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: 23
22
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
Thank you for proving me right, 95% was a load of bull. I knew that statistic wasn't even close to accurate. So do I have your assurance you will stop quoting it?
It's obvious you didn't read my post carefully, and you probably didn't read the report I cited either.

First, they are two different data sets.

Second, If you don't do much investigation, you're not going to solve as many cases.
From reading the information accompanying both statistics, Hynek claimed to do more research, while the Canadian report admitted that their research was in many cases quite minimal. So it strikes me if more research was done on the Canada cases, they too could reach the similar number of 5.8%, which it very nearly did in 2012. Therefore I still think that a residual of about 5% of cases which are hard to explain would be true even in the Canadian UFO reports if they choose to do more research.

Moreover the Canadian report mentions some skewing of data in the earlier years of their reporting by people who dropped many UFO reports that were identified from their report submissions, which artificially inflated the percent unknowns. So of course if you don't include a lot of the "UFOs turned IFOs" in the report it will alter the statistics. They said they have tried to be more rigorous in applying standardized criteria in more recent years, which is probably as much of a factor in the decline of unknown percentages as anything.

For example here's a UFO report that would have never been explained based on the initial description of the witness. He saw a light in the sky moving toward him, then it started hovering silently. Now if this guy hadn't called back, how would anybody have ever solved this UFO report? There is no known natural phenomenon that can do what he described:




edit on 21-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant .... If this is the level they are working on they may as well be using the 'Swamp Gas' stamp because they are not doing their job with objectivity. I would not trust any military/government report that gives stats. on knowns/unknowns. How could I possibly trust these people? So, I make jokes about them because that's all they deserve. How can we possibly have a serious discussion about this knavery or its results?


I'm sure glad you're not nearly so strict about credibility of pro-UFO sources. We'd run out of things to talk about really quickly.

Let's do our own research. What's your assessment of the draft report I linked to on fireball swarms.

Since it deals with identified sightings, as you agree -- does that mean it is of no interest or value?

Would you rather I never wasted my time on it?



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg



I'm curious about how you rule out Venus -- would that process also do it in the famous Barnaul airport pilots case [2001]?
ufologie.patrickgross.org...


The Ravenna UFO came over the treetops and hovered directly over their heads, illuminating the entire area. Other officers joined in the chase as they saw the object fly by. You probably read of the case under a different name, its well known.

But that aside, if it was known that Venus or other celestial bodies were not out that night, I think the alien explanation would be more accepted from the skeptical world, or maybe not?



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Take it easy, Jim. Don't beat yourself up too much -- it wasn't a waste of time.

I found the report very informative. Easy to read and palatable for the layperson. Keep it up.

Any way I could get you to link me to the 'Yukon' case that seems to be getting a lot of run in this thread? Maybe even your analysis (I got the impression you had put together a draft report debunking [please understand "debunk" and "skeptic" are NOT pejoratives in my lexicon]) of the UFO claim? Please and thank you.

Great thread.
edit on 21-4-2015 by BeefNoMeat because: deletion



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: EnPassant .... If this is the level they are working on they may as well be using the 'Swamp Gas' stamp because they are not doing their job with objectivity. I would not trust any military/government report that gives stats. on knowns/unknowns. How could I possibly trust these people? So, I make jokes about them because that's all they deserve. How can we possibly have a serious discussion about this knavery or its results?

I'm sure glad you're not nearly so strict about credibility of pro-UFO sources. We'd run out of things to talk about really quickly.
Let's do our own research. What's your assessment of the draft report I linked to on fireball swarms.
Since it deals with identified sightings, as you agree -- does that mean it is of no interest or value?
Would you rather I never wasted my time on it?


It is a fine and convincing report but deals with only one type of sighting, the 'group of lights' type. I would have much more respect for it than the Condon report...

At the beginning of the report you say


A significant subset of world UFO reports consist of LARGE quiet slow-moving craft mounted with lights and emitting trails.


'Significant subset' is interesting. I don't know what the actual percentage for LARGE craft is. But large craft reports go back before there were many satellites.

Over the years satellite re-entry would have steadily increased. There would, for example, have been very few in the 60s. So, your report might apply to more sightings today than 30 or 40 years ago. I must admit, you have a good argument here but some (large triangle) reports say the object is very near the ground and slow moving. But I'll give you credit where credit is due.
edit on 21-4-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: EnPassant...

'Significant subset' is interesting. I don't know what the actual percentage for LARGE craft is. But large craft reports go back before there were many satellites.


So you HAVEN'T read my report. Please -- at least let us have some common familiar context to discuss




Over the years satellite re-entry would have steadily increased. There would, for example, have been very few in the 60s. So, your report might apply to more sightings today than 30 or 40 years ago.


