Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

originally posted by: Scdfa

In fact, the only people who try to dismiss eyewitness testimony as unreliable, are people who are attempting to deny the reality of alien contact.

I think the point is why alien? Why not angels or faeries or old gods of ancient world? All have the same amount of evidence... I take that back I think aliens have less...

BUT - When people state very clearly that they witnessed, say, a flying saucer, with windows and strange beings looking out those windows, and then the flying saucer accelerated to thousands of miles an hour instantly, with no noise whatsoever, Oberg and crew can't dismiss it as Venus without eliciting laughter.

So a "flying saucer" flies up and hovers as aliens look out the window like some car driving though an open zoo range and zips off... OK... Did they wave too?

It is all still anecdotal evidence that it even happened in the first place, based on something (aliens) that has zero proof they even exists at all...So this means one of these statements below is correct, and the alien one is the most extreme.

1. They were real aliens that after 6000 years of modern civilization we have never gotten past the eyewitness stage.
2. They made it all up.
3. They saw something natural but weird to them and embellished it a little.

Not much else can be said about an account of flying saucer with windows that had aliens looking out of....

a reply to: JadeStar

Folks, I find this post by Jadestar to be intellectually dishonest. And not all that intellectual either.

When she takes this statement from a high-ranking military officer:

"My name is Wilfried De Brouwer. I am a retired Major General of the Belgian Air Force and I was Chief Operations in the Air Staff when an exceptional UFO wave took place over Belgium. Indeed, during the evening of 29 November 1989, in a small area in Eastern Belgium, approximately 140 UFO sightings were reported. Hundreds of people saw a majestic triangular craft with a span of approximately 120 feet, powerful beaming spot lights, moving very slowly without making any significant noise but, in several cases, accelerating to very high speeds."

Then jadestar takes the very un-scientific approach of removing data and misrepresenting the Major General's statement here:

A general of a military branch would be expected to know more than "Um, some people reported some stuff in the sky."

Tsk tsk. Reductio ad absurdum.

Well, jadestar, I guess we can also describe every important discovery by all your favorite astronomers with that same statement, right?

Galileo? "Um, some guy reported some stuff in the sky."

Johannes Keppler? Edwin Hubble? Carl Sagan? "Um, some people reported some stuff in the sky."

It is dishonest. If jadestar and people like her have all the weight of "science" on their side, why do they constantly bend the truth to make alien contact seem unlikely? Hmm. Those are the tactics of a losing argument.

Then jadestar ignores evidence altogether in an effort to make an unworkable explanation somehow work. She chooses to ignore this evidence from the Major General's statement:

moving very slowly without making any significant noise but, in several cases, accelerating to very high speeds."

Why does jadestar ignore this?

So she can tell us it was just airplanes!

But airplanes do not move very slowly. And they make significant noise. And they don't suddenly accelerate to very high speeds. I didn't know science was so keen on ignoring data!

Maybe Jadestar could tell us which of the FIVE airplanes she shows us are capable of " moving very slowly without making any significant noise but, in several cases, accelerating to very high speeds."

Wait, I know, none of them!

So why does jadestar waste our time with an explanation so absurd? That's the real question. Is she not as scientifically minded as she professes to be, or does she underestimate our intelligence?

Or is she simply so determined to deny the reality of alien contact that she is willing to ignore the scientific method to do so? I cannot say, I can only speculate.

Then she speculates wildly, sticking to her top secret airplane explanation, stating that it is still a top secret airplane even though nearly thirty years have passed. But then she suggests the Major General is simply LYING, to keep our top secret thirty-year old airplane still secret. This is outlandish, and far from the scientific method:

Furthermore, if such a plane were still secret it would also be helpful to have someone like General de Bower out there keeping the UFO story out there as cover.

Wow. I guess that settles that!

But wait, Jadestar, if the General is lying as you suggest, what about the hundreds and hundreds of OTHER witnesses? The pilots themselves? All liars too?

