Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
So the US military has these highly secretive triangle craft, whose supposed existance still hasnt been acknowledged 26 years later, and they just openingly/casually fly them around for months in Belgium for everyone to see? If you watch this video at 4 minutes in, you get some idea of their activity. Doesnt seem military to me.

Those damn aliens must have the same issues as we have...the lowest bidder get the contracts, how else do we explain their ability to be totally invisible on a level that the whole planet can not find them and wham their cloaking device goes out... I guess we have more in common then one would think.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

there's a need by certain "believers" (oops) to try and distance themselves from the stereotypical uneducated country bumpkin and tin foil hat wearing crowd.

Wow, what an offensive view to have of people who have had contact with aliens. Uneducated country bumpkins? Like Betty and Barney Hill? Like Whitley Stieber? And tin foil hats?

You know, these people who have had alien contact endure in silence. They dare not speak up, or they'll have to endure this type of abuse.

You're wrong on two points. First is comparing eyewitness testimony of any crime committed- in a courtroom setting, to eyewitness testimony of aliens or UFOs in general....They're two totally different type of categories that can't be argued together to make your point.

Folks, this is a common debunker fabrication:

Eyewitness testimony is good evidence for everything EXCEPT UFOs and aliens!

Pure, unadulterated bull.

Eyewitness testimony of the giant squid might be the better Earthly comparison. A tale that went on for centuries, only to be proven a fact by physical evidence in the late 1800's.

So the eyewitness testimony WAS reliable. Those eyewitnesses were right all along. Hmmm. That's pretty ironic.

originally posted by: JimOberg
The issue of pilot reliability as witnesses of non-aircraft sightings was already well known in the 1930s, look here:

In a brief 1936 paper, Harvey Nininger poked fun at the meteor observing skills of pilots.

Source URL: adsabs.harvard.edu...

"In my several years of experience in plotting the courses of meteors to determine their point of landing, I have never yet been able to use the report of an air pilot."

Thanks for the anecdote from 1936, Jim. About meteors.

Wow! Timely and relevant.

But I though science frowned upon anecdotal evidence?

Let's see if we got this : pilots flying airplanes in 1936 weren't great at knowing where meteors were going to land. Okay, got it.

Now tell us how that casts any doubt upon a modern pilot's ability to see two flying disc-shaped craft, approximately a mile-wide, flying alongside in broad daylight.

Because that's exactly what a pilot reported while flying over the English channel a few years ago, in 2007.

He was pretty clear about what he saw. As were the crew and passengers who witnessed it as well. And the pilots from another airplane who saw them too. And the radar on which these ships appeared as well. Surely you know of this case, was there any evidence the pilot was a less than reliable witness in this sighting?

a reply to: Jaellma

Thread swarming with known skeptics...Oberg, Gortex, Arbitrageur, etc...LOL

It's called adding something to the thread , you should try it.


a reply to: Scdfa

I KNOW aliens are here, and I assure you, that knowledge comes at a heavy price. You might not like that, but bear this in mind; I would be doing you a great disservice were I to pretend that I did not know aliens are real.

I have no doubt aliens are real but have seen no evidence that they are here , if you know aliens are here what evidence do you have to back that knowledge or do you know because you read it somewhere ?
In the land of blind believers evidence is King.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do the words "anomalous propagation" mean anything?

Hello Arb,
I posted the analysis because it was part of the point that radar data did exist and that the reports weren’t ‘just eyewitness.’ No, I wasn’t commenting on the meaning of the data, just acknowledging its existence. And yes, Arb, I’ve heard of anomalous propagation, but thanks for the sarcasm anyway.

The larger point was that de Brower needn’t be skewered with an appeal to ridicule for saying he doesn’t know what happened. His uncertain position was thrust upon him by circumstances. He’s on the record somewhere explaining that personal friends and colleagues had seen objects they couldn’t identify. In my opinion, that’s not someone deserving contempt; he’s a rational, professional man who’s been unable to confidently explain his experience or the reports of people he respected.

A lot of people in this field (on ATS too) would say that’s exactly why he should be reduced to a buffoon. That’s up to them and it’s not how I choose to see it.

originally posted by: Jaellma
Thread swarming with known skeptics...Oberg, Gortex, Arbitrageur, etc...LOL

I've seen them all get a bad rap around here and it's usually undeserved.

Jim's been right about dozens of reported UFO sightings and who needs any mistaken reports cluttering up the databases? Arb usually makes a good case for his conclusions and relies on good sense and evidence.

Gortex is actually a gem on ATS. He's identified hoax after hoax when they get posted off YT channels on ATS. Who needs bad videos?

Scepticism is the life-blood of this field as without it, it'd calcify into some rigid, motionless structure that accepts everything as aliens.

