Board Logo
« UFO in the news »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Sep 19th, 2017, 12:09pm


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9  10 Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: UFO in the news  (Read 8151 times)
philliman
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1298
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #90 on: Jan 19th, 2013, 5:03pm »

Quote:
a.c.

Interesting indeed!
One more for the imges/video expert analysts to investigate!
Cheers!

http://www.ufocasebook.com/2013/franceufo.html

Well, I'm not an expert but I am able to tell that this is CGI. You can see that when the guy is zooming in and out and the object gets blurry and then sharp again. Too sharp btw. although it's moving and the camera supposedly shaking. As I've learned that's a clear sign for CGI.
User IP Logged

Stellar Thoughts
Reasoner
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1014
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #91 on: Jan 22nd, 2013, 4:11pm »

aha!
User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
Reasoner
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1014
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #92 on: Jan 23rd, 2013, 6:15pm »

Remember that suspicious looking picture of the hovering UFO captured on oil-field security camera? There's an even bigger story around it. What's interesting on a personal level is that near the end, witnesses to the aerial sightings described very much what I saw when I was around 10 years old.

So, without further ado, Texas Shale Field Sighting Redux!

Are UFOs hovering over the Eagle Ford Shale?
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 7:20 am by Houston Chronicle in General
By Roy Bragg
San Antonio Express-News staff writer

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/01/14/are-ufos-hovering-over-the-eagle-ford-shale/

ARTESIA WELLS — Strange things are afoot in the South Texas oil patch and in the sky above. In a region that’s seen its tax rolls and traffic problems swell from the scores of new residents, could extraterrestrials be the next wave?

Roughnecks working at a fracturing well in the Eagle Ford Shale drilling region say they saw unidentified lights in the night sky on consecutive days in October and captured blurry video of at least one of them.

Three months earlier, a security camera captured a blurry, black-and-white image of what appears to be a flying saucer hovering ominously at another well site.

So far, no little green men have applied for a truck-driving job, but in a region desperate for more workers, they may not get turned down if they did.

Space alien visitation, or at least claims of it, adds a new dimension to the social upheaval that’s engulfed La Salle County.

Here and throughout South Texas, drilling for energy in the lucrative Eagle Ford Shale has created an economic tsunami in traditionally cash-dry towns.

In years past, pitch-black nights swaddled the unforgiving mesquite forests that cover the region. Now, large tracts are lit up by floodlights that allow around-the-clock work at drilling rigs.

In other places, the fire of flare pits burning off unwanted byproducts casts an orange glow in the sky.

Armies of oil field workers have descended on the area, but if you believe the eyewitnesses, this is a different type of invasion.

The cellphone video, taken by worker Xavier Garza, shows a reddish-orange orb in the northern sky. Roughnecks can be heard off-camera cursing — as they are wont to do — in amazement.

Witnesses say the camera didn’t pick up a dozen more lights that appeared and reappeared several times, typically hovering in formation. It happened two nights in a row.

And last week, a photo surfaced on the website of the Mutual UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) Network, a volunteer group that investigates UFO claims, purportedly taken at a well site in the same stretch of the Eagle Ford.

Allegedly taken from a security camera, it appears to show a large saucer-like object, with an array of four lights, hovering over the caliche pad of a La Salle County well site. Other odd orbs can be seen in the background.

That photo, with a July 5 time stamp, already has passed two authenticity tests, says Charles Stansburge, a veteran MUFON investigator.

“If it’s a prank,” Stansburge said, “someone spent a lot of money to stage it. It’s not a doctored photo. It’s a 60-foot-diameter saucer that’s hovering.”

Putting on a show

But if there are UFOs, no one’s bothered to call authorities.

Sheriff’s Department officials say they haven’t received any reports about UFOs. And the La Salle County airport manager, who goes by the name E.T. Page, says he’s never heard of UFO sightings in the area. And with a name like that, you’d think he’d be the first to know.

In most cases, UFO reports are dismissed as military, scientific or civilian aircraft gone astray. Other times, they’re blamed on strange but unexplained atmospheric conditions.

The witnesses here aren’t buying any of that.

“We all know what the lights from a plane or a helicopter look like,” said Rene Cantu, the oilfield worker who first sighted the orange lights. “This wasn’t a plane or a helicopter.”

