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.
Originally posted by Spangler
Thank you for your reply Mr. Oberg.
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that ‘shoot-from-the-hip debunking is silly,’ but that's apparently what you are doing here by suggesting all cases by pilots are, in all likelihood, unreliable — because, in your words, pilots are the worst observers — and there's no validity to Weinstein's list because it's a raw list of sightings by, well, pilots and you've identified a few sightings in it which have in fact prosaic explanations.
Regarding the number of ‘actual UFOs’ you are not telling us anything new. Most of us are aware that the majority of reported sightings and cases have prosaic explanations. We're still however left with a, albeit small, percentage of cases that remain unknown and unresolved. Even the Project Bluebook reports show this.
The problem I have with your approach, Mr. Oberg, is you seem to start from the conclusion that all UFOs are misidentifications of mundane things — weather phenomena, aircraft, astronomical bodies, etc — and it's just a matter of time before all sightings and reports have been identified and explained as such.
Regardless of how unlikely something is, you cannot investigate it by, from the start, having decided what that something is not.
But perhaps you, Mr. Oberg, are not interested in truly investigating or finding out the explanation behind the most well documented and baffling cases. I notice you tend to focus on the ‘simpler’ kind of UFO cases, the ones where single or few witnesses claim to have seen something — usually lights at a distance — they couldn't identify.
Don't get me wrong — I'm all for trying to get to the bottom of all cases, and I will be the first to give you credit when you successfully debunk a case. But being unknown and unresolved means just that. It doesn't mean it's from Zeta Reticuli, as you so frequently point out, but it also doesn't automatically mean it's a misidentified weather balloon.
Originally posted by Kandinsky
So Mr Oberg, I'm respectfully pointing out that you can't logically refer to your own authority/credibility without accepting the authority/credibility of others.
Originally posted by JimOberg
I haven't made myself clear. I am quite happy to acknowledge the possibility that some UFO reports are of genuinely anomalous stimuli of significant interest to science, theology, national security, law enforcement, meteorology, perceptual psychology, dianetics, whatever. Knee-jerk rejection of them all, or knee-jerk clinging to a favored explanation, both get in the way of showing this.
But that's exactly what most UFO believers are doing. They have decided that their unknown cases are NOT explainable in prosaic terms.
Please tell me which of the identifications from the Weinstein list, that I gave above, you find unconvincing.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Discussion topic --
Here's my preliminary list of bogus 'UFOs' that I easily found. I do NOT repeat NOT suggest that this category of prosaic stimulus is the cause of all or even most 'UFOs'. It is useful only as a calibration tool because it happens to be a well-documented human activity that can later be correlated with UFO reports -- in this case, from pilots.
Google Video Link |
Hmmm your latest article is quite a bit different from your old claim that we may be "pawns"
Oberg proceeds to explain why the U.S. military would lie, or at least decide not to divulge everything it knew about the Kecksburg crash.
"In the 1960s, U.S. military intelligence agencies interested in enemy technology were eagerly collecting all the Soviet missile and space debris they could find. International law required that debris be returned to the country of origin. But hardware from Kosmos 96, with its special missile-warhead shielding, would have been too valuable to give back."
After all, he concluded, what better camouflage than to let people think the fallen object was not a Soviet probe, but a flying saucer?
"The Russians would never suspect, and the Air Force laboratories could examine the specimen at leisure. And if suspicion lingered, UFO buffs would be counted on to maintain the phony cover story, protecting the real truth."
For that reason, Oberg concluded, the Kecksburg scenario produced "delicious irony."
"A famous UFO case may actually involve a real U.S. government cover-up, but UFO buffs are on the wrong side. Instead of exposing the truth, they may be unwitting pawns in deception."
Originally posted by JimOberg
I do recall specifying cases that I know of no prosaic explanation for -- Cash-Landrum, for example, or the Japanese pilot over Alaska.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I do see the Dogfight over Tehran on page 86 which has always been a puzzling case to me. I initially thought maybe it was some secret US project until I saw the FOIA documents that showed apparently the US didn't know what it was either. I really don't know of any good explanation for that case.
