If you could pick 3 stories to make a debunker believe, which would they be?

Once again I need your guys' help. If you could pick 3 stories (outside of abductions) which would they be? Make them count because I will also be using the top 3 choices in an argumentative piece. Please put thought into these as they will be very important once this is done. Try to pick stories researched by respected scientists or credible worthy people.

I'm a debunker (If that's what you call a sceptic that doesn't have a default belief in aliens visiting Earth ingrained in their mind and uses their knowledge and experience to highlight frauds and stories with flaws in them).

The three stories that currently intrigue me the most are:

The Battle of LA

White House buzzed in 1952

Gosford UFO interacting with water

If you could supply information as to what occurred in these incidences I'd be overjoyed.

Thanks!

-m0r

Originally posted by m0r1arty
I'm a debunker (If that's what you call a sceptic that doesn't have a default belief in aliens visiting Earth ingrained in their mind and uses their knowledge and experience to highlight frauds and stories with flaws in them).

The three stories that currently intrigue me the most are:

The Battle of LA

White House buzzed in 1952

Gosford UFO interacting with water

If you could supply information as to what occurred in these incidences I'd be overjoyed.

There's been a current thread running on the battle of LA and in this post I explained part of it, with further explanations in subsequent posts, there wasn't even a UFO but it's a fascinating case, but explained to my satisfaction: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Washington case in 1952 I touched on in my Oldfield Film thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You want to know why you don't get cases like that any more? Radar has improved dramatically. It's still not perfect, but it's way better than it was in 1952.

I haven't looked into the 3rd case you mentioned, I'll check it out.

Seangkt, it depends on what you are trying to convince skeptics of. If you want to convince them there are UFOs, then there are plenty of cases, but skeptics already know that. If you want to convince them the UFOs are piloted by aliens, I don't think there are any cases that can convince them. I don't know what caused that The 1976 Tehran, F-4 Phantom Chases UFO Case , and I don't know of a prosaic explanation, but that doesn't make me jump to the conclusion that it was aliens. I think that's one of the best UFO cases, but probably because it has so little evidence, meaning no photos or video that I know of. The more evidence that's available, the better the case can be investigated. There is other evidence though, something really happened there but I have no idea what.

Personally I would pick Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters as one of the best. Any of the stories having to do with UFOs around any of the US nuclear facilities are quite impressive.

I would have to choose Roswell as being the first, the most famous UFO case in my opinion. Closely followed by 9-11. I am having trouble choosing a third (haven't been on this site long enough aha)

reply to post by seangkt

The Coyne incident, Mansfield, Ohio, 1973

The Height 611 UFO Crash

Yukon UFO "Mothership" Incident: December 11th, 1996

And some additional ones...

Get too close and you`ll get burned!!!!!! **Falcon Lake Incident**

The Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO Incident

The Mantell UFO Incident

The Kecksburg UFO Crash: December 9th, 1965

Belgian Wave

Additional cases here: The ATS UFO/Alien Chronological Thread Directory

Good luck...

[edit on 2/17/2010 by jkrog08]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Very intriguing theories Arbitrageur and both soundly wrapped up in provable science. I may very well take your reasoning to be my own in both cases ( and a few more concerning mirages as sightings).

I was particularly impressed with your work in the Flight 1628 Over Alaska case. Having both radar and optical mirages was an incredible deduction and worthy of praise. I starred and your posts and flagged that thread if that is of any worth to you.

Only as a point of interest - wouldn't more pilots tell people about mirages, or be trained in dealing with them, if they are not uncommon?

In WitnessFromAfar's thread on the [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread329188/pg1]Battle of LA]/url] there are a couple of points of interest like the radar sightings and the 2 separate instances of shooting but I think your theory is still stronger.

Of course why would the US let people know that they were run amok shooting at balloons and not the tight outfit they wished to present?

Either way great work, thanks for brining it to my attention Arby.

-m0r

Well, believing would have much more to do with faith than with some hard-evidence based facts. UFOs are a phenomena that don't need any form of belief: they exist, period.
Flying objects that have never been identified even using the most advanced technologies are a FACT: to claim that UFOs don't exist would be an extremely ignorant, arrogant and presumptuous statement: to admit that somenthing couldn't be explained (which is extremely different from something that has NOT explanations) is a realistic approach: to claim that EVERYTHING can be explained (by us) is a lie;
everything must have some explanation, but we are unable to find out it, because of our lack of knowledge: we are just evolved bacteria after all

But i guess that in your OP you refer to flying objects somehow being controlled by some intelligent life form not from this world.
In this case, everything gets way more complicated: now THIS would require (as it does) faith in good measure, due to the lack or, better, absence of any corroborating proof.
Existence of Intelligent alien life forms = FAR from being proved
Existence of alien life forms whatsoever = work in progress, already proven to be most likely
Existence of Intelligent alien life forms visiting Earth = much less likely than the above, for obvious reasons, distances on top of that.