“We sit on our back porch and watch planes go by every night,” said Jerry Farrell, a nearby rancher who saw the same lights as Cantu and his co-workers. “This was 12, 13, 14 lights, that were all spread out, flying all over the sky. And when they moved, it was at unbelievable speed, from horizon to horizon and back.”

Cantu was on a work break when he saw the lights. He yelled out to co-workers, who joined him watching the lights, which put on a 3-minute show, bouncing around the heavens like a celestial pinball machine.

The lights vanished for 25 minutes, then returned for another 3-minute show.

The stunned roughnecks wondered if they had been hallucinating. Then delivery trucks, which had been waiting down the road for their turn to approach the site, pulled up.

“The truck drivers were all, ‘Did you guys see those lights up there?’” Cantu said. “So it wasn’t just us.”

Did they gas up?

The next night, Garza had his phone camera ready to go. But because of the blinding glare from the floodlights, he only caught a few seconds of a single orange sphere. This time, however, there were nearly 20 witnesses.

The web is littered with unsubstantiated first-person accounts of UFOs being seen in nearby Encinal and Cotulla. And Texas is no stranger to unexplained sightings. Another case in point: the mysterious Marfa lights of West Texas.

Farrell and his wife, who live close enough to Interstate 35 to see traffic moving, didn’t video what they saw as the UFOs used the South Texas sky as their canvas.

“We sat back there watching them for 30 or 40 minutes,” he said. “It was unbelievable. I’ve never heard (of) or seen things that move that fast.”

Stansburge, of MUFON, isn’t sure what his investigation will uncover. He’s only charged with investigating the black-and-white image of the saucer.

That photo showed up on MUFON’s servers with a name and phone number attached. He wouldn’t divulge the name of the witness, other than to say the person filing the report appeared to be from Laredo.

The witness wrote to MUFON that the company that owns the site began noticing crude oil was being siphoned from onsite tanks nightly. A security camera system was installed to catch the thieves in the act and gather information that could be forwarded to the Sheriff’s Department.

The company didn’t catch thieves, but it may have caught a UFO instead, at least on film — maybe.

Most UFO landings, Stansburge said, happen for a reason. Ninety percent are near bodies of water, which leads UFO observers to believe aliens need water. The sudden appearance over one of the hottest oil plays in the nation, he suspects, may mean the aliens stopped in to gas up.

His investigation is in its earliest phases.

He doesn’t expect to find much. It’s likely that any evidence of a July landing will be long gone, Stansburge said, tainted by truck tires, washed away by rains or blown into the brush by hot summer winds.

“All we can do,” he says, “is document what we find.”

rbragg@express-news.net


« Last Edit: Jan 23rd, 2013, 6:15pm by Reasoner » User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
Reasoner
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1014
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #93 on: Feb 4th, 2013, 1:05pm »

So, is this MSM's take on abductions? or are we dealing with a alcoholically challenged fella here?

DUI Suspect Flees Scene of Wreck, Says Aliens Transported Him
Loganville-Grayson Patch
Police & Fire
January 26, 2013


http://loganville.patch.com/articles/wreck-at-center-hill-church-road-monday-results-in-dui-arrest

Single vehicle wreck on Highway 20 at Moon Road, Loganville, on Jan. 21 resulted in a man being charged with driving under the influence and his female passenger being transported to the hospital.

A man was charged with driving under the influence and failing in duty after striking a fixed object following an incident that happened in the early morning hours of Jan. 21, 2013 in the Loganville area of Walton County. His female passenger was transported to Clearview Regional Medical Center.

According to the report from the Walton County Sheriff's Office, deputies responded to a 911 call after 4 a.m. Monday morning to find a woman in the parking lot of Center Hill Church, bleeding profusely. She is reported to have called 911 claiming someone was trying to kill her. Deputies found a vehicle in the ditch at Highway 20 and Moon Road with the engine running, the wheels still spinning and the two front doors open. Nobody was inside.

The woman reportedly was unable to give deputies any details, but officers were able to identify her by details in her purse. A cell phone also was located with a profile of a man named Joel Lankford.