Your devil's advocate position is appreciated and quite a valid point, one that I actually almost inserted myself but my post was already so exceedingly long I chose to leave that part of my observations out, but I think you're quite right about the possibility and I agree we can't rule that out. How likely that possibility may be, I really have no idea.
Originally posted by Spangler
I don't necessarily endorse this theory or belief, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but just because the DIA documents describing the event make no mention of the object's origin, or whoever wrote it seems as intrigued about it as apparently the Iranians were, I don't think we can infer with any certainty that it wasn't a US secret aircraft.
That's a valid question. I think if you take my comments in isolation, it may appear I'm using faulty logic to draw sweeping generalizations about a group of people such as pilots based on anecdotal evidence. That's not my intent. To determine my intent, please put my commentary in the context of the entire thread, with references to conclusions by Dr Hynek, the prolific investigator, and other claims by Jim Oberg regarding generalizations about pilots not being good UFO witnesses, and in particular their ability to misidentify astronomical objects. To remind you of one such earlier post to help put my comments in perspective:
Originally posted by Shino
Arbitrageur
Your conclusion to the video of the pilot sighting is perplexing. Are you equating the value, or observational skills, of pilots in general to that of this individual example where it seems probably that there was a misidentification? I'm sorry if that wasn't your intention but that's the way it came across when reading it.
Posters in this thread have challenged that assertion about pilots not being good witnessses, and my anecdotes are not intended to make a claim on their own of pilot capabilities, but to show that in a UFOlogy record of pilot UFO sightings, the first two cases on the recording do appear to be misidentifications of astronomical objects as stated in Oberg's post, which lends some anecdotal support to the claims, however if your point is that it falls far short of a complete verification of the assertion, I agree, but that wasn't my intent. I've never investigated as many UFO sightings as Hynek and probably never will so I'm deferring to his experience in these matters to some extent for the bigger picture. However I would like to point out the language in that recording I posted which also includes what i perceive to be an anecdotal example for an assertion that Jim Oberg made, that the pilots tend to think in the context of their experience:
Originally posted by JimOberg
www.zipworld.com.au...
"Thus it might surprise us that a pilot had trouble identifying other aircraft, but it should come as no surprise that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects."
Experienced UFO investigators realize that pilots, who instinctively and quite properly interpret visual phenomena in the most hazardous terms, are not dispassionate observers. Allen Hynek wrote: "Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses..." The quote is from "The Hynek UFO Report", page 261 (Barnes and Noble reprint). (271 in original Dell, Dec 1977) He found that the best class of witnesses had a 50% misperception rate, but that pilots had a much higher rate: 88% for military pilots, 89% for commercial pilots. the worst of all categories listed. Pilots could be counted on to perceive familiar objects -- aircraft and ground structures -- very well, Hynek continued, but added a caveat:
Dell page 271
Originally posted by JimOberg
Here's a good example of why Kean may have it backwards.
Writes Kean,
Twenty-two military cases in the Weinstein catalogue involve near misses, and six include reported ‘dogfights,’ or combat maneuvers, between the UFOs and the military aircraft. I conclude that these incidents clearly demonstrate that in no way are these examples of natural events, but rather that UFOs are phenomena with a deliberate behavior. The physical nature of UFOs has been proved.
May I suggest an alternate explanation to why two different classes of pilots report UFOs so differently? Because they perceive the UFOs based on their experience and training and interpret unidentified visual phenomena in terms of what they expect to see?
Kean's view, that the UFOs deliberately behave differently when they know the type of pilot they are being seen by, seems a 'stretch' to me.
Originally posted by epicvision
I listened to Keane on C2C last week and she was pretty knowledgeable but I couldn't help but think at times that she was a counter op.. kind of like Lazar.
Originally posted by hinsch
Michio Kaku will talk about this book at 4:45 EST today on MSNBC.
Uploaded it to Youtube: www.youtube.com...
[edit on 23-8-2010 by hinsch]