The amazing UFO man of Orange County

Soon, Orange County motorists were chasing strange lights in the sky. Orange County's Mutual UFO Network was taking calls about erratic, flying objects. And the Web site UFOinfo.com was posting reports of “glowing orbs” in south Orange County.

One 53-year-old man reported a large glowing ball that “appeared to drip fire.” It traveled about five miles in a few seconds, he said, and left an “acrid type odor” in the air.

Where? Right here. Right where Zingali is now connecting a 7.4-volt lithium battery to a foam toy with flashing lights that make it appear to spin. He starts the propeller and sends it into the night sky above the Aliso Viejo Town Center.

Voices rise as quickly as the UFO: “Oh my God.” … “UFO.”

OC Register

It's interesting to read the reactions of observers as they project their expectations onto what they're seeing.

The article says that they see it as large, distant and acrobatic, instead of small and close. Also a lot of people report seeing a "large globe" typically dripping something luminous.

If it was cheaper than $1,000, I'd be lighting up the P'cola area with one.

Maybe I can find some way to justify it as a business expense.

I bet that man gets a real kick out of the reactions he gets when he flies that thing.

Hmmm...it would be kinda fun to own one would'nt it?

I live out in the country with lots of farmers around. I can just imagine their reaction if they saw something like this! lol

Since we know UAP exist and that they are Scientifically interesting to us, how is this guy doing the public or the Scientific community any favors?

Why would anyone want to be just like him?

I think it's important to inform people about UAP. We all know that everyone can't be trusted as a "good" witness, but flying R/C planes around to trick groups of people into thinking they are seeing a 'UFO' on purpose when most people have never seen a UAP/UFO is unscupulous.

Ever wonder why people don't sit around Hoaxing "Birds" or anything else?

It's because they don't get ATTENTION for doing so! Doesn't that make you wonder about people who Hoax UFOs/UAP?

The reward for doing so is ATTENTION as the OP gave in this thread.

"Hoaxing birds" is also not much fun, a concept which seems to have escaped you in life.

A lot of people don't sit around the house all day staring at blank walls either for the same reason. Sure you can DO it, but it's boring.

Not only is this infinitely more amusing, it's instructive. How many people can't observe aerial phenomena accurately? How many embellish or fantasize something that isn't there? Apparently, quite a large percentage if the article is correct.

It should tell you something about observers of "UAP" - they're apparently not often accurate, nor particularly observant.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
"Hoaxing birds" is also not much fun, a concept which seems to have escaped you in life.

I find many things in life are 'fun', but "tricking" others isn't my 'bread and butter' in the 'fun' department.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
A lot of people don't sit around the house all day staring at blank walls either for the same reason. Sure you can DO it, but it's boring.

Not to mention the lack of ATTENTION right?

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Not only is this infinitely more amusing, it's instructive. How many people can't observe aerial phenomena accurately? How many embellish or fantasize something that isn't there? Apparently, quite a large percentage if the article is correct.

Seems that the Article forgot to mention actual UAP that people witness, or the percentage of people who witness them.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
It should tell you something about observers of "UAP" - they're apparently not often accurate, nor particularly observant.

If you witnessed a UAP would you say that about yourself?

Not to mention that we know for a fact that these witnesses were describing an R/C plane and not an actual UAP!



[edit on 13-10-2007 by lost_shaman]

The OP of this thread uses what I call 'debunker logic'.

Here's how it works:

Because there are SOME mistaken UFO reports, then ALL are mistaken. Since this one 'ufo' has a mundane explaination, they ALL do.

His flawed 'logic' is obvious to anyone who even glances at it.

The same flawed 'logic' would also state "Since peguins are birds, and can't fly, then no birds can fly. If you say "Hey I saw a bird flying", then this type of 'debunker logic' will respond" You are mistaken. I can 'prove' birds can't fly. Here's a penguin".

What he is really saying tho, is that this is HIS 'belief system'.
How do debunkers (not Honest Skeptics) respond to confirmed radar cases showing impossible manouevers at speeds even the space shuttle cannot achieve in orbit from the 1940's, in the atmosphere? How about cases where the military scrambles fighter jets to force down objects over restricted airspace.... and fail?

Here's how.
With sarcasm.
Whoa. I know. That's hard to beat scientifically.
2nd defense is to show another bogus example.
As in the case above, he will say, when pressed "OK. Here's an Ostrich. Cased closed".

Typical debunker belief system.
Only, the debunkers are the ones with their heads in the sand.

I share the same indignation as lost_shaman.

I mean, every other week we have threads here of people complaining about hoaxes, the 'skeptics' using arguments that there's nothing to the UFO phenomena that it's all hoaxes, and then people say how cool and how they would like to trick others and see their reactions with one of those things?

