Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

originally posted by: JimOberg

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...

Thanks, I read your draft report and it certainly seems plausible how a rocket or satellite reentry can be seen as a huge mothership to some. These types are not the most convincing sightings in my opinion. It' s just that, to me at least, they look like a mess of "fireballs" just moving in a linear fashion and burning out quite quickly. Some accounts in the Yukon incident claiming that it was stationary solid object and some claim it was above them and moved away. So, I don't what to make of those accounts and also the timespan. It could be a problem with the reporting of the event, I just don't know. Either way, they are truly spectacular sights to witness. I found some videos just to get an idea what they could possibly have seen:

Satellite reentry
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Rocket Booster Reentry
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

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...

Of course some incidents could be a coincidence and you also cannot rule out whatever "object" could be the source of the interference as well. I guess it would all have to be a case by case basis and looked at the details of each event. One can't just say it all is a coincidence just as it can't be concluded that the UFO is the cause. However, it's not a secret that both events coincide in many reports, so that's another facet of sightings that leads to more questions and makes it more interesting to me at least.

a reply to: NYCUltra

I agree that the fireball swarm explanation defies 'common sense'. All I can say in its defense is that when you follow the evidence of multiple consistent effects across decades, continents, witness characteristics -- the same features occur.

Maybe 'follow the evidence' is too wishy-washy.

Go the direction the evidence is pushing you, willingly or not.

Isn't it past time to abandon preconceptions about how witnesses OUGHT TO respond to various startling stimuli, and open our eyes to how they actually DO respond?

The satellite reentries offer a unique, priceless calibration experiment because they -- unlike other potential sources of light-swarms -- are so well documented in time, space, and motion.

We know what the witnesses WERE looking at, and we know how they reported it.

Now we have to grapple with the implications of this.

originally posted by: NYCUltra....
Of course some incidents could be a coincidence and you also cannot rule out whatever "object" could be the source of the interference as well. I guess it would all have to be a case by case basis and looked at the details of each event. One can't just say it all is a coincidence just as it can't be concluded that the UFO is the cause. However, it's not a secret that both events coincide in many reports, so that's another facet of sightings that leads to more questions and makes it more interesting to me at least.

In the case I cited, the jets were flying along the northern Manchurian at the time of a medium-class space booster launch out of Baykonur, whose ascent track they were flying under, at a time of day when the engine plumes were backlit by the sun. Haines and his team never bothered to check. Another NARCAP report of 'UFO EMI effects' in Japan occurred while the crew was watching a Lambda sounding rocket out near their horizon; other EMI reports associated with missile/space events are on record.

It doesn't have to be a raw coincidence -- when startled by a bizarre apparition it's instinctive for a pilot to scan his instruments for unusual features, that otherwise he might never have paid attention to.

originally posted by: JimOberg

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.

I understand and respect your opinion and I'm not trying to change it (not that you ever would). I don't think that what the book intent was, at least to me after I read it. She did focus on specific cases in the book and readily admitted that the overwhelming majority of sightings are explained. I get what Hynek is saying and I agree. There are just so many reports of UFO's out there and while most are easily explained and discarded, there will be some that just aren't so easily. That's just how I see it. Whether one believes it's alien or earthly is up to the individual. The burden of proof is on the side of ET proponents and it's such an extraordinary thing to prove. All they have is a limited amount of events and data, some of which can be quite compelling. Maybe not to the debunker, but I view myself as a skeptic and that's how I feel. I'm more of I'll believe it when I see it type, but all I have for now is to learn about some of those more compelling cases.

Well, it's a beautiful day out there and I'm going to bring my kids to the park before they go crazy in here. It was great discussing this with you and thanks for responding to my posts. I will check back later, but before I go I do have a question for you that is important to me and maybe some others:

I know that you have probably hundreds of cases that you explained and make sure we know about them. What are the cases that you can't explain or cases that you actually do find compelling?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

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 ca

Yes, my apologies, I should have realised that maintaining the status quo as regards investigation is the only way to go.


I was simply saying that for some reason no actual investigation that has been taken seriously has taken place (if one ignores of course the one's that have taken place outside the USA), and now it would be propitious for such an investigation, given the technology available, as well as the will.

a reply to: NYCUltra

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.

I don't think so. I think that random dots will be perceived as symmetrical though. Watch this video. Swarm of Lights Appear Over Argentina and Chile And Is Filmed From Six Cameras.


