106 replies to this topic

[DBunker]

zoser, on 14 August 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

I asked Haz the same question and I would like to ask if you don't mind; do you have a favourite case, one that intrigues you the most?

Not really. I think that there is something else going one here. Man-made..... natural phenomenon.....deliberate hoaxes..... wack jobs..... misinterpretations..... fantasy prone personalities...... to many science fiction movies..... drugs....

My guess is all of these has been "ET" to someone at one time or another .

[Mantis914]

DBunker, on 14 August 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

No, Im saying that the evidence for ET visitation is crappy.

Would you agree that evidence that would be convincing has been suppressed?

[DBunker]

Mantis914, on 14 August 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Would you agree that evidence that would be convincing has been suppressed?

Thats the ultimate UFOology get out of jail free card.

- Im sorry I cant show you good evidence because the Men In Black (CIA-FBI-NSA-NASA bla bla bla) came and took it away.

[Kludge808]

badeskov, on 14 August 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

Oh, like the vast majority of authors selling in this field of study (I cringe at the word study in this respect).

Ah, bade, we meet again!  

There is one notable difference between this case and Everyone's Favorite, Roswell.  This one was documented "cradle to grave" by everyone and the family dog, and that documentation is consistent within tolerable limits - ie, variations due to individual perceptions pretty much like witness statements to any event.  When someone like Bragalia comes along with a story that is so out of line with that documentation it is way too obvious fiction - and not real good fiction at that.

You probably remember from previous threads I tend to sit on the fence, neither a believer nor a non-believer.  This, however, is one of those rare events that comes along that adds weight to the "ET is here" (or at least stops by occasionally) side.

[Jeffertonturner]

DBunker, on 14 August 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Thats the ultimate UFOology get out of jail free card.

- Im sorry I cant show you good evidence because the Men In Black (CIA-FBI-NSA-NASA bla bla bla) came and took it away.

It's a shame I can only like this once.

[Mantis914]

DBunker, on 14 August 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Thats the ultimate UFOology get out of jail free card.

- Im sorry I cant show you good evidence because the Men In Black (CIA-FBI-NSA-NASA bla bla bla) came and took it away.

That's also the ultimate get out of jail free card for the debunkers in saying that there's only crappy evidence and no one has stepped up to prove anything.

I wasn't talking about the feds coming down and doing a Men in Black or whatever I was talking about the intimidation and shame effect that would deter someone from reporting or showing evidence that may be out there.  Who would want to put forth good evidence when there's people out there that are ready to judge others on evidence that they've found by shouting "Photoshop" or "Pareidolia" or just outright questioning a their sanity.  Look what's happened to people like Jesse Marcel, Chief Greenhaw, along with countless others that have had their lives turned upside down due to what they saw.  I'm sure they couldn't wait for the opposition that faced them all for the sake of fame, right?  Pssh, please...

This is probably your vision of what every person that says otherwise looks like...

[Hazzard]

Mantis914, on 14 August 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

That's also the ultimate get out of jail free card for the debunkers in saying that there's only crappy evidence and no one has stepped up to prove anything.

Proved what exactly? I havent seen anyone skeptical of the ETH claiming anything. All we see here are people asking for better evidence. Its the one making a claim that has the burden of proof, not those who find the evidence dubious..

Sure there is a lot of stigma in this field and people should be careful before comming out claiming something as factual without real evidence.

That goes without saying.

Edited by Hazzard, 14 August 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

Hazzard, on 14 August 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Proved what exactly? I havent seen anyone skeptical of the ETH claiming anything. All we see here are people asking for better evidence. Its the one making a claim that has the burden of proof, not those who find the evidence dubious..

Sure there is a lot of stigma in this field and people should be careful before comming out claiming something as factual without real evidence.

That goes without saying.

Can this go any futher ? we are still waiting for the real evidence right ?

[csspwns]

UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. we dont noe wat they are so we'll call them UFOs for now. so when UFO "researchers" find a photo of and unidentified object, they can say, "I know for sure that this is a UFO!" in other words, "I noe for sure i dont noe wat this is but its flying!" am i right? oda

[badeskov]

Kludge808, on 14 August 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

Ah, bade, we meet again!  

Kludge, old buddy - good to see you around this area of UM

Quote

There is one notable difference between this case and Everyone's Favorite, Roswell.  This one was documented "cradle to grave" by everyone and the family dog, and that documentation is consistent within tolerable limits - ie, variations due to individual perceptions pretty much like witness statements to any event.

Agreed.

Quote

When someone like Bragalia comes along with a story that is so out of line with that documentation it is way too obvious fiction - and not real good fiction at that.

Seems like Mr. Bragalia has a real knack for making things up. Have commented on a couple of his essays here and he actually ended up joining himself to argue his case - needless to say that that didn't end up so well for him

Quote

You probably remember from previous threads I tend to sit on the fence, neither a believer nor a non-believer.  This, however, is one of those rare events that comes along that adds weight to the "ET is here" (or at least stops by occasionally) side.

I am not sure I would give it that much weight, but intriguing it sure is.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Kludge808]

Hazzard, on 14 August 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Proved what exactly? I havent seen anyone skeptical of the ETH claiming anything. All we see here are people asking for better evidence. Its the one making a claim that has the burden of proof, not those who find the evidence dubious..

