It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

page: 19
22
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Could I make a suggestion?

Given that even the most stalwart defender of the scientific method has said, here, that there is a possibility that ufos are non human, in this very thread. That there is a possibility of there being non-human devices behind the "ufo" phenomena, why not get a group together, non partisan, non agenda driven, to try to see once and for all?









posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

of the 100 UFO sightings you have "explained" away, in how many of those cases did the people who actually witnessed these events agree with your explanation of what they witnessed?

Why? If there is a valid explanation of what something actually was then that is what it probably was. If a belief persists despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that would be a delusion.



Possibly the valid explanation that is offered is insufficient to the individual eyewitness account. For example:

"1967, Russia
Airline pilot reports UFO flying above his plane. Engines stop, and start again only when UFO disappears. Explanation: Secret Soviet nuclear warhead test was fireballing 50 miles overhead. Any effect on engine was pilot-induced."

The pilot might differ with the explanation and that any engine effect was "pilot induced."

Not that I'm familiar with that incident, but just because it was "explained prosaically" doesn't mean that explanation is what actually happened. I don't see any delusion here. The delusion could be those believing the prosaic explanation. I'm also not claiming it was alien spacecraft and I don't know if the pilot did, just that maybe that particular explanation isn't correct.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
try to see once and for all?
Try to see what?

The unexplained cases are unexplained. Yes some could be alien spacecraft. None strike me as having particularly compelling evidence for that, but we can't rule it out. If I try to interpret your suggestion, it seems to be saying "let's see if we can explain one of them as alien", is that what you're suggesting? I don't know of any good candidates for that. Some of the most solid cases I know of could be military craft, like the January 2000 sighting over Illinois.

What would be helpful is a genuine photo that looks more like this instead of a tiny something in the sky that could be anything, supported my multiple credible witness observations:



But this is the photo we have from that Illinois case:

I can't explain that photo as any astronomical object I know of, so I think there was something in the sky, but I'm not jumping to any conclusions that it was alien. I don't know what they saw, but it's an interesting case.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

We all want that photographic/video or physical evidence that would put it to rest once and for all. Especially this day and age where everyone has a smartphone and you would expect enthusiasts to aggressively get that evidence. There are some videos/photos that seem genuine out there but none are convincing. The video for the Belgian UFO is good, but it just shows three lights in the sky and not a close up up a solid craft. So, not convincing enough. All I know is that if there is another "flap" people better be out there ready to get that evidence.

Some eyewitness accounts are believable to me. I'd like to believe that some are top secret craft, but the descriptions of large craft hovering at low altitudes with no sound and then taking off at high speeds that are virtually impossible. I just don't don't know. I just look at as a case by case basis. What about the UFO over nuclear missile bases? Those seem interesting. The "close encounters" incident with the school children that John Mack investigated and the Westfall(?) incident is another that interest me.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

certainly you are entitled to believe what you wish, but the explanation doesnt match up right from the start


According to the officers the object then came from the South and hovered directly over their patrol car, illuminating the immediate area with an intense light making it 'as bright as day' -they also stated the car's head-lights 'did not make nearly as much light as the object did' and also that it was 'like looking at a welder's torch'.


But either way, whatever you decide to believe, the same decision process would work for determining if its alien. Theres no way to know for certain(Im sure Hume is laughing), but at some point, as you decide a case is solved and not worth thinking about anymore, the same could be said for determining it alien.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

of the 100 UFO sightings you have "explained" away, in how many of those cases did the people who actually witnessed these events agree with your explanation of what they witnessed?

Why? If there is a valid explanation of what something actually was then that is what it probably was. If a belief persists despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that would be a delusion.



Possibly the valid explanation that is offered is insufficient to the individual eyewitness account. For example:

"1967, Russia
Airline pilot reports UFO flying above his plane. Engines stop, and start again only when UFO disappears. Explanation: Secret Soviet nuclear warhead test was fireballing 50 miles overhead. Any effect on engine was pilot-induced."

