bolide or a space station then I can't see their value. So, not nothing, but nothing more than lights and stories about lights. Reports with greater substance do allow for more information to be gained, but those many entries into the catalogue that say someone saw a bright light turn a sharp corner on such a date at such a location don't say much more than that do they?

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

I saw that article - it's a good one. But what i'm talking about are lights in the sky doing odd things, or just doing normal things, like satellites and bolides will, but as far as a witness report goes those billions of eyes looking up are not yet a sophisticated mass of trainedobservors and so we just have a bunch of miscellaneous reports of lights in the sky. How could we possibly begin to prove anything more than that beyond the story that is being told? In fact, truth be told, it's nothing more than a story about seeing lights in the sky.

Without any hard, recorded data on these lights, or significant trace evidence, I don't see what possible good they are except to add onto the heap of other reports of lights in the sky. I suppose this might tell us how many different lights are being seen at any point in time, but whether or not they are Venus, Jupiter, or a bolide or a space station then I can't see their value. So, not nothing, but nothing more than lights and stories about lights. Reports with greater substance do allow for more information to be gained, but those many entries into the catalogue that say someone saw a bright light turn a sharp corner on such a date at such a location don't say much more than that do they?

Sorta hopping in here in between cleaning the club for a party tomorrow. I get what your saying about lights in the sky doesn't really add up to an explanation of anything. I've periodically complained about this too. It's our impatience really, because there's no-one stepping forward saying o.k, here's what we've learned and here's where we go next. Honestly, that's why I got so excited about that book I read that I've been name bombing everywhere on the forums. I learned basically that a vehicle in the sky was captured on footage, showing a saucer flying sideways with energy surrounding it and extending behind it by X amount of feet. It caused a scientist to resign his post at a University and take a job through our military to attempt to recreate the propulsion of this saucer. Lights in sky + saucer + film footage + science. The funniest thing about this little story is that very few people are talking about it. Instead everyone is in their separate corners debating the validity of "are we alone?" So o.k, back to what your saying.....now versus a month ago, suddenly those sightings start meaning more to me. It's still debatable on the percentage of value, but surely there have been great minds who've concluded before us that there is value. P.S....when you have time to read that book I'd be excited to talk with you on it. Wish Chris O. would weigh in on that too.

 

[Burnt State]

Sorta hopping in here in between cleaning the club for a party tomorrow. I get what your saying about lights in the sky doesn't really add up to an explanation of anything. I've periodically complained about this too. It's our impatience really, because there's no-one stepping forward saying o.k, here's what we've learned and here's where we go next. Honestly, that's why I got so excited about that book I read that I've been name bombing everywhere on the forums. I learned basically that a vehicle in the sky was captured on footage, showing a saucer flying sideways with energy surrounding it and extending behind it by X amount of feet. It caused a scientist to resign his post at a University and take a job through our military to attempt to recreate the propulsion of this saucer. Lights in sky + saucer + film footage + science. The funniest thing about this little story is that very few people are talking about it. Instead everyone is in their separate corners debating the validity of "are we alone?" So o.k, back to what your saying.....now versus a month ago, suddenly those sightings start meaning more to me. It's still debatable on the percentage of value, but surely there have been great minds who've concluded before us that there is value. P.S....when you have time to read that book I'd be excited to talk with you on it. Wish Chris O. would weigh in on that too.

Here's some good reading on Stanford and Lambright here:
Ray Stanford — May 18, 2014 Episode | The Paracast Community Forums
And then there's the Paracast episode that covers the book:
4/1/2012 Chris Lambright and Ray Stanford | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

it's funny you mention this Heidi because I was thinking about this a few days ago, that is the reports sent in on neighborhood watches of seemingly mundane events and the amount of observational powers people can have and yet it's not hard to come across papers on how that capacity can allude at least some people when it comes to collecting details on traumatic events. I found myself thinking would those people who do submit the neighborhood watch type events be able to carry that same skill set say when being pressed about an event that is de-stabilizing in some way or is there something in the human psyche that causes us to "loose it" when confronted with something traumatic or fantastical ? Or maybe it just comes down to numbers is there a tendency to give a little more credence to a solo observer to an event as opposed to an event that has multiple witnesses as the more people that get involved the more likely the story can be different at least when it comes to details ?

/Waves to Wade! Didn't forget yah. I think it very much happens. Reminds me of my brother retelling "the train" story. He's walking through a tunnel with our cousin and they here the train coming....etc , etc. Last year his story got so outrageous that we all started laughing. And I suspect that people make up stuff to, out of thin air. But...although we can quibble on whether anyone's seen an actual alien, seen the inside of a craft, etc, I think we can presume that enough witness testimony has been gathered that the probability is likely that they've seen something unexplainable in the sky. I've stated before I've decided it's real. Others will hold out until they actually see it for themselves. All of that should be ok as long as we agree that it's worth looking into. My belief is based off the simplistic notion that everything we do requires observation to one degree or another. Everyday people do extraordinary things that require complete concentration, surgeons, military pilots, pharmacists, heavy machine operators, etc. And although they are trained to do these jobs, what makes them uniquely qualified is their ability to maintain that level of concentration and observation. So in essence, I believe in people. For me though, the trick is which people!