And folks, this actually make sense to jadestar:

That to me, as an astronomer, knowing what I know about our galaxy, far more plausible than ETs coming to Earth to buzz people in Belgium then leaving without a trace.

Really? I guess owning a telescope allows you to ignore everything you don't see through it.

a reply to: Xtrozero


Yes, and I suggest you cling to your worldview just as long as you possibly can.

Good luck, we'll try to talk about aliens softly, so as not to disturb you. You might want to look into a white noise machine, and some heavier curtains.

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: 111DPKING111





I'm not sure I completely follow, like in the following cases, do you think there is not enough data?

Madagascar in 54, double daylight siting
Westall in 66, daylight siting at Australian elementary school, starting at 9:14 is the best part.
Ravenna in 66, cat and mouse chase

If not these cases, are there others where you consider the UFO possibility the most likely explanation?

What data in those cases leads you to conclude they were the work of extra-terrestirals/aliens?

From the double daylight siting in Madagascar

Description - probably the most unusual UFO ive read about
"Mr. Campagnac realized that the "electric green light" looks like a kind of lens shaped plasma, of approximately 40 meters length, the "size of a DC4 aircraft."

This green lens is closely followed by a flying machine with a distinct silvery metallic aspect and the shape of a football, also 40 meter long, At the back of this metal machine, bluish exhaust flames are seen."


Aerial maneuvers not capable by our craft in 54
"Sudden somebody sees in the sky a "electric green ball" descending straight towards the ground near the Palais de la Reine. He points at it and everybody watches. The phenomenon disappears behind a hill, and they all expect to hear a mighty explosion when the thing hit the ground.
But the green light does not hit the ground.
The green ball reappears a minute afterwards, bigger. It makes a circle over the higher parts of Tananarive, a city built on and inside a series of hills with a "horseshoe" Configuration."

no noise
The craft was totally silent. M. Campagnac, in his testimony, which he often publicly offered, explains that the craft did not even make the sound of swishing a flyier would make through the air.


Westall case

I dont believe we had remote control anti-grav drones in 66, not even sure we have them today.


Ravenna chase

As Karl12 recounts in his thread, the object in question had stop and go capability, which as far as I know, we still dont have today, and certainly not in 66.

As I noted in the Broadhaven case you coved, its the little things that make a big difference, at least to me. If Broadhaven UFO had been observed levitating up and flying off, it would be one of the best cases available.

originally posted by: Scdfa

Yes, and I suggest you cling to your worldview just as long as you possibly can.

Good luck, we'll try to talk about aliens softly, so as not to disturb you. You might want to look into a white noise machine, and some heavier curtains.

See there you go with the alien believer elitist attitude. Like the only reason a person doesn't accept aliens is because they can not handle the concept and would curl up in a fetal position if they ever saw one, unlike you the brave alien hunter...lol

I think my biggest issue is once a person decides they believe they do not look in any other direction but aliens...

When one goes back and looks at this whole alien phenomena from the beginning we see how it started as an extremely simple concept with small flying saucers and over the decades society has fueled this and the whole concept has grown and evolved in complexity. A huge part of this has been socially engineered whether they are there or not, since pretty much everything we have on this subject is still in the speculation stage we have not really gone anywhere with it in the last 6000 years.

Its a lot like Bigfoot, one day we need an actual Bigfoot to prove Bigfoot is real, but each year our electronics get better, wilderness gets smaller, Bigfoot better show himself soon or there isn't any...

a reply to: JadeStar

Ok, so where are the pictures? Where's the radar data? You were the General of a branch of government (the military) tasked with patrolling the skies above a fairly sizeable European country. You call the object hundreds of people say "majestic" and even have estimated its size but there are no pictures, no radar data? Nothing but witness testimony?

To be fair, there were no photos...that's true. Maybe the one and it's so open to dispute that it's not admissible as evidence. On the radar data side, there are several paragraphs in the book that describe the circumstances around an F-16 that was scrambled and briefly locked on. Perhaps you overlooked them? The aircraft had been scrambled after police officers called in a sighting that was also caught on two military radars.

