UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[jreelawg]

So, you have, let's say DARPA testing a means of interfering with nuclear missile launch systems, but they don't want the large staff of a launch center involved. So, you float a balloon or something similar while you run your test, and good luck getting the people on the ground to think as dispassionately as we are right now.

You couldn't expect to fool them with a balloon. A balloon could be shot down, it could be spotted, and easily identified.

Another thing to consider, is the fact that UFO sightings have been reported by guards at more than one Nuclear storage site, and the descriptions of the UFO's aren't consistent with balloon, or conventional craft.

In order to support this hypotheses you would have to either assume the majority of them are lying, assume something much more exotic was used in place of the balloon (some kind of high tech light show hoax, maybe induced hallucination), or that what they actually witnessed were advanced craft, perhaps responsible for the malfunctions.

 

[FlexGunship]

You couldn't expect to fool them with a balloon.

Jreelawg, I bet you could be fooled by a balloon. I bet I could be fooled by a balloon. I bet thousands of people could be fooled by a balloon.

I bet I could find a way to fool a trained balloon observer sitting on an international balloon catalog with a hundred years experience and a pair of specially developed balloon-sensing binoculars at a balloon-spotting event.

You're just repeatedly saying the same series of things:

"Your suggestion is impossible, the only way your suggestion COULD be possible is if condition X was met, and... as we all know, condition X is impossible!"

Stacking tautology on top of tautology into some sort of succulent tautology pastry doesn't make it less tautological. Why couldn't they be fooled by something mundane? Because they have uniforms?

EDIT: Cue balloon montage! Please be advised, Jreelawg, these are only balloons!

[PLAIN]http://www.solar-balloons.com/images/ufo-thumb.jpg

[PLAIN]http://noahstrycker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ufo.jpg

[URL]http://www.thetechherald.com/media/images/200907/ufo_5.jpg[/URL]

 

[mugaliens]

So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:

1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the second, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

This sounds a heck of a lot more plausible than any other explanation I've heard to date.

 

[jreelawg]

Jreelawg, I bet you could be fooled by a balloon. I bet I could be fooled by a balloon. I bet thousands of people could be fooled by a balloon.

I bet I could find a way to fool a trained balloon observer sitting on an international balloon catalog with a hundred years experience and a pair of specially developed balloon-sensing binoculars at a balloon-spotting event.

I'm not guarding some of the most sensitive storage facilities in the world. And good luck getting a balloon to move in a manner consistent with UFO sightings.

 

[jreelawg]

I understand your premise that it could have been deception, and I find that plausible, a balloon is not a plausible explanation for the sightings reported at nuclear arms storage facilities. Just because balloons are common, doesn't mean you make make them appear to fly around, with amazing maneuverability. So like I said, the only way it could be a balloon, is if the guards were also group hallucinating, or if they lied.

 

[FlexGunship]

This sounds a heck of a lot more plausible than any other explanation I've heard to date.

Put 30 people in a room, crowd them in there... suddenly turn all the reds light then back to normal. If someone claims they saw a monkey scurry through the room, someone will confirm that they thought they felt something. Someone else thought they smelled something. Then the chatter starts. When you're done, you've got a room full of people all claiming a monkey scurried through the room. If you tell them it didn't happen, then you'll hear: "how could we all be lying?"

 

[FlexGunship]

I understand your premise that it could have been deception, and I find that plausible, a balloon is not a plausible explanation for the sightings reported at nuclear arms storage facilities. Just because balloons are common, doesn't mean you make make them appear to fly around, with amazing maneuverability. So like I said, the only way it could be a balloon, is if the guards were also group hallucinating, or if they lied.

So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:

1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the SECOND, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

I literally cannot make my position any more clear than that.

 

[nismaratwork]

Whether it was a balloon, or a shaped airship, or a cloud only matters once you choose the explanation for the malfunctions. Sightings around nuclear weapons can be dismissed the same way any others can, but malfunctions of those systems cannot. If you believe that it was intentional, then who cares what was seen? If you believe it was all a coincidence, then it becomes interesting, but only insofar as normal "sightings" are. The point is the one thing that isn't up for debate: malfunctioning systems, and that's the ONLY thing that matters in this.

 

[jreelawg]

Whether it was a balloon, or a shaped airship, or a cloud only matters once you choose the explanation for the malfunctions. Sightings around nuclear weapons can be dismissed the same way any others can, but malfunctions of those systems cannot. If you believe that it was intentional, then who cares what was seen? If you believe it was all a coincidence, then it becomes interesting, but only insofar as normal "sightings" are. The point is the one thing that isn't up for debate: malfunctioning systems, and that's the ONLY thing that matters in this.

The thing that matters is, why they malfunctioned. It would be ridiculous to dismiss what went on at the same time, especially when the descriptions are such that they are.

If someone's purse was stolen, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

You can attempt to dismiss any and all cases using your reasoning, but no rational person would take all of your dismissals seriously.

 

[FlexGunship]

Whether it was a balloon, or a shaped airship, or a cloud only matters once you choose the explanation for the malfunctions.

This is a good point actually. I think we should start being more careful with our terminology here, as well, a "malfunction" seems to imply some sort of random disarray. My understanding (from the two reports I've read so far) are that the missile became inactive for a period of time.

"The missiles shut down - 10 Minuteman missiles. And the same thing happened at another site a week later. There's a strong interest in our missiles by these objects, wherever they come from. I personally think they're not from planet Earth."

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html)

So, they became inactive. The first generation of American and British nuclear missiles shorted out for a moment and then the team was able to repair them and get them online.

Furthermore, the reports of the "UFO" are from the guards, not the actual folks inside.

EDIT: How many times must missiles temporarily malfunction before we assume there's something wrong with them? Now I'm more worried that no one was seriously concerned about the wiring!

 

[FlexGunship]

If someone's purse was stolen, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

If someone's cell phone suddenly turned off and then was able to be turned on again, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

EDIT: Correlation does not imply causation. Especially if the "cause" is unidentified.

 

[jreelawg]

If someone's cell phone suddenly turned off and then was able to be turned on again, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

Your position that each and everything, which can possibly be observed, could be dismissed easily from an armchair, is getting old.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is a good point actually. I think we should start being more careful with our terminology here, as well, a "malfunction" seems to imply some sort of random disarray. My understanding (from the two reports I've read so far) are that the missile became inactive for a period of time.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html)

So, they became inactive. The first generation of American and British nuclear missiles shorted out for a moment and then the team was able to repair them and get them online.

Furthermore, the reports of the "UFO" are from the guards, not the actual folks inside.

EDIT: How many times must missiles temporarily malfunction before we assume there's something wrong with them? Now I'm more worried that no one was seriously concerned about the wiring!

I'm not qualified to speak to the reliability of nuclear weapons, but I go back to how useful it would be to shut down the weapons of a given nation for a number of reasons, even if only for a few minutes. In fact, if this had been a random malfunction, I wouldn't have posed the scenario I did... as accidental launch or just static on a screen is hardly worth the risk. During the cold war, it could have been seen as a means to prepare for a first strike, and now I can see it being useful in Pakistan and India in a worst-case scenario.

