A Careless Patina of Embellishment Detracts So Much Credibility From UFOlogy

I see many people who follow UFOlogy that have heads filled with misconceptions, and I was once in this category too when what I learned about UFOlogy was learned from reading books and watching documentaries instead of doing my own research.

I see some people who follow UFOlogy have discovered as I have that these books and "documentaries" can be very unreliable and misleading sources of information, and have found it's wise to question everything and conduct your own research to try to learn the truth. I'll give several examples, two of which came from this video of a presentation by Terry Hansen at XCon 2004 on News Media Complicity and the Truth Embargo. I don't feel like I'm getting any more truth from Terry Hansen than the news media he complains about, not that I believe the News media either.

XCon 2004 - Terry Hansen - News Media Complicity and the Truth Embargo

This is his first slide:

It sounds like good advice to look at all the evidence, right?
But I think he needs to follow his own advice.

He talks about security risks of UFOs and at 19:15, shows a slide about a mid-air collision bringing down this C118 transport plane in 1959:

Hansen says:
"A C118 transport aircraft took off and ran into something in mid-air and came down in flaming wreckage, and the pilot before he hit the ground said "We've hit something, or it's hit us"
So there were some of these peculiar air crashes that were happening where no wreckage was found from another airplane, yet the aircraft came down for some reason and there was no good explanation as to what that was, so this was pretty unsettling."

Since I've learned I need to question everything in UFOlogy, I looked into this a bit more, and found this explanation from The Mammoth Book of Unexplained Phenomena:

To summarize what that says, from the crash in 1959 to 25 years later in 1984, the cause of the crash was a mystery to the public. But in 1984, pursuant to a FOIA request, the Air Force released a document explaining the wing of the plane hit a tree, and the supposed UFO reported by witnesses was, in fact the burning plane itself since it apparently caught fire after clipping the tree.

So, I think Terry Hansen needs to follow his own advice and look at ALL the evidence. Since his presentation was in 2004, that is 20 years AFTER the cause of the crash became publicly known as clipping a tree, yet he still misleadingly portrays the event as some mysterious mid-air collision with a UFO. And the fact that the UFO was the burning plane itself makes this misrepresentation even more tragic, almost as tragic as the loss of life from the accident.

Note I adopted the title of the thread as a near quote from the book which referred to: "a careless patina of embellishment that detracts so much credibility from the UFO lobby".

Another topic that Terry Hansen spends considerable time on is promoting the mythology about UFOs shutting down nuclear missiles. There were nuclear missiles in "Echo Flight" shut down for a day at Malmstrom, but I haven't been able to confirm any UFOs were involved as Hansen and many people seem to think.

There are thousands of UFO sightings by thousands of witnesses, yet in all the time I've heard this mythology, I have yet to find even one single witness to the alleged UFO that shut down the missiles. The commander of those Echo flight missiles was Captain Eric Carlson, and his son James Carlson wrote a book including lots of documentation about the event as well as his father's first-hand experience, and the book is completely free to read or download since he thinks the truth should be known:

Echo Flight UFO incident, March 1967

In this manuscript I debunk completely the Echo Flight UFO Incident of March 16, 1967, and prove that the myth of UFO interference with the nuclear weapons systems at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 is a nothing but a poorly executed lie propogated by Robert Salas, James Klotz, Robert Hastings, Brad Sparks, CUFON, and NICAP -- a lie that has no basis in fact and lacks even the most liberal standards of proof. I've utilized newly discovered documents, in addition to the same documents, interviews, and published statements originally used and badly interpreted to support the belief in UFO interference with the Malmstrom missile systems, in order to destroy in minute, step-by-step detail, every aspect of the claims originally made by Robert Salas and James Klotz in their book "Faded Giant". Fully documented and footnoted, I examine in some detail all sides of this surprisingly well-documented event, reaching the only possible conclusion that UFOs had nothing at all to do with any of the events at Malmstrom in March, 1967 and nothing whatsoever to do with the missile failures that occurred. If you haven't read this book in its entirety, then you do not understand the events that occurred at Echo Flight and elsewhere that March.