The radar data from the F-16 was subsequently analysed and appeared to show an 'object' that was able to manoeuvre at great speeds and execute sharp changes in altitude and position. I've got the analysis somewhere and can locate it if anyone's interested.

Either way, it's hardly fair to ridicule the Colonel's role or testimony. He's stood by his account and he was there to receive first-hand, live reports.

The McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger was never put into production and seems only to have been a mock-up - a concept vehicle. I can't speak to the other aircraft you presented. Needless to say, the witness reports didn't include loud engines and stealth bombers do tend to be fairly noisy.

To be clear here, I'm not particularly keen on 'OMG alien' either (to use your phrase). I'm just pointing out that your conclusions fall short of addressing several key facts surrounding the reported incidents. Dismiss them by all means, but be aware that your reasons are not based on available evidence.

Personally, I'm more inclined towards the incidents being a military exercise to test cutting edge radar spoofing tech (ECM). Saying that, it's hard to figure out how the physical sightings were orchestrated. Maybe a lot of the witness reports were similarly spoofed? It's possible.

Whatever the case, it all remains inconclusive at this moment in time. The military witnesses who were involved in the incidents don't need to be elevated to the status of super-observers. Neither should we presume to downplay their intelligence or capacity for rational thought.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: BeefNoMeat

And, as lay person, I find the assertion that pilots make the best eyewitnesses very intuitive.

I don't think we can make assumptions of pilots as a whole , as we've seen recently not all pilots are the same.
Pilots are trained to fly planes , as far as I'm aware they are not trained to identify objects outside of those planes.

I can't speak for anyone else, so I was giving my perspective concerning pilots' ability to identify/misidentify. In other words, what made sense on the face of it - at first glance. But as you'll see below, it's (my intuitive sense of a pilot's ability to discern the identifiable from the truly unidentifiable) plausible and may even lead one to believe (right, wrong, or indifferent) pilots have prior training helping them do this. Here's the key passage from Oberg's 2010 article concerning pilots:

"Kean asserts that pilots are the best describers of aerial phenomena. “They represent the world’s best-trained observers of everything that flies,” she writes. “What better source for data on UFOs is there?... [They] are among the least likely of any group of witnesses to fabricate or exaggerate reports of strange sightings.”
This may sound like a plausible assumption, but others who have studied the raw evidence disagree. Experienced UFO investigators realize that pilots, who instinctively and quite properly interpret visual phenomena in the most hazardous terms, are not dispassionate observers."

I don't pretend to know what pilots are truly trained to do, but it's fair to say, regarding UFOs/UAP, that the assumption pilots are more credible eye witnesses in the cases of UFOs is one many people hold. That pilots are the worst eye witnesses seems extremely counter-intuitive. It'd be nice to understand some of the physiological/psychological/whatever underpinnings that make pilots the worst eye witnesses.

From Oberg's article: "Hynek found that the best class of witnesses had a 50 percent misperception rate, but that pilots had a much higher rate: 88 percent for military pilots, 89 percent for commercial pilots, the worst of all categories listed." I hope anyone interested in the subject of UFOs/UAP would be, at the very least, made aware of this faulty assumption. Moreover, made aware of the underpinnings of this poor ability to discern/judge the identifiable from the unidentifiable. Only those that are truly versed in this subject would buy the argument pilots are the worst eye witnesses. I would wager a significant amount that if the following were presented on Family Feud (Steve Harvey is money on that show), pilots would be at the top, if not the top, of the survey board:

"We surveyed 100 people and asked the following question: What profession would be best suited for debunking claims of UFOs?"

I hope that clears it up. I didn't want you making the assumption of me as a whole, that I think 'all pilots are the same'. However, I was a little confused by what pilots were trained to do. Intuitively, I suspected 'pilots are trained to fly planes', but as we can see these intuitive assumptions, no matter how plausible, could be wrong. If you have anything to add beyond the assumption Kean is simply looking to hock a book, I am open ears. As we have learned, those assumptions may not hold up.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
You obviously don't understand Hynek's work at all. He didn't assign misperception to the 5.8%. He's saying he doesn't know what those 5.8% of cases were, so how could he?