Its not so much the symmetry or the random formation, its that they are moving together that causes the illusion.

a reply to: JimOberg

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.

The apathetic public at large cant even elect people to slow down, never mind start correcting our out of control debt. The UFO topic will never be given little more than a moment of thought without clear 1080P video of it, although several recent Presidents have claimed to have looked into it. From that standpoint, certainly the skeptical view is winning, even if it is due to apathy.

For those researching/trying to find out the truth, i doubt the issue of fairness ever comes into question. I could see how it would certainly be helpful to have a sticky thread of cases you and others consider solved to the point of not thinking about them anymore. That would serve as a guide or warning so those researching would know the pitfalls of accepting a case too quickly. As it would also be helpful if there was some kind of ranking system next to all the UFOs sightings in JKROGS stickied thread.

But I dont think it makes sense to say, well all cases should remain forever unexplained because you might be wrong. As new evidence could surface explaining a stong UFO case, the same could be said for a solved case, its simply the nature of the beast. Some might consider the Westall case solved, then the confiscated pictures surface showing a UFO instead of weather balloon...

The evidence has been presented here on ATS but it is ignored. Then five posts later "where is the evidence" so it is presented again and ignored again.

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: JimOberg

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...

Thanks, I read your draft report and it certainly seems plausible how a rocket or satellite reentry can be seen as a huge mothership to some. These types are not the most convincing sightings in my opinion. It' s just that, to me at least, they look like a mess of "fireballs" just moving in a linear fashion and burning out quite quickly. Some accounts in the Yukon incident claiming that it was stationary solid object and some claim it was above them and moved away. So, I don't what to make of those accounts and also the timespan. It could be a problem with the reporting of the event, I just don't know. Either way, they are truly spectacular sights to witness. I found some videos just to get an idea what they could possibly have seen:

Satellite reentry
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Rocket Booster Reentry
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

"Scattered" clock times Jim? How scattered were they? Satellite re entry lasts only minutes. What was the time period of this scattering? Minutes? Hours?

originally posted by: EnPassant
The evidence has been presented here on ATS but it is ignored. Then five posts later "where is the evidence" so it is presented again and ignored again.

The complaints I've gotten are just the opposite. Folks whine that we SHOULDN'T look too closely at famous cases for fear of finding aspects that cast doubt on them.

I exaggerate. But only a little.

Case in point -- the "NO INVESTIGATION NEEDED" mantra I've often run into regarding astronaut Gordon Cooper's stories. Sigh.

Of COURSE we should continue to look closely at intriguing cases, since experience has shown that there ARE interesting activities, processes, and phenomena behind at least some of them. It's worth the effort to dig these out.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: JimOberg

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...

Thanks, I read your draft report and it certainly seems plausible how a rocket or satellite reentry can be seen as a huge mothership to some. These types are not the most convincing sightings in my opinion. It' s just that, to me at least, they look like a mess of "fireballs" just moving in a linear fashion and burning out quite quickly. Some accounts in the Yukon incident claiming that it was stationary solid object and some claim it was above them and moved away. So, I don't what to make of those accounts and also the timespan. It could be a problem with the reporting of the event, I just don't know. Either way, they are truly spectacular sights to witness. I found some videos just to get an idea what they could possibly have seen:

Satellite reentry
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Rocket Booster Reentry
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

"Scattered" clock times Jim? How scattered were they? Satellite re entry lasts only minutes. What was the time period of this scattering? Minutes? Hours?

Exactly En Passant. Another "prosaic explanation" from Jim Oberg that requires contorting the witness reports from multiple witnesses to somehow be plausible.

The unrelated, independent witness statements are very specific about the time of their sightings, and those sightings take place for over two hours. At least two hours.

On this evidence alone, Jim Oberg's theory is false. It has simply failed to meet the minimum evidentiary standard to even be considered as an alternative hypothesis.

Will Jim come back with the charge that the witnesses were wrong? That they can't tell time?And none of them really knew what time it was?

You're theory is supposed to fit the evidence. Not change the evidence to fit your theory.

I thought they taught you that in science.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant
The evidence has been presented here on ATS but it is ignored. Then five posts later "where is the evidence" so it is presented again and ignored again.

The complaints I've gotten are just the opposite. Folks whine that we SHOULDN'T look too closely at famous cases for fear of finding aspects that cast doubt on them.

I exaggerate. But only a little.

Case in point -- the "NO INVESTIGATION NEEDED" mantra I've often run into regarding astronaut Gordon Cooper's stories. Sigh.

