The amazing UFO man of Orange County

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Of course, that's not as much fun as thinking the Reticulans are coming, I guess.

Considering that UAP are not Reticulans, doesn't that say more about your own preconceptions that you're willing to add "extra"?

I have to agree that it makes for an interesting exercise in observation. We can at least learn something more from this, and those who do not believe people routinely misidentify things can become aware that they do.

Birds of a feather flock together. Wouldn't it be a hoot if his flying this craft actually attracted a UFO or two (not just more models).

It also may yield an explanation for some previous sightings.

reply to post by karl 12


Because it would be really tough to do for $1,000. Not to mention hard to get it in that size.

As far as radar returns go, like I say, there's ducting phenomena as well as various weird atmospherics that create lensing or diffraction effects. Playing around with the radar, you can in the right circumstances see what amount to mirage images, usually they're somewhat frequency dependent so if you have a rig that chirps you can see returns at little frequency bins that aren't there at others, that's one of the filters.

In a weird turn of events, high frequency ducting formations that occur naturally under some conditions were one of the reasons the military put a ton of your tax money into creating them artificially on demand.

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Considering that UAP are not Reticulans, doesn't that say more about your own preconceptions that you're willing to add "extra"?

How do you know?

What do YOU think they are?

And again, that part was obviously tongue-in-cheek. I'll start subtitling for the humor impaired, I guess.

Originally posted by roadgravel
It also may yield an explanation for some previous sightings.

Exactly, but in a bad way that's what many people voiced their feelings over in the other thread about the same topic.

If more and more people start creating these craft (although granted it does cost 1,000 dollars I think I read somewhere) then when people come forward and give eye witness accounts or video evidence which might be 100% genuine, people can say it might have been these human made models.

Gone are the weather balloon excuses. Roll on the home made alien craft excuses.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by Arawn]

Originally posted by roadgravel
I have to agree that it makes for an interesting exercise in observation. We can at least learn something more from this, and those who do not believe people routinely misidentify things can become aware that they do.

Birds of a feather flock together. Wouldn't it be a hoot if his flying this craft actually attracted a UFO or two (not just more models).

It also may yield an explanation for some previous sightings.

Actually, you'd think it would be a really useful exercise for MUFON chapters as part of a formal observational training program they need if they're going to be serious about it.

Have a "sighting event", fly this thing over, let them do all the things they SHOULDN'T do, like confer before taking notes, discuss the sighting in detail during the event, build up a really nice folie à plusieurs, then get them to either write down what they saw or talk it into a recorder.

Then back at their meeting, show what it really was and contrast the observations made to what they really saw. I'm sure they'd be surprised at how inaccurate they were. I could see it being a real eye-opener for them. I'm not sure if it would be more effective either before or after the training.

Before it would show you how badly most people do, especially when they're emotionally tied up with the observation. After it might be a good "final exam" to see if they're using what they learned.

I am not supporting the man's actions but as mentioned something positive can come out of it. At least we know there are objects like this and therefore we know what to look for as a sighting.

I don't think it will replace on a large scale more simpler forms of hoaxes anyway.

Edit to add:

I think Tom is making some very useful points. Might as well make lemon-aide.

[edit on 10/14/2007 by roadgravel]

Interesting thread in that folks are beating up the messenger rather than dealing with the issue. That's illogical in itself, so let's not have logic lessons from the ill-informed. The facts are: This was a fake. The facts are: Witnesses screwed up. Deal with it. Nobody, including the OP, is therefore claiming ALL observations fit this category, but THIS ONE DOES. What does that say about the accuracy of witnesses?

The most prevalent thing to learn from this issue, whether or not you approve of either the OP or the perpetrator, is that witnesses cannot be relied upon. Otherwise sober, uninterested observers embellish sightings, make up 'facts,' (such as the acrid smeall), misjudge size and speed, and otherwise skew what was actually there.

the discussion really ought to be dealing with these observed and proven issues rather than using it as a platform to lament debunkers. We've got an issue. How do we deal with it. "Oh, those nasty debunkers" doesn't cut it. It's avoiding the issue.

