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

a reply to: Kandinsky

If it's the case that Hynek, Haines and Oberg have had no knowledge to confirm 'aliens,' it will also be the case that accusing one of them of 'brimstone' is unfair, inaccurate and mildly slanderous. Essentially, instead of simply disagreeing with someone, you're blaming their difference of opinion on being in league with Satan.

C'mon? You can at least chuckle and concede the point that you got carried away. We can all of us disagree all day long and do so with smiles on our faces. So let's smile and discuss these topics as friends and rivals rather than mortal enemies.

Absolutely not.

You pressed me on the issue, Kandinsky. I don't like to argue with moderators who have the power to throw me off ATS.

Brimstone means sulphur, Kandinsky.
Are there any other elements on the periodic table you are forbidding me to use?
How about nitrogen? Is that element allowed?

To say someone is "fire and brimstone" means they are overly religious.
For me to say "I smell a slight whiff of brimstone" is a far cry from saying someone is in league with Satan.
So keep the complaints to what I actually said, please.

I gave you my opinion, nothing more than an opinion, now you are pressing me in a way that indicates I'm not really entitled to hold that opinion.Are you actually telling me that I am not allowed to believe that Jim Oberg is intelligent enough and was in a position to know that aliens are real?
It seems to me that you are instructing me that I must believe he is earnest in his ignorance of extraterrestrials. Isn't that even more insulting?

You want me to "chuckle and concede the point I got carried away"? Because I used the word brimstone?
I've been called terrible things in here all the time and you never once stepped in. I think you may be the one who is getting carried away here.

My family was traumatized by our kidnapping and forced participation with aliens. My mother never really recovered from it. She lived in abject fear not knowing when it would happen again, and it always did happen again. I won't 'chuckle' about it. This is a serious issue that affected our lives.

Tell another victim of kidnapping and sexual assault to 'chuckle' about someone who tells them their assault never happened.

I think sometimes, Kandinsky, you and others in here think of the alien situation as just food for thought, a nice topic to debate and speculate idly about, certainly nothing to get upset about.

Imagine if it was your daughter, or sister, or mother.

You would not "chuckle" either, "with a smile on your face".

Well, Kandinsky wins, the moderators have removed my post which used the term "I smell a whiff of brimstone".

Even though the post received eight stars.

Never argue with a moderator.

Read this post quick, I'm sure it will disappear soon, and they will probably ban me too, for the third and final time.

Never compromise on your first amendment rights.
Always speak the truth.
Keep fighting, Tea and Strumpets, and the rest of you.

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

Not soon enough, it seems.

Harte

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.

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

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.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Top five sir, spill it = p

That changes all the time, and depends on what we're using the cases for. In general, it's cases at close range, with multiple witnesses, where high-strangeness and apparent intelligence are present... i.e., the cases where "witness misperception" is, to most any reasonable person, ruled out. There are surprisingly many cases at or near this ideal.

If trying to convince an ultra-skeptic that the topic should be taken seriously, I'd lean towards the stronger radar-visual or ground trace cases, ones that have persisted for decades. The best known (though not necessarily best) cases of that type would be ones like Minot AFB B-52, Lakenheath 1955, etc.

If talking about the human element of the phenomenon (something that's often lost in these discussions) and how unlikely it is that every single UFO case is either a misperceptions or a hoax, I'd go right to the close-range, high-strangeness, etc., multiple witness cases. There are surprisingly many of those, too, all the way back to the 1940's, some of which were undoubtedly among those Special Report 14 Unknowns.

You're exactly right, 111DPKING111, when you say it's "strange some of the best cases don't get much attention". The most well known cases are often not the best in an evidentiary sense.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

[I decided to put this in its own post. It's a follow-up to 111DPKING111's idea that the "best cases don't get much attention", which I think true. To me, the video demonstrates the power of cases that aren't even among "the best".]

An example: I doubt I'd even put the Phoenix Lights (the earlier, 8:30pm triangle) in a Top 50 List. BUT.. here's something I just happened to watch this morning:
Take a look.

Better yet, watch the whole thing. Does that put things in perspective here? Those are average people, just like any of us.

To the skeptic who thinks "I can only believe it if I see it with my own eyes," what does it really mean when you say that these people could not possibly have "seen it" with their "own eyes"? Is that rational thought? Does it possibly say more about you than it does them? I do not mean that we must all believe everything said by every UFO witness. I'm simply making an appeal to common sense.

If that case, that family on that video, were one of ONLY FIVE UFO cases ever, and if it had happened instead of Kenneth Arnold back in 1947, imagine the headlines and news crews. Imagine how many scientists would be drooling over it.

