What if there are NO anomalous Ufos?

[dyingsun]

Hoffmeister,


LOL! No, you just said I was the mentally ill guy who never posts any facts! Hilarious.

I can't deny what you say you saw (or claim you are mentally ill) but your response to Tim's thoughtful and well documented piece doesn't surprise me at all. If I had spent a lot of time looking into this (something that is not my area of expertise, I am a film editor and special effects guy) you would have responded the same. You don't want your dream crushed.

And I don't blame you for that.

Lance

What exactly is your stake in all of this really? Do you like 'converting' people to be ignorant , or are you just trolling for your own amusement ?

 

[dyingsun]

Softbeard,

Thanks for the comments.

You know, I have a hard time understanding the things that people claim for Venus. I just don't see how folks can possibly mistake it and and describe fantastic behavior, size, shape, etc. for what is essentially a bright star.

But the fact is (and skeptics and most UFO researchers agree) that they do.

This should be a sobering thought in reference to witness testimony.

I know that many people claim that they "know what they saw" but the literature is full of reports where folks decidedly did not know what they saw. And, in these cases, even though it had been shown clearly that Venus was the culprit, the witnesses were describing in great detail stuff that Venus just can't do.

What do you make of that?

Kieran,

I find the so-called Battle of Los Angeles to be completely underwhelming as evidence for an anomalous craft but quite compelling as an example of mass hysteria. Maybe that is only my bias but I have read extensively about this case and I am very aware of the wildly conflicting testimony, the dubious photo, and so forth.

I cannot, of course, dismiss your sighting but I do wonder why we don't see an overwhelming collection of clear photos taken from many different cameras (say maybe 4 or 5 cameras in your plane sighting example) for these kinds of sightings. That kind of evidence should exist but doesn't.

I know these kinds of questions only seem to annoy believers but they should be occasionally asked, I think.

Lance

---------- Post added at 01:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 AM ----------

DyingSun wrote:



And then asked if I was trolling, I'm sure the irony will be lost on many.

Lance

I'm german, sorry if my phrasing made you smirk. Still, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here ? Just curious.

 

[Kieran]

Lance i had my phone and i would have taken a photo but i was a front seat passenger and phones are not allowed to be on, when flying from England to Ireland. Lance is there any UFO case that you find interesting or compelling just curious?

 

[dyingsun]

Ah, thanks--in English, converting people to be ignorant is sort of the same as converting people to be stupid. Which would make me evil or stupid or both.

As for my purpose here, I am a skeptic interested in UFO's. And although I have yet to see evidence that leads to believe them to be paranormal, I find them fascinating as a social phenomena. Other than that, I don't really have a purpose here (didn't know we had to have one). What's yours?

Thanks,

Lance

None, really.Arguing seems to be on the Agenda, thanks though.

 

[Kieran]

Certainly,

I love the Valentich case, the Hunrath/Wilkinson case, the Trents (although I think the photos are fakes, I still love them!)

I am almost certainly the leading expert (a dubious distinction) on the 1959 Otis Carr story (which tangentally involves UFOs) having interviewed almost all of the then living witnesses (circa 1996). I can tell you that most of the long Wikipedia entry on Carr is wrong.

It was during my interviews with the Carr witnesses, that I noticed just how incredibly poor memory can be. It was eye-opening to hear people tell me in detail about things that could not have happened.

I wasn't blaming you for missing the photos, I was just saying that by now we should have lots of that type of evidence but don't. In fact, it seems most likely that if a clear UFO picture does turn up you can bet that it will soon be shown to be a fraud.

Lance

Go over to Frank Warrens UFO site and you find plenty of intriguing photos that go back to 18OO's I don't believe every UFO case either some can be explained very easily but Lance only a handful of cases need to have off world origin and you only need one case for yourself to believe in.

---------- Post added at 03:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 AM ----------

Ah, thanks--in English, converting people to be ignorant is sort of the same as converting people to be stupid. Which would make me evil or stupid or both.

