What [if anything] does the existence of unsolved cases really prove?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Oh no not that same video from the Neil deGrasse thread where he thinks he's a comedian and at the same time basically making a mockery of the ETH.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Scdfa
Read this post quick, I'm sure it will disappear soon...

Not soon enough, it seems.

Harte

Too bad your stars are imaginary. It is very satisfying to receive the approval of others.

Looks like you're over your hissy regarding the Mods, anyway.

Harte

Well, look at that.

10 "imaginary" stars.

Harte

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Scdfa
Read this post quick, I'm sure it will disappear soon...

Not soon enough, it seems.

Harte

How childish.

Sure what you quoted may challenge the decision of a post being worthy of a manners violation but when putting the deleted post in question in perspective, if he felt he was unjustly "moderated" due to misinterpretation, or the definition of a word used in a certain context, he has a right to voice his opinion without seriously violating the T & Cs.

Ahem.
"Not soon enough" to prevent me from responding to it.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

With childish responses like that maybe it should've been deleted so you couldn't have responded.
No matter, you may now proceed to continue to make a spectacle of yourself.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
a reply to: Harte

With childish responses like that maybe it should've been deleted so you couldn't have responded.
No matter, you may now proceed to continue to make a spectacle of yourself.

It's called tit for tat. Maybe you've heard of it.

One childish response ("The Mods are SO unfair!!!") deserves another.

Regarding deletion, it probably will be. So what?

Should I, too, stamp my foot and declare the never ending unfairness of it all?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
a reply to: Harte

With childish responses like that maybe it should've been deleted so you couldn't have responded.
No matter, you may now proceed to continue to make a spectacle of yourself.

It's called tit for tat. Maybe you've heard of it.

Yeah my children partake in it endlessly. Should we be keeping score or something?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

As Neil Tyson said, we put way too much confidence in our own and other peoples' abilities to perceive things accurately when there is plenty of evidence showing that this confidence is misplaced.

IMO, this needs some parameters associated with it to be of any value. How close, how long, lighting, and intelligence of the observer. As it is, too wide a brush.

The Condign Report is solid. The japanese 747 case over Canada is solid. I'm sure there are others, but just these 2 things alone are enough proof that something is out there.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Oh no not that same video from the Neil deGrasse thread where he thinks he's a comedian and at the same time basically making a mockery of the ETH.

Jim Oberg and Neil Tyson have both said aliens might be visiting Earth. I don't know why so many people imply they said otherwise. Neil Tyson said it in that very video you said mocked the ETH. The ETH can certainly be considered as one hypothesis among many other hypotheses. It's the tendency for some people to make a conclusion that the UFO is alien that makes in no longer a hypothesis, and that's what Tyson tries to point out.

Tyson joked about photoshop having a UFO button, but it's actually an iphone app which has that so even that joke had an element of truth to it. I don't have any idea from a picture of a face palm specifically what you think he was mocking. You need to provide a better rebuttal than an unrelated image if you want to criticize what Tyson said effectively and rationally.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
IMO, this needs some parameters associated with it to be of any value. How close, how long, lighting, and intelligence of the observer. As it is, too wide a brush.

That post was in response to a very specific case where witnesses perceived a large object blocking out the stars.

I stated a very specific parameter that such a perception is known to occur with human night vision when in fact there is no object blocking out the stars. I don't know how much more specific you can get than that. The specifics of each case will vary and thus need specific consideration accordingly.

originally posted by: Choice777
The Condign Report is solid. The japanese 747 case over Canada is solid. I'm sure there are others, but just these 2 things alone are enough proof that something is out there.

You probably mean the 747 over Alaska.

The Giant mothership was probably a cloud and the lights were apparently airport lights.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Choice777
The Condign Report is solid. The japanese 747 case over Canada is solid. I'm sure there are others, but just these 2 things alone are enough proof that something is out there.

You probably mean the 747 over Alaska.

The Giant mothership was probably a cloud and the lights were apparently airport lights.

Yeah, probably over Alaska. While you use the word probably for it being a cloud, their sketches surely aren't describing a cloud. And if i remember the ''cloud'' was changing position in a very un-cloud like manner.