The pilot might differ with the explanation and that any engine effect was "pilot induced."

Not that I'm familiar with that incident, but just because it was "explained prosaically" doesn't mean that explanation is what actually happened. I don't see any delusion here. The delusion could be those believing the prosaic explanation. I'm also not claiming it was alien spacecraft and I don't know if the pilot did, just that maybe that particular explanation isn't correct.


Thanks for bringing up this class of IFOs, because they pertain directly to my criticism of ufology as represented by Kean's book -- an inability to establish the validity of much [if not all] of its data bases. This report from the MUFON UFO JOURNAL 35 years ago is long but you ought to find that it answers your reasonable question about the case you mentioned.

www.debunker.com...
edit on 17-4-2015 by JimOberg because: typo



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: 111DPKING111....

But either way, whatever you decide to believe, the same decision process would work for determining if its alien. Theres no way to know for certain (Im sure Hume is laughing), but at some point, as you decide a case is solved and not worth thinking about anymore, the same could be said for determining it alien.


You touch on a critical point.

The playing field isn't level. It's not a 'fair fight'.

Claimants of extraordinariness have the burden of proof to establish beyond reasonable doubt that their proposed new model of reality is necessary to overcome the dominating presumption that existing models are correct.

It's not a coin-flip either-or.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

of the 100 UFO sightings you have "explained" away, in how many of those cases did the people who actually witnessed these events agree with your explanation of what they witnessed?

Why? If there is a valid explanation of what something actually was then that is what it probably was. If a belief persists despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that would be a delusion.



Possibly the valid explanation that is offered is insufficient to the individual eyewitness account. For example:

"1967, Russia
Airline pilot reports UFO flying above his plane. Engines stop, and start again only when UFO disappears. Explanation: Secret Soviet nuclear warhead test was fireballing 50 miles overhead. Any effect on engine was pilot-induced."

The pilot might differ with the explanation and that any engine effect was "pilot induced."

Not that I'm familiar with that incident, but just because it was "explained prosaically" doesn't mean that explanation is what actually happened. I don't see any delusion here. The delusion could be those believing the prosaic explanation. I'm also not claiming it was alien spacecraft and I don't know if the pilot did, just that maybe that particular explanation isn't correct.


Thanks for bringing up this class of IFOs, because they pertain directly to my criticism of ufology as represented by Kean's book -- an inability to establish the validity of much [if not all] of its data bases. This report from the MUFON UFO JOURNAL 35 years ago is long but you ought to find that it answers your reasonable question about the case you mentioned.

www.debunker.com...


Thanks for responding and providing the link. I totally agree with your explanation of this incident. I've always felt that any type of UFO that has any type of smoke trail, streamer, fireball, smoke rings etc..even so called "orbs" should easily be screened out.

The Weinstein list of 1305 cases, is actually mentioned once in the book when describing Dominique Weinstein's work. Just to provide statistics of 1305 of mostly pilot sightings that Weinstein deemed unexplained, which I trust you explained at least ten. So, those numbers would have to be reduced. I don't know about the other cases, so I can't comment on them. I understand your point about pilot observations, but I wouldn't think Leslie Kean would fact check all 1305 cases either. Your ten explanations is more of a critique of Weinstein's work more than Kean in my opinion.

The book is not just about pilot observations, it discusses other topics and accounts, some include pilots such as the Tehran incident and some don't. I'm not here to defend her, but I agree that it's fair to say that you might be missing the point of her book as a whole. I say that with all due respect of course.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


originally posted by: NYCUltra
Even for a regular person, if multiple people see a solid craft I pretty much would say they saw one. I just highly doubt a mass hallucination is the explanation when multiple people actually see a solid craft and describe it similarly.


But this is exactly what happened in the Yukon and similar cases, and you still think just because multiple people think they saw a solid object that they actually did? They reported that the solid object blocked out the stars, which quite probably is exactly what it appeared to do.