As for my purpose here, I am a skeptic interested in UFO's. And although I have yet to see evidence that leads to believe them to be paranormal, I find them fascinating as a social phenomena. Other than that, I don't really have a purpose here (didn't know we had to have one). What's yours?

Thanks,

Lance

Lance also explain how a phenomenon that doesn't exist actively appears often to people who never had a interest in this subject before that.

 

[softbeard]

Softbeard,

You know, I have a hard time understanding the things that people claim for Venus. I just don't see how folks can possibly mistake it and and describe fantastic behavior, size, shape, etc. for what is essentially a bright star.

But the fact is (and skeptics and most UFO researchers agree) that they do.

This should be a sobering thought in reference to witness testimony.

I know that many people claim that they "know what they saw" but the literature is full of reports where folks decidedly did not know what they saw. And, in these cases, even though it had been shown clearly that Venus was the culprit, the witnesses were describing in great detail stuff that Venus just can't do.

What do you make of that?

Lance

Lance, offhand, I too have a hard time seeing how Venus could be mistaken for a UFO.
Still, just recalling how many times I have mis-identified objects, I readily agree that certain people might mistake Venus for all kinds of bizarre things. And by 'certain' I'm not implying deranged or impaired. I fully agree that on some occasions, otherwise-average people, possibly because of a hightened emotional state, or what-have-you could make this mistake. Evolution has never had a proper reason to turn humans into good observers.
What I don't agree with, is using this argument when multiple independent observers are involved. For me, it's not enough to dismiss a case outright if several independent witnesses say they saw something strange that, they claim, didn't look like Venus; even though Venus might have been visible in the sky at the time.

 

[Paul Kimball]

What I can tell you is that I have looked extensively (as possible) at many cases (but not all of them as I think Paul Kimball seems to believe is necessary) and I don't see compelling evidence of the paranormal. I outline a bit of my work above on Otis Carr (which is only sort of UFO related).

And this is exactly why one can't have a real discussion with Lance - because he doesn't play straight. Of course I never said that you had to look at all cases, or even a majority of cases (which is why the Kottmeyer newspaper analysis is useless) - rather, you need to look at the best cases, that remain unexplained. You know - the ones that you ignore, or brush aside. Instead, you natter on about Otis Carr for crying out loud, as if proclaiming that the Carr hogwash is indeed hogwash is determinative of anything.

The problem, Lance, is that you're not a true skeptic, in any sense of the word. You are the quintessesntial disbeliever, the yin to Rudiak's yang. A true skeptic would keep an open mind. I have seen nothing from you that indicates this is how you operate. Frankly, as you're clearly a bright enough guy, it's disappointing - but not surprising given the polarized nature of what passes for discourse about UFOs, where two sides spend all of their time talking past each other, with the rest of us just laughing.

And now, a note on those "flying saucers." You reference Kottmeyer, which is useless, because we're not talking about what is reported in newspapers (although you would like to), but rather actual cases that are reported to the authorities, and investigated, either by the government or civilian groups such as NICAP. Those are the cases worth talking about. Here are nine, as voted by a broad panel of UFO researchers for my film Best Evidence. They may not be the best cases, but they are certainly nine of the best, and represent a consensus. Let's see how many are saucers:

1. RB47 - nope
2. Tehran - nope
3. Rendlesham - nope
4. McMinnville - yes
5. Santa Barbara Channel - nope
6. Shag Harbour - possibly
7. Malmstrom AFB - nope
8. Yukon 1996 case - nope
9. Skylab III - nope

So, let's see. That's one case out of nine that could definitively be characterized as a "flying saucer," and one other, SHag Harbour, that could arguably be characterized that way.

Disbelievers like you might want to talk about newspaper reports, and try to diminish the serious nature of the subject by labeling them all (er... sorry, "most") as flying saucers, but the truth is that the majority of cases that researchers talk about, and that have been seriously investigated, are not flying saucers.