---------------
Where the first objects disappeared, Captain Terauchi now noticed a pale band of light that mirrored their altitude, speed and direction.[3] Setting their onboard radar scope to a 25 nautical miles (46 km) range, he confirmed an object in the expected 10 o'clock direction at about 7.5 nmi (13.9 km) distance,[4] and informed ATC of its presence. Anchorage found nothing on their radar, but Elmendorf ROCC, directly in his flight path, reported a "surge primary return" after some minutes.[3]
As the city lights of Fairbanks began to illuminate the object, captain Terauchi believed to perceive the outline of a gigantic spaceship on his port side that was "twice the size of an aircraft carrier". It was however outside first officer Tamefuji's field of view.[11] Terauchi immediately requested a change of course to avoid it.[4] The object however followed him "in formation", or in the same relative position throughout the 45 degree turn, a descent from 35,000 to 31,000 ft, and a 360 degree turn.[12] The short-range radar at Fairbanks airport however failed to register the object.[3]
-----------

Also there were 2 more flights in the same area experiencing similar events.( Flight AS-53 UFO and KC-135 observation both in januarry 1987, the japan flight was 3 months before, nov 1986)..come on, it's like a ufo fest out there in that time frame... You truly think that pilots on 3 separate days would confuse city lights ? it's not like they've never seen city lights, being pilots and stuff ya know ?!?

Look at the first picture here that shows the pilots actual sketch www.abovetopsecret.com...

And all the transcripts en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Jonjonj

The time is right for a truly impartial, all inclusive, well funded review of ALL the evidence that has been gathered worldwide. If the US wants to keep its secrets then ok, no problem, however that is not really an issue, so much evidence has been gathered that there could indeed be an international cooperative with the sole aim, THE SOLE AIM, of proving or disproving, once and for all, this whole thing.

I think whatever lies within, or behind, the UFO phenomena is too reflective to be identified. Whilst many early reports included radar and visual sightings of structured objects, many more have been apparitional. With the contact cases, there have been a panoply of figures whose origins remain mysterious.

We also have evidence that part of our UFO culture has been fabricated by elements within the CIA and military back in the 1950s. For instance, George Adamski has been a central figure in the birth of 'space brothers' and friendly, human-like aliens. The concurrent themes of apocalyptic warnings from benevolent beings has become ingrained in popular culture. Intriguingly, the head of the CIA had cause to protect Adamski from litigation. He (Adamski) was faced with prosecution for making claims that two named and highly-ranked scientists had witnessed and photographed the spaceship. No less a person than Allen Dulles warned that he would seek an injunction on a prosecution. The two scientists worked for the Navy with one of them specialising in media (Dr J.P Maxfield).

Like Lear and Lazar, Adamski was taken to the desert by these men where, by sheer luck, they were able to watch a 'UFO' make a timely fly-over.

There's a possibility that Adamski's beliefs were manufactured and pressed upon him by the activities of these men working out of the Navy Electronics Lab at Point Loma. What was their motive? Similarly, another contactee, Orfeo Angelucci , was approached by two men whilst uniformed officers looked on in a roadside diner. He was given something to drink that sounds very much like lysergic acid and watched a beautiful woman dancing inside his glass - tripping. Another Contactee, Howard Menger, once claimed that his stories were a deception on behalf of the military.

It appears that the CIA-backed Robertson Panel was wilfully debunking the UFO reports whilst other elements were fanning the flames of public belief.

Much later on, Vallee and Hynek acquired the 'Pentacle memo (link 1 and link 2)' that was marked top secret and detailed plans to orchestrate a UFO flap as an expensive military exercise. Whilst not being a smoking gun exactly, it points towards the possibility that what we think were genuine flaps might not all have been. Notice I'm not saying all of them...maybe some of them. I'm not particularly in-sync with Vallee's conclusions of the Pentacle memo; it can be interpreted several ways.

If we combine these circumstances, we have powerful memes and beliefs being validated and encouraged from behind the scenes by certain people within the military and CIA.

The reason I raise these points is to question how reliable our evidence is? I don't dispute that people have witnessed structured objects or lights executing intelligent, high-speed manoeuvres. I find that I'm wondering which cases might have occurred and which ones manufactured? If the two scientists associating with Adamski were willing to orchestrate sightings for him, would others be willing to file fraudulent reports? The Rogue River sighting of 1949 (Project Grudge report) has long been a favourite report of mine, but was it injected or was it a real sighting?

