DOCUMENTARY: I know what I saw

[stereologist]

20 hours ago, Fila said:

The Phoenix lights are explained as military flares.., although flares were dropped later that night (10pm or so) the sighting occurred much earlier.., and not just where the flares were dropped. The airforce did not lie about flares being dropped, this actually happened. But this cannot be used to dismiss the sighting from earlier. Fife Symington also raises this issue, as he was on both sides of the argument.

You do not seem to know that there were two events on the same night which is why I stated event #1. The second event which has nothing to do with the video discussion was military flares. That is known as event #2.

The confusion in the events is actually due to the UFO community which mixed the two events together. The news showed event #2 while talking about event #1.

Event #1 was planes and there is a video of the planes. That trashy video is a typical video that mixes the two events in other to confuse the gullible.

[stereologist]

20 hours ago, Fila said:

No. I don't lie. I just said I got heated, misread your post and apologised. Again.., one thing happening.., does not equate to "it happens all the time" This is false logic.

I strongly disagree that because "witness give different descriptions" of an event.., this equates to "the event didn't occur."

Its a well established fact that memories are not perfect. Police take this into consideration.., as opposed ignoring information.

They are trained on how to get the best info from various eye witnesses. Example:

A male wearing a black beanie, blue jumper and red pants steals a purple handbag from an old lady in a crowded park 20 people see the event occur. Now.., they know for a fact that when they ask each witness individually.., then they will 100%get conflitcintg results. This does NOT means 20 people hallucinated an event. It is a well known fct that memoires are infallible.

They way they counter this.., is to get all the information thhey can.

WITNESS 1: A guy wearing a black beanie, blue jumper and grey pants stole a red handbag

WTNESS 2: A person wearing a blue beanie and blue jumper stole a red handbag

WITNESS 3: A male wearing a black beanie, and red pants stole a blue handbag

WITNESS 4: 2 men appeared to steal a red handbag.

WITNESS 5: A female wearing a black beanie, blue jumper and red pants stole a red handbag

WITNESS 6: A person wearing red pants stole a red backpack from someone

etc.., etc.., etc.

Then what they do.., is look at all the data to find patterns that will corroborate all witness accounts into one. 15 people say the handbag was red (even though other things were sketchy like the color of the beanie) so they conclude that the handbag was most likely Red.

19 people said it was male.., so they will conclude male. Although the person who said female got every other detail correct. As hjumans.., wee cannot take all info in.., and some people just naturally notice others things more like clothes colour, hairstyles, phone or shoe brand , handbag brand etc.

You were performing the opposite. Rather using known human errors as proof an event didn't happen. Which is simply not true.

Actually you lie a lot. I dismissed earlier lies as straw man arguments. Your repeated misrepresentation of my posts are also all lies. So drop the lies, drop the anger, and cool down.

Here is a typical lie by you.

Quote

I strongly disagree that because "witness give different descriptions" of an event.., this equates to "the event didn't occur."

I never stated that or suggested that. It's just another of your rather pathetic lies.

Here is what I have been saying. Witnesses make mistakes. Witness reports are all different. It simply means that the witnesses are not good sources for learning what happened.

Quote

Its a well established fact that memories are not perfect. Police take this into consideration.., as opposed ignoring information.

Exactly. So when a witness says the culprit was white that might be wrong. When witnesses say he drove away that might not be true. When witnesses say there were multiple shooters that might not be true. When witnesses say they were unarmed that might not be true.

Quote

They are trained on how to get the best info from various eye witnesses.

No. They are trained to get whatever information they can and to recognize that it might not be any good.

Your example is bad. It turns out that nothing was stolen. The witnesses were all mistaken.

[stereologist]

The trouble with witnesses is that when they see something they don't understand such as lights in the sky, they begin to put together an idea in their head as to what is happening. Humans are pattern matchers. We see patterns in all sort of random nothingness. It can be a gamer at a roulette table or someone watching clouds in the sky. They see patterns that might not be there. We are also good at connecting the dots. That's why people all over the world see pictures in the night sky even though the patterns we see are different for each culture.

Artistically this is great. It allows trains and houses and trees to have faces and we believe it. Scientifically this is a problem. We can see pattern where there is none. We do not want to have a medicine or treatment based on someone's false pattern. We don't want to lose all of our assets because of someone's false patterns.