Of COURSE we should continue to look closely at intriguing cases, since experience has shown that there ARE interesting activities, processes, and phenomena behind at least some of them. It's worth the effort to dig these out.

Still trashing the good name of a heroic astronaut?

Are you going to attack him again on his financial difficulties, like you've done on numerous occasions? Dragging him through the mud because you don't like what he has to say about UFOs and aliens?

And I love the insulting, dismissive way you refer to Gordon Cooper's address to the United Nations regarding aliens as, Gordon Cooper's "stories". Stories. Sigh. It even makes you sigh.

Stories? As if he was spinning yarns for a grandchild on his knee, rather than addressing the assembled leaders of the world. I find that insulting to the legacy of a great American hero. Sigh.

Is that the scientific method at work, too?

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant
The evidence has been presented here on ATS but it is ignored. Then five posts later "where is the evidence" so it is presented again and ignored again.

The complaints I've gotten are just the opposite. Folks whine that we SHOULDN'T look too closely at famous cases for fear of finding aspects that cast doubt on them.

I exaggerate. But only a little.

Case in point -- the "NO INVESTIGATION NEEDED" mantra I've often run into regarding astronaut Gordon Cooper's stories. Sigh.

Of COURSE we should continue to look closely at intriguing cases, since experience has shown that there ARE interesting activities, processes, and phenomena behind at least some of them. It's worth the effort to dig these out.

Still trashing the good name of a heroic astronaut?

Are you going to attack him again on his financial difficulties, like you've done on numerous occasions? Dragging him through the mud because you don't like what he has to say about UFOs and aliens?

And I love the insulting, dismissive way you refer to Gordon Cooper's address to the United Nations regarding aliens as, Gordon Cooper's "stories". Stories. Sigh. It even makes you sigh.



Is that the scientific method at work, too?

Where is your scientific method?

Aliens are here because I know they are here?

In every thread you denigrate anybody producing rational evidence, yet give credence to many debunked cases, and when called on it you either make personal attacks, or call the website 'denialist'.

Please, where is your scientific method?

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: JimOberg

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...

Thanks, I read your draft report and it certainly seems plausible how a rocket or satellite reentry can be seen as a huge mothership to some. These types are not the most convincing sightings in my opinion. It' s just that, to me at least, they look like a mess of "fireballs" just moving in a linear fashion and burning out quite quickly. Some accounts in the Yukon incident claiming that it was stationary solid object and some claim it was above them and moved away. So, I don't what to make of those accounts and also the timespan. It could be a problem with the reporting of the event, I just don't know. Either way, they are truly spectacular sights to witness. I found some videos just to get an idea what they could possibly have seen:

Satellite reentry
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Rocket Booster Reentry
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

"Scattered" clock times Jim? How scattered were they? Satellite re entry lasts only minutes. What was the time period of this scattering? Minutes? Hours?

Didn't you see the info here?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: NYCUltra

originally posted by: JimOberg

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...

Thanks, I read your draft report and it certainly seems plausible how a rocket or satellite reentry can be seen as a huge mothership to some. These types are not the most convincing sightings in my opinion. It' s just that, to me at least, they look like a mess of "fireballs" just moving in a linear fashion and burning out quite quickly. Some accounts in the Yukon incident claiming that it was stationary solid object and some claim it was above them and moved away. So, I don't what to make of those accounts and also the timespan. It could be a problem with the reporting of the event, I just don't know. Either way, they are truly spectacular sights to witness. I found some videos just to get an idea what they could possibly have seen:

Satellite reentry
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Rocket Booster Reentry
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

"Scattered" clock times Jim? How scattered were they? Satellite re entry lasts only minutes. What was the time period of this scattering? Minutes? Hours?

Didn't you see the info here?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for this but this is a long duration so it could not have been a rocket launch or re entry, unless I'm missing your point?

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant
The evidence has been presented here on ATS but it is ignored. Then five posts later "where is the evidence" so it is presented again and ignored again.

The complaints I've gotten are just the opposite. Folks whine that we SHOULDN'T look too closely at famous cases for fear of finding aspects that cast doubt on them.

I exaggerate. But only a little.

Case in point -- the "NO INVESTIGATION NEEDED" mantra I've often run into regarding astronaut Gordon Cooper's stories. Sigh.