Here's a good example of where earthside experience and careless assumptions, applied incautiously, can lead to incorrect deductions. Just the opposite happens to be true, since short-lived spacecraft [mainly Soviet] filled the skies [and fell from them] in the 1960s. Later, satellites had much longer lifetimes and also grew more miniaturized so needed smaller rockets or could ride up in groups, with fewer launches. There were more players fifty years later, and while some low-orbit spent boosters were bigger, others performed deliberate deorbits far from occupied regions.



I must admit, you have a good argument here but some (large triangle) reports say the object is very near the ground and slow moving. But I'll give you credit where credit is due.
I do appreciate that since I've detected a keen and imaginative mind whose products I value, especially when they differ. Don't be a stranger.

But do read the whole report, especially the page where I generalize from documented reentries to other less-well-documented swarms of bright lights, from half a dozen origins.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


All those cases had visual observations involving what are most likely poorly understood natural phenomena, though the radar evidence in the last case didn't correlate with the visible evidence and it probably would have been ignored as a cloud if not for the visual display.


Im kinda with you on the JAL 1628, the initial sighting of the lights was odd in that they couldn't make out the rest of the UFO. However there were 2 sets of lights, each with rows of lights in a rectangular shape. I don't see how it could be completely natural.

I rather prefer a sighting like Ravenna or Madagascar, where a craft of some kind could be made out.

Thanks for the other links, not familiar with those.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
But do read the whole report, especially the page where I generalize from documented reentries to other less-well-documented swarms of bright lights, from half a dozen origins.


Yes, I have read the whole report and it is a salutary lesson for ufologists. Keane should read it, I'm sure she would have the objectivity to see the merit in it. I stand corrected on the frequency of satellite re-entries in the 60s. I imagined they would have been less frequent than today.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

I was talking about how these people, in general, do their work, not specifically Hynek. The Condon report is an example. It was a joke. Many compelling ufo reports were ignored and sent to a higher authority and Condon made up his mind what the conclusion would be even before the study had begun. How could we possibly trust these people or the results they came up with? Nick Pope recently admitted that he was instructed to degrade the subject by using expressions like 'ufo buff' and so on. If this is the level they are working on they may as well be using the 'Swamp Gas' stamp because they are not doing their job with objectivity. I would not trust any military/government report that gives stats. on knowns/unknowns. How could I possibly trust these people? So, I make jokes about them because that's all they deserve. How can we possibly have a serious discussion about this knavery or its results?


I don't think you will find too many people that disagree with you. Personally, I think it is always justified to not trust anyone's work and to ask to see how they came to their conclusions and what makes up their data. The very nature of 'data' is that it is objective. For instance, it is easy to find the flaws in the Condon Report because the data is available for anyone to see for themselves. We should be questioning everything and not be taking anything at face value especially when some piece of information confirms our own beliefs. So you should apply the same standards to your own views and not just the ones you disagree with. This wasn't necessarily intended for you.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

I was talking about how these people, in general, do their work, not specifically Hynek. The Condon report is an example. It was a joke. Many compelling ufo reports were ignored and sent to a higher authority and Condon made up his mind what the conclusion would be even before the study had begun. How could we possibly trust these people or the results they came up with? Nick Pope recently admitted that he was instructed to degrade the subject by using expressions like 'ufo buff' and so on. If this is the level they are working on they may as well be using the 'Swamp Gas' stamp because they are not doing their job with objectivity. I would not trust any military/government report that gives stats. on knowns/unknowns. How could I possibly trust these people? So, I make jokes about them because that's all they deserve. How can we possibly have a serious discussion about this knavery or its results?

I don't think you will find too many people that disagree with you. Personally, I think it is always justified to not trust anyone's work and to ask to see how they came to their conclusions and what makes up their data. The very nature of 'data' is that it is objective. For instance, it is easy to find the flaws in the Condon Report because the data is available for anyone to see for themselves. We should be questioning everything and not be taking anything at face value especially when some piece of information confirms our own beliefs. So you should apply the same standards to your own views and not just the ones you disagree with. This wasn't necessarily intended for you.


True but much of the evidence in ufology is very difficult to check. For example, Timothy Good relates many startling accounts of contacts. Many of these are old and the witnesses are dead and I wonder how accurate they are. I can't check. But one thing I can do is try to look beyond the surface and see if I can apply some kind of 'Meta analysis'.

What I find, time and time again, is that there are similar themes in these reports. I have already mentioned them a few posts ago. I find it hard to see how these themes could have emerged unless they are a real component of a real phenomenon.

Another aspects of this concerns the 'personalities' of these beings. Their evasiveness, their reluctance to offer information unless it is requested, their game playing, and the way they continually go on about electromagnetism driving their craft but never really explaining it. They very often seem to have a kind of aloofness about them and a politeness that seems to be a desire to ingratiate themselves into the witnesses' confidence. There are endless similarities in these otherwise disconnected and obscure reports. When I read them I always get the impression I am reading about specific 'races' of beings because of these similarities and themes.