Of course, just because it makes sense, doesn't mean it happened... as you say, this could be nothing more than a repeated malfunction of the same system. The sighting by the guards however... I don't know Flex. We can say they were hysterical, but that seems a bit much... it could be coincidence, but that's a hell of a coincidence. It could be that the guards conspired to lie, but I don't buy that... or it may be that in retrospect they experienced a "monkey in the room" moment under the stress of what may have been perceived as a potential attack or failure.

I have to say... I still vote for: Balloon or other object to draw attention or as platform for: "weapon" or test to see if it's possible to shut down launch capacity in an unaware and hardened target. I don't think we're eeeevvvveeeerrr going to know, but the least convincing explanation to me is: aliens... that, above all the others is a bit past credulity here.

 

[FlexGunship]

Your position that each and everything, which can possibly be observed, could be dismissed easily from an armchair is getting old.

I know what it would take to convince me of something extraordinary. I've provided a list, in fact, earlier (specifically pertaining to ETs). Jreelawg, I have the luxury of changing my mind if someone proves me wrong.

Jreelawg, you have put yourself in the unfortunate position of not being able to change your mind. Now, you seek to convince everyone to adopt your point of view simply because your position is indefensible. You are the quintessential unsinkable rubber duck.

All it would take is for you to say: "I guess I had never thought about it that much before. Perhaps there's something to consider here. I will reserve my judgement until there are better facts at hand. As such, I will adopt the most scientifically sound position."

Armchair dismissal is safer than armchair acceptance when it comes to the paranormal, the supernatural and the pseudo-scientific. Armchair dismissal has shown to yield the most correct answers.

 

[Hurkyl]

Armchair dismissal is safer than armchair acceptance when it comes to the paranormal, the supernatural and the pseudo-scientific. Armchair dismissal has shown to yield the most correct answers.

Actually, armchair apathy is correct more often than armchair dismissal.

 

[nismaratwork]

I know what it would take to convince me of something extraordinary. I've provided a list, in fact, earlier (specifically pertaining to ETs). Jreelawg, I have the luxury of changing my mind if someone proves me wrong.

Jreelawg, you have put yourself in the unfortunate position of not being able to change your mind. Now, you seek to convince everyone to adopt your point of view simply because your position is indefensible. You are the quintessential unsinkable rubber duck.

All it would take is for you to say: "I guess I had never thought about it that much before. Perhaps there's something to consider here. I will reserve my judgement until there are better facts at hand. As such, I will adopt the most scientifically sound position."

Armchair dismissal is safer than armchair acceptance when it comes to the paranormal, the supernatural and the pseudo-scientific. Armchair dismissal has shown to yield the most correct answers.

I just want to add, Flex, I don't think you're "armchair dismissing"... I think you're being properly skeptical according to the precepts of that philosophy. Just adding my 2 cents. Extraordinary claims require commensurate evidence, period; not anecdote, not group experiences... EVIDENCE. Without that basic concept we're practically abandoning the scientific method, never mind Skepticism.

 

[FlexGunship]

During the cold war, it could have been seen as a means to prepare for a first strike, and now I can see it being useful in Pakistan and India in a worst-case scenario.

Again, testing it as a possible weapon (I use the term loosely) to prevent or delay an enemy nuclear launch wouldn't really be applicable to other nuclear launch sites. It's not as though the Russians were also using Minuteman missiles. Different technology was at play, and I assure you that there isn't a common "off-switch" on all nuclear launch facilities.

Besides, could you imagine that conversation?

"Sir, we are going to test the device that will temporarily deactivate nuclear weapons in a certain radius."

"How can you test it?!"

"Sir, we will just try it on one of our own missiles."

"But, don't we need to know how to shut down enemy missiles?"

"Er... anyway... we need a distraction, sir."

"Why's that?"

"Sir, we can't tell the people in charge of operating the missile!"

"Um, why?"

"Sir... this is a secret."

"Wait, wouldn't we want to advertise the fact that we are developing a way to prevent the enemy from launching missiles? Anyway, what kind of distraction?"

"Sir, I propose a disc in the sky of some sort."

"Hmm... a disc, huh? How will that distract the people inside?"

"Sir! It won't! Isn't that brilliant?!"

"I don't follow."

"Well, sir, the guards will see our flying disc, and report it to the people inside. Then we can test our device on our own missiles. We'll do it again next week."

"Well, before you plan for next week, let's see how the debriefing goes."

"Sir... there won't be any debriefing... it's a seeeeeeecret!"

EDIT: And thus, the top secret government program to shut down our own nuclear missiles for a bit while distracting the guards outside with balloon begins!

EDIT PART 2: Sorry, Nismar, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm trying to explain to you why I can't imagine the government collusion theory being very workable. Maybe it's just lack of imagination on my part.

 

[jreelawg]

Jreelawg, you have put yourself in the unfortunate position of not being able to change your mind. Now, you seek to convince everyone to adopt your point of view simply because your position is indefensible. You are the quintessential unsinkable rubber duck.

And what is it that I've made my mind up about?

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm not guarding some of the most sensitive storage facilities in the world. And good luck getting a balloon to move in a manner consistent with UFO sightings.

Keep in mind this phenomenon consists of observations of objects that have the follow characteristics:

