Just caught Larry King's special on the Stephenville UFO sighting. On the show and discussing were: James Fox, Stanton Friedman, two witnesses of 1997's Phoenix lights incident, two witnesses from Stephenville and the local reporter, and a skeptic (James something). Good show - very good in fact. No ridicule from any party. The skeptic was hard headed but that's predictable. What were your thoughts?

Oh I get it. Believers are skeptics now. Har har

It seems most of the people seeing this stuff are skeptics these days. Kinda weird...

thanx for the update (no cable- dont watch it enough i guess). there's been a lot of cool coverage last week or so. that local news clip i saw last night was not about the texas ufo- some guy here in colorado got a couple lil pics (unknowingly) of a flat shadow in front of the sun. there was the akward giggle at the end but it was some ufo coverage. ill probablylook for a link to the larry king show here in a bit. but pls post one if you find one (im sure you would anyway).
lol i think roger moore should pick up the ufo thing, would REALLY get it out there.
just a thought i had.thanx again digi

Cant wait to see on youtube, bet was a balloon...

Christ.Everything is a balloon to some of you people

Everyone wants to believe there is life out there. But the evidence is all bull. There is no evidence.

The videos are lame and inconclusive.

People are just tired of dealing with nonsense and so there are a lot of sceptics who deep down would want to believe something exists out there.

But unless the aliens land on the white house lawn there is no reason to really believe there is something out there.

From the link below you can watch it online OR download it from the link provided (found on right side under download original )in wmv format 108 megs.

You may have to PAUSE the video for a bit so it can load, then hit play to watch this online here:

UFOS Over Texas Jan 2008

The Texas witnesses heard in this sound very serious and credible - as did MANY witnesses to the Phoenix Lights. McGaha was a joke. Some of the things he says is so patronizing and insulting our intelligence with his BS. (especially on what he says 28 minutes, 32 and 35 minutes into this video)

Any way, over all I thought this was interesting.

Heh - second time was even better. Thanks Cinders.

I can't help but wonder if what these folks in Texas saw might not have been something home grown? Take a look at this article from Space.com regarding stealth blimps. If the US military has classified craft like this, it would go along way to explain what people have been seeing, and why the military denies any knowledge of such craft.

I would really like to see a blimp traveling at speeds exceeding 3,000 MPH. Those are the speeds quoted in the video, you know. And why would two F16s be chasing such an object?

I liked it and I liked the last UFO thing Larry King did. I think they spent too much time at the end discussing the Phoenix Lights. They should have devoted more time to the recent Texas sighting. Also that "skeptic" they had on there was just plain ignorant!

Estimating speed in such situations is very difficult. These so-called "stealth blimps" aren't slow moving objects either:



As for why there were F16s, could be escorts perhaps? Remember, this is only another possible hypothesis. Right now what these folks saw is certainly an unknown.

And they sure don't seem too good at being stealthy either.

I only caught a minute of the show, but that was "enough" for me.

The Astronomer commented that when he talks to other Astronomers about UFO's that they laugh at him.

Stan Friedman's response? Well, he said (paraphrasing) that Astronomers are wrong more often than not...that they basically only get things right, when told by others. (I guess he meant when he tells them.) In other words, he made a fool of himself by insulting the whole astronomical community simply because they don't believe as he does. He is one sad, sad little man.

I saw no reason to continue watching...



added...and why do they keep introducing him as a Nuclear Phycisist???? His last peer reviewed work was DECADES ago. the only possible answer is because that "introduction" makes him look like he knows what he is talking about. (Argument from authority)

Too bad that when he opens his mouth, he ruins that "illusion".

Friedman is bona fide, and definitely not under any illusion, having studied the phenomenon for over forty years. He represents one of the more "skeptical" believers the community has. A strong asset.

yep a mile long one.....

Agree , Friedman does not tend to open his mouth unless, he can back it up with detailed research.

Astronomers can be wrong, and they have been, just like ufologists can be wrong, so what?



He is someone who has done alot for ufology, and should get respect for that. Every time i have heard him in discussion with any de-bunker, or some skeptics, he always comes out on top, and why is that do you think?



So what if he is still called a nuclear phycisist or not, who bloddy cares!! Please tell me how he does not know what he is chatting about? While debunkers were saying case closed about roswell ( even people who did not loom into it) he was the one who was coming out with information about how the weather balloon was a cover up, and guess what, it was a cover up. And im sure the same will happen again with Project M, which, to me, is a cover up too.



When he does "open his mouth" he seems to shut up alot of debunkers. The reason for this is he does his homwork, while others dont and just think they can dismiss something with weather balloons and swamp gas etc.