It's not going to be such harmless mind fun when someone gets into a headon collision because they were busy watching his new 'toy'. There is a certain amount of danger involved with the game he is playing. And it certainly casts a negative spin on ufology.

There is a serious drawback to the one he's using, and that's the lack of ability to hover.

This could be a good incentive to try building a Coanda effect RC craft for the winter project.

Originally posted by jpm1602
And it certainly casts a negative spin on ufology.

That's really the key to why guys like this are annoying. They think because they've managed to fool some people they've made some kind of skeptical point that all UFOs are bogus.

Of course people who are versed in UFOs know better because of incidents like the 2000 Illinois sighting, in which a football-stadium-sized triangle was witnessed and tracked by no fewer than 5 different police officers, or the 1966 Portage County incident, wherein another 5 police officers witnessed and chased a UFO for 86 miles.

Originally posted by schuyler
The most prevalent thing to learn from this issue...is that witnesses cannot be relied upon.

Shuyler, you don't work for the government, do you? (just kidding) You've made my point about why hoaxers' actions are egregious. This hoaxer may as well get on the government payroll--maybe he is!

"Oh, those nasty debunkers" doesn't cut it. It's avoiding the issue.

It really depends on how you look at it. My opinion is you have to weigh the benefits of "educating" people about how easily they can be tricked against the chilling, harmful effect such hoaxing has on the public's perception of UFO phenomenon overall. I'll never endorse actions that play into the government's desire to debunk the reality of UFOs.

[edit on 10/14/2007 by yuefo]

Yes, please educamate me on how impossible it is for other life forms to exist and visit us considering the billions of trillions of other planets on other galaxies. We alone just happened to hit the life lotto. PLLLLLEEEaaaassee... Eddy...make them stop. Loonies.
Schyuler in my mind is a black op. 'Forget about him'. Do not let his lies deceive you.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by jpm1602]

[edit on 14-10-2007 by jpm1602]

I don't really enjoy what these people are doing considering I believe totally in alien life.

Sadly it's things like this that discredit the UFO community.

Typing this is fun considering I won't get shot for a one liner by a mod.

Originally posted by yuefo
Of course people who are versed in UFOs know better because of incidents like the 2000 Illinois sighting, in which a football-stadium-sized triangle was witnessed and tracked by no fewer than 5 different police officers

Military balloon. (self propelled)

Originally posted by yuefo
or the 1966 Portage County incident, wherein another 5 police officers witnessed and chased a UFO for 86 miles.

Military helicopter. (not very fast)

Glad I could help.

Eyewtiness testimony is notoriously unreliable... that's the point.

Sad but true.

[edit fixed typo]

[edit on 14-10-2007 by Access Denied]

Sorry for this nub question but, can some decipher UAP for me please? I have never heard that term used before, obviously I know what it represents, but what does the acronym mean? Thanks ya'll.

UAP equals 'unidentified aerial phenomenon', commonly used in UK.

Guys, plain and simple this is an excellent example of why eyewitness testimony can't be taken as fact during most UFO reports. You can argue against Tom all you want, and call him names.....whatever. But, the facts are people who see this....well saw what they wanted to see perhaps. This is the same reason people see fuzzy lights against a night sky and proclaim they "know" they are alien craft.

You have to concede this point. To ignore it only perpetuates ignorance of the human condition. I wish this were not true, but it is what it is, period.

I will NOT, repeat NOT concede any point that xtra's do not exist. When I am out smoking in my backyard and see a yellow haze football field size object at 1000 ft go silently by, yeah it 'might' be ours, but where the heck do they get the technology? Boffo on that. Boffo!

"Amazing UFO Man" ????

Why is he amazing? Because he built a model? Because he flies it? Or because he thinks he's proving a point?

I've been researching UFO's for 20+ years. Right at the start of my interest in the subject I could have told you - as I suspect most people could - that if you ask 20 different people to describe something in the sky you'll get 20 different answers.

Whoop-de-doo. Nothing new there.

All this guy is doing is adding to ignorance. He's not making a point, because the points already been made many times over. He's just muddying the waters some more.



[edit on 15/1007/07 by neformore]