• make a humming noise (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case1172.htm),
• make no noise (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1190481/Mysterious-orange-UFOs-swoop-Britains-skies.html),
• leave exhaust (http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/falconlake.htm),
• leave no exhaust (http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/a/gorman.htm),
• tiny in size (http://www.unexplainable.net/UFO-Alien/Couple-Encounters-Tiny-UFO-in-Bedroom.shtml),
• small in size (http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1600.asp),
• medium in size (http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/ufo-prangs-wind-turbine/),
• giant in size (http://www.tgdaily.com/trendwatch-features/31805-pilots-spot-giant-ufos-over-britain),
• huge in size (http://www.disclose.tv/forum/huge-ufo-monitored-by-cassini-above-south-pole-coming-here-t13086.html),
• move quickly (http://examiner.com/ufo-in-sacramento/quick-ufo-sacramento-california-may-23rd-2010),
• move slowly (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-national/slow-moving-triangle-ufo-over-anacortes-washington),
• avoid planes (http://www.ufologie.net/htm/orly1956.htm),
• follow planes (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...bled-after-UFO-follows-plane-over-Athens.html),
• chase planes (http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocasefiles/p/iran1976.htm),
• shoot down planes (http://www.ufoencounters.co.uk/they-were-shot-down-by-ufos.html),
• crash planes (http://www.where-is-area-51.com/mantell.html),
• visited Space Shuttle Discovery (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/sts-48.htm),
• watched Space Shuttle Endeavour (http://www.examiner.com/space-news-...shuttle-maneuvers-at-space-station-you-decide),
• destroyed Space Shuttle Columbia (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=64088),
• destroyed Space Shuttle Challenger (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread333163/pg1),
• cylindrical (http://netowne.com/naziufos/boblee/ ),
• square-shaped (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case1172.htm),
• spherical (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case248.htm),
• disc-shaped (http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/04/disc-shape-ufo-photographed-over.html),
• triangular (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case135.htm),
• missile-shaped (http://www.where-is-area-51.com/ghost-rockets.html),
• egg-shaped (http://www.rense.com/general5/filers11700.htm),
• cigar-shaped (http://www.ufodigest.com/article/pennsylvania-witness-photographs-cigar-shaped-ufo),
• V-shaped (http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Reports+UFOs+over+skies+hover+into/3432852/story.html ),
• pyramid-shaped (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...837200/UFO-pyramid-reported-over-Kremlin.html),
• ring-shaped (http://www.rense.com/general3/ring.htm),
• spiral-shaped (http://technorati.com/technology/article/another-spiral-ufo-appearsthis-time-over/ ),
• acorn-shaped http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecksburg_UFO_incident),
• booger-shaped (http://www.ufodigest.com/article/louisiana-lore-reveals-1923-ufo),
• have lights (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-nati...-simplicity-detail-and-no-signs-of-letting-up),
• have no lights (http://www.kskdaily.com/code%20/huge-blimp-size-ufo-mesa-arizona/ ),
• have blue lights (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-national/blue-light-ufos-spotted-over-three-states),
• have red lights (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-nati...boise-as-multiple-witnesses-watch-from-ground),
• have three lights (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/88/312/Witness_reports_triangle_UFO_over_Camp_Mabry,_Texas,_has_one_blinking_light.html ),
• have five lights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights),
• have 20-30 lights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubbock_Lights),
• have many lights (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0310/more-clues.php),
• merge (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0210/lightship.php),
• splits apart (http://canadaufo.blogspot.com/2010/08/large-red-light-splits-into-two-orange.html),
• land (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc520.htm),
• don't land (http://phantomsandmonsters.wetpaint.com/page/2+UFOs+Crash+Land+in+West+Kazakhstan ),
• crash into the ground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_UFO_Incident),
• crash into the water (http://www.roswellproof.com/Shag_Harbour/Shag_Harbour_articles.html#anchor_10),
• crash into mountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Mountain_UFO_incident),
• turn into rocks and hit cars (http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8376748._UFO__crash_landing___or_piece_of_rock___damages_car/),
• live under water (http://www.waterufo.net/menu.htm),
• carry aliens (http://ufos.about.com/od/visualproofphotosvideo/a/costarica1971.htm),
• carry reptiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schirmer_Abduction ),
• carry monsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatwoods_monster),
• carry gods (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc175.htm),
• carry a grinning man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grinning_Man),
• carry the Mothman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mothman_Prophecies),
• visit people (http://heraldbanner.com/local/x400533463/UFO-visits-Hunt-County-mysterious-object-seen-by-resident-deputies ),
• avoid people (http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/13-11-2008/106692-killer_ufo-0/),
• have sex with people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Villas_Boas) (well, the aliens... not the UFO),
• abduct people (http://ufos.about.com/b/2008/11/29/texas-woman-abducted-by-aliens.htm),
• abduct chess-playing Russian tsars (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100908-291146/UFO-spotting-chess-tsar-quits-as-Russia-region-chief ),
• torture people (http://www.rocr.net/index.php?p=Nightmares) (okay, a joke),
• take people to utopias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_collision) (the part about Dr. Jaysen Rand),
• take people to Venus (http://www.japantoday.com/category/...yama-claims-her-soul-traveled-to-venus-on-ufo),
• take people forever (http://www.ufoera.com/articles/this...story-if-you-are-interested-i_1190310925.html),
• take people to eternity (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pzAcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rlkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7414,3258134&dq=ufo&hl=en),
• kill Russian skiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyatlov_Pass_incident),
• like China (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ufo-sightings-throughout-china-100879044.html),
• like Ozzy Osbourne (http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=144763 ),
• like Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_UFO_incident),
• glow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsworth_UFO_Case),
• glow faintly (http://forums.starcraft.org/archive/index.php/t-20060.html ),
• glow brightly (http://www.nowpublic.com/strange/ufo-bright-glowing-orb-filmed-prague),
• don't glow at all (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23401615-mile-wide-ufo-spotted-by-british-airline-pilot.do ),
• are metallic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter),
• are visible (http://www.dailygrail.com/Alien-Nation/2010/6/Spiral-UFO-Seen-Australia),
• are invisible (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=24589),
• are green (http://www.mt.net/~watcher/greenfireballhonolulujan1999.html ),
• are red (http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/wiganredufo.html),
• are blue (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.html),
• are yellow (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-national/ufo-traffic-report-august-26-2010),
• are lanterns (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/09/07/Expert-Canadian-UFO-likely-a-lantern/UPI-92801283887457/),
• are not lanterns (http://www.westlothiancourier.co.uk/2010/08/12/more-ufo-sightings-in-west-lothian-62405-27043152/),
• are "special" planes (http://tucsoncitizen.com/paranormal/2010/08/12/ufo-in-china-was-not-just-a-plane-it-was-likely-a-special-plane/ ),
• show up on radar (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/211784-China-Airport-Closed-After-UFO-Appears-on-Radar-Screens),
• don't show up on radar (http://www.nuforc.org/CB970220.html),
• travel in groups (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x1127339),
• travel alone (http://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/ufo_sighting_in_st_albans_1_633876),
• abduct animals (http://authenticufos.blogspot.com/2010/04/connection-between-human-abduction-and.html),
• kill animals (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun...SE+DEATH+BRINGS+MORE+UFO+STORIES&pqatl=google),
• mutilate animals (http://www.paranormalnews.com/article.asp?ArticleID=1408),
• destroy everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event),
• leave evidence (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1763.htm),
• leave no evidence (http://www.ghosttheory.com/2010/07/26/china-airport-ufo-no-evidence-of-ufo),
• leave red evidence (http://www.allnewsweb.com/page1199999416.php),
• etc (http://theplug.net/35/hallofcostumes_ufo.htm)...

Oh, Jreelawg, you can find a UFO report to support any claim about UFOs you like. Including "do move like balloons" and "don't move like balloons."

 

[jreelawg]

I just want to add, Flex, I don't think you're "armchair dismissing"... I think you're being properly skeptical according to the precepts of that philosophy. Just adding my 2 cents. Extraordinary claims require commensurate evidence, period; not anecdote, not group experiences... EVIDENCE. Without that basic concept we're practically abandoning the scientific method, never mind Skepticism.

Are you kidding me? If Flex isn't armchair dismissing, then I must not know what armchair dismissing means.

For example, saying something like, "it doesn't matter what was sighted, all sightings can be dismissed the same way".

It's healthy to be skeptical, but useless if you don't even know what your skeptical about.

 

[FlexGunship]

And what is it that I've made my mind up about?

It's healthy to be skeptical, but useless if you don't even know what your skeptical about.