And then we wonder and debate the "motivations of a hoaxer" for pages and pages of threads...

Apparently there's not really much to it. It's just fun.

What a nebbish loser! I'd laugh if someone sick and tired of debunking and disinformation took his frustrations out on this immature old neurotic. Get a life, moron.

Originally posted by lost_shaman
I find many things in life are 'fun', but "tricking" others isn't my 'bread and butter' in the 'fun' department.

Consider it a mirror held up to your perception. It is what it is. If you want to see it as a UFO spewing flaming liquid, then I suppose you're tricked.

As far as what we consider fun, well, de gustibus non est disputandum, I suppose.

Not to mention the lack of ATTENTION right?

Actually, a decided lack of attention would make this much more interesting. It's the attention part that spoils the fun in cases like this. Sort of like the practical jokes I used to pull in the Army - it's funny until you get caught, then they have to do something about it. Always more fun to do it and remain a mystery.

Seems that the Article forgot to mention actual UAP that people witness, or the percentage of people who witness them.

That's the entire point here - how do you know they were real? Obviously, people see this thing and read nearly every "UFO" observation in the book onto it. It's like an aerial tabula rasa, ready for projection by any true believer.

If you witnessed a UAP would you say that about yourself?

Not to mention that we know for a fact that these witnesses were describing an R/C plane and not an actual UAP!

There you go - you can't cope with the fact that these people misidentified it, because you feel it reflects on you, right? Isn't that really why you're annoyed?

As far as that goes, I've sure seen things I couldn't identify, but I did my best to stick to the observed data and not go leaping to conclusions. It's one thing to see a light, distance unjudgeable, size unjudgeable, that didn't pass behind or in front of any point of reference in order to give me a clue as to its size or distance. Another person might, as the article shows, see "extra" things such as dribbling fluids and odors.

Then, too, the places I saw them at furnished its own explanation in a way, so it wasn't that big of a surprise.

Of course, that's not as much fun as thinking the Reticulans are coming, I guess.

Originally posted by Alexander the o.k.
The OP of this thread uses what I call 'debunker logic'.

Here's how it works:

Another projection! Sweet. Perhaps you can point out my exact statement where I used "debunker logic" - or did I just say "It's interesting to read the reactions of observers as they project their expectations onto what they're seeing." And now you're doing it on the thread with my statements.

It IS interesting to me - and it shows that any unusual aerial phenomenon will elicit responses such as the ones in the article. Or perhaps you'll take Shaman's route and try to claim that the area was dripping with other 'real' UFO's which were observed instead.

It's more interesting than the "we went too far" thread, which was eliciting all sorts of revealing responses from people last week.

How do debunkers (not Honest Skeptics) respond to confirmed radar cases showing impossible manouevers at speeds even the space shuttle cannot achieve in orbit from the 1940's, in the atmosphere? How about cases where the military scrambles fighter jets to force down objects over restricted airspace.... and fail?

How do True Believers respond to sightings of a fairly simple object such as this?

Here's how.
With fantasy, embellishment, and projection of their expectations.

edit:

In a true sense, you SHOULD be annoyed. But not at me (or the guy in the article). Instead, you should be annoyed at the people who have such poor observation skills and/or such weak grasps on reality that they are reporting this thing as giant fire-dribbling globes or hypersonic saucers.

That's where you get the really high "noise" level in UFO reports.

This sort of thing just points out the number of people who do this.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


Bedlam.

And your moniker says it all.

It's pretty typical of a guy who holds himself in such high regard that he thinks he can create 'bedlam' at will, with the 'unwashed masses'.
I am pretty tired of the putdowns and condescention in your posts.
A guy who implies: "I am a Scientist".... can do better than this, surely.

Ok---- 'Scientist'...... Please 'debunk' the response I posted on your 'logic' and M.O..
Further, you should have no trouble proving you are what you imply you are.
Got some documents we can trace ?
What is your specialisation? Please. Answer that, if nothing else.

Or, just keep your (edit*) ASSININE condescention to yourself.
We are all pretty tired of it. It's not welcome here.

You are far from convincing.



[edit on 13-10-2007 by Alexander the o.k.]

Originally posted by Alexander the o.k.
Bedlam.

And your moniker says it all.

It's pretty typical of a guy who holds himself in such high regard that he thinks he can create 'bedlam' at will, with the 'unwashed masses'.

And a mind reader, too. See how easy it is? Just make an assumption about someone, and comment on it, down to knowing what I think. With details.

The nickname is an old one with roots in my checkered past, oddly enough, and was way better than the previous one which was slightly embarrassing.

