Festive UFO thread.

[karl 12]

hell 3 nights is not long enough for my feeble old eyes, maybe a week,, Merry Christmas Karl, Interesting as always,

Regards;

TFF

Hey TFF, a happy Xmas to you my friend -hope you have a mighty fine one.

[bee]

Hey Karl......I was only joking

Good luck with your thread

All the best, mate

good to see you around the forum again.....

edit....yay the festivities have started...gunna look at the vid now Karl

further edit...just watched video Karl..wow those guys could move..lol...loved it!!!

Edited December 21, 2010 by bee

[Coffey]

Bee, do you fancy a good boogie!

HEY! This is how I "think" I'm dancing when I'm drunk!

Edited December 21, 2010 by Coffey

[karl 12]

I love all these quotes, I'm about 3/4 through lol. Thank-you Karl

Happy Holidays!

Kali, thanks for the reply and happy holidays to you too - I think my favourite quote has to this one from the Portage County incident -I have absolutely no idea what that object was.

"I always look behind me so no one can come up behind me. And when I looked in this wooded area behind us, I saw this thing. At this time it was coming up...to about tree top level. I'd say about one hundred feet. it started moving toward us.... As it came over the trees, I looked at Barney and he was still watching the car...and he didn't say nothing and the thing kept getting brighter and the area started to get light...I told him to look over his shoulder, and he did.

He just stood there with his mouth open for a minute, as bright as it was, and he looked down. And I started looking down and I looked at my hands andmy clothes weren't burning or anything, when it stopped right over on top of us.The only thing, the only sound in the whole area was a hum...like a transformer being loaded or an overloaded transformer when it changes....

.... it went PSSSSSHHEW, straight up; and I mean when it went up, friend, it didn't play no games; it went straight up."

Deputy Sheriff Dale Spaur Portage County,Ohio,April 17, 1966

Also witnessed by Deputy Wilbur Neff.

Cheers.

[karl 12]

Hey Karl......I was only joking

Good luck with your thread

All the best, mate

good to see you around the forum again.....

Hey Bee, good to see you too and glad you liked the vid -hope you enjoy the quotes and I wonder if we'll ever get any concrete answers to the true nature of the UFO subject.

[bee]

Hey Bee, good to see you too and glad you liked the vid -hope you enjoy the quotes and I wonder if we'll ever get any concrete answers to the true nature of the UFO subject.

Don't know

there are so many people onto it

the whole thing is such a brain-teaser... trying to figure it all out

it's a puzzle and a half and then some....lol

[karl 12]

the whole thing is such a brain-teaser... trying to figure it all out

it's a puzzle and a half and then some....lol

It sure is buddy - God knows whats going on.

Here's another interesting police statement from officer Val Johnson:

I got to the intersection of #5 and Minnesota State #220. When I looked down south #220 to check for traffic, I noticed a very bright, brilliant light, 8 to 12 inches in diameter, 3 to 4 feet off the ground.

The edges were very defined. I thought perhaps at first that it could be an aircraft in trouble, as it appeared to be a landing light from an aircraft. "

"I proceeded south on #220. I proceeded about a mile and three tenths or a mile and four tenths when the light intercepted my vehicle causing damage to a headlight, putting a dent in the hood, breaking the windshield and bending antennas on top of the vehicle.

At this point. at the interception of the light, I was rendered either unconscious, neutralized or unknowing for a period of approximately 39 minutes.

Deputy Sheriff Val Johnson

UFO hits police car Deputy Sheriff Val Johnson encounter, August,1979

Cheers.

Edited December 22, 2010 by karl 12

[quillius]

;)fascinating as always Karl. Nice opening also and merry christmas to you too mate.

I find it more intriguing that the hardened skeptics avoid your threads.....

(maybe its a case of choosing your battles)....

all the best

[booNyzarC]

Hope everyone has a jolly fine Xmas - below are some interesting statements about the UFO/OVNI subject.

LOL, love the redacted Xmas card Karl!

That is a lot of quotes... zoiks!

Cheers mate, Merry Christmas!

[DONTEATUS]

Im guna try read this tonight, did you get this over the year?

Karl got that over a Beer not a year ! Cheer`s!

[karl 12]

;)fascinating as always Karl. Nice opening also and merry christmas to you too mate.

I find it more intriguing that the hardened skeptics avoid your threads.....