Very well, Jreelawg. I've stated my position pretty clearly in this particular instance, and in the instance off the Iran UFO incident. I formally invite you to summarize your position, unambiguously in one paragraph or less.

 

[FlexGunship]

As evidenced by our local flight experts, the report is (at best) wrong on the details. If you start there and keep in mind that 100% of the equipment involved (radar, jets, etc.) was very very new to the Iranians. There's not a whole lot to explain.

1) Someone saw something confusing in the sky
2) Someone confirmed something confusing on radar
3) Pilot did something confusing in the air
4) Everyone was embarrassed
5) General says: "uh, we didn't mess up; that's impossible... it was some crazy aerial phenomenon"

It really reads like a very hum-drum military gaff. I'm sure the same thing happened plenty of times in the U.S. we just didn't go bragging about it or kept a slightly better secret.

Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the second, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

Top one is my position on the Iran UFO, the bottom one is for our friends at the nuclear missile launch site.

I guess I took a little more than a paragraph at one point. If you need to make a list, then that's okay too.

 

[jreelawg]

Oh, Jreelawg, you can find a UFO report to support any claim about UFOs you like. Including "do move like balloons" and "don't move like balloons."

If you saw something flying in the sky, would you assume it could be dismissed as an elephant?

 

[jreelawg]

Top one is my position on the Iran UFO, the bottom one is for our friends at the nuclear missile launch site.

I guess I took a little more than a paragraph at one point. If you need to make a list, then that's okay too.

My position is that some of your explanations are extremely unlikely in consideration of the reports. Your position seams to also be that the report doesn't even need to be considered, which makes sense why you would often come up with such ridiculous explanations.

I think the main difference between you and me, is that you have made up your mind and I haven't.

 

[jreelawg]

My position is that some of your explanations are extremely unlikely in consideration of the reports. Your position seams to be that the report doesn't even need to be considered, which makes sense why you would often come up with such ridiculous explanations.

I think the main difference between you and me, is that you have made up your mind and I haven't.

Actually I change my mind.

I appreciate your input. Lots of your ideas add insight. I'm just bouncing ideas back and forth and trying to learn and understand more. When I or you offer an idea, it is open to interpretation, and we can talk about it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Again, testing it as a possible weapon (I use the term loosely) to prevent or delay an enemy nuclear launch wouldn't really be applicable to other nuclear launch sites. It's not as though the Russians were also using Minuteman missiles. Different technology was at play, and I assure you that there isn't a common "off-switch" on all nuclear launch facilities.

Besides, could you imagine that conversation?

"Sir, we are going to test the device that will temporarily deactivate nuclear weapons in a certain radius."

"How can you test it?!"

"Sir, we will just try it on one of our own missiles."

"But, don't we need to know how to shut down enemy missiles?"

"Er... anyway... we need a distraction, sir."

"Why's that?"

"Sir, we can't tell the people in charge of operating the missile!"

"Um, why?"

"Sir... this is a secret."

"Wait, wouldn't we want to advertise the fact that we are developing a way to prevent the enemy from launching missiles? Anyway, what kind of distraction?"

"Sir, I propose a disc in the sky of some sort."

"Hmm... a disc, huh? How will that distract the people inside?"

"Sir! It won't! Isn't that brilliant?!"

"I don't follow."

"Well, sir, the guards will see our flying disc, and report it to the people inside. Then we can test our device on our own missiles. We'll do it again next week."

"Well, before you plan for next week, let's see how the debriefing goes."

"Sir... there won't be any debriefing... it's a seeeeeeecret!"

EDIT: And thus, the top secret government program to shut down our own nuclear missiles for a bit while distracting the guards outside with balloon begins!

EDIT PART 2: Sorry, Nismar, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm trying to explain to you why I can't imagine the government collusion theory being very workable. Maybe it's just lack of imagination on my part.

I never said that our government was bright...

Kidding aside, this could also be a way to test for weakness in the system, or it could be that there were some real events that were not our own government (Russia has similar stories of UFOs during the cold war). I would just remind you that if these tests were performed with the knowledge of the launch center personnel, you'd have a pool of people who could talk about that. This way, you have people reporting a "mystery" and one which was then, and still is very popular. You actually cut MORE people out of the loop this way, rather than include more.

Remember, a balloon could also make for a very realistic platform for such a "weapon" or surveillance.

Finally... this could have been lenticular clouds and atmospheric disturbances... who knows. I'm not floating a theory I have some stock in, just the only "conspiracy" that makes sense and fits the purported facts. Any other conspiracy, including aliens messing with nuclear weapons cannot be supported by these anecdotes and small amount of evidence. My theory can be floated on this testimony and malfunctions, but that doesn't mean it's real... just an idea... kind of the String Theory of conspiracies. As a model it can work, but that's no guarantee that it reflects a physical reality.

Ruling out domestic testing, foreign incursion, and (for me I add "of course) aliens... this is a very odd set of recurring circumstances. I don't believe that cognitive bias accounts for the coincidence factor here when you include the launch shutdown. If you take that last bit out of the equation, this is nothing special... add it in, and it stretches credulity to believe that these were coincidental. After all, why a flying disk? Of all the things to imagine and conflate with a launch error, why that? I realize that none of this rules out coincidence, bias, and errors compounding in hindsight, but there are down-to-earth explanations that make plenty of sense too.

It could be that there was no planning as in your scenario, but that people saw a test platform on a balloon, took the admonition to keep quiet as confirmation of their assumptions... and the people testing x, y, or z technology simply ran with it as a good chaff-cover. There are so many workable permutations that are similar to what we already know occurred around very large programs such as, once again, the various stealth aircraft.

 

[jreelawg]

Here is actually a better explanation of my position.

I either observed something, hallucinated something, or have seen an illusion, or a hoax, which had conjured the appearance, false, or not, of what seamed to be a craft with extraordinary flight characteristics.

As such, I have a problem, that I have to wonder what really happened. I can think of various hypothesis, but none of them I can conclude.

When people make up their minds prematurely, they risk losing some of their sense of reality, which can in some instances be traumatic.

I'm not going to become willingly delusional about the characteristics of reality just to fulfill some curious gray matter in the back of my head.

So I have to consider a whole bunch of possibilities, and live with the curiosity.

And for me, I want to know what the cause of this appearance may have been. I understand from your point of view it could have been any random story.

However, my honest and exhaustive efforts could not explain what I appear to have seen in a mundane way.

For me, in my position, the fact that so many people, including astronomers, astronauts, generals, pilots, government officials, guards, etc, have reported very similar experiences; strengthens my gut feeling there is something very real and strange about the phenomena.

 

[nismaratwork]

One comment... I know that I'm not qualified to say what are or are not "extraordinary flight characteristics"... are you? I'm not trying to pick on you, just point out that at the most basic level of your description is the assumption that what you saw was extraordinary in its movements, that it was in flight, and that what you saw was a vehicle of some kind.

 

[Hurkyl]

However, my honest and exhaustive efforts could not explain what I appear to have seen in a mundane way.

