Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

Just to promote full disclosure of where we're all coming from:

originally posted by: Scdfa

...It's absurd to hear someone say they don't see any "real" evidence. Aliens have abducted millions of people in the last seventy years, they are altering the genetic make-up of the human race, they are creating a hybrid species so they can live on earth undetected and rule the planet, and what did the people do? They slept through the invasion, played video games and twittered. Congratulations, dummy nation. You were conquered, and don't even realize your new rulers exist.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: 111DPKING111

I would include:

Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.

YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You obviously have never actually tried to understand a skeptical assessment of such cases, but instead rely on your imagined fantasies of 'straw men' to preserve your existing opinions. Your contribution to this discussion is worthless except as an illustration of why the subject is so garbled and obscure. Thanks for making it worse.

I just can't understand why insults are necessary when a logical counter argument should be good enough?

Did anyone mention to you that attempts at emotional/ego engagement are hallmarks of disinformation agents? Is that what you were attempting with your insults to me?

Do you think such high-schoolish antics say more about me or actually say more about you?

I think your screen name and use of terms like "disinformation agents" and "debunkers" say enough about you.

But what about his point that insults and ridicule should not be necessary if their is a valid counter argument?

Did you know that the Air Force began using ridicule, threats, and the fear of violent government reprisals when they do not have a valid counter argument?

Why else would those extremes be needed? It's done to make people shut up!

They still spend a small fortune every year to keep the entire country on "ridecule lock-down" Saturating the media, schools, colleges and businesses, science, etc.

Why do they do this?
Because they do not have a valid counter argument/.

I'm retired USAF and shut up, that's why, you wingnut.


Just kidding. I am retired USAF, though.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Just to promote full disclosure of where we're all coming from:

originally posted by: Scdfa

...It's absurd to hear someone say they don't see any "real" evidence. Aliens have abducted millions of people in the last seventy years, they are altering the genetic make-up of the human race, they are creating a hybrid species so they can live on earth undetected and rule the planet, and what did the people do? They slept through the invasion, played video games and twittered. Congratulations, dummy nation. You were conquered, and don't even realize your new rulers exist.

Scary seeing people so disconnected from reality isn't it Jim?

a reply to: JadeStar

It's what happens when people don't dig below the surface level in their (so-called) 'research'...

a reply to: EnPassant

Now, if you depend on the psychological explanation that will not explain photographic evidence. The photos are real or fake and have nothing to do with psychology.

You never heard of pareidolia? Illusory contours? How about plain ol ambiguity? en.wikipedia.org...
Hoaxers take full advantage of peoples psychology. Every time a discussion goes on about a photo, people display their psychology and even more so when a photo is shown to be fake objectively and people still believe its not fake.

If you go down the hallucination road that won't address the whistle blower testimony.
If you try to explain ufos as secret technology that won't solve the abduction question.

Can you pleas just try to read one of my posts and try to understand it? Just once? please?

So, any convincing solution must solve all of the above areas (and more). So psych 101 might conceivably expose a small number of cases but it won't answer whistle blower testimony, or photographic evidence. You need a more all embracing theory to explain the thing.

It resolves 95% of all cases for the simple fact that people believed what they perceived was a UFO and thought it was important enough to report. And I am not trying to explain anything or put forth a theory of any kind. Everything I am describing is a known psychological phenomenon. What I am saying is that there is such a lack in understanding even the most basic psychological concepts by people that they are in no way qualified to even think about dismissing or ruling it out. In fact, I would say that there really isn't anyone who is qualified to rule it out. The point is that such explanations cant be proved or disproved. What I am saying is that there is such an abundance of KNOWN psychological phenomenon that can pretty much account for anything and seeing alien space ships with space people is no exception. Even if you really are seeing an alien, according to you, they are messing with you psychologically!

Hallucinations - I asked for your personal opinion on this because I wanted to bring up the point that a hallucination need not be a purely fictitious thing. Even hallucinations may have an objective source in reality. See; Strassman www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com...