I'm distributing this book completely free of charge in order to correct the historical record so badly maligned by the individuals named above, and because my father was the commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. I believe that his entire, very honorable career has been co-opted by fools and liars as a footnote to their descriptions of an event that never occurred.

If you choose to read Carlson's free book you can judge for yourself, but even aside from that book, has anybody ever found a single witness who actually saw the UFO? Hastings has produced witnesses who Carlson alleges may have heard jokes about a UFO being the cause of the missile shutdown, but his father who was there didn't think there was any UFO involved.

That was from 2004, but a more recent very misleading example (a lie?) is the GoFast video episode on the TV show "Unidentified". As explained in this video, the "documentary" claims the object was going nearly 2/3 the speed of sound, but a simple analysis of the display shows the UFO was not going nearly 2/3 the speed of sound:

"Go Fast" UFO Video Explained?

The "Go Fast" UFO looks like it's going really fast, but a simple analysis of the data available in the video shows that it is not.

The analysis doesn't use some mind-numbing calculus, but only very simple high school trigonometry to conclude that the speed of the UFO is much closer to 20 to 40 knots than it is to "almost 2/3 the speed of sound".

There are many more examples I could get into; the field of UFOlogy is littered with them, but when I came across the C118 crash and the continued mythology about UFOs and nuclear missiles, I wanted to bring the attention of these things to ATSers. By the way there are a number of very astute UFO researchers on ATS who have already learned about the need to question everything, and don't take any claim in UFOlogy for granted, and I tip my hat to them and thank them for their own research and insights into discovering the real truth about claims in UFOlogy.

With most things in the world, there is 99% and 1%. UFOlogy is no different. Most things, 99% are either made up or embellished, and sometimes they are picked up and taken very far even so. Kind of like the MJ12 documents (which are wholeheartedly faked documents)

But- there is still the 1% that remains, which is the catalyst for the belief in some of these claims. The want to believe measured against things that are very debatable in their existence, or viability of it being truly anomalous.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The flip side to this is that older, classic cases have been "redone" so much that, over time, important details have dropped out in the rush to once again mention a given incident.

Patina and redaction. Neither good for corralling facts.

Cheers

a reply to: Iconic
Good point. People will argue about the percentage split, but there is still reason to have genuine interest in the "signal" if there is one, rather than the noise. But there's an awful lot of noise masking the signal. In one particular branch of UFOlogy, of crop circles, I think there's reason to be skeptical that there's even 1% of crop circles that are unexplainable. The most common flawed argument there I see is "I'm not smart enough to figure out how to to that so I assume nobody else is either, therefore it must have been aliens".

For UFO sightings themselves though, I try to keep an open mind and look for the small percentage you mention which are interesting and not easily explained. Even though the gofast video UFO is not identified, I find an object going 20-40 knots far less interesting than one "going nearly 2/3 the speed of sound" as the misleading documentary claims.

David Fravor's eyewitness account of his tic-tac sighting is fascinating, and I think we believe that he believes what he says, but we are still stuck with the notorious unreliability of eyewitnesses even in his case, so some supporting evidence would be nice. The video often shown alongside Fravor telling his story unfortunately does not support what he says since it was not taken by him but by another pilot at a later time, so even though many people seem to think his story is some kind of holy grail, while I am also fascinated by it, we have always had interesting stories, it is any reliable evidence to back them up that has typically been lacking.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

good stuff! i've become a sceptic. and to be honest, i only find the 'arial school incident 1994' interesting. even the lazar story is not quite credible to me anymore in the meantime. and the whole to the stars thing has developed into nothing. too many stories. not a single video that shows any kind of weird physically impossible movements. not a single photo that clearly shows a spaceship or even an alien. and too many liars who want to feel important or earn money with it. i would like to believe but i need proof.