(maybe its a case of choosing your battles)....

all the best

Hey my friend, appreciate the reply and you make an interesting point there - analysing, speculating about (or even just discussing) the nature of the objects involved in such cases as the Tehran incident, the Coyne incident, the Bariloche incident, the Minot AFB incident(s), the Portage County incident, the RAF Boulmer incident, the Shag Harbour incident etc.. should be what it´s all about and I´ve always found it pretty dubious when 'debunkers' refuse to take into account all the facts surrounding certain cases or abjectly refuse to address specific incidents - there´s an apt quote below from Jerry Cohen:

"If you solve 10 million easy cases, but haven't touched the surface of the "real" phenomena (i.e. the true "core " cases), what have you really done?"

Jerry Cohen

Link

Cheers mate and have a good one.

[karl 12]

LOL, love the redacted Xmas card Karl!

That is a lot of quotes... zoiks!

Cheers mate, Merry Christmas!

BooNyzarC -a happy Christmas to you mate and I admit I might have gone a little overboard on the quotes (some good boxing day hangover reading there ).

Don´t know if you´ve also read this one but it realy does describe some very interesting cases and their ´chronologies´ section is an absolute winner:

The NICAP Evidence Report

A synthesis is presented of data concerning Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) reported during the past 20 years through governmental, press and private channels. The serious evidence is clarified and analyzed. The data are reported by categories of specially trained observers and studied by patterns of appearance, performance and periodic recurrence.

The UFO Evidence - published by NICAP

Cheers!

[karl 12]

Karl got that over a Beer not a year ! Cheer`s!

Donteatus, like the picture mate and you can¨t have a good barbie without a few beers:

[quillius]

Hey my friend, appreciate the reply and you make an interesting point there - analysing, speculating about (or even just discussing) the nature of the objects involved in such cases as the Tehran incident, the Coyne incident, the Bariloche incident, the Minot AFB incident(s), the Portage County incident, the RAF Boulmer incident, the Shag Harbour incident etc.. should be what it´s all about and I´ve always found it pretty dubious when 'debunkers' refuse to take into account all the facts surrounding certain cases or abjectly refuse to address specific incidents - there´s an apt quote below from Jerry Cohen:

Cheers mate and have a good one.

Hey Karl, it really does confuse me! I think there seems to be a lot of attacks on sky and his approach (which may be justified after a prolonged period) either way why not discuss and find the truth behind some of the cases you have mentioned above.

I agree on the point of 10 million cases, I made a similar comment yesterday on another thread....its not the amount of cases that adds strength but more the unexplained ones even if only one case. Since we are very familiar nowadays with plasmas, atmospheric phenomena etc then every case should be debunked, however those that cant seem to be ignored. I havent been around long enough to say this is a fact but more a general feel I have gained through my limited time here.

(hence why i made the suggestion to you by PM the other day)

anyhow, once again Have a merry christmas and keep up the good work.

[karl 12]

Quilius,am in total agreement there buddy and perhaps the one thing all these truly intriguing UFO incidents have in common (other than them being unexplained) is that UFO cynics are often loathe to address them - seeing as there's already a fair few quotes on this thread here's another good one about the need for objective scepticism:

"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.

One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism. If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge.

Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."

Dr. Bernard Haisch

Director for the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics

Comments on Skepticism, Theorectical Arguments and Special Access Programs (pdf) ]

Cheers.

[quillius]

Quilius,am in total agreement there buddy and perhaps the one thing all these truly intriguing UFO incidents have in common (other than them being unexplained) is that UFO cynics are often loathe to address them - seeing as there's already a fair few quotes on this thread here's another good one about the need for objective scepticism:

Cheers.

Karl, I thought his summary proposed on skeptics was brilliantly put forward....I totally agree.

We need the skeptics as they narrow the field down for us, otherwise we would have thousands upon thousands of cases....luckily they do a good job in tidying this up for us

And when cases are not addressed by them, these are obviously the ones we should focus on

oh and that PDF .......excellent

take good care my friend

[booNyzarC]

Speaking from a skeptical point of view about several of these cases that Karl has posted about, some of them are simply "head-scratchers." In that, I mean, we don't really have a lot to go on for some of them beyond the information presented, and as interesting as that information often is, it still seems to remain inconclusive. Perhaps that is why there isn't much of a skeptical response to them?

We'd probably have to start getting more specific about particular cases in order to more fully understand why there may not be a skeptical response. But I think what you are implying here is that skeptics are somehow intimidated by these cases, and I honestly don't think that to be true. I'd be happy to take a look at any case. If there are some that you find particularly compelling, please direct me to the one or ones you'd like to discuss.