But have you made an honest and exhaustive effort to explain it in a non-mundane way? Meaning, in particular, that you hold the non-mundane to at least the same standard of proof that you require of a mundane explanation?

(My apologies if I'm seeing an implication you didn't intend)

 

[jreelawg]

It could be that there was no planning as in your scenario, but that people saw a test platform on a balloon, took the admonition to keep quiet as confirmation of their assumptions... and the people testing x, y, or z technology simply ran with it as a good chaff-cover.

An alternative to that chain of events, is that it could have been a test to see how the faculty of the facility would behave under a given apparently threatening situation.

Maybe they wanted to test how they would react under the threat of a possible Russian Attempt at a nuclear first strike.

Under this model, it would be wise to deactivate the weapons just in case someone freaks out and tried to bomb russia before they bomb us. So they deactivate the weapons as a safety measure, while conducting an emergency drill.

From this they could conclude who reacted how under pressure. Who were good observers. They could find out who could keep secrets as they classify the drill top secret, and have them swear to secrecy etc.

An extra possible motive could be to afterwards study the witnesses and observe what they make of what they see.

 

[mugaliens]

Maybe they wanted to test how they would react under the threat of a possible Russian Attempt at a nuclear first strike.

Under this model, it would be wise to deactivate the weapons just in case someone freaks out and tried to bomb russia before they bomb us. So they deactivate the weapons as a safety measure, while conducting an emergency drill.

From this they could conclude who reacted how under pressure. Who's description of the events is most accurate, and this who were good observers. They could find out who could keep secrets as they classify the drill top secret, and have them swear to secrecy etc.

This is very inane. Both we, Russia, and all other nuclear powers have extensive protcols in place to prevent this sort of third-grade concept from ever taking place.

 

[FlexGunship]

Okay, this entire thread is just talking to me, so I'm going to skip the individual quotes and see if I can more widely address the trend I'm seeing develop.

I'm not actually attempting to explain the phenomena that are being discussed. I'm describing a position I hold. I'm also defending it with the same vigor as the purported UFO promoters (or conspiracy promoters). My goal in doing this is to advance a theory which could also explain the available evidence without having to add something "new" (aliens, spaceships, secret government programs, or even ball lightning).

The fallibility of human sensory observance is clear to me. Perhaps I have a privileged view of this, but I find it to be more consistently true than Dr. House's "everybody lies" (you know, from that Fox show). I know it sounds, maybe, overly pragmatic, but people are terrible observers. If you were to rank all forms of evidence you would find "human observation" just above "Rorschach interpretations." (A surprisingly apt comparison since you often find UFO/ghost reports take on the shape and character of the reporter.)

I see it happen often, and it's really a shame. People constantly discredit themselves to the point that there's almost no point in listening anymore:

• She was possessed by a demon
• I was abducted from my bed
• I saw the Loch Ness monster
• A ghost ate all the pie
• My uncle saw a ship disappear in the Bermuda triangle
• I know a real psychic
• I saw him move things with his mind
• They finally caught the real Bigfoot
• Okay, I was wrong last time, but this time I really was abducted
• The sun fell out of the sky and 99,999 other people saw it too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun)
• President Bush is a lizard

(The sad thing is that every person who reads that list will pick ONE of them and say: "Well, come on, man... ________ is real. Don't group it with all that other stuff.")

We are a bunch of barely observant, semi-mobile lumps of consciousness that are completely unequipped to see our own universe. It is only in the last few hundred to a thousand years that the process of science has begun to reveal the truth of the universe around us. Guess what! Reality is way cooler than all those stories we used to make up to explain it. Just stack up cosmology next to Creation theory, and compare the four forces of nature to Chi. Reality isn't limited by human imagination, but Creationism and Chi and so many other concepts so clearly are!

Yet, when we stray from properly practiced science, we revert back to our lowest form: seeing lights and shapes and interpreting them as "gods" exacting their will upon the lowly observer. When we step out of the illumination of science, we're blind again... we're back to see spirits, and shadows, and lights, and monsters everywhere!

And this isn't isolated to dumb, stupid, or crazy people... it's a universal condition! We all share in the inadequacies of our observational prowess! Even those of us who are trained to be the best observers of our species are easily fooled if they slip up in the tiniest way when "sciencing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha).

So, Nismar and Jreelawg, I hope you can see why I give a strong weighting to the illusion, confusion, hallucination, and hoax format. It has served me well. To say someone is hallucinating or confused isn't an insult. We all do it! It's not limited to mushroom-guzzling mental patients!

Have you seen 2D optical illusions? Can you even fathom how easy it would be to fool our minds with a 3D illusion? We see faces on Mars and the eyes of a hollow mask follow us around the room. If we let our guard down for even a moment we get lost in a mire of garbage information, cognitive biases, and total brain failures. Sometimes we can't even pass ideas on because our language is so clumsily crafted. We mean to say one thing to a person but they hear another; the idea is tainted forever in the mind of the other individual free to spread amongst the population.

Cynical? Maybe. But knowing you own limitations as an observer is important. As such, I will wait until we can turn science on a real flying saucer, a real ghost, a real monster, or a real anti-gravity machine before I allow the idea to creep into my brain and infest it with garbage information. It's fun to think about, but until science has really weighed in on the issue, keep that stuff away from the decision-making part of your brain. If you remain sharply skeptical you can only benefit.

Which is more likely,

1. that there exists a secret government project which carefully monitors existing domestic nuclear missile technology and develops ways to momentarily stop it remotely,
2. that an alien civilization has found a tiny blue planet covered in mold somewhere in the far reaches of the sparsely populated end of a mediocre galaxy and has seen the ape-like inhabitants mucking about with nuclear weapons so they stop in and take them offline for about half an hour out of the 60+ years that they've had them, OR
3. a bunch of us silly meat heads got confused?

I'm still arguing for #3 as hard as I can.

 

[jreelawg]

An alternative to that chain of events, is that it could have been a test to see how the faculty of the facility would behave under a given apparently threatening situation.

Maybe they wanted to test how they would react under the threat of a possible Russian Attempt at a nuclear first strike.

Under this model, it would be wise to deactivate the weapons just in case someone freaks out and tried to bomb russia before they bomb us. So they deactivate the weapons as a safety measure, while conducting an emergency drill.

From this they could conclude who reacted how under pressure. Who were good observers. They could find out who could keep secrets as they classify the drill top secret, and have them swear to secrecy etc.

An extra possible motive could be to afterwards study the witnesses and observe what they make of what they see.

Maybe if we had records of people who were promoted, demoted, or fired, and why we could see if there was a trend.

 

[jreelawg]

One comment... I know that I'm not qualified to say what are or are not "extraordinary flight characteristics"... are you? I'm not trying to pick on you, just point out that at the most basic level of your description is the assumption that what you saw was extraordinary in its movements, that it was in flight, and that what you saw was a vehicle of some kind.

I don't assume it was what it appeared to be. What it appeared to do was move from stationary to incredible speed instantly, it made no noise, and it was visible as three blue/white lights forming a triangle.