While deputies were working the scene, a call came in regarding a prowler on the front porch of a home on Escoe Road, which was a short distance away. Deputies responded and, when confronted, the reported prowler identified himself as Joel Lankford. When asked what he was doing there, he is reported to have told officers that the aliens brought him there. According to the report, he told officers he thought he was in Lilburn.

Lankford was taken back to the scene of the wreck and deputies reported that he appeared to be very unsteady on his feet and had the smell of alcohol on his breath. He was arrested and charged with DUI and failing in his duty after striking a fixed object. The woman was transported to the hospital.

A spokesman with the WCSO said the incident is still under investigation.


There's a likely and an unlikely for this, but I'm not ruling it out. MSM and drunk abductees. Well, I guess I can't call a local news org MSM.
User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
Reasoner
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1014
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #94 on: Feb 11th, 2013, 4:22pm »

I've been thinking. We got some nice topic sections, with even a catch-all UFO section for when things might not quite fit in the other areas or can be treated as unfiltered UFO talk. We also got our Hoax/Disinfo section for purposeful UFO fakery. And I suggested maybe having a Misidentification section.

But there's two ideas that I have been kicking around... one would be about the Philosophy of UFOlogy, which is sort of what my thread topic of Questions not Answers was about; and as well the Science of UFOlogy.

For Philosophy, things like exopolitics, how far to trust perception, and sort of the meta-ideas of UFOs could be hashed out in its own section.

For Science... ah for science I would love that people could use it for both a repository of understanding on how terrestrial engineering and natural world things work (to compare and contrast evidence and sightings for UAPs/UFOs/USOs), but also the science behind the equipment used in capturing UFOs (radars, video, cameras) and hoaxing UFOs (photoshop and animation programs). I realize I used 'photoshop' as a generic and not brand program, like the way Kleenex is used for tissue.

I would imagine people conducting experiments with thermal imaging, changing the settings and capturing known objects under different circumstances to set a baseline to compare against when unknown phenomena are recorded. And the same could be said of trying to induce orb images against known probably causes. Rather than trying to get data on unknowns, get data on what is known to help winnow out those unknowns that are probably just misidentifications.

Anyone got an opinion on that? Anyone game to try?
User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
Reasoner
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1014
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #95 on: Feb 11th, 2013, 4:25pm »

Also, does conducting science in the name of understanding UFOs change the umbrella term? Is UFOlogy the study of UFOs as a history? And if so, am I talking UFOnomy? Sorry. Silly!
User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
HAL9000
Guest
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #96 on: Feb 12th, 2013, 05:36am »

Reasoner,

The there are a few problems with the scientific study of ufos.

The first is the integrity of the people doing the studying.

Let us suppose that we have a group of guys who have, through no fault of their own, become unemployed from some research lab or other technical establishment.

Now, Dr Bigbucks (rich, brilliant, but slightly off the wall) decides that it is time to get to grips with the reality the ufo.

He decides to pay our unemployed techs for a year and provides them with funding for a whole variety of equipment that allows them to look in every nook and cranny for evidence. So far so good.

Come the end of the year he will expect some results, even if they are negative ones. After all, not all experiments are successful.

Now, does the team tell it as it is, or as their funding and also their employment is about to run out, do they come up with some spurious results that hint at some positive result but need maybe another years observation to confirm them ?
Remember that the aim is to provide proof that ufos exist, not to say what they are, so a negative result is just as valid as a positive one.

As with the postings on this site, the big question is, could we trust them ? And why them and not crazy Larry who claims to have seem three short grey guys at the side
of the road as he drove home one night ?

HAL

« Last Edit: Feb 12th, 2013, 06:07am by HAL9000 » User IP Logged

Reasoner
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1014
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #97 on: Feb 13th, 2013, 3:00pm »

My supposition isn't meant to be submissive (dismissive, lol, wrong word) of sightings. Sightings aren't the kind of evidence that people would deem scientific, but they add to an undercurrent of a public question... that question is what are we experiencing?

I do see your point about that pernicious thought that in the interest of self-preservation, analysts might fudge their results. But isn't that a supposition to an eventuality? Or are you only saying, no one source should be definitive? In that I can agree.

Amateur enthusiasts can and do study this, and with limited to no funding. Perhaps if more of these people studying would agree to a kind of rigor and verifiability, adding in kinds of controls etc. and agreeing to share into a repository of knowledge that could act as a baseline... perhaps then it might generate interest from more mainstream sources of academia and science, and additionally start generating funding sources from study with any positive results (were they to appear) accrued to this coalition.