[quillius]

Speaking from a skeptical point of view about several of these cases that Karl has posted about, some of them are simply "head-scratchers." In that, I mean, we don't really have a lot to go on for some of them beyond the information presented, and as interesting as that information often is, it still seems to remain inconclusive. Perhaps that is why there isn't much of a skeptical response to them?

We'd probably have to start getting more specific about particular cases in order to more fully understand why there may not be a skeptical response. But I think what you are implying here is that skeptics are somehow intimidated by these cases, and I honestly don't think that to be true. I'd be happy to take a look at any case. If there are some that you find particularly compelling, please direct me to the one or ones you'd like to discuss.

Hey Boon, I believe we can debunk succesfully with evidence against, however evidence for will only ever be exhibit A...

So I do not think we will get to the conclusive stage on any potential real cases, they will remain unexplained. Hence why I believe these are the ones we want all the big guns looking at

I never meant to imply intimidation of these cases more of, shall we say, avoidance when no explanation can be given. I think cases whether UFO, paranormal etc that are easy to debunk...we all quickly jump in attacking (even I am guilty of this in my few months here) but I have seen many posts by Karl12 for example that just seem wow! but hardly ever do I see a skeptic around...and I find this strange. Again I havent been around long enough to be sure of this just a general feeling.

[karl 12]

Quillius, you're not wrong about the need to focus on the truly interesting UFO cases mate and when it comes to being a 'true' sceptic, here´s the best definition I´ve come across:

Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity

That said, I do think there's a huge difference between UFO sceptics and UFO cynics - I don't know if you've seen it before but I thought Kevin Randle made some pretty astute points in

short vid and there's also a handy comparative chart below:

True skeptics / open-minded skeptics

*Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own

*Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim

*Seeks open inquiry and investigation of both sides

*Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions

*Weighs evidence on all sides

*Asks exploratory questions about new things to try to understand them

*Acknowledges valid convincing evidence

*Possesses solid sharp common sense

*Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence

Pseudo-skeptics / closed-minded cynics

*Automatically dismisses and denies all claims that contradict materialism and orthodoxy

*Is not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending orthodoxy and the status quo

*Ignores anything that doesn't fit their a priori beliefs and assumptions

*Scoffs and ridicules their targets instead of providing solid arguments and giving honest consideration

*Has a know-it-all-attitude, never asks questions about things they don't understand, never admits that they don't know something

*Insists that everything unknown and unexplained must have a conventional materialistic explanation

*Is judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about

*Uses semantics and word games with their own rules of logic to try to win arguments

*Is unable to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence

Cheers.

[quillius]

Quillius, you're not wrong about the need to focus on the truly interesting UFO cases mate and when it comes to being a 'true' sceptic, here´s the best definition I´ve come across:

That said, I do think there's a huge difference between UFO sceptics and UFO cynics - I don't know if you've seen it before but I thought Kevin Randle made some pretty astute points in

short vid and there's also a handy comparative chart below:

Cheers.

Thanks Karl, will view video tonight when at home as I am at work still....

[karl 12]

Hey BooNyzarC, you make some interesting points there about headscratcher UFO incidents but I also think it's the case that a person has to be highly sceptical of some the 'official' government UFO explanations - theres a thread with case examples here and many of the 'USAF debunks' look to be spurious, contrived or just plain ridiculous - here's what the senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics had to say about them:

"As a result of several trips to project Bluebook,I´ve had an opportunity to examine quite carefully and in detail the types of reports that are made by Bluebook personnel.In most cases, I have found that theres almost no correlation between so-called "evaluations and explanations" that are made by Bluebook and the facts of the case...

There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of this problem,years ago,yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Bluebook investigators and their consultants."

Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona

Cheers.

[booNyzarC]

Hey Karl, I agree with you that some explanations that have been offered on particular cases are laughable. That doesn't mean that there couldn't some other prosaic explanation for the sighting or case though.

For example, a recent "head scratcher" case was the Silver Surfer UFO earlier this month. There were several videos of this odd sighting from different angles and different times. It was downright weird and I was puzzled. Bill Nye offered a possible explanation that the images look a lot like sea monkeys, so it could potentially be a hoax, a faked video. To be honest, when I watched the videos originally I drew a similar comparison but didn't mention it because I thought it would be unlikely that all of these videos could be easily faked.