Sure there is a lot of stigma in this field and people should be careful before comming out claiming something as factual without real evidence.

As I mentioned to bade, I'm a fence sitter looking for overwhelming evidence from either side.  Would I like there to be an ET presence here?  Yes, I would.  (If nothing else, it would explain a few things like politicians and Paris Hilton.)  This incident weighs on that side since the range of other possibilities is vanishingly small.

This is as opposed to Kecksburg, which was a completely terrestrial object that had nothing to do with ET.  I saw the object as it passed South* to where it came down and later talked to people who lived there at the time.  They laughed at the ET versions and said they didn't come up until the "Ufologists" came to town and twisted statements to satisfy their own pet theories.  There were no death threats and, while people were asked not to discuss the event, it was much like at a traffic accident where witnesses are asked not to discuss among themselves what happened until all the statements are taken after which they can talk about it freely.  The state police and I believe the FBI were both involved in that but neither cared about who said what to whom after they had the statements.

* My boss and I were both ex-Navy and both trained observers having both been lookouts as part of our assigned duties.  We were 17 miles North of Pittsburgh along US Rte 19 when it passed East of us low on the horizon but still over the power lines on the other side of the highway.  It appeared as an overly bright meteor passing North to South on a near horizontal path which was only part of the path made from when it first appeared over Canada to its final resting place at Kecksburg.  We both reported it as did a few others who saw it from both our shop and the Howard Johnson's next door and we all were interviewed by a couple of cops over the next few days as part of the "dot the Ts and cross the Is" detaily stuff.  One told me that they must have really ticked someone off to have gotten that detail but it beat chasing bad guys.

Edited by Kludge808, 15 August 2012 - 04:18 AM.

[Simbi Laveau]

What elaborate technology ? 1964 ,and they outwitted a cop,and other witnesses,with a balloon and a candle.

Yah,ok ....look at any UFO movie from the same time frame. If that's the technology Hollywood had at the time,you really think a bunch of students did better ? Without editing to boot .

[Kludge808]

badeskov, on 15 August 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

Kludge, old buddy - good to see you around this area of UM

You know I couldn't stay away, right?  

Now if Boony and the rest of the gang show up ...

Quote

Agreed.

It's one of the reasons I'm rather interested in this case.  The fact that the CTists et al have a problem creating something out of it without making obvious errors plus it matches other events (Three?  Four?  I forget.) at least from the markings in the ground suggests to me that there is something to it.

Quote

Seems like Mr. Bragalia has a real knack for making things up. Have commented on a couple of his essays here and he actually ended up joining himself to argue his case - needless to say that that didn't end up so well for him

*snicker* ... I love how that works.  Isn't it amazing how people like that never learn their lessons.

Quote

I am not sure I would give it that much weight, but intriguing it sure is.

It's pretty generally agreed that something happened there out of the ordinary.  What it was is still open for discussion but that discussion has to remain within the limits of what was documented first hand.  At the same time, it can't omit any as Mr. Bragalia did.  There aren't many - if any - terrestrial explanations that can satisfy those requirements.  This doesn't say that it definitely was an ET event but it does add weight to that possibility.

Quote

Cheers,
Badeskov

And to you as well, old friend.

[Tim Hebert]

Socorro is a little off the beaten path for my usual interest, but Tony Bragalia's article caught my attention.  BTW, this is not Tony's first foray into the Socorro hoax meme, I believe he proposed a hoax of some fashion back in 2009.

What's somewhat humorous is the reaction from the "faithful" as Tony tends to be pro-UFO.  One acolyte posted on Kevin Randle's blog that Tony was a mere debunker attempting to make money off of Socorro with a potential book.  So if one strays off of the UFO reservation then he is classified as a debunker?....Priceless!  That term is usually devoted to people such as...me.

Bragalia's new hoax angle appears to hinge on an email conversation with Dr. Stirling Colgate who, according to Tony, confirms the hoax and how it was perpetrated.  Supposedly, the questions will be again put to Colgate once he returns back to New Mexico, a week or two from today, this coming from a heated discussion between Tim Printy and Bragalia over at Robert Scheaffer's BAD UFO blog.  So we shall see how this plays out...or not.

BTW, the "old guard" on UFO Updates appear to be experiencing what tantamount to an epileptic seizure over Bragalia's hoax article.  If the legend of Socorro falls...

Regardless of how this plays out, Tony should be given kudos for attempting to think out side of the box rather than repeating the same old mantra time after time.

[Mantis914]

Hazzard, on 14 August 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Proved what exactly? I havent seen anyone skeptical of the ETH claiming anything. All we see here are people asking for better evidence. Its the one making a claim that has the burden of proof, not those who find the evidence dubious..

Sure there is a lot of stigma in this field and people should be careful before comming out claiming something as factual without real evidence.

That goes without saying.

Is not refuting something presented making a claim also?  If someone is just presenting a film or a photograph and saying they don't know what it is but they captured it that's not really making a claim.  If they come out and initially call it an extraterrestrial craft having just a photograph or film then of course there will be some clearing of the throat and raising of eyebrows at that.

By the way, just so you'll know, I, myself, have yet to see any viable evidence supporting the idea that we are being visited by something.