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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Great Interview with Dr Richard Haines.

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
That's a fair point but even if just one of the cases that Haines has covered have elements that are unexplainable (and with the number of cases he has covered, I would say there is), then surely it does prove there are things going on the sky which have no rational explanation :up


Thanks, Z - I think you've got the problem absolutely upside-down. "Unexplainable elements" will always naturally occur in any report collection even IF based entirely on prosaic stimuli. The time-tested classic human perceptual/interpretive/mnemonic algorithms guaranty this. Space/missile event cases [a subet of all cases] demonstrate this clearly.

The issue is -- if SOME prosaic-caused reports are nevertheless passed by the filter [and again -- I can prove they have been], how is there any guaranty that OTHERS have not passed, and reasonably, how MANY others could be tolerated before the data base becomes toxic?
edit on 25-4-2013 by JimOberg because: typos




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
Can you go into specifics about your concerns and describe the nature of (and list the number of) the cases you're talking about?


It was the entire thrust of my 'reply to Kean' review on MSNBC's science page a few years back -- but as best I can recall, there were no responses to the argument, just attacks on my motives and intelligence. Let me get the links.

add links:

Here's the Kean review:
www.nbcnews.com...

Pilot report with EM/health effects caused by missile launch:
www.jamesoberg.com...

Other pilot misperceptions:
www.zipworld.com.au...

EM effects of fireballs:
www.astronomy.com...


edit on 25-4-2013 by JimOberg because:



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
That's a fair point but even if just one of the cases that Haines has covered have elements that are unexplainable (and with the number of cases he has covered, I would say there is), then surely it does prove there are things going on the sky which have no rational explanation :up


Thanks, Z - I think you've got the problem absolutely upside-down. "Unexplainable elements" will always naturally occur in any report collection even IF based entirely on prosaic stimuli. The time-tested classic human perceptual/interpretive/mnemonic algorithms guaranty this. Space/missile event cases [a subet of all cases] demonstrate this clearly.

The issue is -- if SOME prosaic-caused reports are nevertheless passed by the filter [and again -- I can prove they have been], how is there any guaranty that OTHERS have not passed, and reasonably, how MANY others could be tolerated before the data base becomes toxic?
edit on 25-4-2013 by JimOberg because: typos


Hey, if you're dead set against believing in the possibility that some of the reports are not of terrestrial origin, then it's up to you to prove it, it seems like you're trying to say if some are prosaic then ALL must be, which imo, just isn't the case.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Hey, if you're dead set against believing in the possibility that some of the reports are not of terrestrial origin, then it's up to you to prove it, it seems like you're trying to say if some are prosaic then ALL must be, which imo, just isn't the case.


By no means. There is no 'must' -- there is only a 'could be'

It is the burden of the claimant of extraordinariness, to show the stories can NOT be caused by prosaic stimuli. And when they include cases with that claim, that fail the reality check, they diminish the likelihood of their hypothesis.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: 1deepstar
Hi All,
Let me address this list without an alias. I am Ted Roe, Executive Director of NARCAP.org. Dr. Haines and I founded this org ten years ago.

Let me first respectfully address Mr. Oberg's contentions:

Neither NARCAP nor Dr. Haines feel that pilots are any better witnesses than anyone else. What we do contend is that we can apply consistent methodology to investigations. We have the potential for radar data and other data that isn't usually available to the majority of UAP reports. So we must be, actually, in agreement.

Further, the Null Hypothesis idea is not consistent, at all, with our data and with that of the official investigations into UAP. Work by EMBLA and www.itacomm.net , www.hessdalenproject.org, Massimo Teodorani, Renzo Cabassi and others has adequately demonstrated that there are poorly documented phenomena with the attributes described by witnesses. They have been filmed, photo'd, detected and analyzed with instrumentation, and there is no question that they exist. Futher, the British Gov report, the so-called Condign Report, also asserts that UAP exist and are likely a hazard to aviation. They claim its "indisputable" that UAP exist...
You will have to confront all of those efforts as well as CEFAA and GEIPAN to promote the idea that there is nothing to UAP.

You will also have to overcome the reasons why nobody believed pilot reports of red sprites, blue jets and other phenomena that were ignored for years while the AF, you and others claimed that all such observations arise from common and prosaic sources... Pilots were correct in their observations about those phenomena and science and you decided that they were not seeing anything unique... turns out they were seeing VERY unique things and reporting them quite accurately...