You have much more research to do my friend in psychology and biology if you ever want to get at the truth.



Thanks, my friend but I don't. Eyewitness accounts in the Yukon incident spanned from two to three hours while a rocket booster debris reentering the atmosphere and burning lasts a matter of minutes. When witnesses are connecting the dots and creating an illusion of a solid object those lights are in some sort of symmetrical formation which causes the witness to perceive a solid object. Space debris disintegrating in the atmosphere is anything but a symmetrical formation that would create any illusion of a solid object. N Why is it that everyone is always hallucinating and nobody is ever a reliable witness. Listen to eyewitness accounts of the Belgian UFO and others, they describe a SOLID object meaning the see the texture of the object, not just merely connecting dots. Also, I see a pattern with debunkers that if someone claimed their car died as many report - its always there imagination!
edit on 18-4-2015 by NYCUltra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
It seems to me that ufos are not allowed to appear within 50 miles of a nuclear test, rocket launch or satellite re entry.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Thanks, my friend but I don't. Eyewitness accounts in the Yukon incident spanned from two to three hours while a rocket booster debris reentering the atmosphere and burning lasts a matter of minutes.
Did anyone say the sighting lasted two to three hours? Or are you just taking the normal human variation in trying to recount the time an event happened as a length of the event?


Also, I see a pattern with debunkers that if someone claimed their car died as many report - its always there imagination!
That's not the case with me and my only quibble with Robert Schaeffer's article on the Yukon case, since he says that the slowing down of the car's tape player was imaginary. Possibly, but it's just as likely a weak battery or other problem with the electrical system. You may not believe this, but I've actually had a car die or had a weak battery or other car electrical system problem when there were no UFOs around. It does happen. If it happens when there's a satellite re-entry, it doesn't mean the satellite re-entry had anything to do with it.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


originally posted by: NYCUltra
Even for a regular person, if multiple people see a solid craft I pretty much would say they saw one. I just highly doubt a mass hallucination is the explanation when multiple people actually see a solid craft and describe it similarly.


But this is exactly what happened in the Yukon and similar cases, and you still think just because multiple people think they saw a solid object that they actually did? They reported that the solid object blocked out the stars, which quite probably is exactly what it appeared to do.

You have much more research to do my friend in psychology and biology if you ever want to get at the truth.



Thanks, my friend but I don't. Eyewitness accounts in the Yukon incident spanned from two to three hours while a rocket booster debris reentering the atmosphere and burning lasts a matter of minutes. When witnesses are connecting the dots and creating an illusion of a solid object those lights are in some sort of symmetrical formation which causes the witness to perceive a solid object. Space debris disintegrating in the atmosphere is anything but a symmetrical formation that would create any illusion of a solid object. ...imagination!


These are all valid observations that are 'common sense' going-in assessments of such stories. They do make any attempts at prosaic explanations difficult to believe. On a lot of issues I felt the same way.

Then I found a detailed report of exactly such a case, from the USSR in 1963, and found witness descriptions of structured objects, of scattered clock times of the event, all of them -- and then found a matching satellite reentry.

Then I found a dozen more just like it -- and tried to listen to what the data, not my 'common sense', was telling me.

Here's my draft report, your comments would be appreciated.

www.jamesoberg.com...



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Thanks, my friend but I don't. Eyewitness accounts in the Yukon incident spanned from two to three hours while a rocket booster debris reentering the atmosphere and burning lasts a matter of minutes.
Did anyone say the sighting lasted two to three hours? Or are you just taking the normal human variation in trying to recount the time an event happened as a length of the event?


Also, I see a pattern with debunkers that if someone claimed their car died as many report - its always there imagination!
That's not the case with me and my only quibble with Robert Schaeffer's article on the Yukon case, since he says that the slowing down of the car's tape player was imaginary. Possibly, but it's just as likely a weak battery or other problem with the electrical system. You may not believe this, but I've actually had a car die or had a weak battery or other car electrical system problem when there were no UFOs around. It does happen. If it happens when there's a satellite re-entry, it doesn't mean the satellite re-entry had anything to do with it.