Oh really? See The Case Against Elves by James Kent. For the purpose of this conversation, we are discussing misperceptions in normal, healthy people. I don't want to engage in drug talk but if you follow Strassman he is telling you that the stuff that makes you see space ships and space aliens occurs in your brain endogenously. Before you get to the "objective reality" stuff, you have to accept that what he is putting forth is that normal healthy people can experience very profound hallucinations and that we essentially have the ability to experience this stuff at any given moment.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: OnionHead

originally posted by: Scdfa


My experiences fill a book, and I'm working on that book

As a matter of interest, will your book be free?

Hmm. If I want to work that hard for free I'd be a professional poet!

But then again, if I were to charge, they'd cite that as evidence of a huckster out to make a buck.

Mmmm ok .... so which is it?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculianWhat I am saying is that there is such a lack in understanding even the most basic psychological concepts by people that they are in no way qualified to even think about dismissing or ruling it out. In fact, I would say that there really isn't anyone who is qualified to rule it out. The point is that such explanations cant be proved or disproved. What I am saying is that there is such an abundance of KNOWN psychological phenomenon that can pretty much account for anything and seeing alien space ships with space people is no exception.

The subtext here is that people who see flying saucers or get abducted are experiencing a psychological phenomenon. Ok. But where does this lead? If it is unprovable what can you say? It might be psychological it might not be...what then? It seems like a dead end argument to me. I think you would be better to look outside possible psychological areas such as landing traces, photographic evidence, whistle blowing etc. You could speculate forever that things are psychological but unprovably so. How can this bring you to a deeper insight?

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: TheBolt
Another aspect of this is that most alien refuters tend to look at each case as explained by either an infinite number of known or not yet known earthly explanations vs. "aliens." Aliens doesn't necessarily mean one thing though. Why isn't it possible that more than one, perhaps many different species have developed beyond us, each with its own technologies that would give vastly different stories, statements or photographic evidence? Even if there is only one civilization different factions could be at different stages. There isn't one "blanket" alien explanation to refute. I think it's rather obtuse to assume that the infinite earthly explanations are only countering one possible form of alternative.

Yes, in fact there are quite a few different alien races and/or species coming here or staying here, with vastly different agendas; some good some bad, some relatively indifferent. I've seen several different types of aliens working together during abductions and "processing" procedures. By some gov't whistleblower accounts, there are as many as fifty different aliens that we know of.

You've seen several different types? Interesting. Sorry if I'm off topic, but I'd like to ask you a few questions. Firstly, of the several varieties, what do they look like? Stereotypical oversized head, two eye's, arms legs?

Secondly, are you based in the US? Oh how they just love the US our little intergalactic friends. I've many questions, at what part of the proceedings do you get abducted? Walking down the street? Sleeping in your bed? Mid orgasm?

Again, just to confirm the books gonna be free? Come on, commit to a free book. And lastly, you do realise that if you can produce a single fragment of evidence to back up your claims then that makes you one of the worlds most important people?

Best regards
ONION HEADDDDDDDD

Returning to the original theme of the thread, I'm still pondering rational responses to my suggestion that to believe unsolved cases prove anything, you have to believe that WITHOUT an extraordinary stimulus, ALL reports WOULD be solvable. Is there anyone who would argue in favor of that? And if not, how BIG a 'faux-residue' of meaningless 'unsolved cases' would you allow before requiring an additional, extraordinary, stimulus?

An example of such an ALMOST-faux-unsolvable case is the 1984 Minsk airliner, referred to as the "exactly 4:10 AM" event. The case had it all -- pilot descriptions, ground radar confirmation, physical effects on witness health, everything a perfect case ought to have [and it is in the Haines data base and others].

Fortunately, one of the witnesses made real-time sketches of the changing shape of the apparition, that could later be one-to-one compared with other such drawing sequences from Arkhangelsk of launches from the northern missile ranges. ALSO, the same apparition was widely seen by ground observers in Sweden and Finland, looking in the direction of the Soviet northern missile test ranges -- NOT in the direction of Minsk.

Without those two powerful pieces of evidence for the 'normalcy' of the apparition, I think we'd all agree the case would remain in the forever-unsolved category. Polluting it.

Yet those two items became available only by freaks of luck -- timing and weather, in the Finland sightings, and one witness's unusual recording and LATER revelation of the sketches. Without both of them, the case would remain [and in many minds, despite the evidence, STILL remains] in the 'verified' UFO archive.