With respect to the quotes by Dr. Haines regarding the possible sources of UAP reports let me advise you all that after ten years working on NARCAP we have come to a bit of a different conclusion. UAP probably arise from a variety of sources including natural ones, and some cases are quite provocative in that they seem to demonstrate behaviors and attributes that imply efficient energy management and intelligence. We have a lot more work to do sorting through the various subspecies of UAP until we can get to the point that the data will tell us what it will about the ETH. We can't prove that a ball of light is behaving intelligently, not sure how anyone could, but there are provocative cases and more work needs to be done.

The idea that ET are visiting has not been proved, no definitive work has been done and the possibility remains open that some of these things may be technical in nature. We don't know but the data is provocative. We will continue, as we have for the past ten years, to document and analyze potential UAP cases as a potential hazard to aviation.

Finally, let me call the attention of the list to our latest study:

Spherical UAP and Aviation Safety: A Critical Review


Thanks for your time

Ted Roe
Executive Director
NARCAP.org


WHat arrogance to basically advertise his organization.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: 1deepstar
Hi All,
Let me address this list without an alias. I am Ted Roe, Executive Director of NARCAP.org. Dr. Haines and I founded this org ten years ago.

Let me first respectfully address Mr. Oberg's contentions:

Neither NARCAP nor Dr. Haines feel that pilots are any better witnesses than anyone else. What we do contend is that we can apply consistent methodology to investigations. We have the potential for radar data and other data that isn't usually available to the majority of UAP reports. So we must be, actually, in agreement.

Further, the Null Hypothesis idea is not consistent, at all, with our data and with that of the official investigations into UAP. Work by EMBLA and www.itacomm.net , www.hessdalenproject.org, Massimo Teodorani, Renzo Cabassi and others has adequately demonstrated that there are poorly documented phenomena with the attributes described by witnesses. They have been filmed, photo'd, detected and analyzed with instrumentation, and there is no question that they exist. Futher, the British Gov report, the so-called Condign Report, also asserts that UAP exist and are likely a hazard to aviation. They claim its "indisputable" that UAP exist...
You will have to confront all of those efforts as well as CEFAA and GEIPAN to promote the idea that there is nothing to UAP.

You will also have to overcome the reasons why nobody believed pilot reports of red sprites, blue jets and other phenomena that were ignored for years while the AF, you and others claimed that all such observations arise from common and prosaic sources... Pilots were correct in their observations about those phenomena and science and you decided that they were not seeing anything unique... turns out they were seeing VERY unique things and reporting them quite accurately...



With respect to the quotes by Dr. Haines regarding the possible sources of UAP reports let me advise you all that after ten years working on NARCAP we have come to a bit of a different conclusion. UAP probably arise from a variety of sources including natural ones, and some cases are quite provocative in that they seem to demonstrate behaviors and attributes that imply efficient energy management and intelligence. We have a lot more work to do sorting through the various subspecies of UAP until we can get to the point that the data will tell us what it will about the ETH. We can't prove that a ball of light is behaving intelligently, not sure how anyone could, but there are provocative cases and more work needs to be done.

The idea that ET are visiting has not been proved, no definitive work has been done and the possibility remains open that some of these things may be technical in nature. We don't know but the data is provocative. We will continue, as we have for the past ten years, to document and analyze potential UAP cases as a potential hazard to aviation.

Finally, let me call the attention of the list to our latest study:

Spherical UAP and Aviation Safety: A Critical Review


Thanks for your time

Ted Roe
Executive Director
NARCAP.org


WHat arrogance to basically advertise his organization.


Lighten up -- it was written to me and I considered it thoughtful and constructive.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

I balked at your use of those two words right then



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: JimOberg

I balked at your use of those two words right then


I'm more generous in the Christmas season. Another advantage of geezerhood is you can more credibly pretend to have forgotten things.

Was is it that we're disagreeing about? I may regret asking this.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Ah yes never post drunk Jim - apologies for the balking.





originally posted by: 1deepstar
Hi All,
Let me address this list without an alias. I am Ted Roe, Executive Director of NARCAP.org.



Any thought on this thread Ted?

Isaac Koi to leave UFOlogy after Ted Roe NARCAP allegedly threatens to expose his anonymity.




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join