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

I think the research study would have to remain anonymous and confidential. Any participant would be able to discuss it only after the study would be published, but that would be their decision. I think any money made off the research, including a significant percentage from participants that might go public, would go to a foundation that supports more research about the topic. That will discourage someone trying to capitalize for financial reasons just to be in the study or to promote it for money. Otherwise, there could be non-disclosure agreements to keep all participants anonymous and confidential without the right to discuss it too. Anyway, this would protect the privacy of the witness people, so they could speak freely about their history and experiences.

I certainly have no idea exactly what should be studied, but here are some ideas:

1) The family history of the person to get an idea of some possible genetic components, and if there are any other family members with similar experiences. This might include interviews with other family members too.

2) Obviously, the mental health and personality of the person is of primary concern, so there has to be some screening and interview process that covers that too. There might be some traits that can be identified that lend to this type of experience. How fearful is this person? What childhood experiences may have "imprinted" this person with certain types of beliefs or lasting effects.

This is a very long list I could come-up with, but the objective is the truth. Not to label someone with some form of mental illness. Many of these people are very likely to be gifted, imo, but some differences and similarities and traits will be identified. Some might be abnormal and/or highly "X" = you fill in the blank.

3) I think there needs to be some testing about perceptual differences the witness may have that are unique or different. These might include brain scans and visual tests, etc. Sensitivity to sounds or electrical fields or ???

4) Obviously, a history and any testing necessary that checks for altered states this person may be experiencing. This might include a sleep study, and any other known tests that can detect altered states. And, a history about any drug use [legal or not] that may have been a factor.

5) The study would include people with other types of experiences that could be related to the UFO and ET experience too.

6) Obviously, demographics and environmental and geographical information should be gathered that might be useful too.

Ok, I've contributed some ideas in answer to your questions. Would you please contribute some ideas you may know about that would help with this proposed "witness study" concept.

Is there anything from your experiences or learning you might have accomplished that could help study this further with a detailed witness analysis? Thanks.

I hope other people will throw-in some ideas too.

Maybe James has some ideas too? If James does not respond here, then I'll ask in the After Show thread too.

The Paracast show is finished now, so James can only respond online.

I'm interested in your ideas Constance too. Heidi? Burnt? Anyone?

I'm still thinking about your list, and it seems harmless on a computer screen, but how likely would witnesses come forward if they thought the collector of their report was "most" interested in them vs. what they saw?

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Ahhh, I see. You really seem convinced of the "nuts and bolts" because of the incomplete "report form" and the way people report those details. You do realize, of course, there are no other questions on these report forms that address what Burnt and I am interested in??? That is an extreme bias and an "unforgivable sin" that is its own self-destruction towards the understanding of this phenomena since it began. The most critical data is missing and omitted. Why??? Why? Why?

I'm not so sure in the course of an investigation that those question get ignored. I think data collection groups divide the subject material, folks that call or write that they've seen a light do something weird in sky. And then you have the cases where the object was close enough to say it was a triangular craft or saucer or cigar shape (including abduction claims/high strangeness with event). In these cases I think they try to meet up with the person and I'm betting they are looking for the "loon" vs. the sane observer. The first group gets listed only if the research group can eliminate Venus, shooting starts, space station, weather , etc. So , short of a psychiatric exam they record whatever possible.

 

[Constance]

I'm betting they are looking for the "loon" vs. the sane observer

My impression is that investigating the credibility of witnesses has long been a practice in serious ufo investigation.

Btw, Heidi, I came across this ufo photograph taken at a Swiss airport in 1966 and thought that it looks somewhat similar to the illustration of the objects in the Ray Stanford video discussed in Christian Lambright's book:

"In the summer of 1966, a flight official photographed two red spheres over the Swiss airport Zurich-Kloten. The photo was later released by Swiss Air pilot Ferdinand Schmid."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2979867/Can-solve-UFO-cases-Vintage-alien-photos-governments-couldn-t-explain-reveal-world-s-strangest-sightings.html#ixzz3UzCpB3eX

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

My impression is that investigating the credibility of witnesses has long been a practice in serious ufo investigation.

Btw, Heidi, I came across this ufo photograph taken at a Swiss airport in 1966 and thought that it looks somewhat similar to the illustration of the objects in the Ray Stanford video discussed in Christian Lambright's book:

"In the summer of 1966, a flight official photographed two red spheres over the Swiss airport Zurich-Kloten. The photo was later released by Swiss Air pilot Ferdinand Schmid."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2979867/Can-solve-UFO-cases-Vintage-alien-photos-governments-couldn-t-explain-reveal-world-s-strangest-sightings.html#ixzz3UzCpB3eX

It follows along a line of thinking that makes more sense than anything else discussed. The government plays down the idea of UFO's but funds scientists to advance this propulsion. Apparently anyone can follow this scientist that's featured in the book but the scientist will not talk with anyone who wishes to call it UFO's. Which is exactly what people claim through the years about the subject being a career ender.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

this is another one showing the saucer at a tilt which is how it was described vs. the way media/culture george jetson style saucers would fly.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

The government plays down the idea of UFO's but funds scientists to advance this propulsion.

Heidi, I see you "liked" Constance's post. So, do you or Constance think this is an image of some form of propulsion? Do either of you think this is likely human or ET caused or natural phenomena from outer space???

Tell me your analysis. This is most interesting to me. You've recently read Lambright's book and Constance is also linking Lambright too, so tell me... you're obviously most interested in his ideas...

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

In these cases I think they try to meet up with the person and I'm betting they are looking for the "loon" vs. the sane observer. The first group gets listed only if the research group can eliminate Venus, shooting starts, space station, weather , etc.

You seem to have missed my two main points entirely.

I'm not characterizing anyone that reports as "the loon" vs sane observer. That is a complete misunderstanding and oversimplification of the ideas I'm driving at.

You were speaking about analyzing "the data" from around the world that is missing, so I pointed out that "the real" necessary data is missing to analyze for statistical meaning of that data. You do understand the meaning of a 'field of data' in database terms? If not, you can check it out online and then check the context in my previous posts where I discussed that.

There are two "data sets" [and many fields or data types] of data that are missing from their reporting systems, so the data is entirely missing in what the people report and then "the investigation" does not have 'a field' to put that data into a relational database to do statistical analysis. It is entirely missing!!!

That is the "blind spot" of UFO analysis. Honestly, the Air Force and MIC love the incredible stupidity of this lack of data that is entirely missing in any form of data analysis. Why? They can continue the mythology and propaganda for their purposes. That definitely seems to be triangles as "the flavor of the day" for 'now'.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

this is another one showing the saucer at a tilt which is how it was described vs. the way media/culture george jetson style saucers would fly.

Is there any proof whatsoever as to the direction that object may be moving? Is there a witness, the photographer, that saw the object too? A report?

If not, then you have no way of knowing its direction or even if it is a real object in the air. I would need to examine the entire set of negatives that go with the one image to understand what was being done, and, also, to understand whether it is likely propaganda or an artifact produced in the development process. This "object" [or artifact] could be from the film processing alone.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

The first group gets listed only if the research group can eliminate Venus, shooting starts, space station, weather , etc. So , [...] they record whatever possible.

No way. Why?...

Where are these missing fields of data??? Where is the relational database to do the analysis?

1) Distance from any airport?

2) Distance from any MIC manufacturer?

3) Distance from any military base?

4) Distance from any military test range including an MIC or NASA R&D test area?

5) Was it flying or directionally moving within a known flight lane [path] for commercial or military traffic?

These are 5 fields of relational database "data sets" that are entirely missing. This is by no means a laundry list of all that is missing. It's just a very important example of what is missing.

Seriously, you need to think about this last point... IF you can shape the data, then you can control the outcome... to be crude... garbage in is garbage out.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

I need to make another point about this too: the witness(es) or "the investigators" do sometimes record bits and pieces of these kinds of data, so I'm not suggesting this never happens, because it does sometimes happen, but erratically. That is also the shame of this kind of haphazard reporting; what is lost is critical information needed to solve this mystery.

So, there needs to be a relational database created, and then someone could go back through the reports to salvage the few that do have some of these data points or fields of data. This reporting work could have been done on PC type software since the late 1980's, so why hasn't this been done?

Considering all the software and computer geeks out there that are interested in this subject it seems MUFON or other interested groups could have been gathering and reporting the data in a relational database since the late 1980's and definitely early 1990's, easily!

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Apparently anyone can follow this scientist that's featured in the book but the scientist will not talk with anyone who wishes to call it UFO's.

Is this the same scientist that Stanford met as a master's student at the University of Texas?

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

I'm still thinking about your list, and it seems harmless on a computer screen, but how likely would witnesses come forward if they thought the collector of their report was "most" interested in them vs. what they saw?

That all depends on how this missing information is gathered and presented to the witness. There are ways to do this that do not need to worry or concern the witness about their "sanity" [that has little to do with my thinking] IF it is done respectfully and properly to protect privacy too. There should be an initial investigation and then as many follow-ups as is necessary depending on the importance of the sighting and interest of the witness. This could potentially go on for years if necessary.