I am pretty tired of the putdowns and condescention in your posts.
A guy who implies: "I am a Scientist".... can do better than this, surely.

Why not address it in the threads? I'm not sure which specific putdown or condescension you're referring to. And better than what, exactly? Sort of hard to respond if you're being ambiguous.

Ok---- 'Scientist'...... Please 'debunk' the response I posted on your 'logic' and M.O..

Well, I'm pretty sure I was clear, but in case you need more explanation, it is interesting to me what sorts of observations people were making of the faux UFO. I would have expected them to possibly come with creative interpretations, but some of them were so badly awry I have to wonder what was going on in those people's minds. There you have it.

If I were a true believer, it would interest me too, but I'd probably try not to be so defensive about it.

Further, you should have no trouble proving you are what you imply you are.
Got some documents we can trace ?
What is your specialisation? Please. Answer that, if nothing else.

Or, just keep your condescention to yourself.

You are far from convincing.

Tom is a man of many specializations, having done more than one thing.

The entire list would take a while, and some of it would be nunya.

But most recently, I'd have to say I have a masters in EE comm theory, one course and a project away from a masters in Physics although I'm taking this semester off due to work load, and I'm probably going to do the doctorate in the physics of acoustics, with emphasis on the computational physics of acoustic signals, at least that's what the Navy is interested in.

Although lately we've got some other stuff that's a bit more interesting, and if it turns out halfway possible the Navy can jump.

You'd also have to toss in that I'm moderately skilled in blowing stuff to smithereens and running the comm gear that was current up to 1989 or so; it was sort of a double major, but that's more training than education, I guess.

Oh, and I worked for "a well known national lab" and had a fairly specialized job with associated training there.

And a lot of job experience, pretty mixed there.

As far as convincing, it's the net. Nothing I could post would prove anything - you have to judge by what I post on and its technical merit. If you're not sufficiently grounded in physics or EE, and by my recollection of your other posts you're not, then you won't be able to judge accurately. In which case, you'll believe what you want to.

But please, I don't want to hog the floor - I'd suspect you're not actually a dead Macedonian, so what are your qualifications? Unlike YOU, I won't presume to be able to read your mind, poor at it as you have demonstrated yourself to be. Repeatedly.

Or, just keep your (edit*) ASSININE (sic) condescention (sic) to yourself.
We are all pretty tired of it. It's not welcome here.

Got a mouse in your pocket?

Or are you claiming to read the entire forum's minds now?


[edit on 13-10-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

All very impressive.
But you forgot to mention that you're taking your PH.d in Psychology as well.
Well, you have now cut everyone down to size with your misdirection and completely out of context responses.
Most of which are a complete disconnect. Non sequiters at best.

Now, anticipating your next question, I have a Ph.d in Quantum physics from the Niels Bohr Institute, AND a Masters in high energy Astrophyics, stellar dynamics, star formation and evolution, worked for the NRO and DIA researching quadratic optimal functional quantization of stochastic processes and numerical applications.

Pretty impressive, no?

Can I prove it?
No.
And neither can you.

So. You're just another schmo, with a keyboard, a modem and a real nasty condescending attitude.
Please, take your nasty condescending attitude, and piss off.
You still have not addressed my dissection of your 'debunkery' in any way that is coherent, in context or that makes any sense at all.

You remain as ever, unconvincing.
Keep up the sham, I'm sure some MAY believe you and your 'logic'.

Oh,
I forgot to mention refering to yourself in the third person.
Dead giveaway.

And don't forget to take everything out of context.

Keep posting bedlam, you still fail to convince.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by Alexander the o.k.]

Originally posted by Alexander the o.k.
All very impressive.
But you forgot to mention that you're taking your PH.d in Psychology as well.

Nope, never claimed it. But I have taken several courses in psych. It's really interesting to watch people's reactions, especially yours. You "mind read" a lot.

Well, you have now cut everyone down to size with your misdirection and completely out of context responses. Most of which are a complete disconnect. Non sequiters (sic) at best.

Perhaps you'll point them out - specifically. I'll wait.

Pretty impressive, no?

Can I prove it?
No.
And neither can you.

Isn't that just what I said? And that you'd have to judge from my responses? Only you wouldn't be able to, lacking the qualifications? Wow, I can predict the future.

So. You're just another schmo, with a keyboard, a modem and a real nasty condescending attitude.
Please, take your nasty condescending attitude, and piss off.
You still have not addressed my dissection of your 'debunkery' in any way that is coherent, in context or that makes any sense at all.