I'm don't mean to bring this into the discussion, except to explain to Flex, honestly, what my position is and why. I'm not saying I am not fallible.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't assume it was what it appeared to be. What it appeared to do was move from stationary to incredible speed instantly, it made no noise, and it was visible as three blue/white lights forming a triangle.

I'm don't mean to bring this into the discussion, except to explain to Flex, honestly, what my position is and why. I'm not saying I am not fallible.

OK, I wasn't trying to "getcha!", I just wanted to get an understanding of what met that criteria. I admit, that sounds very odd... it doesn't rise to the level of alien for me, but if I ever saw that I'd be pretty spooked. I'm not qualified to say what that could have been unfortunately, but I appreciate you being frank.

 

[FlexGunship]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/27/AR2010092705099.html

This is regarding the news conference that was held on the topic of the UFOs affecting the nuclear missiles. It appears that many of these men have sign affidavits attesting to the fact that they talked to someone who saw something in the sky.

Second hand information.

I ask, finally, can we please conclude (as a group) that this particular case holds little or no significant information regarding the UFO phenomenon?

 

[nismaratwork]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/27/AR2010092705099.html

This is regarding the news conference that was held on the topic of the UFOs affecting the nuclear missiles. It appears that many of these men have sign affidavits attesting to the fact that they talked to someone who saw something in the sky.

Second hand information.

I ask, finally, can we please conclude (as a group) that this particular case holds little or no significant information regarding the UFO phenomenon?

Well, that being the case (and it seems that you're correct), it's just another oversold and over-hyped news conference. Second hand eyewitness testimony is the only thing worse than eyewitness testimony. This now goes to a simple question of malfunctioning launch systems being conflated with what seems to be an institutional mythology about aliens. I would say this went from "interesting but not alien" to "mundane" in the course of a single news conference. Ah well, that's the way the cookie always seems to crumble.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I still don't have time to get into this, but I was checking in and immediately noticed this. Hopefully I will have more time to focus later this week.

From the news report posted by Flex.

Most of the witnesses had not seen anything, just spoken to someone who had seen something

Flex

Second hand information.

I don't see that the two statements are equivalent. Who is leaping to conclusions here?

There is an internal Boeing report about the failures of these systems that was later made public. When I have a chance to get around to this, I'll try to dig it up. We had a link years ago but I don't know if its still good, or where it is.

Also, has the issue of the odds of an ET encounter been addressed? I know Russ had reverted to this point of reference, which is a fallacy. We don't know the odds. We can't say how likely it might be that we would encounter Ets from time to time - it may be a near certainty, or the chances may be zero. So it makes sense to ask if there are any potential examples. So, in addition to the potential for discovery wrt unrecognized natural phenomena, which is one favored explantion for some reports, the question in regards to ET is not whether UFOs are crafts flown by aliens or alien computers. The question is, "Are any?". If there is one valid example, it is the most important story in history. This makes the entire subject worthwhile. It wouldn't be interesting if the only reports were like those we see in the tabloids, but there is a core of information that makes the subject much more interesting than that. Not to say that we should assume anything, but at least do justice to the information that exists. Be honest about it.

The point is not to argue for proof of anything. The point is to provide some context. In many cases, we have to make assumptions about phenomena not known to exist, or we have to imagine conspiracy theories, or we have to imagine some exotic technolgy that is still highly classified, or we have to assume that otherwise credible people are lying, sometimes a good number of them, in order to explain these cases away. As did Flex, skeptics will often fudge statements to make the evidence seem less compelling [i.e. most = all]. And of course, without a smoking gun, we can always imagine a way to explain away any claim. That's a given. This is especially true if we pick and choose which parts of a report are credible. In short, there are no answers here, only assumptions. As a skeptic, I think this too is important to remember. I am not impressed by sloppy skeptical arguments. In fact, sloppy misrepresentations of the facts by skeptics is what caused me to make my first post about this here at PF. The nonsense coming from so-called skeptics can be as bad as that coming from the true believers.

I would add that the Post report was rather silly. Clearly it was written with an attitude not worthy of a serious reporter [Fox News level writing]. Also, the reporter's comments about Halt were completely out of context. Halt never said that he photographed anything. That was another group of people [base security] involved in the same incident, but the reporter obviously had no actual knowledge of the Halt report. I would add that I talked with Col. Halt for over an hour by telephone. He doesn't claim that he saw ET. He doesn't know what he saw.

 

[Chronos]

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish anxiety from fact. Some people see things that cause more fear in others than themselves. An unprejudiced mind is required to properly consider context and circumstances. The evidence to date leans in favor of the skeptics, but, not exclusively.

 

[alt]

Okay, this entire thread is just talking to me, so I'm going to skip the individual quotes and see if I can more widely address the trend I'm seeing develop.

I'm not actually attempting to explain the phenomena that are being discussed. I'm describing a position I hold. I'm also defending it with the same vigor as the purported UFO promoters (or conspiracy promoters). My goal in doing this is to advance a theory which could also explain the available evidence without having to add something "new" (aliens, spaceships, secret government programs, or even ball lightning).

You continue to speak in the same breath, of credible and incredible things, as though to associate the former with the latter. Secret government programs are not incredible things IMO.

The fallibility of human sensory observance is clear to me. Perhaps I have a privileged view of this,

Also, on other manifold occassions, the infallibility, astuteness, and truth inferred or deduced from minimal information, is clear to me. Many people get it right, as well as wrong. I have a privileged view of this.

but I find it to be more consistently true than Dr. House's "everybody lies" (you know, from that Fox show).

.. don't know him or the show. Too much Tee Vee clouds the mind.

I know it sounds, maybe, overly pragmatic, but people are terrible observers.

I know it sounds, maybe, overly pragmatic, but many people are excellent observers.

If you were to rank all forms of evidence you would find "human observation" just above "Rorschach interpretations." (A surprisingly apt comparison since you often find UFO/ghost reports take on the shape and character of the reporter.)

I see it happen often, and it's really a shame. People constantly discredit themselves to the point that there's almost no point in listening anymore:

• She was possessed by a demon
• I was abducted from my bed
• I saw the Loch Ness monster
• A ghost ate all the pie
• My uncle saw a ship disappear in the Bermuda triangle
• I know a real psychic
• I saw him move things with his mind
• They finally caught the real Bigfoot
• Okay, I was wrong last time, but this time I really was abducted
• The sun fell out of the sky and 99,999 other people saw it too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun)
• President Bush is a lizard

(The sad thing is that every person who reads that list will pick ONE of them and say: "Well, come on, man... ________ is real. Don't group it with all that other stuff.")

Awww .. what a stupid list. What is the purpose of it ? We KNOW that there are stoopid people around, but what is the purpose of it ? Why not as well, post a list of great scientists, detectives, intuitive bussinessmen / speculators - all brilliant people who excel in their ability to deduce correctly ?

We are a bunch of barely observant, semi-mobile lumps of consciousness that are completely unequipped to see our own universe.

I think your use of the collective noun here, is spurious. You continue to decpreciate humanity at all cost.

