Who here caught the interview tonight on Larry King Live?

If there is already a thread of discussion about this, please close my topic and direct me to it.

I'm surprised that Larry King allowed another alien-type thing on his show in such a short time-frame. The skeptic (James McGaha [Mick-Ghey-Hey, not Mc-Gah-Hah]) was completely owned by the two ufologists (Stanton Friedman [Freed-Man, not Fried-Man] and James Fox).

Larry King: (paraphrasing) Are you saying that UFOs do not exist?
James McGaha: I'm saying there is no proof of UFOs.

Throughout the interview, the skeptic kept using the "proof" argument over and over again. Unfortunately, despite the argument for UFOs being obviously strong in this interview, I don't see it going anywhere. The same spacey, faux-feeling graphics were used again in this interview, which was quite annoying.

I am absolutely sure of limited knowledge.

reply to post by SonicInfinity


You are right...nothing new here. Same old, same old. The hokey, rehashed pics are embarrassing.

The UFO movement needs some serious PR advice. I was kind of thinking that "Out of the Blue" guy was going to do it, but so far he is 0 for 2 - just pimping his video/book.

The larger question is why does the LameStreamMedia keep pushing the UFO thing every few weeks? Ratings? Conditioning? Distraction? Disinformation? Agitprop?

reply to post by SonicInfinity



I saw it, SonicInfinity.
In fact, I came here just to rant about it, because I HAD to get it out of my system, so I "used" another, existing thread for that purpose.

The McGahe fellow, or whatever his name is, is gotta be - sorry, I just have to say it - the most disgracefully obtuse person I have ever had the misfortune of witnessing.

My "favourite" two quotes:

"Pilots aren't trained to observe. They are only trained to drive planes."

And of course, his reply to the question "Why is it so difficult to just say WE DON'T KNOW?" in the final minutes:

"Because there is no evidence. Because there is no evidence!"

(No evidence - to say "I don't know"...?!)


Such people are a disgrace to all self-respecting "skeptics" - and to the human race at large.









[edit on 18-1-2008 by Vanitas]

reply to post by SonicInfinity


I caught it and I first want to give props to Larry King for being one of the only, if not the only, mainstream media individual to give this subject any kind of play. It is an important subject and one that I think the majority of the world wants to know about. There are too many witnesses to these "UFO's" for it to be simply "swamp gas", or "weather balloons.

I for one can't stand James McGaha. He always talks about the people that experience this phenomena as not being trained observers, or something to that effect, and that they don't know what they saw. First of all, not to be mean, but that guy wears 6 layered glasses, and has eyes the size of peas!!! Who is he to say what they did or didn't see.

Second, those girls that were on talking about the Pheonix sighting were talking about not being able to see stars for five minutes, and that the craft was a mile long. Well his rebuttal was that five aircraft were in the vicinity going at "slow speeds" and were dropping flares on parachutes.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but would flares stay in the same place for 5 mins, and would military aircraft be able to restrict a mile long field of sight for that long as well. It all just sounds very fishy to me. He undoubtedly had a rebuttal for the Texas sighting as well.

I'm as skeptical as any normal person, but there just seems to be to much evidence, and not just from America, to support the opposite. Plus he was involved with the Air Force which would make it all the more feasible for him to send out disinformation, as the Air Force has been doing the same thing for 60 some years. I know that I'm ready for the truth, and I really don't think thats too far off.

To plucky, I totally agree, they showed those same old tired images 2 months ago when Larry had a similar show. That disc skipping off the ground still boggles my mind as well as the Mir photo. This is my first post after lurking for quite some time. I like this community as I find myself as a like minded thinker only wanting to know the truth.

Peace

Originally posted by Vanitas
My "favourite" two quotes:

"Pilots aren't trained to observe. They are only trained to drive planes."

And of course, his reply to the question "Why is it so difficult to just say WE DON'T KNOW?" in the final minutes:

"Because there is no evidence. Because there is no evidence!"

(No evidence - to say "I don't know"...?!)


Such people are a disgrace to all self-respecting "skeptics" - and to the human race at large.

My favorite part was when he said that people were not trained observers, as if the majority of the public is just a bunch of mindless sheep only able to follow what other people tell them.

At least, I hope that's not the case...

Originally posted by truthSeeker7
Second, those girls that were on talking about the Pheonix sighting were talking about not being able to see stars for five minutes, and that the craft was a mile long. Well his rebuttal was that five aircraft were in the vicinity going at "slow speeds" and were dropping flares on parachutes.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but would flares stay in the same place for 5 mins, and would military aircraft be able to restrict a mile long field of sight for that long as well. It all just sounds very fishy to me. He undoubtedly had a rebuttal for the Texas sighting as well.

Actually, I've heard that flares can stay in the air for a very long time. The problem is that they cannot KEEP the same formation.

Originally posted by truthSeeker7
I'm as skeptical as any normal person, but there just seems to be to much evidence, and not just from America, to support the opposite. Plus he was involved with the Air Force which would make it all the more feasible for him to send out disinformation, as the Air Force has been doing the same thing for 60 some years. I know that I'm ready for the truth, and I really don't think thats too far off.

I don't understand why they keep bringing the same guy on over and over again. I mean, if you're going to bring on a skeptic, he should be as articulate as a salesman, don't you think? At least he has circular logic and denying facts down pretty well.

reply to post by SonicInfinity


James McGaha comes across as such a complete buffoon, that he's just got to be a plant. I'm not suggesting a secret Larry King conspiracy or anything but from a television production stand point it just seems to fit.

Think about it; I'm sure Larry King has a decent audience (I know, I can hardly believe it myself) and now if you are one of his producers and know full well that anytime a UFO related show is aired there is gonna be a buzz all over the internet tubes (like ATS) and it's almost a sure fire slam dunk for a ratings spike.

Now what if you have a competent, knowledgeable skeptic booked to be the opposing viewpoint of your "believers"? Someone who can duck and weave and counter any claim with a sound and fact based answer. After the show airs there would be a general disappointment among those in the UFO community that they didn't get a fair shake, painting Larry as unfair and guaranteeing that future topics of UFOs wouldn't get the ratings boost that the first one did.

So how do you make sure that doesn't happen?

You find the dopiest guy with coke-bottle glasses you can, and you invite him back again and again. Larry comes across as a champion of truth, the ATSers keep tuning in, and the ratings stay up.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Larry may have recently gotten his manchurian candidate-like orders to begin the disclosure and we could all find ourselves mining spice on some barren planet in the Pleiades before too long.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

truthSeeker7
There are too many witnesses to these "UFO's" for it to be simply "swamp gas", or "weather balloons.

What does that have to do with any proof or evidence of aliens existing? Just because you can't image that there could be be this many people witnessing something, doesn't mean anything.

I for one can't stand James McGaha. He always talks about the people that experience this phenomena as not being trained observers, or something to that effect, and that they don't know what they saw.

Well, in a sense he is right that pilots aren't trained UFO observers. In fact, is anybody a trained UFO observer? I don't like the approach he used to rebuttal the claims; he would have been better off saying that pilots are susceptible to the same cognitive fallacies and illusions as everybody else in this world. There really is no way to get around the fact that our mind plays tricks on us, regardless if you are a pilot or not.

I'm as skeptical as any normal person, but there just seems to be to much evidence, and not just from America, to support the opposite. Plus he was involved with the Air Force which would make it all the more feasible for him to send out disinformation, as the Air Force has been doing the same thing for 60 some years. I know that I'm ready for the truth, and I really don't think thats too far off.

I don't know how you can be skeptical and take any of the evidence, in this show or from anywhere up until now, and come to the conclusion that aliens have come here. There just isn't any solid evidence whatsoever. Anecdotal evidence is nice window dressing, but hardly reliable. What needs to be studied are the photos and videos--which seem to be always blurry and distorted. In fact, they aren't good enough to completely disprove or confirm the idea of aliens, so we are kind of left in this grey area where all this debate on whether or not this is an alien or not comes up.

Originally posted by Comma8Comma1
James McGaha comes across as such a complete buffoon, that he's just got to be a plant. I'm not suggesting a secret Larry King conspiracy or anything but from a television production stand point it just seems to fit.

I couldn't agree more with that statement. Even the believers acknowledged that he's an idiot. What better way to infuse the public with a sense that aliens might actually exist, but to let a lame duck argue against it. It's not even a conspiracy, per say; it's more like, how do we do we make this an entertaining show?