So with the 98.2% already accounted for, where does misperception fit in within the remaining 5.8%?

originally posted by: Xtrozero


I think the point is why alien? Why not angels or faeries or old gods of ancient world? All have the same amount of evidence... I take that back I think aliens have less...

Who do you think the "old gods" were and where is this evidence of fairies that outweighs ET? Just curious.
Also, aside from religious text, (text that can also be seen to substantiate ET), where is this "extra" evidence of angels?

a reply to: JimOberg

Do you have a link to your article listing those points you disagree with in Keane's book? Thanks.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I agree mate , it's one of the few cases that still get my spidey senses tingling , I don't doubt something was in the air over a period of time and the witnesses saw what they saw , whether it was terrestrial or other is still a mystery to me.

a reply to: gortex

Yeah there's a good chance someone knows exactly what happened and a greater chance we never will. : )

I found a link for that radar analysis here.

Whether these objects are ours or not, I agree there's an eerie sensation when considering them. Of course, that's allowing that some reports are accurate and who can say??

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Firstly thanks for putting the effort in to clarify your conclusions. I think were we differ is that I would say the cases are fascinating and certainly point to something we could not identify. However I would not take it from the certainty that it must be aliens. It doesn't mean it wasn't either. Just that the evidence is not there to fully substantiate that conclusion.

I haven't looked through Kean's book for a long while but seem to remember thinking it was a decent book on the topic.
But I think it's important to look at what both the "UFOs are aliens" authors and 'skeptics' have to offer. So I also have respect for Mr. Oberg. He comes here with complete openness as to who he is and always fights his corner. Would Leslie Kean be willing to fight her corner here? I somehow have my doubts about that.

To quote Mr. Oberg

...Accepting every UFO claim uncritically or rejecting every claim automatically would be equally unjustified. And quite possibly, equally harmful.

Source : NBCnews.com

a reply to: mirageman

Has Kean every posted here at ATS? From reading the OP, it seems to suggest that she may have dropped a line or 2.

It would be exciting to be a part of a thread/discussion that she was willing to put her name to and " fight her corner here".

I am so glad I decided to post this. I have learned a lot and it has been nice that it has carried on with civility no less. Always a plus that it is.

When I posted this I was hoping maybe a mod or higher up could maybe get Leslie to join in on this, but then again, I have seen how the AMA post go and I'd hate to see the lady thoroughly attacked too. Debate and banter is one thing and it can clearly happen just watching this thread develop, but we know it can turn ugly quick around here.

Still though, I really would like to hear more of her thoughts pertaining to this.

I would also like to thank Jim for stepping up here as well. I find that to be honorable to say the least.

I hope you folks keep discussing this and posting the various links. It is good for my brain to finally get some good information.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Thanks for the analysis mate it made for very interesting reading

If the target being pursued was physical that analysis just added a whole new level of tingle , I still want to believe.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Firstly thanks for putting the effort in to clarify your conclusions. I think were we differ is that I would say the cases are fascinating and certainly point to something we could not identify. However I would not take it from the certainty that it must be aliens. It doesn't mean it wasn't either. Just that the evidence is not there to fully substantiate that conclusion.

Im not sure I completely understand where you are coming from. Do you not think the Westall kids saw a small drone like craft that could levitate (anti grav tech) up? Or just because they did, that doesnt mean UFO? What else could it possibly be?

The same goes for the other cases, do you think we perhaps we had craft that could come to a complete stop mid-air and then take off in 54 OR are you saying just because we didnt have that tech, it doesnt mean it had to be aliens? What other explanation are you entertaining?