It is only in the last few hundred to a thousand years that the process of science has begun to reveal the truth of the universe around us. Guess what! Reality is way cooler than all those stories we used to make up to explain it. Just stack up cosmology next to Creation theory, and compare the four forces of nature to Chi. Reality isn't limited by human imagination, but Creationism and Chi and so many other concepts so clearly are!

What does this have to do with the possibility of secret advanced military technology ?

Yet, when we stray from properly practiced science, we revert back to our lowest form: seeing lights and shapes and interpreting them as "gods" exacting their will upon the lowly observer. When we step out of the illumination of science, we're blind again... we're back to see spirits, and shadows, and lights, and monsters everywhere!

The properly practiced science of today is the magic of yesterday - to the common man. The magic or impossibility of today is the properly practised science of tommorrow. And the people of any era, including ours, often have a great disparity in their understanding. That is, there are people on this Earth who still believe it's flat, and there are others who believe we're close to a TOE.

You continue to want to tar everyone who doesn't believe as you do, with the same brush.

And this isn't isolated to dumb, stupid, or crazy people... it's a universal condition! We all share in the inadequacies of our observational prowess! Even those of us who are trained to be the best observers of our species are easily fooled if they slip up in the tiniest way when "sciencing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha).

Life to you, seems to be a stasis of slip up, error and inadequacy.

So, Nismar and Jreelawg, I hope you can see why I give a strong weighting to the illusion, confusion, hallucination, and hoax format. It has served me well. To say someone is hallucinating or confused isn't an insult. We all do it! It's not limited to mushroom-guzzling mental patients!

The format of illusion, confusion, hallucination and hoax serves you well ? I guess it would if that's what you're asserting it all is.

Mind you, as an aside, some of the greatest ideas and the greatest insights have come to the greatest of men (science included) in states of hallucination - hynagogia I think they call it.

Have you seen 2D optical illusions? Can you even fathom how easy it would be to fool our minds with a 3D illusion? We see faces on Mars and the eyes of a hollow mask follow us around the room. If we let our guard down for even a moment we get lost in a mire of garbage information, cognitive biases, and total brain failures. Sometimes we can't even pass ideas on because our language is so clumsily crafted. We mean to say one thing to a person but they hear another; the idea is tainted forever in the mind of the other individual free to spread amongst the population.

Cynical? Maybe. But knowing you own limitations as an observer is important. As such, I will wait until we can turn science on a real flying saucer, a real ghost, a real monster, or a real anti-gravity machine before I allow the idea to creep into my brain and infest it with garbage information. It's fun to think about, but until science has really weighed in on the issue, keep that stuff away from the decision-making part of your brain. If you remain sharply skeptical you can only benefit.

Truly, I don't think I've seen such depreciation of mankind in a long time.

Which is more likely,

1. that there exists a secret government project which carefully monitors existing domestic nuclear missile technology and develops ways to momentarily stop it remotely,
2. that an alien civilization has found a tiny blue planet covered in mold somewhere in the far reaches of the sparsely populated end of a mediocre galaxy and has seen the ape-like inhabitants mucking about with nuclear weapons so they stop in and take them offline for about half an hour out of the 60+ years that they've had them, OR
3. a bunch of us silly meat heads got confused?

I'm still arguing for #3 as hard as I can.

Are you ? LOL ..

In post #126 I said ..
But I should iterate here - my strong assertion in this thread, is that they are not extraterrstrials. The militaty thing is a possible alternative. Can you think of any others, other than 'stoopid hallucinating people' ?

Yet in post #128 you rebuked me for this, and said ..
And I can't think of a more biased thing to say than "stupid hallucinating people."

Though now, you're positing ..
a bunch of us silly meat heads got confused? as being the ONLY alternative, and arguing for it as hard as you can ..

Get a grip !

edited - 2nd last line changed.

 

[FlexGunship]

I don't see that the two statements are equivalent. Who is leaping to conclusions here?

There's nothing to this report. The only reason anyone is giving it any weight is because the word "nuclear" is involved. If there had been a power mishap at a Dairy Queen we wouldn't be hearing anything about it.

Also, has the issue of the odds of an ET encounter been addressed? I know Russ had reverted to this point of reference, which is a fallacy. We don't know the odds. We can't say how likely it might be that we would encounter Ets from time to time - it may be a near certainty, or the chances may be zero. So it makes sense to ask if there are any potential examples.

Red herring.

As did Flex, skeptics will often fudge statements to make the evidence seem less compelling [i.e. most = all].

Yikes... really, Ivan? Check out the edit history on my post. You'll notice that I haven't edited it and it still says: "It appears that many of these men have sign affidavits attesting to the fact that they talked to someone who saw something in the sky." There's even a typo in there that I didn't fix.

As did Ivan, most "true believers" will sully any point rather than address the core issue. In this case it's the issue of reliable testimony.

And of course, without a smoking gun, we can always imagine a way to explain away any claim. That's a given. This is especially true if we pick and choose which parts of a report are credible. In short, there are no answers here, only assumptions. As a skeptic, I think this too is important to remember. I am not impressed by sloppy skeptical arguments. In fact, sloppy misrepresentations of the facts by skeptics is what caused me to make my first post about this here at PF. The nonsense coming from so-called skeptics can be as bad as that coming from the true believers.

And yet the skeptics always seem to come out on top! Seems like the two positions might not quite be equal.

I would add that the Post report was rather silly. Clearly it was written with an attitude not worthy of a serious reporter [Fox News level writing]. Also, the reporter's comments about Halt were completely out of context. Halt never said that he photographed anything. That was another group of people [base security] involved in the same incident, but the reporter obviously had no actual knowledge of the Halt report. I would add that I talked with Col. Halt for over an hour by telephone. He doesn't claim that he saw ET. He doesn't know what he saw.

Meh, the whole event was rather silly.

 

[FlexGunship]

In post #126 I said ..
But I should iterate here - my strong assertion in this thread, is that they are not extraterrstrials. The militaty thing is a possible alternative. Can you think of any others, other than 'stoopid hallucinating people' ?

Yet in post #128 you rebuked me for this, and said ..
And I can't think of a more biased thing to say than "stupid hallucinating people."

Though now, you're positing ..
a bunch of us silly meat heads got confused? as being the ONLY alternative.

Get a grip !

I don't know if you misunderstood, or if this is intentional misconstruction, but my post was trying to tell you clearly that the two alternatives are not "military" and "hallucination." If you read the whole thing you'd know that.

Further more, in the quote you pulled out, I was drawing attention to the fact that you grouped the words "stupid" and "hallucinating." That's a biased view of people who hallucinate.

Lastly, I believe we were still talking about the Iran UFO at that point.

If I'm the one in need of a better grip, then you've already fallen off the edge.

 

[alt]

Further more, in the quote you pulled out, I was drawing attention to the fact that you grouped the words "stupid" and "hallucinating." That's a biased view of people who hallucinate.

Oh .. you were correcting my grammar then - my tautology.

Like, as in 'silly' being a biased view of people who are 'meat heads'

Got it now.