Timeline

• 7:00 PM - UFO witnessed by 3 Carmack witnesses. Moving initially NNW then changing to NNE.
• 7:45 to 8:15- UFO witnessed in Fox Lake.
• 8:23 PM- UFO in Fox Late witnessed by multiple witnesses moving NNW.
• 8:30 PM- Sighting by two witnesses stopped in the road at Fox Lake, object moving west to east.
• 8:30 PM- UFO seen in Pelly by many witnessed moving in various directions.
• 8:50 PM- UFO seen by witness in Pelly moving various directions.
• *Evening- UFO seen by family in Carmack going NNW.
• *Evening- “FOX6” also saw the UFO, the exact time is unknown.

*Exact time unknown

- There are reports from other towns and other witnesses that still need to be substantiated if possible.
- Total time of sighting appears to be from 7:00-10:00 PM.

Source

So, I'm sure not sure if the rocket reentry would be a definitive explanation. There could be other explanations, I just don't know.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic about the other comment, but of course car batteries die when UFO's are not present. My car battery has died in the past and I don't get out of the car and scream at the sky "Damn UFO!!!"


There a good amount of documented reports of some kind if electromagnetic effects or electronic interference with UFO sightings though. Some examples, someone in the Yukon case claims her digital watch failed, in the Belgian UFO case the police officer claims his car and police radio ran into interference as the object was in a relative close distance to him. I suppose they could be just lying or imagining. Maybe, as you suggest just coincidental car battery/electronic failings. YOu also can't rule out they are actually related to the sightings.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: NYCUltra....


The Weinstein list of 1305 cases, is actually mentioned once in the book when describing Dominique Weinstein's work. Just to provide statistics of 1305 of mostly pilot sightings that Weinstein deemed unexplained, which I trust you explained at least ten. So, those numbers would have to be reduced. I don't know about the other cases, so I can't comment on them. I understand your point about pilot observations, but I wouldn't think Leslie Kean would fact check all 1305 cases either. Your ten explanations is more of a critique of Weinstein's work more than Kean in my opinion.

The book is not just about pilot observations, it discusses other topics and accounts, some include pilots such as the Tehran incident and some don't. I'm not here to defend her, but I agree that it's fair to say that you might be missing the point of her book as a whole. I say that with all due respect of course.


Good points. The significance of Kean's non-rigorous approach to reports just resonated with me because it's a distressing feature of ufology I've noted for decades, a lackadaisical approach to story authenticity of "so what if a few cases are bogus, there are always OTHERS, and we only have to be right ONCE." I once heard Hynek make the admission, "UFO data is like a bundle of sticks, maybe one or two alone can be broken. but not a bundle of them." I was appalled by that analogy then, and forty years later I still am.

Once one admits that some accepted cases [limited only by the amount of time/energy available] do have explanations, and that human limitations will always generate an artificial residue of 'unexplained' stories even absent any extraordinary causes, the key question is whether there is a gap between those two processes where a resistant genuine residue compels the existence of some extraordinary cause[s].

Proponents of this view do NOT get 'the benefit of the doubt', they have the burden of proof to establish the 'true residue' exists. Kean, with the rest of modern ufology, doesn't even show awareness of this responsibility -- it's just 'bundle of sticks' again and again.

Just my opinion, of course.
edit on 18-4-2015 by JimOberg because: typo



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant
It seems to me that ufos are not allowed to appear within 50 miles of a nuclear test, rocket launch or satellite re entry.