Some people that saw the Phoenix lights connected the dots and thought they saw a huge spaceship in the sky. Other people saw the "spaceship" pass in front of the Moon and there was nothing to see. Other people saw that the dot in back fell behind, caught up fell behind, and so forth and knew they were planes. Others just imagined something that was not there.

[Fila]

On 18/12/2017 at 5:40 AM, stereologist said:

You do not seem to know that there were two events on the same night which is why I stated event #1. The second event which has nothing to do with the video discussion was military flares. That is known as event #2.

The confusion in the events is actually due to the UFO community which mixed the two events together. The news showed event #2 while talking about event #1.

Event #1 was planes and there is a video of the planes. That trashy video is a typical video that mixes the two events in other to confuse the gullible.

I'm not sure about that.., I gotta be sceptical of information. Not just sceptical of an idea that UFOs aren't real. The logic works both ways.

A group of planes would be logged. Perhaps we can contact the nearest air control centres around Phoenix.., and ask them if there were any formations of planes around at that time. I'm fairly sure this should be public information.

Symington called the Commander at Luke Air Force Base, the General in  charge of the National Guard, and the head of the Department of 
Public Safety in 1997. None of these officials had answers, and they were "perplexed", 
 

Also a video of planes.., is not what was described by witnesses. 

Phoenix city councilwoman Frances Barwood was the only elected official to launch a public investigation in 1997, but she received no information from any level of government. Barwood spoke with over seven hundred witnesses, including police, pilots and former military, who provided very similar descriptions. 

"V-shaped craft, gliding slowly and silently across the sky for half an hour beginning at approximately 8:15 pm."

"low, gigantic, technological flying machines that blocked out the stars - not merely lights."

"It had a geometric outline, a constant shape" 

 

Ten years after the Arizona UFO incident known as the 'Phoenix Lights', former Arizona Republican Governor Fife Symington now says that he himself was a witness to one of the strange unidentified flying objects, even though he originally did not say so publicly. 

"It was enormous and inexplicable", he said in an exclusive interview from his home in Phoenix. "Who knows where it came from? A lot of people saw it, and I saw it too" 
 

Symington was known for ridiculing the incident at a spoof press conference, so his statement marks a dramatic turnaround. He wants to make amends to his constituents and set the record straight. 

Pressure was building from frustrated citizens who wanted answers, "The message to Arizona citizens was that reporting this was stupid" 
"It was an insult to the intelligence of the witnesses"

"If I had to do it all over again I probably would have handled it differently", Symington explains. 

 

[Fila]

On 18/12/2017 at 5:50 AM, stereologist said:

I never stated that or suggested that. Here is what I have been saying. Witnesses make mistakes. Witness reports are all different. It simply means that the witnesses are not good sources for learning what happened. So when a witness says the culprit was white that might be wrong. When witnesses say he drove away that might not be true. When witnesses say there were multiple shooters that might not be true. When witnesses say they were unarmed that might not be true.

So because you don't remember the licence plate or colour.., means the car never existed?

On 18/12/2017 at 5:50 AM, stereologist said:

Your example is bad. It turns out that nothing was stolen. The witnesses were all mistaken.

Just because humans cannot remember minor details.., does not mean the event never took place. Its impossible for humans to remember every detail (colour of shoes, names, etc).

Because 20 people can't remember every detail of the robbery.., does not mean 20 people hallucinated a robbery,.

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Fila

[Fila]

On 18/12/2017 at 5:59 AM, stereologist said:

The trouble with witnesses is that when they see something they don't understand such as lights in the sky, they begin to put together an idea in their head as to what is happening. Humans are pattern matchers. We see patterns in all sort of random nothingness. It can be a gamer at a roulette table or someone watching clouds in the sky. They see patterns that might not be there. We are also good at connecting the dots. That's why people all over the world see pictures in the night sky even though the patterns we see are different for each culture.

Artistically this is great. It allows trains and houses and trees to have faces and we believe it. Scientifically this is a problem. We can see pattern where there is none. We do not want to have a medicine or treatment based on someone's false pattern. We don't want to lose all of our assets because of someone's false patterns.