If nothing else, those people who are fervent debunkers would see this as an opportunity to put in strict controls and possibly discover acceptable explanations or prove out where experiments and observations were too sloppy.

That offers a segue into my next post...
« Last Edit: Feb 13th, 2013, 3:01pm by Reasoner » User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
HAL9000
Guest
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #98 on: Feb 13th, 2013, 3:15pm »

Reasoner,

... Perhaps if more of these people studying would agree to a kind of rigor and verifiability..

Wow, is that a brick wall I see ahead of me. Just a moment whilst I bang my head against it.
Oh my, it's covered with the dried blood of previous people who tried to get rigor and venerability to work.

HAL wink
User IP Logged

Reasoner
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1014
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #99 on: Feb 13th, 2013, 3:18pm »

OK for those keeping score here (or even care...). I'm about to give equal time to one of the biggest debunkers in UFOlogy, James Oberg. This is relevant to the subject of my thread, as this post is what can be found on NBC.com. I'm going to post his article (which was a slideshow, but won't be in my post) and then offer a few points.

10 solved UFO mysteries from the Weinstein List
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38874521/t/solved-ufo-mysteries-weinstein-list/#.URvy2aWTy6M

The "Weinstein List" is a compilation of 1,300 UFO reports drawn up by French investigator Dominique Weinstein and cited by Leslie Kean's book "UFOs." The list is supposed to describe cases of "verified unknowns," where thorough investigation has eliminated any possible prosaic explanation for the sightings. But that's not true. Just relying on my own familiarity with one class of pseudo-UFO stimuli — namely, missile and space activity — I found many cases listed whose prosaic explanations had already been published in the UFO literature. Nevertheless, they were presented on Weinstein’s list as provably anomalous, and faithfully vouched for by Kean.
— James Oberg, NBC News space analyst


1967, Russia
Airline pilot reports UFO flying above his plane. Engines stop, and start again only when UFO disappears.
Explanation: Secret Soviet nuclear warhead test was fireballing 50 miles overhead. Any effect on engine was pilot-induced.

1972, Chile
Pilot reports amber light overhead. It's an accurate description of the surplus hydrazine propellant being dumped by the Soviet Molniya 2-2 satellite.

1977, Russia
Pilot reports a pulsating light flying "alongside" his aircraft. The light was the far-distant launch rocket for the Kosmos-958 satellite.

1980, Russia
Military pilot reports that a round object more than 300 meters in diameter "played" with his plane and then disappeared. The object was the Kosmos-1188 booster, at a distance much farther than the pilot thought.

1981, Argentina
Air crews report a bright round object flying at about 180 meters altitude. They were actually seeing the final fuel dump from the Kosmos-1317's third-stage booster, at a height of 600 kilometers high.

1984, Belarus
Flight crew reports a glowing yellow object that changed shape in the sky. It was actually a sub-launched Soviet missile.

1985, South America
Pilots report two objects, one of them "banana-shaped." This was an accurate description of a distant sunlit cloud of rocket fuel, spewing out from an expended rocket after the launch of Japan’s Planet-A probe toward Halley's Comet.

1987, China
Military pilot reports a bright orange rotating object that climbed and disappeared at great speed. He was watching the post-insertion fuel dump from a Japanese satellite.

1990, Germany
RAF fighter pilots see a formation of UFOs over the North Sea, while a British airliner crew reports two mysterious lights nearby. This was caused by the fireball disintegration of a falling rocket stage.

1994, Kazakhstan
A cargo 747 crew reports seeing a brilliantly luminous object with a contrail corkscrewing above them. The crew is convinced it was from outer space. It was actually a Russian supply ship headed for outer space, launched several hundred miles in front of them.


I came across this while searching for something else (isn't that what always seems to happen?). But it immediately aroused my curiosity. First, anything by James Oberg is going to rouse hackles, as some feel he is a government shill or disinfo agent. Others feel he's just a stubborn and avid debunker. There is a tendency to dismiss without reading once you feel someone has got the whole thing wrong, and it's hard to force yourself to see their point of view. That's a trap. It might be safe to stop reading after a paragraph or two when it's "the same old song and dance," but you have to read at least a little to find out.