Later we discovered that it was a couple of sky divers with flares. Very simple explanation, but the preposterous one that the science guy offered as a possibility now makes him look like a debunker. Hynek received a similar bum image with his swamp gas explanation, I'm sure you recall. And other skeptical attempts at explaining have resulted in the person proposing the possibility being painted in a negative debunker light.

These people who offer possible explanations, even if they later turn out to be something else, never seem to be able to live down their error; even if they openly admit that the newer explanation makes much more sense. I find that a bit odd, but I my opinion about why they get this bum wrap is in itself an effort by the believer crowd to blanketly discredit them in the hopes that any future suggestions they might offer as explanation aren't even considered.

I'm not saying you do this, of course, but just commenting in general about how biased the believer side becomes against critical inquirers if they've made a mistake.

I think I've unintentionally gone off on a side tangent though... Sorry for the slightly off topic rant, just had a thought and ran with it.

Back to your response, most definitely it is important on both sides to make every possible effort to be as objective as possible. The list of differences you posted between UFO skeptics and UFO cynics can be applied to both sides. I'll quote the cynics side of things here with a few emboldened additions to illustrate what I mean.

Pseudo-skeptics / closed-minded cynics / and don't forget blindly devoted believers...

*Automatically dismisses and denies all claims that contradict materialism and orthodoxy or their beliefs

*Is not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending orthodoxy and the status quo or their beliefs

*Ignores anything that doesn't fit their a priori beliefs and assumptions

*Scoffs and ridicules their targets instead of providing solid arguments and giving honest consideration

*Has a know-it-all-attitude, never asks questions about things they don't understand, never admits that they don't know something

*Insists that everything unknown and unexplained must have a conventional materialistic explanation or is an alien

*Is judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about

*Uses semantics and word games with their own rules of logic to try to win arguments

*Is unable to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence

There is more than one person I can think of that fits into this list as a believer, matching just about everything to a T.

Objectivity is key in this UFO thing, in my opinion. And contrary to some opinions about my intention, that is exactly how I try to address this phenomena.

Cheers mate, as always excellent info you've presented.

[archernyc]

Speaking from a skeptical point of view about several of these cases that Karl has posted about, some of them are simply "head-scratchers." In that, I mean, we don't really have a lot to go on for some of them beyond the information presented, and as interesting as that information often is, it still seems to remain inconclusive. Perhaps that is why there isn't much of a skeptical response to them?

Did you ever buy Leslie Kean's book (UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record). I thought there were some very good examples there of real headscratchers. What did you think?

[booNyzarC]

Did you ever buy Leslie Kean's book (UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record). I thought there were some very good examples there of real headscratchers. What did you think?

I did indeed, shortly after it was released. It is sitting right in front of me at the moment as a matter of fact. I found the cases in there to be truly compelling as I read the book and have been going through the cases to try to more fully understand them.

The most recent one that I've gone through is the Rendlesham case. The differences between the rendition in the book are striking compared to the additional information I've found about the case in just the last few days alone. This is one of those cases that I no longer rank as one of the top, although I did previously. I'd even go so far as to say that from my point of view it has been sufficiently explained prosaically and I'm currently convinced that it was essentially a non-event.

There are many in there that I need to go through as well, as time and opportunity allow. But I've discovered through the Rendlesham investigation that I can't let myself believe the accounts in this book as they are conveyed. They may be accurate and they may not be accurate, but I'm not going to believe it just because the story is being told by a General, a Pilot, or a Government Official.

I do still like the book though and think it was very well put together.

[karl 12]

BooNyzarC, can't disagree with anything you've said there mate and you're right about the lack of distinction between UFO cynics and blind believers -perhaps they've got far more in common with each other than they like to think (more 'dogmatic' than 'pragmatic' and all that).

I'd certainly say the UFO subject deserves to be treated far more seriously than it currently is though, especialy by mainstream science - Brad Sparks makes a mighty fine point in this clip and John Alexander's quote below is an interesting one although I'm not too sure on his assertions about origin.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7929772890288918446

“The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence. Why is none of this considered evidence?

There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence.

Of course they do not constitute irrefutable proof. However, to state there is no evidence suggestive of intelligent extraterrestrial life simply belies the facts. Decades in duration and global in nature, there are too many hard sensor data-points and millions of eyewitnesses to ignore. We certainly can debate the significance of specific data and question whether or not it establishes a causal relationship between the observations and extraterrestrial life.However, it is only through ignorance or pomposity that one can say no evidence exists.”

John B. Alexander,Ph.D.

Cheers.