Some people that saw the Phoenix lights connected the dots and thought they saw a huge spaceship in the sky. Other people saw the "spaceship" pass in front of the Moon and there was nothing to see. Other people saw that the dot in back fell behind, caught up fell behind, and so forth and knew they were planes. Others just imagined something that was not there.

lol, worst case scenario. Police officers with guns, military personnel with jets, missiles, nukes, subs, commercial airline pilots flying 100's of passengers daily.., politicians, drivers of heavy machinery and public transport.., are "pattern matching"  stars and clouds.

Cops hallucinating an alien invasion, and starts unloading into the crowd. Perhaps this may be a reason for some violent shootings? We should look into that immediately.

Or bloody John Travolta might be suffering from disco fever.., and then BAM! See's Will Smith fighting an alien armada.., so he swerves his AirBus full of passengers (and puppies) to avoid the mothership and MH-370's everyone into the ocean.

That's probably a decent reason to look into this UFO thing scientifically. 

Although there are many cases with multiple trained observers backed by radar and scientific stations like Hessdalen helping to add weight to the idea that perhaps not all UFO reports are hallucinations.., and could be worth looking into scientifically.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Fila

[Trelane]

This video is wonderful for sleep, if you're not sleeping well. Complete rubbish, wonderful sweet rubbish.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Trelane

[Fila]

On 18/12/2017 at 9:22 AM, Trelane said:

This video is wonderful for sleep, if you're not sleeping well. Complete rubbish, wonderful sweet rubbish.

lol, I fell asleep to it last night. What do you think about some of the cases though? Are they all lies, hallucinations and mis-IDs?

Phoenix Lights (1997)

Rendlesham Forest Incident (1980)

Japan Air 1620 (1987)

Tehran UFO (1976)

Belgian UFO wave (1989)

 

Maybe we could start making a list of what we thinks the best.., and slowly cross them off the list.

if you do not want to.., that's fine. I understand how annoying it can be having to read the same information over again. I'm just kinda keen to get back into it all.

Kirtland AFB (1957)

Michigan UFO (1966)

Westwall (1966)

Hessdalen UFO wave (1981)

 . . . 
 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Fila

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Fila said:

I'm not sure about that.., I gotta be sceptical of information. Not just sceptical of an idea that UFOs aren't real. The logic works both ways.

A group of planes would be logged. Perhaps we can contact the nearest air control centres around Phoenix.., and ask them if there were any formations of planes around at that time. I'm fairly sure this should be public information.

Symington called the Commander at Luke Air Force Base, the General in  charge of the National Guard, and the head of the Department of 
Public Safety in 1997. None of these officials had answers, and they were "perplexed", 
 

Also a video of planes.., is not what was described by witnesses. 

Phoenix city councilwoman Frances Barwood was the only elected official to launch a public investigation in 1997, but she received no information from any level of government. Barwood spoke with over seven hundred witnesses, including police, pilots and former military, who provided very similar descriptions. 

"V-shaped craft, gliding slowly and silently across the sky for half an hour beginning at approximately 8:15 pm."

"low, gigantic, technological flying machines that blocked out the stars - not merely lights."

"It had a geometric outline, a constant shape" 

 

Ten years after the Arizona UFO incident known as the 'Phoenix Lights', former Arizona Republican Governor Fife Symington now says that he himself was a witness to one of the strange unidentified flying objects, even though he originally did not say so publicly. 

"It was enormous and inexplicable", he said in an exclusive interview from his home in Phoenix. "Who knows where it came from? A lot of people saw it, and I saw it too" 
 

Symington was known for ridiculing the incident at a spoof press conference, so his statement marks a dramatic turnaround. He wants to make amends to his constituents and set the record straight. 

Pressure was building from frustrated citizens who wanted answers, "The message to Arizona citizens was that reporting this was stupid" 
"It was an insult to the intelligence of the witnesses"

"If I had to do it all over again I probably would have handled it differently", Symington explains. 

 

Symington is of many witnesses. Is this one of the credible witnesses you love to refer to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fife_Symington#Second_term,_conviction_and_resignation_(1995–1997)

Quote

Later that same year, in June 1996, Symington was indicted on 21 federal counts of extortion, making false financial statements, and bank fraud. He was convicted for seven counts of bank fraud on September 4, 1997.