Either that or people are incapable of observing both at the same time.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: NYCUltra...
There a good amount of documented reports of some kind if electromagnetic effects or electronic interference with UFO sightings though. Some examples, someone in the Yukon case claims her digital watch failed, in the Belgian UFO case the police officer claims his car and police radio ran into interference as the object was in a relative close distance to him. I suppose they could be just lying or imagining. Maybe, as you suggest just coincidental car battery/electronic failings. YOu also can't rule out they are actually related to the sightings.


Correct about some cases of reported EM effects, Haines had a list that included one I posted a few pages back, do you consider it might only have been a coincidence [I have a theory about what the pilots were looking at].... ?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: NYCUltra....


Timeline

• 7:00 PM - UFO witnessed by 3 Carmack witnesses. Moving initially NNW then changing to NNE.
• 7:45 to 8:15- UFO witnessed in Fox Lake.
• 8:23 PM- UFO in Fox Late witnessed by multiple witnesses moving NNW.
• 8:30 PM- Sighting by two witnesses stopped in the road at Fox Lake, object moving west to east.
• 8:30 PM- UFO seen in Pelly by many witnessed moving in various directions.
• 8:50 PM- UFO seen by witness in Pelly moving various directions.
• *Evening- UFO seen by family in Carmack going NNW.
• *Evening- “FOX6” also saw the UFO, the exact time is unknown.

*Exact time unknown

- There are reports from other towns and other witnesses that still need to be substantiated if possible.
- Total time of sighting appears to be from 7:00-10:00 PM.




Yup, that's what happens with mass sightings, this from my 1963 Kiev case report,

Clock time scatter of witness reports
“in the interval 1830 to 1940, in Kiev mainly1840-1850.. however, a separate observation an hour earlier, and a different one later toward 21:00.”
1 ‘about 19:00’
6/6 about 18:50
7/7 after 7 pm
9/9 18:44
10/10 19:45 – 20:00
11/11 no clock, duration 5-6 minutes
12/12 ‘about 7 pm’
14/14 ‘about 19’
19&20 “about 19:30”
24&25 18:45, “altitude about 300 meters”
26&27 about 18:00, height 130 meters
30&31 18:00 5-10 minutes, passed 80-100 meters overhead
32 About 21:00
33 18:27
35 18:50
35 &36 “19:00 or 19:30”, 1.5 to min, 150-200 meters altitude
42 &43 about 18:46 6 0&
62 18:45
93 18:44
99 19:15



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: NYCUltra
There a good amount of documented reports of some kind if electromagnetic effects or electronic interference with UFO sightings though. Some examples, someone in the Yukon case claims her digital watch failed, in the Belgian UFO case the police officer claims his car and police radio ran into interference as the object was in a relative close distance to him. I suppose they could be just lying or imagining. Maybe, as you suggest just coincidental car battery/electronic failings. YOu also can't rule out they are actually related to the sightings.


Similarly with pilot sightings (instrument failure and engine failure) and abduction events.



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: NYCUltra...
There a good amount of documented reports of some kind if electromagnetic effects or electronic interference with UFO sightings though. Some examples, someone in the Yukon case claims her digital watch failed, in the Belgian UFO case the police officer claims his car and police radio ran into interference as the object was in a relative close distance to him. I suppose they could be just lying or imagining. Maybe, as you suggest just coincidental car battery/electronic failings. YOu also can't rule out they are actually related to the sightings.

Correct about some cases of reported EM effects, Haines had a list that included one I posted a few pages back, do you consider it might only have been a coincidence [I have a theory about what the pilots were looking at].... ?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


When you find these rocket launches that coincide with ufo sightings do you check the direction the ufo was seen in comparison to the direction the rocket launch would have been? In what percentage of cases have you been able to do this (a ball park figure will do)? What were your results?



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

of the 100 UFO sightings you have "explained" away, in how many of those cases did the people who actually witnessed these events agree with your explanation of what they witnessed?

Why? If there is a valid explanation of what something actually was then that is what it probably was. If a belief persists despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that would be a delusion.


That depends on how airtight the explanation was.

scdfa - it was 10 cases not 100



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join