He specifically mentions that this is some small evidence that Leslie Kean is not rigorous in her research. I have various opinions on Kean. I don't think she's a huckster. But I also think she does come to conclusions first, then finds evidence to support it. She's not science minded, and she has a hard time incorporating facts and opinions that run counter to her conclusions.

Also. Here's a big also. This article is... incomplete! This is Oberg being forced to give mundane explanations for 10 UFO sightings... with only one sentence for each. Ouch. I found another post that is basically the very same post by Oberg, but on ATS. He gives a little more explanation and it makes more sense. He ALSO adds links to various sites where he gives a complete description and explanation for each of these sightings (well, most of them). That's next.

PS: note how his tenor is slightly different about skeptical and debunking in the ATS post. I haven't read through the entire thread, but it is probably a very important read.
User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
Reasoner
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1014
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #100 on: Feb 13th, 2013, 3:20pm »

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread591762/pg2


reply posted on 18-8-2010 @ 02:58 PM by JimOberg
Discussion topic --


I suggest Kean misuses the “Weinstein List”. Dominique Weinstein is a French UFO investigator who has spent years collecting pilot UFO encounter accounts, 1300 as far as the latest published data base in 2001 <http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/pilotsightings.pdf>. Kean’s book refers to the list on pages 136-137 as providing further evidence of the real physical nature of UFOs.

Both Weinstein and Kean describe the list as meeting a standard defined earlier by NASA scientist Richard Haines: it is supposed to contain ONLY reports where “the appearance and/or flight dynamics … do not suggest a logical, conventional flying object and which remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making both a full technical identification as well as a common-sense identification, if one is possible.”

But the list fails that fundamental test of ‘verified unknowns’. Just relying on my own familiar pseudo-UFO stimuli, missile and space activity, I found many cases whose prosaic explanations had already been published in the UFO literature but which were still presented on Weinstein’s list as provably anomalous.

Here's my preliminary list of bogus 'UFOs' that I easily found. I do NOT repeat NOT suggest that this category of prosaic stimulus is the cause of all or even most 'UFOs'. It is useful only as a calibration tool because it happens to be a well-documented human activity that can later be correlated with UFO reports -- in this case, from pilots.

So when Kean relies on a database so poorly verified as Weinstein's, what does that say about the reliability of her conclusions drawn from it?

1967 (September 29), “USSR between Zaporoje and Volgograd, an airliner (IL-14) pilot [reported] a UFO flying above the plane, engines stopped, started again when it disappeared. This was solved thirty years ago and reported in “The Great Soviet UFO Coverup”, MUFON UFO Journal, October 1982 <http://www.debunker.com/texts/soviet_coverup.html>, as one of a series of top-secret space-to-earth thermonuclear warhead tests. The engine failure must have been coincidental or caused by the pilot's panic.

1967 (December 12), “USSR, Kamenny Cape, test-flight; crew plus passengers (scientists) [reported] a very bright object ‘following’ the plane of the Soviet Civil Aviation Scientific Institute. This was solved decades ago and was reported in ‘Soviet Saucers’, OMNI magazine, April 1994 <http://www.debunker.com/texts/soviet.html>. The aircraft was near Vorkuta, crossing the path of the Kosmos-194 spy satellite during its ascent from the top secret Plesetsk space center.

1972 (May 19), “Over Chile, a light 'amber in color', seen by a pilot. Light yellow is the hue of hydrazine propellant expelled at the end of the second orbital insertion burns of a special class of Soviet satellites that often were seen over South America (this one was Molniya 2-2).

1977 (October 11): “At 18:00 local over Ryazan, a pulsating light flew 'alongside' an aircraft for 24 minutes.” But public records show that at 15:14 GMT, the Kosmos-958 satellite was launched eastwards from Plesetsk, north of Ryazan, but hardly ‘alongside’ anybody’s airplane..