There is no requirement to log the planes. Failure to find a log entry for the planes is meaningless.

As I have pointed out witnesses are very poor at describing what they see. The video showed planes. The witnesses were wrong, wrong, wrong. Get over it.

With failure after failure you go to Barwood. Simply wonderful. This just shows how little you know about the case. She tried to use the event to bolster her political standing.

https://tonyortega.org/the-phoenix-lights-20-years-later-still-the-same-set-of-planes-and-flares-over-arizona/

Quote

When Barwood, then a councilwoman, asked the city to look into the sightings, she became a national media phenomenon and will no doubt bring much outside attention — and outside campaign donations — to her otherwise unglamorous race for secretary of state.

Again you fail.

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Fila said:

So because you don't remember the licence plate or colour.., means the car never existed?

Just because humans cannot remember minor details.., does not mean the event never took place. Its impossible for humans to remember every detail (colour of shoes, names, etc).

Because 20 people can't remember every detail of the robbery.., does not mean 20 people hallucinated a robbery,.

 

Only a complete idiot would think that is what I stated or suggested. Only a blithering liar would suggest that I stated that.

Actually, I stated that witnesses are often wrong ad in the case of the Phoenix lights there were so many conflicting witness accounts it was mind boggling.

 

[stereologist]

What is quite clear is that the Phoenix lights event #1 was a squadron planes. This was verified by a number of witnesses.

The interesting part was that the bulk of the population was unable to see that and came up with a wide range of conflicting tales that were all wrong.

[Fila]

On 18/12/2017 at 1:16 PM, stereologist said:

Actually, I stated that witnesses are often wrong ad in the case of the Phoenix lights there were so many conflicting witness accounts it was mind boggling.

So many conflictions? How many?

"Phoenix city councilwoman Frances Barwood was the only elected official to launch a public investigation in 1997, but she received no information from any level of government. Barwood spoke with over seven hundred witnesses, including police, pilots and former military, who provided very similar descriptions."

http://www.ufoevidence.org/news/article349.htm

On 18/12/2017 at 1:27 PM, stereologist said:

What is quite clear is that the Phoenix lights event #1 was a squadron planes. This was verified by a number of witnesses.

The interesting part was that the bulk of the population was unable to see that and came up with a wide range of conflicting tales that were all wrong.

How many witnesses said this? I found only one.

Barwood continues to press for more investigation. But New Times has learned that Barwood herself ignored the claims of a witness who might be the most important of all.. Mitch Stanley, 21. He owned the telescope for about a year, and said they were planes.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/aclu-arizona-medical-marijuana-law-safe-after-politician-quits-six-year-legal-crusade-against-it-9957371
"Symington also attempted to find an explanation. He called the Commander at Luke Air Force Base, the General in charge of the National Guard, and the head of the Department of Public Safety in 1997. None of these officials had answers, and they were perplexed", So we have no choice but to accept the military's word it wasn't them for event #1.., but they do confirm event #2.

I don't know of any commercial or private aircraft that travel together.., and in formation. If they were planes.., flight records would easily show their path, and times. 

Also..., before we can form our conclusion based off Mitch., we should probably verify this first. Try sending an email to surrounding airports asking for information. Or try using this https://www.flightradar24.com/data to find the "squadron" of  private light aircraft.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Fila

[seeder]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

So many conflictions? How many?

"Phoenix city councilwoman Frances Barwood was the only elected official to launch a public investigation in 1997, but she received no information from any level of government. Barwood spoke with over seven hundred witnesses, including police, pilots and former military, who provided very similar descriptions."

http://www.ufoevidence.org/news/article349.htm

 

 

see...youre doing it again!!   YOU ARE GETTING BIASED OPINIONS FROM UFO SITES!!...

you will never find the truth in such places....if ufo sites published the truth....they wouldnt get any visitors....surely you can see that by now?

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

So many conflictions? How many?

"Phoenix city councilwoman Frances Barwood was the only elected official to launch a public investigation in 1997, but she received no information from any level of government. Barwood spoke with over seven hundred witnesses, including police, pilots and former military, who provided very similar descriptions."

http://www.ufoevidence.org/news/article349.htm

How many witnesses said this? I found only one.