Of COURSE we should continue to look closely at intriguing cases, since experience has shown that there ARE interesting activities, processes, and phenomena behind at least some of them. It's worth the effort to dig these out.

Still trashing the good name of a heroic astronaut?

Are you going to attack him again on his financial difficulties, like you've done on numerous occasions? Dragging him through the mud because you don't like what he has to say about UFOs and aliens?

And I love the insulting, dismissive way you refer to Gordon Cooper's address to the United Nations regarding aliens as, Gordon Cooper's "stories". Stories. Sigh. It even makes you sigh.



Is that the scientific method at work, too?

Where is your scientific method?

Aliens are here because I know they are here?

In every thread you denigrate anybody producing rational evidence, yet give credence to many debunked cases, and when called on it you either make personal attacks, or call the website 'denialist'.

Please, where is your scientific method?

I just asked That question of Jim Oberg. You parroted it back to me, but I still expect an answer. If he needs you to speak for him he's in more trouble than I thought.

And he's not producing "rational evidence" by attacking a dead astronaut. Nor by trying to twist eyewitness reports that don't fit his pet theory.

So where is the scientific method?

And what UFO case that has been proven to be a conventional occurrence, where I say otherwise? Please be specific with such charges.

And finally, no, I never said aliens are here because I know they're here. You're being sloppy with your accusations.

a reply to: EnPassant

unless I'm missing your point?

I would go with that.

originally posted by: EnPassant...

Thanks for this but this is a long duration so it could not have been a rocket launch or re entry, unless I'm missing your point?

My bad, I carelessly assumed that when you commented on my argument in an article I'd linked to, you had actually gone to the link and read it.

Sorry for the snarkiness.

The link is the report on the fifty year old Kiev USSR case that I believe has an amazing insight to teach us all about a particular category of witness misinterpretation.

These times are for a satellite reentry of the same nature as the Yukon case.

The full Russian report is also on my home page AND on a few Russian websites so you can catalog the time scatter yourself from the raw data. Please do so to confirm my list.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant
The evidence has been presented here on ATS but it is ignored. Then five posts later "where is the evidence" so it is presented again and ignored again.

The complaints I've gotten are just the opposite. Folks whine that we SHOULDN'T look too closely at famous cases for fear of finding aspects that cast doubt on them.

I exaggerate. But only a little.

Case in point -- the "NO INVESTIGATION NEEDED" mantra I've often run into regarding astronaut Gordon Cooper's stories. Sigh.

Of COURSE we should continue to look closely at intriguing cases, since experience has shown that there ARE interesting activities, processes, and phenomena behind at least some of them. It's worth the effort to dig these out.

Still trashing the good name of a heroic astronaut?

Are you going to attack him again on his financial difficulties, like you've done on numerous occasions? Dragging him through the mud because you don't like what he has to say about UFOs and aliens?

And I love the insulting, dismissive way you refer to Gordon Cooper's address to the United Nations regarding aliens as, Gordon Cooper's "stories". Stories. Sigh. It even makes you sigh.



Is that the scientific method at work, too?

Where is your scientific method?

Aliens are here because I know they are here?

In every thread you denigrate anybody producing rational evidence, yet give credence to many debunked cases, and when called on it you either make personal attacks, or call the website 'denialist'.

Please, where is your scientific method?

And finally, no, I never said aliens are here because I know they're here. You're being sloppy with your accusations.

You see, folks, posters like this think the issue of alien contact is decided in two camps;

1. People who BELIEVE aliens are here.

2. People who DONT BELIEVE aliens are here.

Not quite.

There is a third category.

3. People who KNOW aliens are here.

I am in the third category, not by choice, but by the circumstances of my life. I know for a fact that aliens are here. I've never had the luxury of speculation, of having to guess about aliens.

There is a gap in logic, in reasoning that occurs time and again with those who would deny that alien contact is a reality.

These people are so invested in denying alien contact and alien abduction, that they are simply unable to bring themselves to admit this simple fact:

That if alien beings are here, then the people who encounter them would be in a position to KNOW aliens are here.

I know aliens are here because of first-hand contact with aliens, starting in 1966

Well, Jade, I "discovered" aliens directly for the first time in 1966. The Earth is really being "visited", and the evidence you insult so thoroughly is apparently neither the weakest, nor the lowest, but the most accurate.

Now, I don't know if you have read enough of my posts to know this about me, but I I had alien contact. As a result, there are certain aspects of alien contact that I understand to be factual, and no amount of clever debunking can alter those facts.