The witnesses in that video... who here at ATS could honestly look those people in the eye and say "I'm sorry, but you must be either mistaken, or else you're making it up"? Who?

Remember, the object was few hundred feet above their heads. They watched it for several minutes. Other groups of witnesses independently saw and described the same object. (No, not the 10pm flares.) The people on that video, their story has remained constant since the time of the sighting. They've not sought to profit from it. They have been, and always knew they would be, ridiculed in their community. Are they REALLY just "attention whores", or are they REALLY still just waiting for that big book deal? That's what some skeptics say.... Give me a break.

And for those who'd answer "yes, I could look them in the eye and say that", let's imagine this instead: we'll line up thousands of similar groups of witnesses, from thousands of sightings. Which skeptics could say it ("you're either mistaken, or you're lying"), and mean it, to every single one of those people? What arrogance. It'd be almost pathologically narrow-minded to even think it.

originally posted by: Scdfa
...they will probably ban me too, for the third and final time... Keep fighting....

You're not going anywhere, Scdfa. A few weeks back, one of the well known skeptics here came right out and called you an a-hole. If they can get away with that, then you'll surely end up just fine with having only smelled "a whiff of brimstone"....

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Thanks for taking the time to post some cases, IsaacKoi took a stab at presenting the best cases, but as you can see, there wasnt much consensus. I didnt really have the skeptic in mind with the best cases, but that is as good way to think about it as any, the result should be the same. What cases have best chance to convince someone(skeptic or otherwise) there is something to UFOs?

I dont think there is a reason to get too emotionally charged in these discussions, its the same with other types of groups like liberals and conservatives, its just wishful thinking to suppose liberals will one day come to their senses.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
The witnesses in that video... who here at ATS could honestly look those people in the eye and say "I'm sorry, but you must be either mistaken, or else you're making it up"? Who?

This is a false dichotomy. What if it really looked that way to them, and they aren't making it up? They seem convinced of what they saw, but I'm equally convinced that when they and I look at a book of optical illusions they will see pretty much the same illusions I do, illustrating the inability of people in general to make consistently accurate perceptions.

The articles about satellite re-entries being perceived as blocking out the background stars clearly show that a series of lights can create this illusion, but we know that the background stars are not blocked out. So, either they will learn something about illusions, or they will continue to wallow in their own overconfidence in the idea that their perception is infallible. By the way I'm saying that you and I and basically all humans with similar physiology are susceptible to similar illusions, I'm not picking on those overconfident people. Most people are also overconfident in their ability to perceive things accurately, so that's two big problems.

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.

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on UFOs


Eyewitness Memory is Unreliable

Is Eyewitness Testimony Inherently Unreliable?

Your Memory is like the Telephone Game Each time you recall an event, your brain distorts it

Part of those get into recall errors but even without the recall errors, the immediate perceptions can be inaccurate. There are physiological reasons why we see stars appearing to be blocked out, when they aren't really being blocked out by any object.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Then let us be absolutely honest here. As it is pretty obvious where the argument goes, why bother anymore?
Somewhere, in this thread, someone mentioned the idiotic idea of a level playing field. After all, every single witness is basically described as being mistaken, judgement rendered by "experts" who were NOT at the event.

It is clear, there is no level playing field.

There are agendas. Those who use their position, a position of influence it must be said, however that may have been achieved, to give credence to the lie that absolutely everybody except those who agree with the agenda, are wrong.

And I say lie, because it is a lie.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Then let us be absolutely honest here. As it is pretty obvious where the argument goes, why bother anymore?

Arbitrageur can speek for himself, but i think it means we should refocus on the cases with multiple sightings at close quarters or daylight. Of course some legitimate cases will be thrown out, but it just the nature of the beast. If you want to be certain as possible, you need to throw out single witness cases and others where it isnt clear what they saw.

I do think there are enough early (where it cant be claimed a black project) , multiple witness cases to come to a reasonable conclusion the UFOs are not us. Some may choose to disagree, thats their prerogative.

There is a 400 page thread on here somewhere discussing if we really landed on the moon(which I found shocking there was ever a doubt). And the doubters do have a few good points, and they are going to cling onto them despite the rest of the overwhelming evidence contrary. Till they step foot on the moon their self, I doubt they ever will believe.

a reply to: 111DPKING111
I just think that the time is now. 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.
It could even be crowd sourced FGS!
Unless of course, there really is something to hide.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
The witnesses in that video... who here at ATS could honestly look those people in the eye and say "I'm sorry, but you must be either mistaken, or else you're making it up"? Who?

This is a false dichotomy. What if it really looked that way to them, and they aren't making it up? They seem convinced of what they saw, but I'm equally convinced that when they and I look at a book of optical illusions they will see pretty much the same illusions I do, illustrating the inability of people in general to make consistently accurate perceptions.

"False dichotomy"? No, it's not.

Those people saw something.
That "something" was either:
1) a true UFO, like they say it is,
OR
2) not a true UFO, because they didn't perceive or attribute some aspect of the event correctly,
OR
3) they're just plain lying.

What is the 4th option? Perceived correctly, perceived incorrectly, never "perceived" at all, and... ________ ?

No one is talking about ETH vs. EDH vs. Time Travelers vs. whatever , if that's what you're hinting at.

If you're talking about the whole perception vs. conception distinction -- the witnesses having seen things clearly enough, but then incorrectly labeling the source or cause -- they're all "misperceptions". No skeptic is saying that those witnesses should be ignored because they didn't have their contact lenses in, or because they were hallucinating, right? Of course that's not what the skeptic means there. When citing the "unreliability of witness testimony", who makes the perception-conception distinction? No one, unless psychosis or mirages are on the table. Because it's understood which aspect of that we're really talking about.

And once again I sense the skeptic crowd working hard to classify UFOs as just fleeting glimpses of distant lights in the nighttime sky. But they're not just that. Read SR14. Or, alternatively, just decide that not every other person out there is either a simpleton or a liar? Certain things, certain "scenes", are unmistakable. Nature does not conspire to make a car and a tree look like an M.C. Escher drawing. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a disc with windows hovering 50 feet in front of you is just a disc with windows hovering 50 feet in front of you....

As to Neil Tyson, part of me really does feel sorry for the man. His name, along with his attitude of scoffing at this topic, is already out there, well documented... forever. The guy will have grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so on, and somewhere down the line his progeny will be very embarrassed about grandad's narrow-minded views on this topic. Embarrassed about how the kind of assumptions and biases from which Tyson suffers have so elegantly inspired 3 generations of scientists to do absolutely nothing.

Is it too much to ask that he, at a minimum, read the Condon Report? It's the study that supposedly justifies the scoffing, right? Tyson either hasn't read it (in which case what is he talking about, and why?), or he has read it (in which case, why is he misleading people about its contents and legitimizing unwarranted ridicule?) I do appreciate that he has inspired many people to learn more about science. But when it comes to intellectual honesty, he's proven himself unworthy of my or your admiration. History, unfortunately, will not be kind to him and his scientific peers. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people out there who are positive of that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Arby from someone who thinks mirages can move ala the Japanese Airlines incident over Alaska, it's a tad rich for you to be doling out advice about how people misperceive things. Plus, if you want to talk about the bias of perception then it's a double edged sword. It's just as logical and correct to point out that , there are those who could have an alien ship land on their head, rectally probe them for a week and they'd still flat out deny the experience.

When someone tells me face to face..... "it was a typical English cloudy night and I was taking the dogs for a walk, I'd let them off their leashes to do do what they needed to when I noticed one was backing up growling, it's tail between its' legs ears flat to their neck I wondered if they had encountered a badger or a fox. On walking over to the dog I see it's not staring into the thickets at the side of the path rather, upwards. As I look up myself and i see the clear outline of something hovering silently about 100 ft above our heads and maybe 40-50 yards in front of us. The object was dark, there were no lights at all and it was only the reflection of the street lamps on the under surface that gave it away visually . After a few seconds of observing it and wondering what it might be my dog had now taken up a position behind my legs and was giving that low growl dogs do when they are frightened confused and unsure whether to enter attack mode. The object began to pivot as if around itself, I was suddenly aware of a low hum and the hairs on my neck and arms stood up straight. The object tipped slightly to one side and then seemed to glide away from me slowly without sound for maybe a hundred yards before it just took off towards the horizon at a huge rate of knots and was gone".

"I was so caught up in the moment that I'd clean forgotten about my second dog and I called out to them. They appeared seconds later from under a hedge behind me and immediately took up station close to my side. Walking home both dogs rather than, seek to wander off as usual, kept close to my side".

Now, given this took place in the English home counties this much we do know and can say for sure. Any flying craft is not allowed to to fly that low by law and furthermore, to carry no navigation lights is also illegal. Neither was it some sort of balloon or dirigible as they to have to conform to running with lights and they cannot accelerate anything close to the way this vehicle did. I take it Tyson thinks the dog was suffering a "perception breakdown" as well does he?

When a seasoned battle hardened pilot tells me...

"I was vectored to intercept an intruder over the Irish sea, I had the target on my own Radar and was being guided by my control. I'd climbed to about 15,000 feet to try and get a visual on the object and when i finally did so, I simply didn't know what to say to my control. My thoughts were interrupted by a voice on my set asking me; "Did i have the target in sight?". I replied that I had and when they asked me, "Could I identify it?" I simply said..... "Err yes, you know those flying saucers?, I'm looking at one". The control went quiet for about 30 seconds in which time i watched as the object dropped several hundred feet in a second, veered to the left and then, just shot straight up into the sky and vanished. A couple of seconds later my coms crackled into life and a voice simply said, "Well it's gone now, err no need to cause a fuss eh?"

"On landing back at base, I was told not to enter the incident in my official flight log and not to discuss that night's events with anyone either on the base or elsewhere. Two days later, I was called into the base commander's office and debriefed on the incident by two men in civilian clothes and told once again, I had signed the official secrets act and that, under no circumstances, was I to talk about what I had seen either to other service members or civilians. As it was, I kept a personal flight diary and it was there that I logged that night's events and this is the first time I have ever spoken to anyone else about it".

He went on to say " Look, they were freezing clear conditions with a half moon up there that night. Visibility was as near perfect as it gets at night. The object I saw, that was in the exact position both Radars said it was, was a solid object under some sort of control. It was a classic UFO as in a saucer shape, the vehicles' skin was almost translucent in the moon light and when it finally moved it turned to a vivid gold."

They showed me their own private flight log and all it said was for that date was the following "Interception over the Irish sea UFO!!"

Neither of these witnesses had an interest in UFOs prior or post their experiences it was just a total non issue to both of them and yet, both finally felt the need to relate their experiences to someone they thought wouldn't just laugh at them.

So yes, when I hear these talking heads prating endlessly on about how "witnesses are not reliable" I think , what a condescending womble they are and is it any surprise in the face of such witless bad manners that, solid witnesses don't come forward more often?

originally posted by: Jonjonj,,,,

It is clear, there is no level playing field.

There are agendas. Those who use their position, a position of influence it must be said, however that may have been achieved, to give credence to the lie that absolutely everybody except those who agree with the agenda, are wrong.

And I say lie, because it is a lie.

You still don't seem to get it. We're not debating political candidates or best singer or most comfortable footwear -- we're debating claims to overthrow an existing paradigm.

Where did you ever get the idea it was supposed to be -- or even SHOULD be -- a level playing field?

You resented my raising the legal term 'onus probandi', you said you knew what it meant, now I'm not so sure.

This ties directly into the question of the probative value of unexplained reports.

a reply to: JimOberg

See , there you go again assuming your paradigm is the same as that of the world in general. The fact is, there is no accepted paradigm for this whole subject, you are the one trying to force fit one to suit your own personal prejudices as are those who insist it has to be alien.

The paradigm of virtually every culture in the world is that, these experiences have been happening to us since the dawn of oral tradition, how we relate to them might change yes, now we interpret them changes, that's for sure. to deny that they are a cultural constant world wide, is it be completely ignorant of the facts.

The person who truly fails to understand is you Jim, with your totally self centred view of the world, a trait common to virtually all those who might be termed "debunkers". You do know what raises people's hackles? It's the sanctimonious condescending dribble that people spout when the witnesses themselves are fully aware, what happened to them is "impossible". They don't need some smug "expert" telling them, that they already are fully cognisant of.

I think unsolved cases just add further to the mystery and lore of Ufology. Meaning its a part of the cannon that makes the topic so interesting and fascinating. Without them, I don't think there would be much to discuss.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Jonjonj,,,,

It is clear, there is no level playing field.

There are agendas. Those who use their position, a position of influence it must be said, however that may have been achieved, to give credence to the lie that absolutely everybody except those who agree with the agenda, are wrong.

And I say lie, because it is a lie.

You still don't seem to get it. We're not debating political candidates or best singer or most comfortable footwear -- we're debating claims to overthrow an existing paradigm.

Where did you ever get the idea it was supposed to be -- or even SHOULD be -- a level playing field?

You resented my raising the legal term 'onus probandi', you said you knew what it meant, now I'm not so sure.

This ties directly into the question of the probative value of unexplained reports.

I still do not get it, as if somehow, you understand that you have the truth and I do not?

We are not debating the loss of a paradigm that is worthy of keeping IF THE PARADIGM IS WRONG!

You used the term onus probandi, and I will return that, a la tennis, return the serve or, if you prefer, prove this wrong man, prove it wrong. There is NO reason to use latin terms, however common or obscure, which excludes the common man from debating here.

You dismiss the probative value of reports and dismiss those reports. Why? What possible method of determination are you using?