One of the most persistent themes is the way the craft rise off the ground and wobble for a bit, before shooting off. I have read about this time and time again in obscure reports in T. Good's books and others' reports. The only prosaic way to explain this wobble is to assert the witness read it elsewhere and is faking it for the sake of verisimilitude, but I doubt it. The kicker is, if the wobble is real the craft are real.
edit on 21-4-2015 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant

What I find, time and time again, is that there are similar themes in these reports. I have already mentioned them a few posts ago. I find it hard to see how these themes could have emerged unless they are a real component of a real phenomenon.


I don't mean to pick on you but It is hard for me accept that there really is a "theme" without seeing exactly what information is leading you to believe that.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: EnPassant

What I find, time and time again, is that there are similar themes in these reports. I have already mentioned them a few posts ago. I find it hard to see how these themes could have emerged unless they are a real component of a real phenomenon.

I don't mean to pick on you but It is hard for me accept that there really is a "theme" without seeing exactly what information is leading you to believe that.


I don't know at what level you read about ufology but my main interest is in close up witness reports. You will find them in Good's books, Jenny Randle's and many others, especially OLD ufo books that are from a time when there was less widespread knowledge about these things. But surely you have heard about this wobble on take-off or the ubiquitous 'falling leaf' motion concerning descending craft, which is another theme?



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
If you count them all (3 were from the same member) this is the fourth thread that has an issue with Jim Oberg.

From my perspective, this is because as we are living in a time when having huge amounts of information available is allowing us to make more sense of the "UFO" phenomenon" than ever before and what we are learning (what I am learning, anyway) as the fog clears is that Jim was right on a lot of stuff many years ago, so his articles are becoming increasingly more relevant and useful.

Anyhow, just wanted to add that because I had lost track of where the thread started.




posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: EnPassant


I don't know at what level you read about ufology but my main interest is in close up witness reports.

My most recent book list for ufology included the Kean book, Witness by Hopkins, Science was Wrong by Friedman, Alien Agenda by and the Day after Roswell...That was in the last few years after rekindling my lifelong interest in the subject. Other books were Communion when it first came out, Chariots of the Gods, 12th planet....

Yes, I have heard of the "wobble"



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Im kinda with you on the JAL 1628, the initial sighting of the lights was odd in that they couldn't make out the rest of the UFO. However there were 2 sets of lights, each with rows of lights in a rectangular shape. I don't see how it could be completely natural.
I'm not completely sure, but Id give you 10:1 odds they were looking at airport lights. There were actually 4 groupings of lights, on the left and right they were lights from the left and right side of the runway, and there was a division in the middle, caused by an intersecting runway (so that intersection doesn't have runway lights in either direction). The crew gave the heading they saw the lights and first they lined up with one runway, then the lights disappeared when they weren't lined up with either runway (exactly as would happen with directional airport runway lights), then when they were lined up with another runway the lights re-appeared. The captain's drawings even look like distorted runway lights. So we have a pretty good idea of the source of the lights backed by what is either good evidence or a string of amazing and unlikely coincidences.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Captain's drawing on top, distorted runway lights on the bottom. The other drawings look like distorted airport lights too, and were always seen in the direction of the airport except when they weren't lined up with either runway, then the lights disappeared. When he saw the lights get brighter, that was probably from the lights of a plane taking off or landing.

The unknown natural phenomenon in this case would then be, what kind of atmospheric distortion could make runway lights appear in the air, instead of on the ground where one normally see runway lights? We know about some types of atmospheric distortions that cause some UFO sightings like the "UFOs" below, but we don't really understand how the optical physics could work exactly in the JAL1628 case and there are some difficulties with that.

In the BOAC case an optical channel was proposed, which allows a layer of the atmosphere to create internal reflections analogous to a fiber optic cable (explained in the BOAC link) but it works better in that case's explanation if the source of the sighting was in the optical channel (in the case of JAL1628 the airport lights would not be in such an optical channel initially, so they would have to find their way into the channel and get trapped there somehow which isn't easy to explain). This of course will result in some distortions of the original light source, as does the following image, in fact witnesses saw the UFOs spraying material on the hillside. An optical physicist can tell you exactly what causes that so this photo isn't so mysterious, though it's unique and interesting because it does remind us that things which are on the ground can, in unusual conditions, appear in the air:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 21-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

By their description, I still give another possibility with the first part of the sighting to experimental aircraft.

From co-pilot Tamefuji's transcript:

Beckner - Right, okay. How 'bout the colors of the lights? Is that also...

Tamefuji - Humm, might Captain, maybe for different thing and Mr. Fukuda maybe different thing, but ah, ah I say it was aircraft so I thought but actually I think...

Beckner - Okay

Tamefuji - ... I think salmon, just like Christmas assorted...