If by "debunker" you just mean "debunker" then let me say that in my humble opinion not only it's a lost cause (it's dead out of the starting gate), but it's also not worthy the efforts: if you meant "sceptic" then in all likelihood you will be able to instill a doubt in his mind that something defying any mundane/natural explanation is going on in our skies.
But don't hope to convince anyone who bases his convictions on hard evidences: there are many corroborating evidences that would indicate that Roswell (for example) was real, but what we miss is the proof.
I believe that intelligent aliens life forms exist, but i cant prove it. And I think that Roswell was REAL. And I carry on my way, don't care what the others think about it, nor i waste my time in order to convince them that something has happened there.

I'll add The strange story of JAL 1628
for your evaluation.

One lesson i've learned is that rather than trying to convince anyone, is always better to train yourself using reason logic and common sense.
Thanks for sharing.
[edit for spelling]



[edit on 17/2/2010 by internos]

Personally, this thread title caught me, and pulled me in here...

The first 3 cases mentioned in the first response would be the top 3 in my book, as well... However, I'd rather address the fact that most of us 'believers' (hate to be lumped in like that, as i'm not one of those almost religious believers, but I don't count out the fact that IMHO it's possible that we've been visited), just don't see any REASON that we SHOULD have to make any debunker believe.

Debunkers and skeptics are a totally different breed.

Debunkers are much like the religious believers...

Skeptics (I was one of those, and still consider myself to be one) usually prefer to weigh in the facts and come to their conclusions based on such.

I have no quarrell with skeptics. An open mind is a terrible thing to waste... and skeptics know this. the hardcore believers, and the hardcore debunkers could learn a thing or twenty from both sides of the coin.

I ask again, why should I take the time to MAKE someone believe, when they already have their pre-conceived notions about said topic.

Waste of time.


[edit to add]

I see internos has basically the same thoughts on the matter as myself, if only better thought out and presented haha

[edit on 17-2-2010 by jephers0n]

The top three events (non abductions) would be:

1. Roswell (very many witnesses and physical evidence)
2. Kecksburg, PA incident (again, many witnesses and physical evidence)
3. Aurora, TX incident (more recent many witnesses and physical evidence)

Aside from that, any airline pilots, fighter pilots, and foriegn militaries that have seen UFOs, and there are a lot, should be enough proof...

reply to post by seangkt


I can’t make anyone believe anything, but my three most intriguing UFO cases are:

The pre-Phoenix lights object

www.youtube.com...

The St. Clair County Illinois sighting

www.youtube.com...

The Holland Michigan sighting

www.hollandsentinel.com...

All three include detailed, credible eyewitness testimony. The Holland event even includes radar contacts.

T

reply to post by Triangulum
Those are intriguing cases, I like the Illinois case in particular due to the credibility of the witness interviews, in spite of the lack of photos.

All three of those cases seem very terrestrial to me, such as a lighter than air ship along the lines of the aircraft that lockheed holds a patent on. Seangkt never told us if he was looking for proof of UFOs or proof of aliens- those prove the former but not the latter and actually seem pretty explainable with a lighter than air craft of terrestrial origin.

Investigation Casts Light on the Mysterious Flying Black Triangle

NIDS researchers contend that these type vehicles are lighter-than-air, blimp-style craft of the U.S. military's making. Likely powered by "electrokinetic" drive, the lifting body-shaped airships have been skirting the skies from perhaps the early to mid 1980s.

Kelleher said that military may well be ready to take the wraps off the black triangle vehicles. The Illinois case, for instance, has been built on hours of public views of the mystery airship. "That's not exactly stealth mode. It's inevitable that it will be declassified," he said.

L. Scott Miller, professor of Aerospace Engineering at Wichita State University in Wichita, Kansas, said the idea of a large, still-classified airship floating about is on the mark.

"I do think that a large airship, with a heavy lift and other mission objectives, has been built," Miller told SPACE.com.

Miller is also a distinguished lecturer of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and specializes in black aircraft and the world of secret flight...

"Lockheed has shown a great deal of interest in airships for many years. The real question is whether the Department of Defense has committed to buy and use such machines," Miller said.

"Estimated to be 600 feet long and 300 feet wide, with a height of 40 feet, the Black Triangle could weigh as much as 100 tons."

Miller does take issue with the NIDS study's view of a black triangle's propulsion. "Interesting, but I'm not sure it is necessary," he said.

"Each sighting requires a great deal of analysis. A witness's perceptions of speed, acceleration, and size are likely of very little value," Miller said. "I have taken an approach of first identifying needs -- or mission requirements -- and technology availability. Then I compare those with the cold raw, simple facts of a sighting, not the conjecture or guess work of a witness," he said.

I agree with Miller about the propulsion system, there are several possibilities, and I also agree with him that witness testimony about the size of the object is nearly worthless, so in the Yukon case jkrog posted I wouldn't be surprised if the mile long object really isn't a mile long, they have no idea how long it is though it's probably big and might be this same object.

Originally posted by m0r1arty
I was particularly impressed with your work in the Flight 1628 Over Alaska case. Having both radar and optical mirages was an incredible deduction and worthy of praise. I starred and your posts and flagged that thread if that is of any worth to you.

Only as a point of interest - wouldn't more pilots tell people about mirages, or be trained in dealing with them, if they are not uncommon?

Thanks m0r1arty, I did a lot of research on that case and wasn't sure if my theories made sense to anyone, and as I said I'm not 100% sure myself what happened so just sharing the facts and analysis as I see it, glad you liked it. I don't want to take this thread off-topic but feel free to bump the Oldfield thread with that question about pilot training on mirages, as it's very on topic there, and I'll even see if we can get Tifozi to share his thoughts since he's a pilot. Even if they wanted to do so, I'm not sure there's a lot of very digestible training material out there on mirages, and I've searched for it. But I think Tifozi will tell you, pilots see strange stuff, and it's not all that unusual.

Back on topic here, I did read that Gosford case you mentioned, and that's fascinating, I have no explanation for that one. But unlike the Yukon case where if you didn't have your camera with you there was no way to get a picture, some of those Gosford witnesses watched it right from their homes where surely they must have cameras but yet I found no pictures. That doesn't mean I doubt they saw something, but it would be nice to have a picture!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't want to take this thread off-topic but feel free to bump the Oldfield thread with that question about pilot training on mirages, as it's very on topic there, and I'll even see if we can get Tifozi to share his thoughts since he's a pilot.

Done.

So what's seangkt hoping to do with this thread, that's been a few days now.

I wouldn't mind so much if I knew what my input was being used towards.

-m0r

reply to post by Arbitrageur

L. Scott Miller, professor of Aerospace Engineering at Wichita State University in Wichita, Kansas, said the idea of a large, still-classified airship floating about is on the mark.

"I do think that a large airship, with a heavy lift and other mission objectives, has been built," Miller told SPACE.com.

Miller is also a distinguished lecturer of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and specializes in black aircraft and the world of secret flight...

"Lockheed has shown a great deal of interest in airships for many years. The real question is whether the Department of Defense has committed to buy and use such machines," Miller said.

"Estimated to be 600 feet long and 300 feet wide, with a height of 40 feet, the Black Triangle could weigh as much as 100 tons."

Miller does take issue with the NIDS study's view of a black triangle's propulsion. "Interesting, but I'm not sure it is necessary," he said.

Why would defense contractor risk blowing the cover on a super secret vehicle such as this by operating it over population centers? Especially when don't even have a buyer for it.

"Each sighting requires a great deal of analysis. A witness's perceptions of speed, acceleration, and size are likely of very little value," Miller said. "I have taken an approach of first identifying needs -- or mission requirements -- and technology availability. Then I compare those with the cold raw, simple facts of a sighting, not the conjecture or guess work of a witness," he said.

Police officers are trained to judge speed and acceleration. They receive this training in order to record accurate tracking history's when using radar or laser instruments to prosecute speed violations. Granting that the scale is larger in these cases, I'll still take their word and judgement over someone's who wasn't there.

T.

Originally posted by Triangulum
Police officers are trained to judge speed and acceleration. They receive this training in order to record accurate tracking history's when using radar or laser instruments to prosecute speed violations. Granting that the scale is larger in these cases, I'll still take their word and judgement over someone's who wasn't there.

Officers can estimate vehicle speed visually even without a radar gun because they know how big the vehicle is.

Nobody can estimate the size of an unknown vehicle if there's no frame of reference. If it's closer than 200 feet then the people with the best eyesight can tell that it's less than 200 feet away because stereoscopic vision might provide an assist to determining the object's distance. But the majority of sightings are well over 200 feet away where human eye capabilities are beyond the limits of human stereoscopic distance resolution. And no amount of training can tell them how big an unknown object is, if it's unknown, it's unknown.

It's not always impossible if there's a reference point, for example if it flies between 2 light poles where one is in front and the other is behind it, then you know it's between the two light poles. The officer could then measure the distance to the light poles and determine how far away it is, but they usually don't get references this good. If they do get such clear references, then we have reason to add credibility to the distance/speed/size estimates. If they don't give such references and you choose to accept their estimates at face value, I think you need to do more homework. The professor is right.

Why would defense contractor risk blowing the cover on a super secret vehicle such as this by operating it over population centers?

I can only guess, but my guess would be that it's NOT the defense contractor flying it, but the military, and they've already bought it. Regarding motive, I can't tell you why people do half the things they do. And if it's aliens flying it, I'd have even less idea about their motives. Anyway I wouldn't call it super secret, Lockheed's got a patent that you can go look up, and that link said 100-200 of the 1000 cases they have on file may be this same craft, so it's being seen a lot, at least 10% of the cases! They just haven't formally declassified it yet.

Personally, I'd choose:

ROSWELL - Proof of an admitted military coverup, numerous witnesses with corroborative accounts, numerous military officers' testimonies, and checkable facts such as the flights of the debris to leading foreign technology facilities. The Mogul explanation doesn't hold up to either the timeline, nor special treatment of what amounts to balsa wood, foil paper, and balloon materiel, so this explanation is more than inadequate, and contradicts witness testimony.

RENDLESHAM - Again, involvement of the military, and a lot of evidence.

I wouldn't be too quick to rule out abduction cases. While I'd agree that likely about 90+ % of them are bogus, the following is an excellent case:

THE HILL ABDUCTION - Military involvement, treatment by a leading Army psychologist, Betty's starmap, which correctly identifies an arrangement of YELLOW stars like our sun, and prior to astronomical verification of those stars and colors...is pretty compelling.

For those wondering what these will be used for allow me to explain. I currently do believe that somewhere out there another form of life exists and for many years read stories like these and considered them to be proof that that life form exists. After many years I am now at a point where I still believe some life exists somewhere in this universe but I am realizing that these stories are getting out of control and I can't take them serious any more. I created a thread arguing that ets didn't exist but didn't clearly state my beliefs just to see what people had to say and I am now researching for a very detailed argument as to why I believe these stories aren't proof aliens exist.

Originally posted by seangkt
After many years I am now at a point where I still believe some life exists somewhere in this universe but I am realizing that these stories are getting out of control and I can't take them serious any more.

Thanks for explaining how you're going to use this information. Welcome to the club, you're not the only one on ATS who used to think all these reports meant aliens were visiting us, and then realized that there could be other explanations as well. So much of your description in that respect fits me and others here on ATS. The only statement I wouldn't say applies to me is the part that you "can't take them serious any more", actually I still take the reports seriously, of actual events that happened 99% of the time (and maybe hoaxes 1% of the time).

I think professor L. Scott Miller has the right idea where I quoted him a few posts up:

"Each sighting requires a great deal of analysis. A witness's perceptions of speed, acceleration, and size are likely of very little value," Miller said. "I have taken an approach of first identifying needs -- or mission requirements -- and technology availability. Then I compare those with the cold raw, simple facts of a sighting, not the conjecture or guess work of a witness," he said.

So he takes the reports seriously also, as events that actually occur, but he "filters" the information provided in the reports using what we know about witness testimony, spatial perception, etc. So if 40 people say they saw a mile wide object with lights on it, we have every reason to believe they saw an object, but we have no reason to believe it was a mile wide unless they can explain scientifically sound approaches to how the object's size was determined.

This was supposed to be some of the best UFO proof ever too:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This video however is one of few that seem to prove that UFO`s are reall and cant be mistaken.

Here instead of having just unreliable witness testimony, we have an actual video that should eliminate all confusion because people can watch it over and over again. Yes we have people watching the video stating that it can't possibly be a plane because it hovers motionless and planes can't hover motionless like that. We now know the object is in fact a plane but it's just further proof of what terrible observers we are, it only appears to be hovering motionless, it's not really.

So this is why it's with some concern I note that some of the "best" UFO cases are lacking any pictures or video, or something objective, besides witness observation, that can be studied.

Anyway sounds like an interesting project, good luck with it, I'll look forward to seeing the result.

It will take a lot more than just several stories to convince any truly openminded skeptic let alone someone who's firmly against the concept regardless of what evidence is presented. I've had my own sighting of a UFO (just one) so I'd be one of the easier subjects to work on but I'd still be looking for supporting evidence and a means of ruling out all the conventional possibilities first. I've had my own personal confirmation of a UFO but alien activity - not as yet.