How can you not be interested in this case? It seems to me that deep down, you are hoping that no evidence will be uncovered, because you really like this de-bunking. Its quite sad that some people will only be interested in something if there is "100% evidence" until then, they dont open up their mind, and they stay so closed minded, they dont even know it.

But NOT in the way that Friedman "implies". Why are you making excuses for him??



This is the 2nd time in as many days that preciseness of language has been "excused" with a "who cares"? When the subject is as important as aliens visiting Earth, I really start to wonder why you "don't care".



Is it under the same circumstances as last night's interview, where Friedman is allowed to interupt those whom he disagrees with?



Flying saucers interested me in my youth, now, I am more interested in those who would steadfastly believe in the face of NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. In other words, you "believers" fascinate me because of your blind belief.



Don't even attempt to "analyze" me, as you'll just give yourself a head ache. Fact is that I would welcome actual, physical evidence for the existance of visiting aliens, however, I will not accept anything less than actual, physical, credible evidence.

I wish all of you could understand that.



I grow quit weary of the accusation that I MUST be closed minded because I refuse to believe without evidence...

All of these "labels" that you want to place on me simply will not stick.

I wish all of you could understand that also...but if I must keep repeating it, I will.

Thats surprising. Why wouldn't someone be skeptical? Why would someone jump to the conclusion of ET? Its a no brainer.

Re: Larry King UFO hour:

Notice James Fox's idiotic opening line -- "Uh, I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but could it have been a comet?".

Two things. Of course he meant 'meteor', he just mispoke. Friedman gently corrected him.

Worse: he implied that 'intelligence' was a factor in avoiding misinterpretation of visual stimuli. This is a widespread delusion -- people who DO misinterpret things (as the vast majority of UFO witnesses are doing) get really torqued when somebody offers a prosaic explanation -- 'Are you saying I'm SToooPID?!?!?' is the standard response (Lucius Farish, despite his profound familiarity with the UFO literature, made exactly this gambit when I [correctly] identified a favorite personal UFO sighting of his with the Echo balloon). With their ego defense mechanisms engaged, and with the high-status thrill of now having personally become a witness to alien visitors, it becomes impossible to rationally investigate such witness reports further.

But as Hendry/Hynek results indicate, it is intelligent people who are more likely to 'cue up' earlier perceptual memories to 'fill in the gaps' and 'leap to conclusions' about baffling and ambiguous perceptions. It's why adults are easily fooled by deliberate prestidigitation, while children and lower IQ watchers are not -- the latter witnesses' minds are actually truer to the raw perceptions. It's why pilots make such lousy aviation accident witnesses, according to the NTSB investigation techniques -- they are too eager to over-interpret the meaning of what they are seeing, rather than noting and preserving RAW perceptions. Ditto pilots as UFO witnesses [pace Hynek].

Being misled by a visual apparition is NOT an insult to a witness's intelligence. More often than not, it is a tribute to it -- while reflecting poorly on that person's EXPERIENCE as a witness. And reflecting poorly on foolish people who think SMART people are more credible as UFO witnesses.

The "illusion" I was speaking of was that Friedman knows what he is talking about...when he misrepresents ALL astronomers as if they are clueless, then he demonstrates that he DOESN'T know what he is talking about...see what I'm saying??



I don't understand this at all. Sure Friedman doesn't believe ALL sightings are alien in nature, but he DOES believe that aliens are here without credible evidence.

To characterize him as "skeptical" is absurd.

Goes to show how closed-minded some people are. Scientist once laughed at the idea of heavier-than-air flight, so I might just think about how scientist once scoffed at heavier-than-air flight the next time I fly.

http://www.xdream.freeserve.co.uk/UFOBase/Astronomers.htm

Unfortunately, I missed the program, so perhaps, he will have another session on UFOs later.

Im not making excuses for him, and im not saying that i agree with everything he says, but im saying we all make mistakes.



Right, he was a nuclear phycisist, and what i have heard, a very good one. If people still want to call him that, then thats up to them. I care about some of he stuff he has to say.



Sounds like you have not watched or heard many debates with friedman, because i have heard a few where he comes out on top, just because he does his home work.



And people like you fascinate me too because no matter how many times i say that i need 100% proof that ET is here, you still call me a "believer". A sign of ignorance! There is more than enough evidence that some ufo's are unexplained, and damn right strange, but you really have to get it through your head that just because i dont agree with you, or any other skeptic or de-bunker, does not mean im a believer.