As far as I can tell, there is something else going on beyond a simple extraterrestrial hypothesis. I know that there are real sightings because I've had one. Nevertheless, we can't measure the respective influences of Intel, military, delusions, illusions and hoaxers in the databases of sightings reports.

(I should probably add that, no, I'm not saying every sighting report has been manufactured by the military or the CIA. Oh, and no, I'm not saying they are all fantasies either)

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
a reply to: Harte

With childish responses like that maybe it should've been deleted so you couldn't have responded.
No matter, you may now proceed to continue to make a spectacle of yourself.

It's called tit for tat. Maybe you've heard of it.

Yeah my children partake in it endlessly. Should we be keeping score or something?

Do your children often chime in with their opinions of the maturity level of what other people say?

And, sure. Keep score if you want to. Let me know when we're near the end of the contest so I can run it up.

Harte

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That post was in response to a very specific case where witnesses perceived a large object blocking out the stars.

I stated a very specific parameter that such a perception is known to occur with human night vision when in fact there is no object blocking out the stars. I don't know how much more specific you can get than that. The specifics of each case will vary and thus need specific consideration accordingly.

My mistake, I think Jonjon misunderstood your intent as well. Perhaps we are in agreement, do you feel Westall object is well established or the triangle craft witnessed by 2 sets of officers in Eupen during the Belgium flap?

originally posted by: Choice777
Look at the first picture here that shows the pilots actual sketch www.abovetopsecret.com...

May I suggest that instead of looking at the first picture, you read that thread perhaps starting with the first post at the top of page 7, to the end. Any questions, please post there as I don't want to hijack this thread with that topic when it already has its own thread.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
My mistake, I think Jonjon misunderstood your intent as well. Perhaps we are in agreement, do you feel Westall object is well established or the triangle craft witnessed by 2 sets of officers in Eupen during the Belgium flap?

I don't feel a compelling need to explain every sighting, I only offer the explanation for JAL1628 as I found some interesting explanations when I researched it.

I think Westall is truly a UFO meaning unidentified. There are some interesting complications in that case, like some witnesses reporting five cessnas, and investigators have been unable to confirm even the five Cessnas, so one ends up wondering why this should be difficult. In most places Cessnas must be registered and they must file a flight plan, as they wouldn't be exempt from that like some ultralight craft might be. Some have suggested a military exercise might have been involved but I can't really say I've seen evidence to support that.

Regarding the Belgian UFO wave, there were lots of sightings in that flap and some details like these were reported:

Triangular UFOs over Belgium (1989-1991), a short analysis

Description of one of the sightings : The two gendarmes, von Montigny and Nicoll, first notice a bright light and move in closer, then they see the object hovering (stationary) at about 120 meters above the ground. They describe it as a large platform with three enormous circular (conical) beams shining down on the meadows below the craft.

Both gendarmes are amazed at the absence of any sound. There is a little daylight left in the sky and they are also able to observe the triangular shape of the craft as well as bottom of the craft's smoothness (evenness).

The 3 white beams have a diameter of over one meter, and in the middle of the triangle is a red flashing light, flashing on and off about twice per second. They estimate the size of the object at about 30 to 35 meters at the base, 25 meters long, and about two meters high.

Witness testimony about size, distance and speed of unidentified flying objects is extremely unreliable so I think it's best to basically discard almost completely the size estimates like "25 meters long" as unreliable. Red flashing light is often on aircraft and if they are distant I can't rule out some kind of illusion of a triangle object blocking out the stars when there was no such object. I'm not calling them liars nor suggesting hallucination as we believe such perceptions could fall within the range of "normal". I'm more familiar with the Phoenix lights case where the evidence strongly suggests there was no large object in the sky, but it was a "connect the dots" and "stars being blocked out" perception we've seen in satellite re-entry cases, though in that case it was apparently some distant airplanes that they couldn't hear forming the illusion. I don't know enough specifics about every Belgium report but there are some similarities.