Barwood continues to press for more investigation. But New Times has learned that Barwood herself ignored the claims of a witness who might be the most important of all.. Mitch Stanley, 21. He owned the telescope for about a year, and said they were planes.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/aclu-arizona-medical-marijuana-law-safe-after-politician-quits-six-year-legal-crusade-against-it-9957371
"Symington also attempted to find an explanation. He called the Commander at Luke Air Force Base, the General in charge of the National Guard, and the head of the Department of Public Safety in 1997. None of these officials had answers, and they were perplexed", So we have no choice but to accept the military's word it wasn't them for event #1.., but they do confirm event #2.

I don't know of any commercial or private aircraft that travel together.., and in formation. If they were planes.., flight records would easily show their path, and times. 

Also..., before we can form our conclusion based off Mitch., we should probably verify this first. Try sending an email to surrounding airports asking for information. Or try using this https://www.flightradar24.com/data to find the "squadron" of  private light aircraft.

If you are interest in how many conflicting statements you are welcome to find that out on your own. Anyone that takes even a cursory look at the witness reports can find a dozen variations. I get a kick out of some loony site that "similar descriptions."  That  is the lamest description trying to avoid telling the truth. Some UFO promoters claimed there were over ten different models of UFOs over Phoenix that night. Haven'y you found them?

So you only found one witness that stated it was planes? You really need to do some basic research. Just looking at the wikipedia or some inane UFO website gets you nowhere.

A hint for you. Mitch Stanley did not shoot the video.

Again you use the comments of the criminal Symington. You point out he did a pathetic effort at checking things out.

 

[stereologist]

10 minutes ago, seeder said:

 

see...youre doing it again!!   YOU ARE GETTING BIASED OPINIONS FROM UFO SITES!!...

you will never find the truth in such places....if ufo sites published the truth....they wouldnt get any visitors....surely you can see that by now?

Let me quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does."

[Fila]

On 18/12/2017 at 4:05 PM, seeder said:

see...youre doing it again!!   YOU ARE GETTING BIASED OPINIONS FROM UFO SITES!!...

you will never find the truth in such places....if ufo sites published the truth....they wouldnt get any visitors....surely you can see that by now?

Thank you so much for calmly pointing that out.

I find that website to be the best so far if I ever want a quick reference. But you're right. I should find the original sources. I really hope you apply this much pressure to Stereologist and others who make claims .., but don't attempt to back them up. I guess I'm getting lazy, because no one else has to.., so I figure why go to all the trouble when that .org site sums up what I already looked up years ago anyway..

But yea, you're right! Spot on Seeder.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17761943/, http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2007/03/former-governor-says-he-saw-ufo.html, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/03/24/former-arizona-governor-comes-forward-about-ufo-sighting-from-10-years-ago.html, http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/11/09/simington.ufocommentary/index.html, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/aclu-arizona-medical-marijuana-law-safe-after-politician-quits-six-year-legal-crusade-against-it-9957371 https://www.dcourier.com/news/2007/mar/18/symington-confirms-he-saw-ufo-10-years-ago/, 

 

P.S. I do agree that UFO websites like to hype up some cases, but http://www.ufoevidence.org is a good place to just read up on a case if you want minimum hype. I won't use it as a reference though anymore to back up a claim.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Fila

[Fila]

On 18/12/2017 at 4:13 PM, stereologist said:

If you are interest in how many conflicting statements you are welcome to find that out on your own.

What if I spoke like this? I would get harassed by Seeder. I don't think its right that I have to use credible sources to back up any claim.., yet you can just say whatever you want.

On 18/12/2017 at 4:13 PM, stereologist said:

Anyone that takes even a cursory look at the witness reports can find a dozen variations

I looked. Could not find any. As seeder said.., back up your words with credible evidence.

On 18/12/2017 at 4:13 PM, stereologist said:

I get a kick out of some loony site that "similar descriptions."  That  is the lamest description trying to avoid telling the truth..

Fair enough. Which site did you get your information from then?

On 18/12/2017 at 4:13 PM, stereologist said:

That  is the lamest description trying to avoid telling the truth. Some

I understand why you would think that way. I used to be automatically dismissive just because of wording.

On 18/12/2017 at 4:13 PM, stereologist said:

Some UFO promoters claimed there were over ten different models of UFOs over Phoenix that night. Haven'y you found them?