I do understand that, as i want the same thing, but to understand, you need to study the subject to get a better understanding. You don't seem to do that in my opinion.



Right, you come on here, and all you keep on saying is you want 100% evidence, while at the same time you never seem to have much knowledge in the subject. If you dont have 100% evidence, then you seen to chuck every case out the window. To me, that is close minded, and its close minded because you will not look at a case, and be interested in it, because it does not have 100% evidence.



It seems to me that some people will refuse to believe that some people saw what they said they saw, even if it was a huge craft that was low, or a craft that showed amazing speed, and yes, i would find this a huge insult. If i saw a solid craft hover over my garden, so close that i could see the windows and door, only for it to shoot off at amazing speeds, and then for some person to turn around and say it was venus, or whatever over the top explanation, then i would be insulted. It like you will rufuse to believe that they saw what they actually saw, which i find annoying. It s not 100% proof, but denying every ufo witness is an insult.

I have no problem believing they saw someting. I have a problem with people assuming it is ET stopping by to say hi.

"Denying" is hardly the proper word.

Can we start with an agreement that at least 80% to 90% of people who think they have seen something with no earthly explanation, are incorrect in that interpretation?

Yes, and i am the same. What i dont like are people who rufuse to believe that a person, or many persons saw what they said they saw. They would rather say some pretty stupid stuff. And this is not just some cases, but some people refuse to beleive any case, even if many people saw the same thing.

Yes, this is true, maybe more than 90%, but some cases you just cant use some stupid explanation, it sounds to me that some people just refuse to believe them. Its seems to me that witnesess might see a huge craft low to the ground, then shoot of into the sky at amazing sppeds, but the same old people will still refuse to belive what they saw, and would rather say it was venus or some other ott explanation. This is the problem with the ufo phenomona, people just dont take it seriously, even though there is more than enough evidence that some ufos are very strange.

Hi SkyEagle! I think this show will re-air on Saturday or Sunday.. not sure.
HOWEVER, earlier on this thread I did post up a link where you can watch this online / and or download this.
SEE COMMENT HERE

I was in a hurry to get this shared last night for another forum. It's not in the best wmv format that I usually do.. but still reasonable.

I agree if you a have a whole lot of witnesses in seperate locations then more than likely they saw something. What is has to be determined if possible.

Yet NONE OF THAT EVIDENCE indicates that what was seen is from another star system.

Perhaps we're having trouble symantically.

If they can't provide evidence for what they saw, then what is wrong with disbelief?

For those who believe that this sighting was a classified blimp or other US Military secret...

If these are in fact secret US craft The Military should own up to these as valid sightings instead of leaving people panicking in the dark, after all, if you have the balls to fly a top secret craft into the view of the population, shouldn't you at least have the courtesy to inform the people in the least, that "its a classified craft, no comment". After all the people of US are not the enemy of the US military.
The lack of acknowledgment results in confusion an panic.

With that said, the other reason for military not acknowledging the siting, is that it probably isn't Military. At least thats the only other reason why being tight-lipped would be the best response. I would assume its a non-public military (secret organization, corporate-security, something non military but security related).

I havent seen the vid yet, its still downloading. But I'll have more comments in an couple of hours.

There she blows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMyWuz0ycV4

Revealing military secrets is treason. Why would you want the US military to "give away" any advantage that it has??



Who is "panicking"?? Why would they be "panicking"??

Anyone who would panic over something like this just might have bigger issues than "if" UFO's are real or not.

Yeah, until it pops.

If these craft are SECRET MILITARY craft, they SHOULD NOT be flown over a town. PERIOD.

This is the crux of my argument.

I believe most people would "panic" only a few would come out and say they saw something, others would be quiet in denial or scare of coming forth as a witness this is plainly shown in this Larry King show. Only a small portion of witnesses do come forth, afraid of ridicule or whatever.
Expression of panic is in a variety of forms, confusion, denial, excitement, shock... doesn't mean a person will flip out and do the floppy-chicken on the ground.

Well, some of the evidence proves that something in our air space is flying around at amazing speeds, solid craft etc, so, until we find out what they are, then they could be ET, secret government projects etc. But to find this out we need to take it seriously, which we don't, and thats such a shame.



But there is evidence that something strange is flying, and has been flying in our air space for a very long time. What it is, we dont know, but its there. To find out what such things are, then it need to be investigated properly, instead of people just trying to prove its not ET, this is the problem. Until we know what some of these ufos are, then people are intitled to believe that it is ET. Some de-bunkers will put forward some stupid explanations about some cases, but they dont have evidence for what they have to say, its just an opinion, like the believers opinion. At the end of the day, some people put the word "belief" to believers, but de-bunkers also deal in belief too.