This craft has been reported with a size as large as a football field, so you can get some idea why I don't trust size estimates of unknown objects, and you probably shouldn't either:

Linn Murphy UFO

a reply to: Kandinsky

We also have evidence that part of our UFO culture has been fabricated by elements within the CIA and military back in the 1950s.

While truly interesting, I dont see it as a deal breaker in all cases. If multiple witnesses observe a craft levitate up like the westall case, whatever the govt may be doing is irrelevant.

Perhaps it could be used to explain something like the Hudson Valley flap, looks like you have researched it more than me. The govt could be perpetrating a hoax here with a large blimp, but if it can be positively confirmed this thing took off at high speeds(I see one or two people claim this, but not confident of it myself based on what I have read), out that theory goes. As long as we limit the cases to ones where we dont have the technology to pull it off, it doesnt really matter.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

As long as we limit the cases to ones where we dont have the technology to pull it off, it doesnt really matter.

As long as all there are is eyewitness reports, it doesn't really matter.
Human perception and memory are not of much use when it comes to analysis.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't feel a compelling need to explain every sighting

I was just trying to get a feel for how you applied Neil Tyson's comments to other cases where I dont think it comes into play.

It sounds like you agree, the kids saw they object they claim as they were just a few meters away during the daytime?
Im not sure why the hesitation to claim it wasnt us unless you believe we had anti-grav, but thats another discussion.

We are thinking of the same report concerning the Belgium incident, the officers you mention give their first hand account of it starting in at 2:40 in the following videos 1 , 2
The interesting part is the first 2 officers you mention observe this thing for over 30 minutes, it has 2 red lights coming down to the ground and some kind of drone device it shoots out ( excellent height point of reference). The time they had to observe it, the red beams from the craft to the ground, and the drone allow us to negate the bad witness possibility, imo.

The other set of officers(2nd video) at La Calamine during the same night have the craft fly directly over head. They also see the drone shoot out from the belly and return (reminds me of the Tehran 76 ufo).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 111DPKING111

As long as we limit the cases to ones where we dont have the technology to pull it off, it doesnt really matter.

As long as all there are is eyewitness reports, it doesn't really matter.
Human perception and memory are not of much use when it comes to analysis.

You have a schoolyard full of kids see this during daylight hours. An object lifted up into the air, right in front of their faces, how much analysis do you need for that? Were not talking about the inner workings of the thing, just did it happen. You can check it out yourself, the best part starts in at 9:47 - Westall

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


Jim Oberg and Neil Tyson have both said aliens might be visiting Earth. I don't know why so many people imply they said otherwise. Neil Tyson said it in that very video you said mocked the ETH. The ETH can certainly be considered as one hypothesis among many other hypotheses. It's the tendency for some people to make a conclusion that the UFO is alien that makes in no longer a hypothesis, and that's what Tyson tries to point out.

Tyson joked about photoshop having a UFO button, but it's actually an iphone app which has that so even that joke had an element of truth to it. I don't have any idea from a picture of a face palm specifically what you think he was mocking. You need to provide a better rebuttal than an unrelated image if you want to criticize what Tyson said effectively and rationally.

No the face palm was adequate.
I pointed out the flaws in his wannabe comical rhetoric in the other thread.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Starting at the 6:30 mark of the video you posted, Mr. Tyson borders on absurdity with his comments in relation to producing verifiable evidence.

He's actually suggesting stealing something from a ship after being abducted. At that point, with an abductee's fate already undetermined, who in their right mind is going to potentially risk their life for that? The last thing going through an abductees mind would be generating evidence for a skeptic. Moreover, what makes him think those conditions would make a sample of evidence even assessable. On Earth we have to pass through metal detectors and security when entering and exiting facilities. What makes Tyson think that alien protocol would be any different? Especially considering the fact that these beings obviously want to remain covert in their actions. I find that part of the video you posted a complete joke.

He's also asking why haven't they landed in a public place like "Times Square", but instead choose to land in "the farmers backyard" with no consideration that an alien species may want to remain covert and undetected. Not to mention he implies that these aliens may be intellectually deficient due to their craft malfunctioning and crashing as a result of unsuspected interference in relation to Earth radar in reference to the Roswell case. He just glosses over these issues in a comical fashion with no in depth analysis and it comes off as facetious. All of this is very insulting to the serious researcher, and those knowledgeable of the phenomenon.