Here's another example where I criticize the effectiveness of 'vetting' of cases, from Haines:

www.narcap.org...
Case 49 score : 24
June 18, 1982 21:57 [assume Beijing time, GMT + 8] Hence, GMT 13:57 [1310 to 1453]
Gong Heui area, Hubei, China (44°20 N / 114°31 E)
Jeo: Northwestern Manchuria, Sunset, 20:16 beijing time, sun azimuth 309 degrees
[jeo – Kosmos-1310 SL-4 from Baikonur, 1300 GMT, viewed after sunset backlit by sun ??]
In Northern China on June 18, 1982, many sightings were reported from Heilongjiang Province, between 21:10 and 22:53. One of the most interesting case is that reported by five Chinese Air Force pilots on patrol over north China’s military frontier. At about 21:57 the jet fighter’s electrical systems malfunctioned ; communications and navigation systems failed. Suddenly the pilots encountered and UFO of a milky yellowish-green luminous color, about the size of the full moon. The object grew larger and picked up speed, at which point it looked « as big as a mountain of mist ». Then black spots were seen in the interior of the phenomenon. One pilot stated in his report : « When I first saw the object, it flew toward me at a high rate of speed as it whirled rapidly. While it was rotating it generated rings of light. In the center of the light ring was fire. In ten seconds the center of the ring exploded, then the body of the object expanded rapidly The planes were forced to return to base because of the equipment failures. The other four pilots also prepared reports. It is not known if gun-camera film was taken. After 30 seconds, the beam of light disappeared completly and replaced by a yellow sphere with clear edges. This sphere climbed rapidly and increased its size and brightness………The instruments returned to normal when the pilot went down to 500 meters altitude. At 22:01, One of the pilot arrived to his first turn at Cong Huei. Then after he flew for 3 mn toward his second step when his radio began to jamm : big noises resounded in the receiver, as if rain clouds and thunderstorm were in front of him, and the voice of the control tower operator became less audible. The radio compass instead of giving the direction of the tracking station direction gave a direction 30° on his right. He climbed to 6,000 then 7,000 meters, then he flew horizontally but the unusual noises continued to be heard in the receivers and the radio compas was still indicating a wrong direction 30° on the right. The pilot saw a bright object above the horizon. Very quickly this object became a beam of yellow light like a car headlight This beam of light was directed vertically toward the ground, in the same direction indicated by the radio compass.
Sources :
Beyond Top Secret, Timothy Good, 1996
L’empire du Milieu Troublй par les Ovnis », Shi Bo, 1993

Multiple military pilots. Instrumentation malfunctions. Totally acceptable as reported by top ufologists.

What do you guys think they SHOULD have done before blessing this story?

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: JadeStar

It's what happens when people don't dig below the surface level in their (so-called) 'research'...

Agreed.

I don't doubt that there are some strange things behind some UFO cases but I believe that strangeness probably came from the Pentagon or the Russian equivalent since most of the really interesting stuff happened during the Cold War.

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculianWhat I am saying is that there is such a lack in understanding even the most basic psychological concepts by people that they are in no way qualified to even think about dismissing or ruling it out. In fact, I would say that there really isn't anyone who is qualified to rule it out. The point is that such explanations cant be proved or disproved. What I am saying is that there is such an abundance of KNOWN psychological phenomenon that can pretty much account for anything and seeing alien space ships with space people is no exception.

The subtext here is that people who see flying saucers or get abducted are experiencing a psychological phenomenon. Ok. But where does this lead? If it is unprovable what can you say? It might be psychological it might not be...what then? It seems like a dead end argument to me. I think you would be better to look outside possible psychological areas such as landing traces, photographic evidence, whistle blowing etc. You could speculate forever that things are psychological but unprovably so. How can this bring you to a deeper insight?

There is no subtext. I am telling you explicitly that when people see something and believe it to be alien, that it doesn't mean a whole lot. I don't know if they really saw what they said they saw because there is absolutely no way to distinguish what is occurring in their head and what isn't. This has been demonstrated over and over again. If you are looking for aliens, you should be aware of the very basics.

I see this thread "blew up" overnight and I'm not sure if my post will add anything but...