1980 (June 14), “USSR: Moscow, Air Force pilot a round object (more than 300meters in diameter) ‘played’ with the plane and disappeared.” This was solved three decades ago and reported in “Giant UFO Over Two Continents”, FATE magazine, January 1983, as the documented Soviet ''Kosmos-1188" launching from Plesetsk at about 11:55 P.M
<http://www.debunker.com/texts/giant_ufo.html>

1981 (October 31): “At 21:15, Argentina, Marcos Juarez A Austral Airlines and Aerolineas Argentinas / pilots [reported] a bright round object flying at about 180 meters.” This was explained in “Giant UFO Over Two Continents”, FATE magazine, January 1983 <http://www.debunker.com/texts/giant_ufo.html>, as the Kosmos-1317 missile warning satellite, which took off at 22:48 UT on October 31, 1981, and was seen over Argentina shortly after 9:00 P.M. local (midnight UT).

1985 (January 29): “USSR, 120 km. from Minsk, plane TU-134A (flight 8352) crew [reported] a glowing yellow object, shape changing from conical, to oval, then square [with ground radar confirmation].” The prosaic solution to this spectacular case was first published in the 1990s, and recently elaborated in “How to crack a case from the UFO files” <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24636796/,#.URv5g6WTy6M> where it was shown to be a sub-launched Soviet missile, also seen in Finland and Sweden

1985 (August 18): “Over South America, two objects, one of them 'banana-shaped'” This was an accurate description of the distant sunlit fuel cloud viewed from the darkness, spewing out as the expended rocket slowly turned after the launch of Japanese “Planet-A” probe towards Halley's Comet.

1987 (August 27): “China, area of Jiangnan, a Chinese Air Force pilot [reported] an orange bright rotating object climbed and disappeared at great speed.” This case was identified in “Sky Dragons Behind the Media Curtain: UFOs in China”, on space.com on Jan 14, 2000 as surplus rocket fuel venting from a tumbling Japanese rocket about 300 kilometers out in space (as the rocket spun, a spiral-shaped cloud larger than the moon formed in the dusk skies, moved rapidly from west to east). <link busted http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/phenomena/ufo_china_000126.html>

1990 (November 5): “22:00, Germany, Rheindahlen air base: RAF F-4 Phantom fighters pilots [reported] after two huge explosions, fighters were scrambled, saw a formation of UFOs.” Also, same case: “North Sea, a British airliner crew [reported] 2 mysterious lights.” This case and its prosaic explanation (the burn-up of a discarded Soviet rocket stage) was described in detail in the 1996 report, ”Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of UFOs", <http://www.zipworld.com.au/~psmith/pilot-ufos.html#first>
And also in an Internet-posted letter to the MUFON UFO Journal:
<http://www.jamesoberg.com/france_flap_ufo.pdf>

1994 (January 27): “Kazakhstan, night, a Tajik Airlines B-747SP pilot plus two crew members [reported] a brilliantly luminous object with a contrail maneuvered at about 100,000 ft.” This case, set off by a Russian rocket launched from Baykonur, was also discussed in detail in “Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of “UFOs".
<http://www.zipworld.com.au/~psmith/pilot-ufos.html#second>


One curious element... Oberg states that the Weinstein List incorporates around 1300 cases, yet deconstructs 10. Not sure if Kean only used 10 cases in her book, or if he is cherry picking.

Also, isn't it telling that for his piece on NBC, it's starved for facts. If you read Oberg's stuff, he likes to give lots of detail. I'm thinking with all mainstream outlet news, they don't want to give anything real or meaty to their UFO stories... they're sensationalism at its worst, only meant to generate buzz and given an impression.

Finally... there's a rebuttal. Next post.
« Last Edit: Feb 13th, 2013, 3:31pm by Reasoner » User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
HAL9000
Guest
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #101 on: Feb 13th, 2013, 3:26pm »

Reasoner,

Those are quite some posts you segued into. I'll need some time to digest it all. Thanks for posting them.

Some of us really do care.

HAL smiley
User IP Logged

Reasoner
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1014
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #102 on: Feb 13th, 2013, 3:50pm »

UFO: Leslie Kean Dismantles UFO Critic James Oberg
http://nhne-pulse.org/ufo-leslie-kean-dismantles-ufo-critic-james-oberg/

(OK... forget that article, here's the original)

Skeptic misses point behind UFO book
By Leslie Kean
Special to msnbc.com
updated 9/7/2010 8:59:32 AM ET

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38977500/#.URwG5qWTy6M
When I wrote my book about officially documented UFO reports, I fully expected the skeptics to react. That’s why I was careful to focus only on the very best evidence from the most credible sources in "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record." Since 95 percent of all sightings are eventually identified, the book is concerned only with the remaining 5 percent — those UFO events that have been thoroughly investigated, involve multiple witnesses and ample data, but still cannot be explained.
That didn’t stop James Oberg, a space analyst for NBC News, from complaining that the book was based on a “questionable foundation.”

