Any thoughts on Allan Hendry?

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: flamengo

That is actually a new class of sceptic, the ones who pretend they are not and then destroy most interesting cases applying lack of nuance or regard for the observation of the witnesses.

And they post right here on ATS.

Lots of 'Cointelpro' article links seem to be defunct nowadays but Kevin Randle does make some good points about the mindset in this vid.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, although I don't think it was Herbert who actually said it, have always loved this statement.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Herbert Spencer, British philosopher

I respect Michael Swords, doesn't mean he is right on this one though.

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: flamengo

Don't know enough about the chap to label him a 'pseudo-sceptic' mate but Professor Swords does include his 'UFO Handbook' on this list (and all the other books are pretty good).

The guy is a pseudo "believer" or a under cover sceptic IMO. He poospoos most of the cases, and has the attitude that "we cannot trust our senses" mantra on tip of his tongue.

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: flamengo

That is actually a new class of sceptic, the ones who pretend they are not and then destroy most interesting cases applying lack of nuance or regard for the observation of the witnesses.

And they post right here on ATS.

Lots of 'Cointelpro' article links seem to be defunct nowadays but Kevin Randle does make some good points about the mindset in this vid.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, although I don't think it was Herbert who actually said it, have always loved this statement.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Herbert Spencer, British philosopher

I completely agree with your definition, still to the UFO literature sceptic became debunker, some of them are on your face, and on this category we can include klass, menzel, but others use more subtle ways. The methods they use is to make everything more complicated and problematize everything. We cannot trust our senses and people got mistaken all the time and blablabla. I know the song.

originally posted by: flamengo
We cannot trust our senses and people got mistaken all the time and blablabla. I know the song.

So if we can trust our senses, how does one deal with the Yukon mothership, or similar cases? Ignore the satellite data? That seems to be violating the first rule suggested by Professor Michael Swords...

"Decide to be an honest seeker-of-the-truth..."

Is ignoring the satellite data, and believing the 30+ eyewitnesses really seeking the truth?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: flamengo
We cannot trust our senses and people got mistaken all the time and blablabla. I know the song.

So if we can trust our senses, how does one deal with the Yukon mothership, or similar cases? Ignore the satellite data? That seems to be violating the first rule suggested by Professor Michael Swords...

"Decide to be an honest seeker-of-the-truth..."

Is ignoring the satellite data, and believing the 30+ eyewitnesses really seeking the truth?

One must be too naive not to identify the bluebook strategies right there. Trying to fit venus, jupiter, skyrook balloons anywhere and basically ignore what the witness was saying. I don't buy it. And there are several of those experiences, that is not even unusual. It doesn't mean that there are no misindentification out there, there are, only that the number is well too inflated IMO.

a reply to: flamengo
I asked specifically about the Yukon case with 30+ eyewitnesses, and known satellite re-entry data, not Jupiter etc. You are not addressing what I asked about that case.

How many of those 30+ witnesses got it right?
I haven't found one yet, if you find even one witness of that case who got even close on the distance estimate, please let me know. Every single witness I read about was way off on the distance, not just one here or one there, all of them.

However, I'd be happy to be corrected if you can find even one single witness who got a distance estimate that was anywhere near close.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: Spacespider
There are lots of UFO nuts like us out there and surely lots of payed actors.

They are even posting right here on ATS.

Shhh! Keep it down. Some of us are trying to skeptibunk over here.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: flamengo
I asked specifically about the Yukon case with 30+ eyewitnesses, and known satellite re-entry data, not Jupiter etc. You are not addressing what I asked about that case.

How many of those 30+ witnesses got it right?
I haven't found one yet, if you find even one witness of that case who got even close on the distance estimate, please let me know. Every single witness I read about was way off on the distance, not just one here or one there, all of them.

However, I'd be happy to be corrected if you can find even one single witness who got a distance estimate that was anywhere near close.

Yeah, but granting it was a satellite re-entry, what does it tell us? That all the other sightings at the Yukon were also satellites? Or that "people misindentify things all the time" ? There a lot to be said that, because it became an ideological line used to spin off the whole study. We could actually ignore most of these cases and focused mostly on CEs , those are most interesting anyway.

originally posted by: flamengo
Yeah, but granting it was a satellite re-entry, what does it tell us?

A lot. It was some lights in the sky. All the witnesses misjudged the distance, and thought it was MUCH closer than it actually was. A lot of witnesses connected the dots and thought it was some kind of structured craft, and at least one witness, maybe more, said it blocked out the stars.
Another witness thought there was some electromagnetic interference. We have no reason to doubt the honesty, sincerity or what we often call "credibility" of any of these Yukon UFO witnesses. They definitely saw something unusual to them, and tried to report what they thought they saw as best they could.