I read Leslie Kean's book and I personally think it's one of the better books in the field. Listening to her interviews, she always points out that the unexplained cases do not necessarily mean they are alien spaceships, but just unexplained. People can make there own conclusions, including those directly involved in the sightings. Her purpose, I believe, is to show there are unexplained aerial phenomenon and that high level government and military officials, as well as pilots do take this seriously. In other words these people put their credibility on the line in order to tell us there is something unknown going on in the skies.

About the Belgium photo hoax, it's just that - a photo hoax. It doesn't by any means determine that the entire incident was a hoax. It actually fooled many analysts, so I don't blame her for putting it in her book. There is actually a video of the Belgian triangular UFO out there.

As far as the 10 prosaic explanations by JimOberg, If I remember correctly (I read it a while ago) those are not the cases discussed at length in her book or at least a good majority aren't. So, I don't see how that discredits her book (if that were the purpose). Also, they are explained in one to two sentences in the article. I mean, I'm not criticizing the explanations and I'm sure he did his research, but can I read more about them anywhere? I really don't even know much about most of those incidents so I'm not in position to argue them.

Regarding the pilots being poor observers, I'm not quite buying into that. They are trained observers as far as their training, particularly military pilots to determine enemy planes and weather phenomenon for commercial pilots. Obviously some better than others and they could be wrong, but I think the percentages are misleading because being pilots they have more opportunities to see strange or unidentified phenomena and report them (or not). My point is that they are not the worst observers just because they might report more UFO's than the regular person. Just because they are by default a "trained observer", doesn't mean they can identify everything they see that they aren't used to seeing or even trained for. Could it just be that they just report more UFO's, that later on, with more data are explained prosaically. It doesn't mean they were "wrong" or poor observers. I suppose they are held at a higher standard and I don't know every single pilot incident personally, but I doubt they all said they saw and alien spaceship and later proved wrong. I'm assuming they more likely report something as unidentified.

Same for police officers, I know they are trained observers of crime scenes and related events (not for aircraft), but when a police officers is reporting real time to his dispatcher that he's seeing a triangular platform with three lights and a red beam above them, I'd say he is telling the truth considering his profession and his credibility being at stake. Even for a regular person, if multiple people see a solid craft I pretty much would say they saw one. I just highly doubt a mass hallucination is the explanation when multiple people actually see a solid craft and describe it similarly. I'm not talking about connecting lights in the sky or seeing Chinese lanterns, I'm talking about witnessing solid craft. Hallucinations can definitely be a plausible explanation for abductions, but I just don't see it when they are describing details of a solid craft such as Belgium, Phoenix or Illinois for example.

Just a few opinions & thoughts

a reply to: JimOberg

Coming at from a little different direction, at what point did you believe the YUKON case was a misidentified reentry? We still dont have perfect knowledge of all the events, how confident are you that this is what occurred? Would you bet the farm? I personally would like to bet a large sum of money on it, maybe not the farm, maybe half.

Looking at the Ravenna case in 66, whether you believe it is aliens, Venus, or just unknown - what would change this? If we knew for a fact there was a highly advanced alien race living underground on Mars, how much would that change things? I know on broader scale this forum probably wouldnt even exist, but lets stay on the case. An object was observed making stop and go actions mid-air along with high speed turns and we knew there were aliens out there on Mars as a fact. How many would bet the farm it was aliens then? It would be a given, Alan Guth might even call you crackpot for saying otherwise.

Most people already accepts aliens exist somewhere out there, the only question is, can they get here? For me, I wouldnt even take the time to visit and read a forum like this, total waist of time, I knew they couldnt get here. If I couldnt lazily watch different cases on unexplained files or ufo hunters, I never would have started researching.

Hopefully, whatever confidence we use to decide on terrestrial explanations can also be used to determine if it is alien . If I am wrong about Ravenna, so be it, but simply saying its unknown when we have that much information about a sighting doesnt cut it for me. For me the Yukon case is solved, sure there is some possibility I am wrong (as with UFO cases), but I personally wont be giving it another thought.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: lostgirl

a reply to: 111DPKING111



I would include:



Radar returns with confirmed eyewitness visuals of the object, especially pilots who chased an object which they could see on radar and with their own eyes..

NO.........the "debunkers" would have you believe those objects that coincide with radar returns, the latter which are supposedly "spoofed", are just "plasmas" that miraculously defy the laws of conservation of energy.