Beckner - Okay, okay assorted.

Tamefuji -... and uh, I remember red or orange, hum, and a white landing light, just like a landing light, and ah weak green, blinking.

Beckner - Blinking


The colors and characteristics of the lights blinking is consistent with Earthly navigation lighting.

-------------------------------------

From pilot Terauchi's transcript:

Terauchi - This light was amber and whitish, but when it came to here it was only amber... white light. Why I don't understand. (Japanese) right.

Fufii (interpreter) - First of all it's like amber and whitish color, came closely it seems like all output exhaust positions of the jets, all these Challenger

Gordon - Look like something like after burners.... okay okay, like each one of these was an individual exhaust

? - Yes

Gordon - Okay

Terauchi - So this light is special like Challenger, yes like Challenger took off amount of flame going on, we can't see Challenger by this flame.


He describes afterburner type of exhaust with square ports. The F-117 Stealth bomber (experimental at the time) has rows of small rectangular exhaust ports. The F-22 Raptor has two rectangular exhaust ports and uses undetectable stealth technology. The Harrier V/STOL fighter has four rotating rectangular nozzles for vectored thrust of fan and jet exhaust and also has stealth capabilities.

Combine both the colors and action of blinking lights, the afterburner type of exhaust ports, and experimental aircraft is another possibility. As with your airport light suggestion.

edit on 21-4-2015 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
Combine both the colors and action of blinking lights, the afterburner type of exhaust ports, and experimental aircraft is another possibility. As with your airport light suggestion.
I'm not sure it has to be either/or. If you're suggesting it was just an aircraft they saw without the airport lights then you'd need to explain why their sightings were always in the direction of the airport (Allen Army air field). I suppose a plane could have been circling the airport but even then I'm not sure if that would coincide well enough with their observations. If they were seeing airport lights then they could have seen the exhaust of planes taking off, if there really were planes with afterburners taking off.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
There were two incidents. The first being the sighting of the lights.

Pilot to Air traffic control transcript-


JL1628- Anchorage Center, Japan Air sixteen twenty eight; ah do you have any traffic, ah seven o'clock above?

R/D15- Japan Air sixteen twenty eight; negative.

JL1628- Ah, Japan Air sixteen twenty eight; roger and, ah we insight- ah-two traffic-ah, in front of us one mile, about.

R/D15- Japan Air sixteen twenty eight; Sir if you're able to identify the type of aircraft, ah-and see if you can tell whether it's military or civilian.

JL1628- Ah, Japan Air sixteen twenty eight; we cannot identify ah, the type, ah, but, ah we can see, ah navigation lights and ah, strobe lights.

R/D15- Roger sir, say the color of the strobe and beacon lights?

JL1628- The color is ah, -white and yellow, I think.


This is where the co-pilot later described in the FAA interview, the colored and blinking lights. Also the pilot with the square exhaust ports.

Shortly thereafter, the pilot saw the enormous "mothership" where he made the 360 degree turn. Neither the co-pilot nor navigator witnessed this portion of the sighting. Neither did two aircraft diverted to identify the object.

I'm giving the benefit of the doubt (and a possible explanation for hardcore believers) to the pilot, co-pilot, and navigator all witnessing, as a group, what I believe were aircraft for the first part. It could have been airport lighting as you described as well. Both being prosaic explanations that have to be ruled out completely before moving on. The second portion I believe were ground lights and bleed over excitement by the pilot to seeing a mothership. After all, he had a previous history of seeing motherships.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Ectoplasm8
You should check out the mothership cloud explanation that Arbi proposed. Satellite photos and all of a giant circular cloud lining up with the radar returns. Even the planes radar returns were consistent with clouds, however, the captain explained that away as alien metal. I think its a slam dunk. I am kind of on the fence about the first part, though the runway lights are a good match.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Yeah, I'm familiar with Arbitrageur's cloud explanation. Which fits into this giant mothership sighting, down to posting the satellite image of the actual cloud, if I remember correctly. The pilot Terauchi saw lights and connected the dots to a giant ship the size of two aircraft carriers. Lights that very well could have been ground lights also. Strangely, none of his crew saw this "craft" even with a 360 degree turn.

In the 400+ page FAA report, the spotty radar image was also explained by their experts as a possible split radar return or ghosting of JAL 1628 own signal. Another possibility.

The sighting the crew did see was 10-15 minutes before the mothership. That's noted by the FAA interview after the incident by both the flight engineer and co-pilot. These are the different colored lights (red, green, white), some which were blinking/strobing, and the exhaust ports similar to Challenger that were described by the pilot. Which seems to me at least, to show Earthly aircraft characteristics. Or, it could be Arbitrageur's explanation as well.

Whether it's one or the other, believers still need to take rational explanations on first and exclude them before taking on an alien spacecraft.
edit on 22-4-2015 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join