Immediately off-hand, there's skepticism. then curiosity, but it so often involves camera pictures that are out of focus or otherwise useless as proof, even if only as visual proof. There are those who want to fool the 'System' just to do it.

Others spend boo-coo $ on summits, outings, and watch groups. There always seems to be a reason why ? Why it didn't come out, Why it didn't show Why it couldn't be found again. There are Reams of stories why Lost Gold mines couldn't be found again, and always a "Plausible" reason/story. I guess people are weary listening, getting their hopes up and then crashing straight into the ground. Jaded as it were.

We ourselves will be the ones we are looking for as UFO's in the near future. When tech surpasses far beyond 2020. Only it won't be otherworldly, but our own..

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

So, I think Terry Hansen needs to follow his own advice and look at ALL the evidence. Since his presentation was in 2004, that is 20 years AFTER the cause of the crash became publicly known as clipping a tree, yet he still misleadingly portrays the event as some mysterious mid-air collision with a UFO.

Ah, another 'instant wonder" UFO expert to grace ATS. Welcome. Terry is going to have a difficult time adhering to your dictates since he is dead. Of course, you could have found that out had you done a little research.

a reply to: schuyler
I never said he wasn't dead, but his death hasn't stopped people from posting that video. It was posted to another thread here a while back and I just got around to watching it. Since it's still in circulation it's not too late to clear up some misconceptions.

I think other people have reached the same conclusion....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: olaru12

Indeed.

Ufology is no longer a study of unidentified flying objects. If it ever was.


It's been infected by strange New Age beliefs, poisoned tales from the military industrial complex to cover their own secrets and ufotainment. Classic UFO cases cannot be solved. The mystery and probability that aliens were involved has to remain. If someone does try to solve them or admit they hoaxed something then the default position is a government cover-up. Obviously I am a government cover-upper myself for stating that too.

It would seem that telling people things they don't want to believe, even by presenting facts, only entrenches their views and their beliefs.

In some cases these beliefs are actually a danger to oneself. Think of the Heaven's Gate Cult who thought that a spaceship was following the Hale–Bop comet in 1997 and committed suicide believing they were joining their space brothers in the heavens.

Of course all of the above doesn't mean that aliens aren't out there somewhere. But it's far more likely a scientific body will announce the discovery of an alien signal or ET artifact has been discovered than any pop ufologist.

Many people grew up watching or reading classic cases like Roswell, Betty and Barney Hill, Travis Walton, and later Rendlesham Forest, etc. that was sold to them by the media. The media who's objective is profit and to sell a sensationalized story. Occasionally we would have a snippet of Philip Klass who would give a skeptics view, but very briefly. People seem to become entrenched in these stories and hold tight onto them to this day. At the time, throughout the 70s and 80s, the general public really had no way to view both sides of an incident unless you actively searched for it. For example, Roswell was never given equal time by the skeptical to give a balanced view of the case. It was flippantly mentioned during television shows that the Air Force said it was a weather balloon. 

It's rarely focused on, that the Hill case is made up of two parts. The first being the sighting by Betty and Barney of a UFO. The second that was sold to the public was the abduction which is completely created almost two weeks later through a series of dreams that Betty had. Then these dreams were interpreted through hypnosis.
This is the type of thing that people were sold for years. So naturally they go through this period viewing alien piloted UFOs as real with no skepticism.

Now with the birth of the internet, those that are truly curious can research everything for themselves. But by this time, anyone that does so by looking for rational answers is a shill, not a true skeptic, scared of discovering the real truth, and other nonsense created by believers because it goes against what they believe.
 
But you still have those that have scientific fact to back up an incident that refuse to accept it. It was said a UFO was seen over Alaska, then solid proof contradicted that saying it was a rocket re-entry. People convinced themselves it was UFO giving off all of these colors and refused to let go of that. Even Stanton Friedman refused to back down from what people thought they saw.

Unfortunately science fiction still wins out in the minds of the public sometimes over science fact.