Robert Sheaffer made a list of the misperceptions reported. We should try to learn something from these:

"Top Ten" UFO Case - Yukon, Canada, 1996

Report: "As he was walking his flashlight happened to point in the direction of the UFO. As if reacting to his flashlight, the UFO started speeding rapidly toward him."

Reality: the "UFO reacting" to him was entirely in his imagination. The rocket booster did not react to his flashlight.


Report: the UFO was hovering approximately 300 yards in front of the observer. "Hynek Classification: CE1" (Close Encounter of the First Kind).

Reality: the distance to the re-entering booster was approximately 233 km (145 miles), so this was not a "close encounter." At no time did it stop, or hover.


Report: The UFO was approximately 500-750 meters (up to 1/2 mile) in length.

Reality: It is impossible to estimate the size of an unknown object unless its distance is known. Since the disintegrating booster was about 145 miles distant, its debris train must have been spread over many miles.


Report: "The interior lights in her car started to go dim and the music from her tape deck slowed down."

Reality: This effect was entirely in the observer's imagination. The rocket booster did not affect her car's electronics.


Report: "stars blocked out" by huge UFO.

Reality: the observers were viewing a long train of debris from the disintegrating rocket booster. It was not a solid object, and thus could not have "blocked out" stars. However, the light from the reentry may have made nearby stars difficult to see.

Why did the witnesses "connect the dots" and think it was a structured craft? And why did a witness say it blocked out the stars? Because this is the way our minds work, we try to make sense of unfamiliar things we see, and when we see multiple lights connecting the dots is one thing that we can see from the Yukon case is common.

Blocking out the stars is also understandable based partly on the physiology of the eye, but it shows us such a witness report can happen even when the lights are NOT blocking out the stars.

So when we look at these types of misperceptions in the Yukon case, why should anybody think they wouldn't apply also to other lights in the sky? Misjudging distance by HUGE amounts, connecting the dots, perceiving they blocked out the stars, and so on. If you consider all those factors, then in cases like the Phoenix lights where you have different witnesses looking at the same part of the sky at the same time and perceiving different things, shouldn't you at least question if some of the same kind of misperceptions as happened in the Yukon case could be going on? If that's so it would explain a lot of the witness discrepancies in the Phoenix Lights case.

That all the other sightings at the Yukon were also satellites?

Of course not.

Or that "people misindentify things all the time" ?

That is one of the points Allan Hendry tries to make that you seem to have difficulty accepting. People argue about the percentage of UFO reports which turn out to be IFOs, and Hendry got a different percentage in his smaller sample than Hynek did in his larger sample, but whatever the exact percentage, various reports agree that most UFO reports are explainable as either manmade objects, or natural phenomena. MUFON used to say just that on their website, I don't know if they still do. But I think a case of "multiple lights in the sky" can be compared to other cases of "multiple lights in the sky", can't they?

There a lot to be said that, because it became an ideological line used to spin off the whole study. We could actually ignore most of these cases and focused mostly on CEs , those are most interesting anyway.

The Yukon case WAS classified as a CE, according to the ATS thread on the subject! And this should boggle your mind when the actual distance was over 140 miles away, yet they reported it was a close encounter! Some people still want to take the statement of every witness in another "lights in the sky" case like Phoenix Lights at face value, and assume nobody in Phoenix can have the same distance misperceptions that virtually all the Yukon observers had, and not consider the similarities that some witnesses "connected the dots" to see a structured craft with "stars blocked out".

Here's the ATS thread on the Yukon case, note the Hynek Classification CE1!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Since the satellite re-entry case in the Yukon was reported as a close encounter (Hynek Classification CE1), it may not be so easy to determine what is really a close encounter.

For the Hopkinsville case and close encounters of the third kind, my thoughts are that if such cases happen in modern times, at least someone in that house is likely to have a smartphone with built in camera that can at least take an out-of-focus blurry photo of the creature(s) looking in through the window, and if we are really lucky, maybe they can take a photo that is in focus and not blurry.

So, the good news is, thanks to the prevalence of smartphones, we have a lot better opportunities now to collect photographic evidence to support what the eyewitnesses saw, and the photos could do much to help resolve some of these questions of misperceptions. I didn't invent the phrase "pictures or it didn't happen" and it does seem a bit glib but honestly, if I saw a goblin or alien looking in through my window, I'd feel a lot better about reporting it if I was able to take a good photo of it to go with my report.

originally posted by: flamengo
Yeah, but granting it was a satellite re-entry, what does it tell us?

It doesn't tell us that ALL 'large mothership with lights' reports are fireball or a/c light swarms, but it tells us they COULD be.