I will not bite anymore unless you provide a reference to back up your claims. Seeder is right, we should be more professional about this.

On 18/12/2017 at 4:13 PM, stereologist said:

So you only found one witness that stated it was planes? You really need to do some basic research. Just looking at the wikipedia or some inane UFO website gets you nowhere.

I'm still learning myself. Thank you for the criticism, I will take it onboard.

On 18/12/2017 at 4:13 PM, stereologist said:

A hint for you. Mitch Stanley did not shoot the video.

I know, he was the 21yo with the telescope

On 18/12/2017 at 4:13 PM, stereologist said:

Again you use the comments of the criminal Symington. You point out he did a pathetic effort at checking things out.

Man, IMO all politicians are greedy scumbags, and I'm not the least bit surprised he is greedy for money too. I'd say this is a given, lol.

As much as I hate politicians.., Do you think he is lying?

Edited December 18, 2017 by Fila

[quillius]

decides its time to pick up the subject again......5 threads in and I quickly remember why I needed a break.

goes back into the shadows in the hope something new is posted that can help.

 

Not one case I have looked at can prove ET. Many cases that are claimed to be debunked are not debunked if investigated in detail.

where does that leave us.....confused as ever with lots of unknowns.

 

[quillius]

6 hours ago, Fila said:

So many conflictions? How many?

"Phoenix city councilwoman Frances Barwood was the only elected official to launch a public investigation in 1997, but she received no information from any level of government. Barwood spoke with over seven hundred witnesses, including police, pilots and former military, who provided very similar descriptions."

http://www.ufoevidence.org/news/article349.htm

How many witnesses said this? I found only one.

Barwood continues to press for more investigation. But New Times has learned that Barwood herself ignored the claims of a witness who might be the most important of all.. Mitch Stanley, 21. He owned the telescope for about a year, and said they were planes.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/aclu-arizona-medical-marijuana-law-safe-after-politician-quits-six-year-legal-crusade-against-it-9957371
"Symington also attempted to find an explanation. He called the Commander at Luke Air Force Base, the General in charge of the National Guard, and the head of the Department of Public Safety in 1997. None of these officials had answers, and they were perplexed", So we have no choice but to accept the military's word it wasn't them for event #1.., but they do confirm event #2.

I don't know of any commercial or private aircraft that travel together.., and in formation. If they were planes.., flight records would easily show their path, and times. 

Also..., before we can form our conclusion based off Mitch., we should probably verify this first. Try sending an email to surrounding airports asking for information. Or try using this https://www.flightradar24.com/data to find the "squadron" of  private light aircraft.

Fila, may I suggest you search for some in depth threads with detailed discussions/debates on Phoenix and a host of other famous cases. I assure you we have been over them in great detail.....I fought the side of 'believers' but could not make a case for ET, at times I felt I was able to cast some doubt over the accepted debunks but certainly could not go any further than that.

In summary the best I could do was go from explained to unknown...

[Fila]

On 18/12/2017 at 9:23 PM, quillius said:

Fila, may I suggest you search for some in depth threads with detailed discussions/debates on Phoenix and a host of other famous cases. I assure you we have been over them in great detail....

I tried to do this with the Betty and Barney hill incident, but it was literally pages and pages of off-topic posts, jokes and personal attacks.

On 18/12/2017 at 9:23 PM, quillius said:

I fought the side of 'believers' but could not make a case for ET, at times I felt I was able to cast some doubt over the accepted debunks but certainly could not go any further than that.

In summary the best I could do was go from explained to unknown...

That's great! I am sitting on the fence also as to what they are. I'm even up for the hallucination hypothesis.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Fila

[seeder]

45 minutes ago, Fila said:

I tried to do this with the Betty and Barney hill incident, but it was literally pages and pages of off-topic posts, jokes and personal attacks.

That's great! I am sitting on the fence also as to what they are. I'm even up for the hallucination hypothesis.