YES.....the sometimes twisted and convoluted logic of "debunker" explanations are enough to give you a headache, not to mention a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

You obviously have never actually tried to understand a skeptical assessment of such cases, but instead rely on your imagined fantasies of 'straw men' to preserve your existing opinions. Your contribution to this discussion is worthless except as an illustration of why the subject is so garbled and obscure. Thanks for making it worse.

I just can't understand why insults are necessary when a logical counter argument should be good enough?

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE





I just can't understand why insults are necessary when a logical counter argument should be good enough?

I thought I had written a large number of them over the years. Have you read ANY of them?

Insults? Or logical arguments? I see more of the former coming from you.



Let me ask you this question, and it is a rather important question regarding your work:



Of these 100 UFO sightings that you have "explained" away, in how many of those 100 cases do the actual witnesses of these events agree with your explanation?



I await your answer, and please be specific.

Don't you think putting "explained" in quotation marks is an insult? Well, i don't mind, because it's all we've gotten out of you. Let me ask a question: do you think ANY of the prosaic explanations I've offered for these numerous cases is accurate? Can you name one that you knew about, and my work changed your mind? This is a rather important question regarding your mindset.

The main ones I've focused on are missile and space related only because that's my porfessional specialty, NOT because I think these events are the answer to all or even most reports.

The STS-48 zig-zag shuttle video is the most famous -- do you think my explanation has merit?

The reports of alien encounters on Apollo-11 is also a classic. Never happened. Do you think my explanation has merit?

The sky spiral over Norway is another recent mass thrill, caused by a Russian missile test. Do you think my explanation has merit?

Gordon Cooper's witnessing a UFO extend legs and land at Edwards AFB is part of the sacred canon, but my research shows he only imagined it. Do you think my explanation has merit?

Leroy Chiao's glimpse of a fleet of lights passing his field of view while on a space station spacewalk in 2005 also has been widely circulated, but I showed it was a fishing fleet on the ocean 220 miles below. Do you think my explanation has merit?

Is your mind even capable of self-correction?

.
Jim, I asked you only one simple question, which is valid and extremely relevant to the discussion. I am patiently waiting for you to answer.

You did respond to my post but not my simple yet important question. You refused to answer or address the issue.

Instead, you asked me nine questions that you'd like me to answer. I am not averse to answering any questions, but I am asking you to do me the simple courtesy of answering my question first. I did ask you first, after all.

Now, just in case you have forgotten, I will ask again to make it easier for you:

Jim, out of the 100 cases of UFO sightings that you have "explained" away, in how many of those UFO sightings do the actual witnesses of these events agree with your explanation of what they saw?

I thank you, and await your answer.

originally posted by: Scdfa....
Jim, out of the 100 cases of UFO sightings that you have "explained" away, in how many of those UFO sightings do the actual witnesses of these events agree with your explanation of what they saw?

I haven't "explained away" any cases, I have offered prosaic solutions to a number of classic cases, many from long ago and far away, so I have no idea if witnesses [those still alive] even know about my work. My more recent work with astronauts, they all cooperated with my investigations and concur -- and as on STS-48, I quote them. I don't consider any direct experiencer -- yourself included -- to be the ultimate judge of the authenticity of a paranormal event they are involved in.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Just to promote full disclosure of where we're all coming from:

originally posted by: Scdfa

...It's absurd to hear someone say they don't see any "real" evidence. Aliens have abducted millions of people in the last seventy years, they are altering the genetic make-up of the human race, they are creating a hybrid species so they can live on earth undetected and rule the planet, and what did the people do? They slept through the invasion, played video games and twittered. Congratulations, dummy nation. You were conquered, and don't even realize your new rulers exist.

Yes, Jim, I'm all for full disclosure, but you keep dodging the simple question I asked:

Out of the 100 UFO sightings you have "explained" away, in how many of those cases did the people who actually witnessed these events agree with your explanation of what they witnessed?

Stop dodging and answer the question please, although I think your continuing refusal to answer indicates a number very close to ZERO.

But by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, to the reason behind your post, in which you take a quote of mine from another thread in what I assume must be an attempt to diminish me somehow.

I stand behind my words completely, my assessment of the alien agenda is accurate. I sum up the situation quite succinctly and truthfully, and I have been a first hand witness and unwilling participant since 1966.