I'm too often on the fence and vague so I can get bullets from all sides.

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Jaellma
Thread swarming with known skeptics...Oberg, Gortex, Arbitrageur, etc...LOL

I've seen them all get a bad rap around here and it's usually undeserved.

Jim's been right about dozens of reported UFO sightings and who needs any mistaken reports cluttering up the databases? Arb usually makes a good case for his conclusions and relies on good sense and evidence.

Gortex is actually a gem on ATS. He's identified hoax after hoax when they get posted off YT channels on ATS. Who needs bad videos?

Scepticism is the life-blood of this field as without it, it'd calcify into some rigid, motionless structure that accepts everything as aliens.

I'm too often on the fence and vague so I can get bullets from all sides.

There is a common pattern I have seen with all the main stream talking heads, and that is to attempt a conclusion that no non human intelligence is here, coming here, or been here, in order to keep the status quo uneventful and as mundane as possible. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not truly representative of reality.

This is what I see being stated by most of the skeptics, and they all try to be as mundane as possible, but their patterns still show an effort at steering the masses away from seeing what still remains obvious. Not saying skepticism is bad or wrong all the time though.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Yeah I can see how people arrive at that impression. There's often an underlying obviousness that some skeptics know everything's BS and will rearrange reality to claim an explanation. Fir example, years ago we had Menzel creating inverted mirages reflecting Saturn (or some such thing) to explain reports. Anything, anything at all rather than leave it alone or admit to being puzzled. When it's really tough to explain, it's time to discredit the claimant.

Sometimes I wonder if it matters? Does it matter what someone believes as long as their cases/arguments are strong or credible?

It's maybe best to avoid the personality-side of the debates. Read widely and use your own judgement. Always be willing to throw away a famous case and be willing to hold your own when the explanations don't make sense to you.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Can't speak for the others but I don't rule out the possibility of past visitation , as I've stated many times here I came to this site a wide eyed believer convinced that ATS would provide me with the evidence I was searching for but over the years found there was little to no evidence to support my belief in ET visitation , as I said in my reply to Kandinsky on page 3 of this thread "I still want to believe" and I do but now after all this time I need real evidence to support any belief.

I sincerely hope that one day something will be found or someone will break cover with evidence that shows ET visitation is / was a real thing but until that day I remain skeptical but on the fence.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: [post=19228268]NoCorruptionAllowed[/post

It's maybe best to avoid the personality-side of the debates. Read widely and use your own judgement. Always be willing to throw away a famous case and be willing to hold your own when the explanations don't make sense to you.

I agree. For the context of the thread, if a sole pilot's eye witness testimony is unreliable based on the studies evidenced by participants of this thread then let's disregard them and concentrate on the cases where there is multiple independent witness testimony and radar evidence to support it.

I'd be interested in your opinion on these cases Jim Oberg, since you are the subject of the thread. If a sole pilot's eye witness testimony is unreliable based on the statistics, how about their testimony when it is supported by other evidence?

And please don't see this as a personal attack by a "staunch believer", I'm interested In the methodology of how the conclusion is reached, not the conclusion itself.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed


There is a common pattern I have seen with all the main stream talking heads, and that is to attempt a conclusion that no non human intelligence is here, coming here, or been here, in order to keep the status quo uneventful and as mundane as possible. ....

If this is a pattern you have 'seen', as well as what you have 'seen' inside the minds and motives of these people, I suggest you consider the possibility that YOU are a poor observer, and that your inability to even concede that possibility is blinding you to a better understanding of this fascinating cultural phenomenon.

I've tried -- and it seems, failed -- to make clear that determining prosaic explanations for many 'classic' cases of ufology has NO bearing on disproving fundamental issues of alien intelligence visiting our planet -- it would be possible for it to be occurring with NO detectable signs, based on reasonable assumptions of their technology. And I have consistently maintained that a more diligent assessment of these kinds of stories has a lot of valuable lessons to teach. And that it is not skeptics who have brought serious UFO studies into disrepute, it's believers who 'see' things they way you seem to.

Any clearer?

originally posted by: Krusty the Klown...

I'd be interested in your opinion on these cases Jim Oberg, since you are the subject of the thread. If a sole pilot's eye witness testimony is unreliable based on the statistics, how about their testimony when it is supported by other evidence?

Have you read my discussion of the ten Weinberg list cases, and in particular the 1984 Minsk airliner story, which appears to fit your description of 'other' supportive evidence but still, in my view, represents a misperceived rocket launch? What's your take on my claim about them?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You could say the same about those with a total opposite view who declare aliens are here, they know it, but they can't actually offer us definitive proof because it's all been covered up. Should their motives and reasons for saying this be questioned? I think so. It is fairly obvious that some people have chosen to spin fantastic tales and take cash from the gullible.