The compelling existence proof of this possible non-ET explanation has been provided by flaming debris from satellite reentries that serendipitously create the same visual stimulus -- and the same witness misinterpretation -- all around the world, over the decades, with all ranges of cultures and professions and ages, as shown here: www.jamesoberg.com...

In particular, the Nov 1990 case in France, which is still high on the official ufological canon list as 'unexplainable'.

satobs.org...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I completely understand your point, I didn't studied this particular case, but I am aware there were several other cases in the region. So I deemed as suspricious. Then you come up with extremely biased writers such as Robert Schaeffer. What Hendry does is to take this case, and then using analogy discredit all UFO cases. My point is, there is a lot of biased involvde on this, and a lot of people basically uses these types of cases and twist and turn all the other cases.

a reply to: JimOberg

Yeah, you tried to use this sort of logic to spin Soviet cases, it didn't work as far as I am aware.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Then you come up with extremely biased writers such as Robert Schaeffer.

I haven't read everything Schaeffer has written, but if you have any corrections for what he said regarding the specific things I quoted, please let me know. If you don't have any corrections for those, can we agree on those points? I'm not asking if you agree with whatever else he may have written since as I said I haven't even read all of it.

What Hendry does is to take this case, and then using analogy discredit all UFO cases. My point is, there is a lot of biased involvde on this, and a lot of people basically uses these types of cases and twist and turn all the other cases.

I don't think Hendry did exactly that, but he did make the point that he found many cases where witnesses were not accurate and had misperceptions. The Yukon case had plenty of misperceptions and in that case we are pretty sure it was the satellite/booster re-entry.

So the question isn't whether all other UFO cases should be dismissed. I don't think Hendry tried to really dismiss them. I think the point he made, which was also reinforced in other cases not in his book like the Yukon case, was that we can't really be sure that what eyewitnesses tell us is accurate, in any case, not just the cases that become identified like with Yukon. Even multiple witnesses didn't seem to ensure accuracy in the Yukon case.

So, the best cases would be those where we have something to go on other than eyewitness statements alone.

I think the court systems have followed a similar path, meaning it is now very difficult to get a conviction based only on what an eyewitness says. Part of the reason for this is that DNA evidence has shown that numerous people have been wrongly convicted based on eyewitness statements, so in the courts too, we need more than just what eyewitnesses say.

DNA Exonerations in the United States
"367 DNA exonerees to date
...
69%: Involved eyewitness misidentification"

So I'm not trying to debunk every UFO case.
What I am asking is why some people seem to be so confident in what witnesses say in cases like Phoenix Lights, when we know that in other lights in the sky cases like Yukon, the witnesses turned out to be wrong about a number of things. It's almost like thy think "ok it happened in Yukon, but not in Phoenix, the Phoenix witnesses can't be wrong".

I don't understand that logic and why some people feel the Phoenix witnesses there are any more reliable than the Yukon witnesses in observing multiple lights moving across the sky, from a source the witness couldn't identify as a known object or objects.

But if there's are other sources of evidence, radar or photos or video, then in those cases we have more than just eyewitness statements, like in the Tremonton case:

How To Investigate a Flying Saucer

Any photographs, videos, or audio recordings can be immensely helpful in evaluating a reported UFO sighting.

A famous case examined by the Robertson Panel was the “Tremonton, Utah Sighting” of 1952, where a couple and two children traveling cross-country on State Highway 30 outside of Tremonton saw what appeared to be 10-12 bright shining objects moving westward in the sky in a rough formation. The husband was able to capture some of the objects on film.

The case was considered significant because of the “excellent documentary evidence in the form of Kodachrome motion picture films (about 1600 frames).” The Panel examined the film, case history, ATIC’s interpretation, and received a briefing from representatives of the USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory on their analysis of the film.

As far as I know, that's still an unsolved UFO case, and the film helps a lot because we don't have to rely only on what an eyewitness says, which in that case it's not so easy to describe exactly what the UFOs were doing so the images really are more valuable than words.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

YEs, I just revisited the Yukon case, and it is legit, as suspected the Satellite re-entry is a joke, there was an experience of the Craft reacting to a torch, and zooming in the direction of the witness. Sorry but Satellites do not do that.

So no wonder you enjoy Hendry, it is the same kind of more subtle debunkery.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Arbitrageur

YEs, I just revisited the Yukon case, and it is legit, as suspected the Satellite re-entry is a joke, there was an experience of the Craft reacting to a torch, and zooming in the direction of the witness. Sorry but Satellites do not do that.

I agree satellites don't do that, but human misperceptions are well documented. So you deny the hard documentation of the booster re-entry data, and dismiss it based on the misperception of a witness? Your choice, but it doesn't seem logical to me.