In the biographical note appended to his commentary, he notes that he spent 22 years at NASA’s Mission Control and has written books about space policy and exploration. But he neglects to inform readers of something UFO researchers already know all too well: that he is a founding fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly CSICOP), a group whose aim is to debunk UFOs and any other unexplained phenomena that challenge our familiar ways of thinking.
For many years, Oberg, while retaining his stance as an objective student of the UFO phenomenon, has been a consistently vocal skeptic. His long list of articles dealing with UFOs date from the 1970s and are posted on his website under the heading "space folklore," which accurately sums up his attitude towards the subject. He may be qualified to serve as an unbiased, expert consultant on Russian or Chinese missile systems, but not on UFOs.

His objection to my many varied cases has to do with his notion that pilots are poor observers. To buttress this idea, he quotes J. Allen Hynek referring to questionable statistics compiled in the 1960s by Project Blue Book. He also cites Russian researchers describing two events in 1982 when pilot sightings were accurately identified as "military balloons" after the fact.
This is not surprising, since the vast majority of sightings can be explained, and this kind of identification is made all the time. However, such solved sightings — whether made by pilots or anyone else — have absolutely nothing to do with the cases presented in my book.
I wonder if Oberg gave "UFOs" a careful read. He spent many paragraphs quoting me concerning a report on aviation cases by French researcher Dominique Weinstein. The problem is, those are not my quotes. The chapter from which he extracted them was written by Jean-Jacques Velasco, head of the French government‘s UFO agency for over 20 years, as is obvious in his byline and narrative about French research.

Oberg gleefully proclaims that I have “faithfully vouched for” the cases in Weinstein's list, but actually, I have respectfully allowed Velasco to write his own chapter. (About half the chapters in my book were written by highly credentialed authorities and expert witnesses.) If Oberg wants to discuss the Weinstein study, he'll have to contact Velasco.

Oberg’s fixation on the question of the reliability of pilots as witnesses is not raised by the generals and aviation experts I have interviewed — officials who have studied pilot cases and interviewed pilot witnesses for decades. As described in "UFOs," French Air Force Maj. Gen. Denis Letty initiated an extensive study of UFO data because competent pilots he knew personally were confronted by the phenomenon. Chilean Gen. Ricardo Bermudez was instrumental in the founding of his country‘s official UFO investigative agency in 1997 because of inexplicable sightings involving pilots.
Richard Haines, who has written more than 70 papers in leading scientific journals and published more than 25 U.S. government reports for NASA, was formerly chief of the space agency's Space Human Factors Office and served for 21 years as a retired senior aerospace scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center. Having studied pilot sightings and related aviation safety issues for more than 30 years, and having personally interviewed hundreds of pilots during that time, Haines has concluded that pilots are indeed excellent witnesses, given their thorough training, expertise and hours of flying time.
Haines is now chief scientist for the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena. Sadly, most pilots never report their sightings, as he points out in "UFOs."
Most importantly, the aerial cases documented in "UFOs" — and many more on the record elsewhere — involve multiple factors such as:
Sightings of long duration, allowing for accurate voice transmissions and the refinement of the initial identification.
Multiple witnesses — co-pilot, crew, passengers, other aircraft in different locations, and occasionally observers from the ground.
Onboard radar and ground radar recording the presence of a physical object, often corresponding exactly to the visual sighting.
Direct physical effects on the aircraft, such as equipment malfunction.
As an example, Brig. Gen. Jose Periera of Brazil, commander of air force operations until 2005, reports on an "array of UFOs" observed over his country in 1986. Two pilots chased one of the objects for 30 minutes. Numerous other pilots saw the objects. Radar recorded them. Six jets were scrambled from two Brazilian air force bases to pursue them. Some of the pilots made visual contact corresponding to radar registrations. Both military and commercial pilots were involved. Onboard as well as ground radar systems confirmed the presence of the objects.
“We have the correlation of independent readings from different sources,” Periera writes. “These data have nothing to do with human eyes. When, along with the radar, a pilot‘s pair of eyes sees that same thing, and then another pilot‘s, and so on, the incident has real credibility and stands on a solid foundation.”
In 2007, airline captain Ray Bowyer saw two gigantic, bright yellow objects suspended over the English Channel, which he observed carefully for 15 minutes. His passengers saw them, another pilot on a second aircraft was also a witness, and an object was registered on radar.
Most popular
In 1986, three Japan Airlines pilots watched a series of UFOs for 30 minutes, communicating with air traffic control while radar operators picked up the objects in corresponding locations.
I could go on with many more examples, presented in detail in the book.
Oberg says pilots may misinterpret visual phenomena when forced to make a split-second diagnosis before taking immediate action — very rare cases, I would assume — and no one would disagree with that. But, just as was the case with the solved Russian sightings I discussed earlier, this is entirely beside the point with respect to my book, because the cases presented do not involve such a scenario.