But I imagine you don't want to talk about them. Otis Carr is a lot more comfortable for you, isn't it?

Paul

 

[Ron Collins]

To Ron Collins,

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your comments. As a skeptic I have noticed that skeptics are now almost always described (by paranormal enthusiasts) in the terms you use--as disbelievers at all costs. I think this is an unfair characterization of most skeptics I know (but not all).

What I can tell you is that I have looked extensively (as possible) at many cases (but not all of them as I think Paul Kimball seems to believe is necessary) and I don't see compelling evidence of the paranormal. I outline a bit of my work above on Otis Carr (which is only sort of UFO related).

I would LOVE to see good evidence for the paranormal. I would be delighted. But for me, it is not there.

I know that many UFO enthusiasts love to point to the large numbers of sightings as good evidence for a paranormal explanation. I think that the large number of cases that never gel into a cohesive theory is evidence of just the opposite. Indeed, the fact that UFO research has the same number of answers as it had in 1947 (that is, none) is quite compelling disconfirmation for me.

Thanks for the reply Lance. However, I would disagree that the "paranormal enthusiasts" have unjustly defined Skeptics in this manner. Take Shermer, Shostak, MaGaha, and Tarter as a good for instance. Shermer has unequivocally stated that there are no good cases with evidence. Shostak, MaGaha, and Tarter have all mimed the same sentiment. Yet in many interviews they are asked specifics on cases and in ALL instances they have shown to be very ill informed. In most cases they admit to knowing nothing at all about very prominent cases. Then they go on to attempt to discredit it by repeating the same tired dogma.

You say you have studied the cases and have looked at the evidence. I hope that is true. Would you be interested in discussing a few cases with us here on this forum and defending your position that there is a mundane explanation? I would like to know the exact point where our minds diverge. Now this only works if both sides agree to keep it light. I am honestly interested in identifying where I deem something as an interesting body of evidence and you see it as a sequence of mundane circumstances.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I was talking about the phenomena of "flying saucer" becoming what people reported most often after the Arnold misunderstanding as an example of how the pop culture plays a role (I think a major one) in the UFO myth. That is what I said and I backed it up with some evidence.

Of course there is some truth to what you say about the role of "pop culture". If that was all we had to rely on then the UFO field would have been dead decades ago. But who's to say that some of the "saucer" reports weren't valid.
Fortunately enough we have good researchers among us and the truly anomalous or thought provoking cases are providing the "debunkers" with saucer sized ulcers as not only do they not research any of these cases but they rarely even bring them up in conversation.

<!-- END TEMPLATE: memberaction_dropdown -->

1. RB47 - nope 2. Tehran - nope 3. Rendlesham - nope 4. McMinnville - yes 5. Santa Barbara Channel - nope 6. Shag Harbour - possibly 7. Malmstrom AFB - nope 8. Yukon 1996 case - nope 9. Skylab III - nope

You can also add the Valentich case to that excellent list Paul. I believe that Valentich described the craft as a cigar shape.

Thats the difference, Debunkers don't look at the facts, if they did they would actually see that whatever you believe, 'some' of the cases are unexplainable. We rarely see you posting any facts here, just shooting other people down without presenting any meaningful evidence.

I totally agree Hoff!

 

[Hoffmeister]

You seek a rational answer for your sighting but there is no evidence the US government has a triangle craft hidden away somewhere either. The Belgium sightings happened 20 years ago and this craft, the triangle had no wings like why would they risk 'the American risk flying a classified no wing aircraft over England or even Belgium which is outside there sphere of influence.

Nah there's no evidence. But I have heard (and read) a couple of mainstream Aerospace journalists claim that they have been shown information on such craft, and that they are basically solid objects but helium filled or something. Since the craft I saw didnt do much except float around slowly and shine big lights allover the place, it would seem more rational to go for the Earthly explanation in this case.... particularly as such a piece of kit would have obvious military benefits.

 

[Kieran]

Nah there's no evidence. But I have heard (and read) a couple of mainstream Aerospace journalists claim that they have been shown information on such craft, and that they are basically solid objects but helium filled or something. Since the craft I saw didnt do much except float around slowly and shine big lights allover the place, it would seem more rational to go for the Earthly explanation in this case.... particularly as such a piece of kit would have obvious military benefits.

OK Hoff seems unrealistic to me a helium solid object is what you saw. I however wasn't there to witness this. But, An object filed with Helium is terribly slow moving and i would suggest to you this object would have been very visible on Radar. Therefore it likely Military Jets would have been scrambled and this object would have been intercepted by jet fighters in quick succession. This object couldn't get away Hoff, it was helium filled for God sake if your right.
If it was a secret still classified American craft i would seriously doubt it was helium filled.

---------- Post added at 01:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ----------

Lance. Your being nonsensical here. I ( that BEING YOU Here) never denied that no Phenomenon existed. But Yet, you said, in your next line of thought. I ( being you again) see no evidence for this Phenomenon being real.. Lance your confusing your thought patterns here, like why would you even bother, discussing a topic that you personally find lacks evidence? Is there something wrong with you that you need to explore a topic that you don't find real?

People having an interest in this subject before they had a sighting is completely relevant not irrelevant Lance it can prove someone is being genuine or not with their experience.

Lance, as Paul, has pointed out to you in his Post. There is Excellent UFO cases out there that "You" can research and study. You can turn your back to the information if you like, that is your choice, your a grown up. But, Lance be realistic here, to say, that we have no evidence is the most Ridiculous view any normal human being could have here.

 

[softbeard]

...There is Excellent UFO cases out there that "You" can research and study. You can turn your back to the information if you like, that is your choice, your a grown up. But, Lance be realistic here, to say, that we have no evidence is the most Ridiculous view any normal human being could have here.

Kieran,
To put things in perspective, you know the old addage; 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. Fact is, to my best knowledge, no extraordinary evidence has been provided as of yet. The debate, of course, is what qualifies as 'evidence'. As usual, the devil is in the details.
I see both sides in this arguement using inconsistent logic to support their point of view. A sign that neither side has really thought the arguments through and they are arguing past each other, probably because of emotions or their belief system.
I don't want to come off as 'holier than though' here. I don't have any answers either. I would put it this way: Overall, the best we can say right now is that we appear to have grounds for rejecting hypothesis that 'there are NO anomalous Ufos'. Everything else is open to debate.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So, then, the landed object that Rendlesham eyewitness John Burroughs approached — and he has been on The Paracast to tell his story — wasn't really there? Or was actually a landed lighthouse light? Is that your testimony?

 

[Simonemendez]

In my opinion ( I know, don't say it, everyone has one) it was a Big Landed Embellishment.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I think the main thing to remember is that most skeptics like Michael Shermer (who I'm a big fan of) maintain that it's a big jump to say that an unknown object in the sky is of Alien origin. That's the main issue skeptics have with full-on UFO believers. I don't doubt that people have seen strange things, but why is it always Aliens or a strange civilization that is living among us. It could be, but there's the same amount of proof pointing to an army of tooth fairies being the cause.

However, the biggest skeptic of them all James Randi (I'm a big fan of him too), has gone on record saying that if someone were to show him absolute proof that there are aliens visiting us, he'd believe it. Same thing with psychics and ghosts. All of these things are just hypothesizes (is that the plural?), which is how most theories start out. Once the proof is there, we can believe it.
Skeptics would have doubted evolution if Darwin had not been able to prove it. Since there's proof, the only people that doubt evolution are religious crazies.

Scientists used to doubt a hell of a lot of stuff, but once something was proven, they gladly accepted it.

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

So, then, the landed object that Rendlesham eyewitness John Burroughs approached — and he has been on The Paracast to tell his story — wasn't really there? Or was actually a landed lighthouse light? Is that your testimony?

That's what he said, and he probably wasn't lying, but we can't be certain of what exactly it was, right?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I don't think Randi would believe in UFOs — alien, cryptoterrestrial or otherwise — even if one landed on his front lawn and he was taken aboard as an act of revenge.

---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 AM ----------

I don't think Randi would believe in UFOs — alien, cryptoterrestrial or otherwise — even if one landed on his front lawn and he was taken aboard as an act of revenge.

Did you hear the episode? Maybe spend some time to listen before you comment further.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I don't think Randi would believe in UFOs — alien, cryptoterrestrial or otherwise — even if one landed on his front lawn and he was taken aboard as an act of revenge.

---------- Post added at 08:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 AM ----------



Did you hear the episode? Maybe spend some time to listen before you comment further.

Hi Gene,

Of course I listened to the episode, I would not have commented otherwise. I really enjoy when you talk about that case. Something did happen there, all I'm saying is that we can't be certain it was aliens. I also hope that all those people aren't lying because that would be disappointing. Could it have been something as mundane as a lighthouse or as spectacular as alien visitation, we'll probably never know because we weren't there.

With regards to Randi, I can't say what he would do, but that is what he has said. He's said it many times that he'll come around on any topic if someone proves it to him.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Of course I listened to the episode, I would not have commented otherwise. I really enjoy when you talk about that case. Something did happen there, all I'm saying is that we can't be certain it was aliens. I also hope that all those people aren't lying because that would be disappointing. Could it have been something as mundane as a lighthouse or as spectacular as alien visitation, we'll probably never know because we weren't there.

I make no assumptions about what the various witnesses observed, other than it was something clearly not readily explainable. Beyond that, we can only guess.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I make no assumptions about what the various witnesses observed, other than it was something clearly not readily explainable. Beyond that, we can only guess.

I can't disagree with you on that.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Whoooooooooo there is INTENSE EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT in Ufos being otherworldly (including cryptoterrestrials and ghosts as well as extraterrestrial people) and I say this as someone who has seen these 'Ufos'. Otherwise, why-------would some of you react so angrily?
What I see after a long time in Ufology, is that, every sighting (including military filmed things) boils down to------blobby lights and triangles that are most likely USAF. (Why do those things always happen to be seen mostly near Air Force bases, otherwise?)

Thats the thing, I don't think anyone is really getting angry here, and particularly when you compare it to debates on other things, such as sport or politics. I've literally seen people come to blows on more than one occasion when discussing sport, so I really don't think people are really getting that upset, its more your perception and the fact that sometimes its hard to write your point on threads such as this without sounding a little 'abrupt'.
Personally, I dont think there is enough evidence either way on the rendlesham case... it could be real, and it could equally be an imbellished memory or a hoax or something.
If you want good cases, check out Paul Kimballs best evidence clips, most of them are on his website or on youtube. For photographs, the mcminville case is good (and not just a ball of light). If you search around you can find that a good amount of study was done on these photos and they have been deemed 'real' by one or two experts. They show a craft clearly, so short of photographs of the inside of one of these things you can't really get any better.
Another of my favourite cases is the Kelly Johnson case (also on Pauls website)... although we arent supplied with any photo graphic evidence, it is a real stretch to say that the world foremost expert on aeroplanes along with an highly trained crew could have mistaken what they saw.

The point is, there is 'some' evidence on either side of the argument.... and anyone who says that it is 'definitely' one way or the other, is not in my opinion being intellectuality honest with themselves.
IF they have come here (and its a big IF), I believe that the reason they might likely stay out of site from us because they know it would harm our society. Presumably we arent the first civilisation they have come across and they might have learnt from experience that lesser civilisations arent always ready for more advanced ones landing on the white house lawn and saying take me to your leader. On the hand, maybe it would be because they just look at us like we look at ants.

Personally I would prefer it that when (and if) aliens really do come to earth, they do keep themselves anonymous.... I like our little planet the way it is