I haven't looked through Kean's book for a long while but seem to remember thinking it was a decent book on the topic.
But I think it's important to look at what both the "UFOs are aliens" authors and 'skeptics' have to offer. So I also have respect for Mr. Oberg. He comes here with complete openness as to who he is and always fights his corner. Would Leslie Kean be willing to fight her corner here? I somehow have my doubts about that.

To quote Mr. Oberg

I dont know enough about her to say, I do think it was smart of her to respond to Jim's article though. However as Jim pointed out , she didnt bother to get into the details of his criticism.

I also think its worth seeing what the skeptical world has to say to a certain point. If you want to try and connect the dots and really dig into the details of a case( ie get the truth) , you simply arent going to get that from the skeptical world of Philip Klass or Brian Dunning.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

I don't think Leslie Kean has ever posted here. I could be wrong.

I think the AMA (Ask Me Anything) threads were quite an interesting and Leslie Kean would certainly be a great guest. But I am not sure of the reception she would receive. These AMA threads are bit like free beer nights at the local drinking establishment. Everyone wants a slice of the action and these threads tend to be "a bit messy" to coin a phrase.

a reply to: mirageman

Appreciate the reply.

Free beer, sign me up

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
So with the 98.2% already accounted for, where does misperception fit in within the remaining 5.8%?

I don't see where Hynek ever made any claims about misperception rates regarding that 5.8%.

However only a fool would think that people have a high misperception rate on the vast majority of UFO cases that turned out to be things like manmade objects or natural phenomena, but that the misperception rate drops to zero on the unidentified cases. So obviously there is likely to be some misperception rate on those 5.8% of cases too, but nobody can say what that is unless the source of the observation is identified.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
I found a link for that radar analysis here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't consider myself an expert on that case, but SOBEPS published two thick volumes on the Belgian UFO wave so they are experts. And UFO files said that even SOBEPS admits almost all the radar data is bad because it shows the UFOs actually flying below ground level, which is impossible. ...

There is apparently only one set of radar data they refer to as lock-on #9 which they still hang on to as unexplained, however if all the other radar data is bad, I don't know why they would choose to believe the only one that doesn't show flying below ground level. I would have to say if all the radar data except one set is wrong, the one remaining set that isn't obviously wrong has to at least be suspect since it came from the same radars as the wrong data.

Do the words "anomalous propagation" mean anything? That can happen when there are high winds which was apparently the case with that radar data. That link contains a documentary explaining the underground flights on the radar data leading believers and skeptics alike to conclude most of the data was bad. SOBEPS wouldn't let go of the lone observation of lock-on #9 that wasn't proven bad however.

SUNlite Issue 2.6 is relevant to this thread because it contains an article about the Kean-Oberg debate, and it also gives some information on how the whole Belgian wave may have started, with a helicopter sighting (unrelated of course to the bad radar data and fake photo, etc).

a reply to: JadeStar

Ok, so where are the pictures? Where's the radar data? You were the General of a branch of government (the military) tasked with patrolling the skies above a fairly sizeable European country. You call the object hundreds of people say "majestic" and even have estimated its size but there are no pictures, no radar data? Nothing but witness testimony?

A general of a military branch would be expected to know more than "Um, some people reported some stuff in the sky." This was 1989 after all, not 1947. There are sophisticated radar and camera systems which would have caught such a craft and yet all we have from the Belgium wave is one hoaxed photo.

I think you must have forgotten the radar from the fighter jets as well as ground that show ridiculous changes in velocity, both angular and speed. There were also hundreds of witnesses not just citizens but the police all over Holland and Belgium at the same time. And I would simply ask this, if the craft was American, with the characteristics reported and recorded, then shouldn't there be an investigation into that? The Americans were asked, they said they had no such aircraft capable of what was being reported.

So then, what is it? I know what I think, I do in fact think it was probably military. That of course leads me to the conclusion that the US military are hiding tech that is not only groundbreaking but earthshattering. Shame on them, and anybody who defends their right to hide such tech, the world being as it is.

Edited to add: And shame on me too for going straight to a reply without reading how the thread has moved on. Others have clearly addressed the same issues.