Others probably started out with serious intentions but when forced to make a living out of their chosen 'career' then have to become more 'entertaining' and play to their audience. So certain awkward facts get dropped and other less than reliable, but more exciting pieces of 'evidence' get prominence. It then eventually becomes accepted lore. Look at the two pillars of Ufology - Roswell and Rendlesham and how those stories have expanded down the decades.

The fact is there are many people out there happy to believe without the willingness to question. That's why so many liken it to a religion. So perhaps it's OK to take their cash for giving them what they want to hear?

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

The only reason it's not been proven a fake to you is because you don't want it to be a fake.
Also it has nothing to do with the discussion in hand.

Oh right, half the posts on here are about the linkage between UFO's and aliens, many questioning what proof there is of aliens, and here we have what is possibly the first "soft" disclosed video of a true alien being, what was I thinking it had any relevance to the thread? I'm sure you would like everyone to ignore this possibly real alien, would that make your arguments easier?

I have to admit, what you said is true, I DON'T want it to be fake, but I also realize that has no bearing on whether or not it is fake, but from the way you have stated it, just because I want it not to be fake, you think it should be fake. You realize there is no logic in that position.

Please show me where this film has been proven to be either CGI or FX. Sure, some points have been brought up, which may or may not have any relevance on the reality of the being in the film.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


However only a fool would think that people have a high misperception rate on the vast majority of UFO cases that turned out to be things like manmade objects or natural phenomena, but that the misperception rate drops to zero on the unidentified cases. So obviously there is likely to be some misperception rate on those 5.8% of cases too, but nobody can say what that is unless the source of the observation is identified.

Of course the UFO cases which turned out to be manmade or natural go under identified, there is no misperception involved there, that goes without saying. I'm just trying to figure out how/why you went from the misperception rate being high (below quote) to zero or "some" (above quote).

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The inference of course is that he and the CUFOS staff identified the other 94.2%, so if you subtract about 1% for hoaxes, this infers a relatively high overall misperception rate. Pilots tended to have the highest rate of misperceptions, engineers and scientists the lowest.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
People say that they see angels all the time, or talk to them, or save them...How is ET anything different than any other faith base belief?
Its all faith and speculations anyway you look at it.

There's more reason to believe the existence of interplanetary organisms opposed to supernatural entities, the two are not synonymous. Anyway, I was waiting on some backup of this claim here:

originally posted by: Xtrozero
All have the same amount of evidence... I take that back I think aliens have less...

Nice dodge.

The Alien has a larger cranium than a human. If real how much more intelligent would it be and what if they turn hostile.

I guess some haven't gotten the memo, "official" disclosure is coming. "Soft" disclosure has been happening for some time with things like the video above, hundreds of "local" MSM stations reporting on UFO's, all of Larry King's UFO shows, Obama's strange statements and visits, Mendvedev's strange statement, and much much more........

Why? Well, even though the internet is infested with disinfo agents, the truth of the ongoing alien interaction with earth is getting tougher to cover-up with the proliferation of smart phones around the world and their ability to capture such images combined with dissemination vehicles such as youtube and liveleak.

When official disclosure occurs or is forced, the public will be naturally be outraged at being lied to and misled for decades. The spin will be that it was for our own good, preventing panic and national security and the usual such excuses for unethical behavior.

Still, the public will demand a measure of justice. Is it the higher ups that are made scapegoats in such situations? No. It is always the lower level bureaucrats or minions. If I was some anonymous disinfo agent on the internet I might not be too worried, though some of those may still face jail time, however if I was a very public figure and known debunker I would be extremely worried of becoming a convenient fall-guy. Just my two cents.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

If disclosure took place of Aliens in our Solar system people would go into terror. Its happened already War of the worlds. People wont handle it.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

but from the way you have stated it, just because I want it not to be fake, you think it should be fake. You realize there is no logic in that position.

There's no logic in that position because it isn't true , It's fake whether you or I want it to be or not , I'd love it to be real but in the years since it was originally released I've read and seen much that shows it is a well executed fake , the information is out there if you choose to look.
I believe Skinny Bob is a movie quality puppet although I don't think it's beyond the ability of a talented amateur model maker to create it.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
Why? Well, even though the internet is infested with disinfo agents, the truth of the ongoing alien interaction with earth is getting tougher to cover-up with the proliferation of smart phones around the world and their ability to capture such images combined with dissemination vehicles such as youtube and liveleak.

Oh it's infested alright, like a carcass full of maggots.
The main reason I could never be a disinfo agent or debunker of this phenomenon is because it constitutes having a narrow view of reality. Should the reality of ET ever surface then all that time spent denying the reality would blow up right in your face. It's best to approach a topic such as this with an open mind, it safeguards the potentiality of one turning out to look parochial.