 

[nismaratwork]

Bottom line: this report (having read it now) covers a SINGLE malfunction in 1968... the rest is hearsay about seeing flying disks and a theory that, "they are trying to send us a message."

ONE malfunction in the 60's in Montana is just that... one malfunction. The rest are the usual "sightings", and the source no longer matters, especially as they've become convinced of an entire narrative which calls their objectivity into question. The only remarkable thing here is that the reporting leading up to this press event was so incredibly misleading.

 

[FlexGunship]

Oh .. you were correcting my grammar then - my tautology.

Like, as in 'silly' being a biased view of people who are 'meat heads'

Got it now.

There's a stark contrast between calling a hallucinating person "stupid" and describing the human race as "silly meat heads." The condition of hallucination has been shown to affect all individuals regardless of IQ or knowledge; so it is certainly not limited to "stoopid" people. The condition of poor observation is also a conditional affecting all humans, regardless of IQ.

If you literally cannot tell the difference between a broad statement about the human race as a whole and an insult directed at those who experience a hallucination, then I sincerely don't know how you can take part in this conversation. I'll leave the discussion there for the benefit of the thread as a whole.

I will continue more relevant discussion in a separate post.

 

[FlexGunship]

Bottom line: this report (having read it now) covers a SINGLE malfunction in 1968... the rest is hearsay about seeing flying disks and a theory that, "they are trying to send us a message."

I think that's an important distinction. You can almost tell how good an observation is by how much interpretation comes with it. Someone who says: "I saw a red light in the sky" is more reliable than someone who says: "they are trying to send a message" simply because they have provided less interpretation of their experience.

There also seems to be a human impetus to support one's conclusions by bending or exaggerating since the passing on of information so often loses impact as compared to the original event.

"Yeah, I caught this fish... it was huge. No, seriously, dude... HUGE! I thought I had caught a Volvo at first."

ONE malfunction in the 60's in Montana is just that... one malfunction. The rest are the usual "sightings", and the source no longer matters, especially as they've become convinced of an entire narrative which calls their objectivity into question. The only remarkable thing here is that the reporting leading up to this press event was so incredibly misleading.

Well, people love UFO stories. I do, too. I'm waiting for a seriously compelling one; the day we find out we've been visited by ETs or that the U.S. military has discovered some amazing new insight into the workings of the universe there will be a real cause célèbre.

We should also keep in mind the constant desire for attention from our fellow humans. I think this goes a long way to explaining abduction stories and alien contact stories. It's not that it's actually impossible, it's just much more likely that the person is feeling lonely, has convinced themselves they've experienced some amazing event, and just "went with it."

 

[mugaliens]

I hope you can see why I give a strong weighting to the illusion, confusion, hallucination, and hoax format. It has served me well. To say someone is hallucinating or confused isn't an insult. We all do it! It's not limited to mushroom-guzzling mental patients!

Our brains are incredible pattern recognition machines. They evolved that way as the ability to recognize patterns rapidly and accurately increased our chances of survival. The problem is, they evolved in the woodlands, jungles, and deserts. They're far beyond the times when it comes to modern society, whether it's the concrete urban jungles or various things we have flying and orbiting overhead.

This fallability is further exacerbated by the deluge of UFO programs on TV. Watching them actually trains one's brain to falsely recognize various things as a UFO instead of puzzling out what what they really might be.

Have you seen 2D optical illusions? Can you even fathom how easy it would be to fool our minds with a 3D illusion?

As in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKanr-kNEJs"?

But knowing you own limitations as an observer is important.

Absolutely.

Which is more likely,

1. that there exists a secret government project which carefully monitors existing domestic nuclear missile technology and develops ways to momentarily stop it remotely,
2. that an alien civilization has found a tiny blue planet covered in mold somewhere in the far reaches of the sparsely populated end of a mediocre galaxy and has seen the ape-like inhabitants mucking about with nuclear weapons so they stop in and take them offline for about half an hour out of the 60+ years that they've had them, OR
3. a bunch of us silly meat heads got confused?

I'm still arguing for #3 as hard as I can.

Probably. I wouldn't close the door on #1, though. Whether it's true or not, I haven't a clue. It is. however, plausible.

 

[nismaratwork]

Our brains are incredible pattern recognition machines. They evolved that way as the ability to recognize patterns rapidly and accurately increased our chances of survival. The problem is, they evolved in the woodlands, jungles, and deserts. They're far beyond the times when it comes to modern society, whether it's the concrete urban jungles or various things we have flying and orbiting overhead.

This fallability is further exacerbated by the deluge of UFO programs on TV. Watching them actually trains one's brain to falsely recognize various things as a UFO instead of puzzling out what what they really might be.



As in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKanr-kNEJs"?



Absolutely.



Probably. I wouldn't close the door on #1, though. Whether it's true or not, I haven't a clue. It is. however, plausible.

#1 is still plausible, but the problem is that this story is no longer valid support for that hypothesis. Ah well.

 

[FlexGunship]

Probably. I wouldn't close the door on #1, though. Whether it's true or not, I haven't a clue. It is. however, plausible.

Well, here's where I've been misquoted so many times. I'm going to be very very clear: clandestine military operations are (at the moment) a better explanation for some sightings than ETs or even ICHH (illusion, confusion, hallucination, and hoax).

However, you must apply some filters here, especially since there is a strong precedent with the F-117, the B-2, and the SR-71. I firmly believe the U.S. military is testing some of the most advanced aircraft ever conceived right now, and they are doing it secretly! However, history has shown, they don't operate with signal lights, they make noise, they don't perform 'impossible' maneuvers, and (in general) they don't operate above populated areas or interfere with the normal workings of other governmental agencies.

Therefore, in my carefully considered opinion, it's not a very good explanation in these types of situations. This particular instance has shown this to be true yet again.

Could there be a secret government agency called the "Men In Black?" Sure! But there's no reason to believe that.

Could the greatest breakthrough in aerial maneuvering have happened under the watch of the U.S.A.F.? Sure! but there's no reason to believe that.

Could there be cross-breeding between reptile aliens and humans? Sure! But there's no reason to believe that.

Could people often mistake confusing events and report them erroneously? Sure! And there's lots of reasons to believe that.

EDIT: Typo

 

[FlexGunship]

Probably. I wouldn't close the door on #1, though. Whether it's true or not, I haven't a clue. It is. however, plausible.

Actually, Mug, if you entirely ignore the sightings outside of the building, this hypothesis gets a little bit better. It would make sense for the military/government to have a way to remotely disable a nuclear missile silo in the event that it were overrun and the operating crew were taken hostage.

In that case, it would simply be a switch unknown to the operators (for security reasons) which could be remotely triggered. Of course, there would be no reason at all to involve an aircraft/balloon/disc to accomplish this; so that part of the "report" is still superfluous.

I still think, however, that the primary operating crew would be informed of the test if that were the case. Simulating intermittent malfunctions would surely demoralize the operators there ("first my Walkman breaks, now the integrated nuclear missile launch system breaks... what next?").