I hope this type of event increases dramatically in frequency from here on.

How can you know if it is a "solid" craft unless you go up to it and "knock" on it?



This subject is taken as seriously as the evidence allows...nothing more...



By "properly" I assume you mean an investigation that costs $$. I am not willing to bankroll such an investigation, but you are welcome to invest as much money as you would like.



Sure, as long as it is recognized as just a belief. the problem lies when people use their belief as if it were evidence...it is not.



Can we leave the "name-calling" at the door?...it serves no purpose here...



It's an opinion based on evidence (or in the case of alien UFO's, a lack of evidence.)



An informed belief based on the evidence (or lack as I just posted.)

Well, some appear to be solid craft, just like when you look up at the sky and see a plane. If they are not solid, then thats even stranger.



That is a load of rubbish. Like i said before, there is plenty of evidence that some ufo's are unexplained and flying in our airspace, but some people ignore it just because of the "ET" factor.



Well, dont you think there needs to be an investigation, considering that something is flying in our airspace, and we don't know what it is. Its seems strange just to ignore it.



Yes, we all need 100% evidence, but like i said before, there is a belief behind de-bunking too.



HHmmmmmm!



But to find out you have to investigate ufo's. Are you at all interested in what some of these ufos are?



I have heard some really stupid explanations for some ufo cases, so bad that it makes the "ET" explanation more logical. So when you get a dozen people witness a craft, the shape, size, speed and movment all at the same time, only for someone to turn around and say it was venus, you will believe that? even if this does not go with what people saw. There are many cases like this, and in my opinion, its not informed belief based on evidence, its people who would rather give a stupid explanation, rather than say its an unknown.

Im not really sure of your point, so some debunkers do come up with bad explanations, that still does not change the fact that the data only shows an unidentified object.....



Well, funny you should say this because some of the conclusions that some believers have come out with are just a joke. And it does seem like that some would come up with the most stupid explanations rather than say its unknown. But these are the type of people we are dealing with when it comes to UFOs.

Bottom line, I am only trying to get you to understand the difference between evidence and speculation. Your right, there is no substitute for knowledge when it is founded upon evidence. In this case the knowledge is that the objects are unidentified, the speculation is on their place of origin.

If youre going to claim, that extraterrestrials are buzzing our cities, or occasionally assaulting the neighbors with an aggression inappropriate for a first date, then I urge you to find evidence that leaves little doubt among the professionally skeptical community known as the world of science. The "It cant have been invented here" speculation by eyewitnesses is not hard evidence.

Far from it.

I see, The smarter a person is, the dumber they are? Isn't that about the stupidiest, dumb and dumberer thing I ever heard of. Too smart, so they are too stupid to know what they saw? I disagree with you here Jim. There are some higher IQ people who have photographic memories...so I guess they are too stupid too? ...well the military does not think so.

IQ testing, if you ever had one, tests a variety of areas...one area being visual and spacial perception. When tested you are asked to recall sequential numbers and pictures are asked what you have heard and seen and repeat in the sequence in which events occured, and you are tested on the accuracy of your recall. So, you are incorrect when you say higher IQ people will get it wrong; I say higher IQ people will get it right more times then not.

LIFE Magazine, August 4, 1952, pages 39-40




You mean, like UFO scientific investigations of CSICOP, now known as CSI? I hope you remembered how they made themselves the laughing stock in the eyes of the world.



Perhaps, I should notify CSICOP, I mean, CSI, that it has now been determined that there were no Project Mogul balloon flight #4 and why some skeptics are beginnig to dismiss Project Mogul as responsible as well. I came to that conclusion a long time ago when the Air Force supplied me with documentation that show that there were no Project Mogul balloon flight #4. I should also notify CSICOP that Project Mogul balloons were not classified.


Let's take a look at the scientific study, known as the Colorado Study?




As you can see, scientist have shown they are not capable of conducting viable research on UFOs, and instead, make theyselves look like clowns when they do. Perhaps, it has to do with the fact that they don't want to find out they are NOT the brighest beings in the universe.

Apparently, a number of countries don't share that view.



Iranian military officials have already stated on video, that the UFOs they encountered were those of ET.

Thank you , Cinders!!

Interesting. If the U.S. doesn't disclose soon, then it may well be left out of the loop while other countries step forward.

Doesn't matter which countries say UFOs are those of ETs...The world will only listen if some major powers say its true, like the USA & UK. These two countries never tell the whole truth, and anything they do say is in the interest of getting money.