If my assessment of the situation strikes you as unbelievable, that is only further evidence of a profound ignorance of a topic you write about at great length. A topic you profess to understand to such a degree that you feel justified telling the actual witnesses to these events that you know better than they do. Such hubris, on a grand scale.

Your disagreement with my assessment is also indicative of how far away from the truth your work in the field of UFOs has taken you. Seriously, how many UFO researchers have you had to ignore to avoid hearing what I said above? Well, you'd better get used to it, because the truth will out.

Now, since you're all about full disclosure, tell us why the organization you are so deeply involved with, CSICOP, has for decades engaged in fraudulent research, even according to CSICOP's founding members?

originally posted by: JimOberg
Multiple military pilots. Instrumentation malfunctions. Totally acceptable as reported by top ufologists.

What do you guys think they SHOULD have done before blessing this story?

Did they not check for NOTAMs?

NOTAMs are issued (and reported) for a number of reasons, such as:

hazards such as air shows, parachute jumps, kite flying, lasers, rocket launches, etc.

Just a guess, as I'm not familiar with that case.

originally posted by: NYCUltra
Even for a regular person, if multiple people see a solid craft I pretty much would say they saw one. I just highly doubt a mass hallucination is the explanation when multiple people actually see a solid craft and describe it similarly.

But this is exactly what happened in the Yukon and similar cases, and you still think just because multiple people think they saw a solid object that they actually did? They reported that the solid object blocked out the stars, which quite probably is exactly what it appeared to do.

You have much more research to do my friend in psychology and biology if you ever want to get at the truth.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Looking at the Ravenna case in 66, whether you believe it is aliens, Venus, or just unknown - what would change this? If we knew for a fact there was a highly advanced alien race living underground on Mars, how much would that change things?

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there are aliens living underground in Mars, but if there are I suspect they would be something like microbes not capable of space travel.

For the ravenna case, I don't know what they saw, but I take it you find the official explanation of a satellite then chasing Venus implausible?

Do you believe the account of astronomer Hynek that he was in a car that was chasing a star? I do.

www.ufoevidence.org...

...I went to Michigan with the hope that here was a case that I could use to focus scientific attention on the UFO problem. I wanted the scientists to consider the phenomenon.

But when I arrived in Michigan, I soon discovered that the situation was so charged with emotion that it was impossible for me to do any really serious investigation. The Air Force left me almost completely on my own, which meant that I sometimes had to fight my way through the clusters of reporters who were surrounding the key witnesses whom I had to interview.

The entire region was gripped with near-hysteria. One night at midnight I found myself in a police car racing toward a reported sighting. We had radio contact with other squad cars in the area. "I see it" from one car, "there it is" from another, "it's east of the river near Dexter" from a third. Occasionally even I thought I glimpsed "it."

Finally several squad cars met at an intersection. Men spilled out and pointed excitedly at the sky. "See--there it is! It's moving!"

But it wasn't moving. "It" was the star Arcturus, undeniably identified by its position in relation to the handle of the Big Dipper. A sobering demonstration for me.

Let me put it this way, I find chasing Venus even more plausible than chasing Arcturus. Exactly what they were chasing in the Ravenna case I don't know, but chasing astronomical objects in general is not implausible as Hynek's credible tale illustrates.

a reply to: Scdfa

of the 100 UFO sightings you have "explained" away, in how many of those cases did the people who actually witnessed these events agree with your explanation of what they witnessed?

Why? If there is a valid explanation of what something actually was then that is what it probably was. If a belief persists despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that would be a delusion.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: JimOberg
Just to promote full disclosure of where we're all coming from:

originally posted by: Scdfa

...It's absurd to hear someone say they don't see any "real" evidence. Aliens have abducted millions of people in the last seventy years, they are altering the genetic make-up of the human race, they are creating a hybrid species so they can live on earth undetected and rule the planet, and what did the people do? They slept through the invasion, played video games and twittered. Congratulations, dummy nation. You were conquered, and don't even realize your new rulers exist.

Scary seeing people so disconnected from reality isn't it Jim?

You're only fooling yourself, jadestar. I read your posts and say, " Scary seeing people so disconnected from reality!" But, like the truth, I'm sure the irony is lost on you.