 

OK try this, with any famous ufo or alien case....try first to google its debunk, ie: "Betty and Barney debunked".....or "Betty and Barney Hill...criticisms"...that way you wont have to read endless threads here looking for answers....google will take you right to the key info

for example, by reading just ONE page at wiki we see that

Quote

 

Sheaffer later wrote that as late as 1977, Betty Hill would go on UFO vigils at least three times a week. During one evening she was joined by UFO enthusiast John Oswald. When asked about Betty's continuing UFO observations, Oswald stated, "She is not really seeing UFOs, but she is calling them that." On the night they went out together, "Mrs. Hill was unable to distinguish between a landed UFO and a streetlight". In a later interview, Sheaffer recounts that Betty Hill writes "UFOs are a new science ... and our science cannot explain them"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_and_Betty_Hill

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by seeder

[quillius]

55 minutes ago, Fila said:

I tried to do this with the Betty and Barney hill incident, but it was literally pages and pages of off-topic posts, jokes and personal attacks.

That's great! I am sitting on the fence also as to what they are. I'm even up for the hallucination hypothesis.

to be fair that is not one case I looked at in any depth.

Phoenix lights is one that definitely had plenty of in depth discussions.......

The problem is that people cannot even get the basic first step right of it being two separate incidents.....or at very least should be treated in that way. There are even suggestions we could look at separating it into three incidents. There were even emails dug up relating to Mitch....as I said lost of in depth discussions, but once reading them you will be left being less conclusive about your conclusion than you were prior to reading....

my head hurts just thinking about it!

[Fila]

On 18/12/2017 at 10:10 PM, seeder said:

OK try this, with any famous ufo or alien case....try first to google its debunk, ie: "Betty and Barney debunked".....or "Betty and Barney Hill...criticisms"...that way you wont have to read endless threads here looking for answers....google will take you right to the key info

for example, by reading just ONE page at wiki we see that

Thank you so much Seeder. That's great advice, and some awesome info. I will mos def start adding a de-bunk search to my sources.

I must admit I laughed when I read that she thought a streetlight was a UFO. Also should say that I don't actually believe Betty and Barney at all. I just have to play devil's advocate in order to form a conclusion.

Having said that.., I checked the reference for that wikipedia entry you used ( reference #43) and it just led to another wikipedia page of Robert Sheaffer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sheaffer

Edited December 18, 2017 by Fila

[seeder]

Sheaffer is an investigator of such claims...but as said that is only ONE result.... my point is... learn to search for the stories that interest you, then also search on the criticisms or debunks of that story........ then you have a more balanced opinion from the get go.

UFO sites, like any site/business, need traffic and revenue. So they most likely wont run stories of ACTUAL FACTS or debunks... as that will be contrary to the image they are projecting...so...learn to look at both sides without automatically believing

Yes there are many sceptics here....but many of us BECAME sceptical after reviewing ALL the evidence and opinions.... if you just go to a ufo site and read a story....accept it as TRUE.... then come to places like this....well you will face a lot of criticisms

and as said before..... I would LOVE there to be a genuine case... I would LOVE there to be aliens.....as indeed many sceptics would.... but you cant just read a website, one source....and believe it. Or many websites that have the believer mentality as default...

If your doctor said he had to cut both your hands off.... youd WANT a second opinion....and maybe a third and fourth before such a drastic action to remove your hands.... I know I would... I wouldnt just have my hands removed because ONE MAN said so...

likewise....to investigate any story.... first know the story...... then search on criticisms and debunks..... BEFORE reaching a final conclusion

Then...if you stay long here....you will see some new member post a story you had previously believed in.....and you will find....that YOU end up debunking their stories..... because YOU.....looked at those stories from every angle.... both FOR and AGAINST....

 

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Fila said:

What if I spoke like this? I would get harassed by Seeder. I don't think its right that I have to use credible sources to back up any claim.., yet you can just say whatever you want.

**snipped**

I know, he was the 21yo with the telescope

**snippedr**

As much as I hate politicians.., Do you think he is lying?

You could try be truthful. You could try to stop misrepresenting what other people including myself post.

It seems what you pretend is research is not research. You don't even try. You're not even looking over a variety of the UFO sites that made up all sorts of far fetched stories about the events of that night.

You have go n and on about credible witnesses yet you pick out a criminal repeatedly. You probably had no idea since you did no research. Had you actually attended a course at uni about research you'd be well aware that you've done no research.

I have stated repeatedly that the witnesses did not lie. They provided statements which did not match what happened. It was what they were guessing was happening.