More mind-reading. Actually, no, in that case I told the exact truth, but I didn't expect you to believe anything I posted, no matter what, if it contradicted your frantic need to put me in some box where you could safely ignore me. Fine by me, as I don't really care if you do. I did, however, have the courtesy to respond to you honestly. I find it amusing you don't believe it, as none of it is that bizarre. It's just a slog through one or another school.

Ok. Now that we've gotten THAT out of the way, let's look yet again at what you posted as "dissection".

My entire statement:
"It's interesting to read the reactions of observers as they project their expectations onto what they're seeing.

The article says that they see it as large, distant and acrobatic, instead of small and close. Also a lot of people report seeing a "large globe" typically dripping something luminous."

Your reply:
"Because there are SOME mistaken UFO reports, then ALL are mistaken. Since this one 'ufo' has a mundane explaination, (sic) they ALL do."

Disregarding for the moment that you seem to be replying to the voices in your head, rather than my statement, it is in fact interesting that many people do misinterpret what they're seeing, at least in the case of this RC plane, and not to a small degree. If I were a "true believer" I might find that enlightening, but you seem to find it offensive.

I don't know if "ALL are mistaken!1!!" because I don't know the circumstances of each and every sighting. I do think a lot of people add to what they see afterwards, and this points that out.

Your next statement:
"The same flawed 'logic' would also state "Since peguins are birds, and can't fly, then no birds can fly. If you say "Hey I saw a bird flying", then this type of 'debunker logic' will respond" You are mistaken. I can 'prove' birds can't fly. Here's a penguin"."

My response: If I had a kite, and half the people on the beach reported it as a giant flying roc, and some of the more daft reports had it with sheep in its talons dripping blood, then I'd be interested in the nature and types of the flawed reports, if I were a bird watcher, because I'd want to know what sorts of reports to discount. YMMV.

Next: "What he is really saying tho, is that this is HIS 'belief system'. "

Mind reading. But exactly what is your point? That I shouldn't have a belief system that isn't yours?

Next: "How do debunkers (not Honest Skeptics) respond to confirmed radar cases showing impossible manouevers at speeds even the space shuttle cannot achieve in orbit from the 1940's, in the atmosphere? How about cases where the military scrambles fighter jets to force down objects over restricted airspace.... and fail?"

Now, that actually IS a non-sequitur AND a strawman, since it's got diddly to do with the subject. But to answer your statement, even though it isn't germane, radar is as subject to mirages as are light images, and often for the same sorts of reasons. If you turn off the filtering on a radar rig, in the right circumstances you will see targets moving at amazing speeds, but there's nothing there. Is that the reason for ALL such sightings (!!!11!), probably not, but it can certainly happen. Sonar systems will also return images of objects moving at amazing speeds at times.

You remain as ever, unconvincing.
Keep up the sham, I'm sure some MAY believe you and your 'logic'.

Sorry - whatever gave you the impression that I particularly cared whether I convinced you? Please, let me disabuse you of that here and now. Some people, as you appear to be, are unable to discuss things rationally if they don't agree with them. Such is life. I accept that you are close-minded.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Cute diatribe, and completely out of context, as usual.

And again. Just not convincing.
Although I'm sure you've spent a couple hours researching your conjectures they remain just that. Fantasy might be a better word tho. But it seems that you have spent 0 time with the characterizations. They are well, just plain funny.
Everything written just has that typical phony condescension and sarcasm which just proves my point.
You can't be taken seriously.
Your 'logic' throughout is also, I have to say it again, just not convincing.

Sorry little buddy. Your characterizations, sarcasm, condescension, and smart ass responses, just undermine your point(s) however obscure, rambling and incoherent tho they may be.
I would say this. Continue to try to persuade. And to belittle. It is amusing. It suits you.
You might be improving.
Marginally.

Still unconvincing tho.

Originally posted by Alexander the o.k.
Cute diatribe, and completely out of context, as usual.

Context - I do not think that word means what you think that word means.


At any rate, other than frantically attacking me for posting it, what do you think about the witnesses responses to the RC UFO?

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


Too late, already a thread about it HERE

reply to post by Arawn


Well, poot.

Never saw it. But it's in a different forum, so it doesn't count.

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


Tom ,this guy does a great disservice to thie field of ufology and detracts from genuine research into this legitimate subject.
Like I said on the other thread about this topic,why can't he make a UFO that travels 3000 mph+ ,executes right angle turns(without slowing down) and outrun fighter jets?
Objects have been witnessed by trained military observers and captured,plotted and corellated on radar travelling huge speeds,performing immediate stops etc and generally displaying completely unprecedented aerial manouverability and flight characteristics.
Why can't this guy (or anyone) simulate on of those?
Cheers Karl