In addition, "UFOs: General, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record" presents many other cases that do not involve pilots at all — but often military personnel and police officers — including:
The famous 1980 incident near RAF Bentwaters in Britain, involving the landing of a UFO and objects sending beams of light to the ground.
The 1981 "Trans-en-Provence" landing case in France, investigated by the official French agency GEPAN.
Belgian Maj. Gen. Wilfried De Brouwer‘s report on the wave of sightings in Belgium in 1989-90, which includes a spectacular photograph.
The 1993 "Cosford Incident" involving a UFO over two Air Force bases in Britain, investigated by the Ministry of Defense.
The 1997 Phoenix Lights incident that former Arizona Gov. Fife Symington described.

These are just a few of a host of cases with abundant data that don't rely on pilot observations — and which are still unsolved. It‘s the aggregate of cases, the accumulation of evidence and the long-running but unsuccessful attempts of qualified experts to resolve them that establishes the reality of a yet-unexplained physical phenomenon with extraordinary capabilities.
Oberg says that "if investigators are unable to find the explanation for a particular UFO case, that doesn't constitute proof that the case is unexplainable.” Fair enough. Perhaps there is some prosaic explanation still to be discovered. There‘s always that possibility, no matter how small.
But we remain in a state of ignorance concerning UFOs, leaving us with the conclusion presented in the book: We need a systematic, scientific investigation of the skies that actively looks for these mysterious and elusive objects. In the meantime, all I ask is that devout skeptics like Oberg read the entire book before raising objections that actually have no bearing on the matter at hand.
Investigative journalist Leslie Kean is the author of the New York Times bestseller"UFOs: General, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record" (Harmony/Crown). Her work has appeared in many publications including The Nation, International Herald Tribune and the Boston Globe. She is also the co-author of “Burma’s Revolution of the Spirit” and co-founder of the Coalition for Freedom of Information.
User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
Reasoner
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1014
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #103 on: Feb 13th, 2013, 3:53pm »

well isn't that grand? we can witness actual in-fighting in the UFO community between a debunker and a hoaxer (or whatever other pejorative you wish to ascribe)...

and it's none of us! no one to ban, no worries they may troll us. just sit back and watch the fireworks.

i haven't read all of kean's rebuttal, but it is pretty well-crafted, at least on the surface. there was one part that looked like she was throwing a fellow researcher under the bus...
User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
Reasoner
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1014
xx Re: UFO in the news
« Reply #104 on: Feb 13th, 2013, 3:59pm »

Also, HAL, I did see yer posts in between. To answer one of your questions, yeah, that argument is a bit tired isn't it? Accountability etc. However, there are enough people clamoring for it, and people willing to engage it. I think it can happen. journryman57 is jumping up and down for a coordinated skywatching. elevenaugust seems to be connected to some sort of group that analyzes photo evidence. we have a lot of members that have at least peripheral connection to the military and understand protocol and processes used by them. We have pilots, we have old radar guys. We have the resources of knowledge, and we have the desire. We just lack the coalescing force to get this done. What's it gonna take, boys and girls?
User IP Logged

no more evil. bury the hatchet. there's enough bad out there, we need more good
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9  10 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls