More Serious UFO Reporting

[Randall]

I never said I would "genuinely like to see more serious UFO reporting" because there is no such thing as "serious UFO reporting" anymore than there is "serious reporting on dragons." It's not something I can realistically aspire to see. I think UFO reporting in places such as linked to in the OP - the newsletter of Falun Gong - is an appropriate place for it.

So why are you here then instead of contributing to the Falun Gong newsletter?

Nope. That is of zero interest to me. I haven't made any extraordinary claims. The onus on providing evidence is not, therefore, mine.

So again, why are you here?

 

[Atticus11]

So why are you here then instead of contributing to the Falun Gong newsletter?

Huh? Why would I be contributing to the Falun Gong cult's UFO newsletter "Epoch Times?" Your question makes no sense.

 

[Wade]

If I may cut in here....

atticus11 statements such as

" I've checked on other pilots and it
usually doesn't take me more than 3-5minutes. I'm sorry it's taking you a bit longer."

does not help your case, whether you are trying to make on or not. If fact it's pretty darn condescending and inflammatory. I gather from your initial posts in the Hastings thread about the PRNewswire release that you have some expertise at digging up info or data mining. You seem to be pretty good at it and you were very thorough (and polite) at explaining it to me.

My point is if there is something you know about such fact finding it isn't a bad idea to share that info. No one here needs to be given a fish but I don't think they would have a problem with being shown how to fish regardless of which the burden of proof is on.

 

[Atticus11]

If I may cut in here....

atticus11 statements such as

" I've checked on other pilots and it
usually doesn't take me more than 3-5minutes. I'm sorry it's taking you a bit longer."

does not help your case, whether you are trying to make on or not. If fact it's pretty darn condescending and inflammatory. I gather from your initial posts in the Hastings thread about the PRNewswire release that you have some expertise at digging up info or data mining. You seem to be pretty good at it and you were very thorough (and polite) at explaining it to me.

My point is if there is something you know about such fact finding it isn't a bad idea to share that info. No one here needs to be given a fish but I don't think they would have a problem with being shown how to fish regardless of which the burden of proof is on.

I provided a direct link, without condescension or judgment, to the FAA certification search feature. The response I got was it was so much trouble to fill out the (IIRC) free 8-line form they were just going to assume Courant is 100% legit; verifying what would be the single greatest scientific discovery in 10,000 years of human history is not quite worth the time it would take to complete an 8-line, online form.

What would be the correct way for me to respond to that? I tried to be as restrained as possible, however, there comes a certain point when the train of thought the acolytes of ufology take to defend their belief system becomes so bizarre that it's difficult not to react with bemusement. (What's even more troubling is that Courant could, very well, have a 25 year old pilot license and a sterling flying record [for all I know, he does]. However, everyone - apparently - is so terrified of the mere possibility he's an Imbrogno they'd rather just close their eyes and ears and hope and wish with all their heart he's legit rather than spend the 5 minutes it would take to confirm it one way or the other. This is why ufology is a religion, not a science.)

However, I genuinely and sincerely apologize if anyone was offended by something I said. Unlike, I suppose, many skeptics, I do not consider myself an atheist and I try to be sensitive to the belief systems of other people. With that, I will attempt to do a more guarded job of policing my comments moving forward.

 

[Wade]

Atticus11
Thank you for such a decent and gracious statement. I will say for the record in accepting your stand on the (non)field of ufology...not you Randall...I am equally skeptical on the value of delving into a person's past biography. For example no one here takes at face value anything that Greer has to say but he was a emergency room physician at one time. Somewhere he went rogue and became a clown instead (my opinion) but in this case knowing his past does nothing for his validity today.

Having said that, your ability to dig up information is commendable and of great value in this forum I welcome it regardless of what side of the fence you’re on. There was a guy in this forum that you remind me of by the name of lance moody He was skeptical…ok a debunker…intelligent, and shall we say, uncompromising or maybe it was insistent but apparently he threw the word “dumbass” around a little too much ( or something ) as he got banned about a hundred times and no longer posts here. but for the most part he is missed and it would be a shame if history repeated itself here. Emotions do tend to run high in this forum and this is an aspect that is not confined to a (non)field such as ufology…not you Randall

 

[Atticus11]

He was skeptical…ok a debunker

I would want to be a Debunker even less than I would want to be a True Believer.

I sincerely hope I am wrong and there really are space aliens who can be summoned with a Home Depot flashlight to come down and play tickle monster with Steven Greer, because the idea of the human species being effectively isolated is a dull and depressing thought. But I would rather confront, and internally resolve, a dull and depressing reality than live the rest of my life on the Holodeck, consumed by make-believe and delusion.

But nothing would make me happier than being dead wrong about UFOs.

I am equally skeptical on the value of delving into a person's past biography.

It is relevant in two cases:

(1) if a person advances anonymous sources as "proof" it is absolutely important to have a way to gauge that person's honesty - a person's honesty (or lack thereof) about his own biography happens to be the easiest way to gauge that ... it's not fool-proof by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a reasonable "negative measure" of credibility for people (in any field) who base large portions of their work on anonymous or unnamed sources

(2) if a person's own biography is, in fact, the actual evidence of the claim -- This is the case with Jim Courant (the pilot everyone is, apparently, still too terrified to spend 4-mouse clicks checking out). Courant says he is a pilot who saw UFOs 20 years ago while flying. Therefore, if he was not a pilot 20 years ago he could not have seen UFOs 20 years ago while flying. His background and credentials (or lack thereof) are, themselves, one of two criteria needed to prove his claim (the other being testimony of supplementary witnesses).

 

[Randall]

Huh? Why would I be contributing to the Falun Gong cult's UFO newsletter "Epoch Times?" Your question makes no sense.

Why? Maybe because you said to quote: "I think UFO reporting in places such as linked to in the OP - the newsletter of Falun Gong - is an appropriate place for it. [ serious UFO reporting ]. You said it yourself. So again, why post here if you think the Falun Gong cult's UFO newsletter "Epoch Times?" is the "appropriate place for it?

If you have trouble answering the above, then please tell us why if you believe to quote: " ... there is no such thing as "serious UFO reporting" anymore than there is "serious reporting on dragons." It's not something I can realistically aspire to see.", and you aren't interested in doing much more than making inflammatory comments and critical remarks ... why are you posting here? Are you trying to derail the thread? What enjoyment do you get out of displaying your willful ignorance of the subject in such a derogatory manner? Who did this to you? Whoever they are, we're not them.

 

[Atticus11]

Why? Maybe because you said to quote: "I think UFO reporting in places such as linked to in the OP - the newsletter of Falun Gong - is an appropriate place for it. [ serious UFO reporting ]. You said it yourself. So again, why post here if you think the Falun Gong cult's UFO newsletter "Epoch Times?" is the "appropriate place for it?

Sorry, bro, I know you feel this is an important point you're trying to communicate but I'm just not following you.

 

[Randall]

Sorry, bro, I'm just not following you.

Why are you taking the time to post on this thread? What do you hope to accomplish?

 

[Frank Stalter]

This is the case with Jim Courant (the pilot everyone is, apparently, still too terrified to spend 4-mouse clicks checking out). Courant says he is a pilot who saw UFOs 20 years ago while flying. Therefore, if he was not a pilot 20 years ago he could not have seen UFOs 20 years ago while flying. His background and credentials (or lack thereof) are, themselves, one of two criteria needed to prove his claim (the other being testimony of supplementary witnesses).

Ted Roe from NARCAP was none too happy about Courant's CHD apprearance due to Courant's apparent citing of NARCAP's work. If anyone has interest in looking that close at Courant, he'd be the guy. My guess is Roe and/or Richard Haines already looked into it and if they had something, they'd blast it. Contact them though, I'm sure an answer will turn up for you going that way instead of ranting here.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

That sounds like a good and worthwhile endeavor; your website looks nice and I wish you the best. However, I can't accept Ufology as a "phenomenon" anymore than I could accept Amway selling as a phenomenon. Ufology is a confidence game, or low-level huckstering scheme, that viciously preys on society's feeble-minded and lesser-educated.

That point aside, however, I think you have a great idea and I look forward to keeping up with your site as it sounds like it has the potential to be a great resource.

I can't work out if it's 'ufology' you think is a joke or the whole subject of ufo's? What is your opinion on say, my own belief (dodgy term I know) that there does seem to be unknown, structured craft in our skies that ostensibly appear not to be human made?

 

[Jeff Crowell]

​

​

One of the classic opening scenes in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.​

A realistic portrayal of this type of thing ...​

​

Too bad the whole movie didn't maintain this direction.​

Betcha forgot about this scene - didn't cha ?​

I did NOT forget this scene. I recently bought the special, extended edition DVD of this flick for about $20. When it first came out I'm sure it was around $50, but I digress. This scene was pretty compelling and if it's accurate at all speaks loads of what is wrong with serious UFO reporting. I liked the beginning and ending of the movie, the middle was too boring, at least according to my kids.

J.

 

[Burnt State]

I would make a distinction between the importance of personal credibility in first hand witnesses vs. those who collect information from such witnesses (or from published sources) for the purpose of analysis and publication. The relationship between the informational value of a given report and the person making it is obvious. This phenomenon, in fact, has a way of attaching itself to the personal credibility of individuals. So reports from people with a record of stability and integrity, who also tend to be those with the most to lose by going public, are thus unavoidably of higher value. And there are easily enough such high strangeness/high credibility reports on record to establish the ufo phenomenon as more than folklore.

Compiled work of researchers is somewhat more capable of standing on its own. I would think the degree to which it rises or falls on its own merits depends on how well the author's sources are vetted and cited. However, most readers give authors (especially in this field) much benefit of the doubt regarding this. My personal feeling is that, even in the eclectic field of ufology, sincere and credible researchers tend to outlast sloppy confabulators and outright charlatans. At least we can hope so.

There is also the power of brilliant imagination. I read everything written by SciFi author Phillip K. Dick I can lay my hands on with the almost certain knowledge that the talented Mr. Dick would have come away from a psychiatric eval with anti-psychotic meds in hand. Some of the most powerful ideas operating in the real world have been handed down from thinkers whom we would regard as personally detached from reality ! There is a kind of strange loop here.

The witness, the researcher and the theorist is what I see here, and amongst that straight line through the three: the compelling first hand accounts; the collected, compelling stories; and the imaginative thinker who can conjure satellites out of his typed words - therein lies my fluctuating addiction to the field. Its repeating loops, the edits over time of the stories, some still repeated, despite their verified hoaxed history, plagues the entire pursuit. I can understand why some would call it modern folklore & mythology. Still, there have been many, verifiable scientists who have done diligent enough work to make the pursuit worthwhile for science to undertake a more serious approach to it. It's like that chocolate coated candy, Bridge Mixture - you never know what you'll get with each bite.

 

[boomerang]

The witness, the researcher and the theorist is what I see here, and amongst that straight line through the three: the compelling first hand accounts; the collected, compelling stories; and the imaginative thinker who can conjure satellites out of his typed words - therein lies my fluctuating addiction to the field. Its repeating loops, the edits over time of the stories, some still repeated, despite their verified hoaxed history, plagues the entire pursuit. I can understand why some would call it modern folklore & mythology. Still, there have been many, verifiable scientists who have done diligent enough work to make the pursuit worthwhile for science to undertake a more serious approach to it. It's like that chocolate coated candy, Bridge Mixture - you never know what you'll get with each bite.

Bang on !

 

[Stagger Lee]

Atticus,
That info,(stephensville) regarding names of witnesses/radar content, etc.. is easy to verify through a simple google search. I know the case, and I'm convinced those involved are describing an extraordiary event. Feel free to go over the case yourself. I have no interest in swaying one as yourself who has already dismissed each and every case "nonsense"

 

[Atticus11]

easy to verify through a simple google search

HAHAHA!

LOL - thanks man, that made my day!

I can't work out if it's 'ufology' you think is a joke or the whole subject of ufo's? What is your opinion on say, my own belief (dodgy term I know) that there does seem to be unknown, structured craft in our skies that ostensibly appear not to be human made?

UFOs: I have not seen "unknown, structured craft in our skies" and I have not seen a credible person provide evidence with an unbroken string of control that there are "unknown, structured craft in our skies" so I have no opinion on that, as well as I have no opinion on things like dragons, ghosts or the Headless Horseman. When I ask for solid evidence I'm given links to YouTube videos, testimony from people who also professionally promote the theory of UFOs to help market sci-fi fantasy films and video games (see: Stanton Friedman, Nick Pope), or who have demonstrably shoddy research skills that puts their competence to gather evidence on these subjects in serious question (see: Richard Dolan and his self-published book 'AD' quoting "homicide detective" Butch Witkowski) or am told "Just google it, man!" (see above)

Ufology: I am very interested in ufology from a criminological and sociological perspective, as an enduring - though low-level and low-yield - confidence game targeting the socially and educationally disenfranchised. This is an absolutely fascinating topic for me and, from this angle, I think it merits attention. If I used the word "joke" to describe it, I acknowledge it is a poor choice of words. The Spanish Prisoner con game is a similarly fascinating topic - it's been around for more than 100 years and the storyline has morphed and evolved (like ufology from Space Brothers, to Greys; from flying saucers to flying cigars, etc.) into the modern Nigerian 419 scam. Palmistry is another interesting topic for me.

When you see people address these topics with phrases like "the evidence is on Google!" it underscores the need for us to work to define literacy as - not just the ability to read and write - but as a functional skill.

Ted Roe from NARCAP was none too happy about Courant's CHD apprearance due to Courant's apparent citing of NARCAP's work. If anyone has interest in looking that close at Courant, he'd be the guy. My guess is Roe and/or Richard Haines already looked into it and if they had something, they'd blast it. Contact them though, I'm sure an answer will turn up for you going that way instead of ranting here.

For the fourth time, I can check his pilot license in 3-5 minutes via the online link to the FAA I provided on the previous page (and which, still, no one is - hilariously - willing to click for fear of their fantasy being dashed!). I don't need to track down Ted Roe and play a game of "a friend of a friend of a friend of an anonymous ex-CIA agent told me" which is what passes for research in ufology. I can instantly access primary source material myself, not rely on rumor, speculation and tertiary sources ... as can anyone in this thread.

For the fourth time, verifying Courant's pilot license issue date can be done in 3 minutes with a web click for free. This thread has gone on for 5 pages and I have observed this fact 4 times. And still, no one is willing to take the very tiny step needed to check - they'd rather just trust the word of the Falun Gong cult newsletter "Epoch Times." Individuals in this thread have spent more than an hour pounding out angry messages to me when they could (most likely) definitively prove me wrong with a 3-minute FAA database search. So, you can see how terrifyingly bemusing this field is to a rational person when faced with personalities of that type - who are so terrified of having their fantasy destroyed they aren't even willing to take the 9-1 odds I'm wrong and Courant is a fully qualified pilot of 30 years service.

This thread - and the absolute terror with which its participants continue to collectively refuse to simply click on a FAA database link I provided - is really a great example of how medieval beliefs in magic and sorcerers still plague a (hopefully, shrinking) sub-culture of human minds.

 

[Randall]

UFOs: I have not seen "unknown, structured craft in our skies" and I have not seen a credible person provide evidence with an unbroken string of control that there are "unknown, structured craft in our skies" so I have no opinion on that, as well as I have no opinion on things like dragons, ghosts or the Headless Horseman.

Unknown, structured craft exist in our skies because unknown aircraft have been detected many times and they fit the definition as literally interpreted, which BTW is not accurate for the word "UFO". If you want to deal with UFOs, then you're going to need to evaluate the probability that alien craft exist, and that's a whole other matter. To do that properly you would have to stop confusing separate classes of phenomena. UFOs are not dragons, nor ghosts, nor the Headless Horseman. I do not recall any report of a Headless Horseman being tracked on RADAR while being pursued by a jet interceptor.

For the fourth time, verifying Courant's pilot license issue date can be done in 3 minutes with a web click for free. This thread has gone on for 5 pages and I have observed this fact 4 times. And still, no one is willing to take the very tiny step needed to check ...

Are you talking about your link to the FAA database which I checked and provided you with a response for here, or are you referring to something else now?

Did you ever answer my question here: More Serious UFO Reporting | Page 5 | The Paracast Community Forums

Again: Why are you taking the time to post on this thread? What do you hope to accomplish?

I've asked the above question several times now and I've not received a direct answer. You seem to be interested in rooting out hoaxing scammers in ufology. If that's the case I hope you can help us do that whether you believe UFOs exist or not. Is there some way we can proceed with that task without getting sidetracked by arguments about the status of UFOs as a phenomenon?

 

[Atticus11]

Are you talking about your link to the FAA database which I checked and provided you with a response for here

yes; your response was that you refused to use it to look-up Courant

For my part, I have acknowledged on four (now five) separate occasions that you - and all other participants in this thread - refuse to verify Courant's credentials through a free, easily accessible primary source (even though I have provided the means to do it) and prefer to rely exclusively on the newsletter of the Falun Gong cult posted in the OP, "Epoch Times."

• The Falun Gong cult - whose newsletter "Epoch Times" is the source of the Jim Courant claims - also claims that in heaven, all the races will be separated; that members of the cult are immune from cancer and that aliens built a 2 billion year old underground nuclear reactor hidden in Morocco. They are free to print anything they want - true or not - without penalty.
• The FAA - whose online airman certification database "FAA Airman Certification Database" everyone refuses to access - is a U.S. government agency administered by Michael Huerta, previously New York Commissioner of Ports and Executive-Director of the Port of San Francisco. They are not free to post anything they want in their database, obfuscation of airman records carries with it mandatory revocation of civil service and pension status on the part of culpable officials - upon filing of a request by any citizen with the Merit Service Protection Board - and possible criminal penalties.

You consider #1 a more reputable source than #2. I have acknowledged your belief system and will continue to point out, in a respectful way, your belief system is irrational and not mentally sound.

Did you ever answer my question here:

Again:
Why are you taking the time to post on this thread? What do you hope to accomplish? I've asked the above question several times now and I've not received a direct answer.

No, I did not answer it and, no, I will not answer it. I consider this a fundamentally strange question - on par with previous, breathless demands made by other comments that I provide my name, address and social security number so I can be tracked down - and will not reply to it. This is in keeping with good netiquette that demands civil-minded comments in Internet threads proactively ignore questions designed to provoke confrontation or intended to move discussion "off-line" into the physical world.

You are, of course, at liberty to continue asking it. I will, however, continue to exercise the discretionary choice not to respond.

 

[Frank Stalter]

For the fourth time, I can check his pilot license in 3-5 minutes via the online link to the FAA I provided on the previous page (and which, still, no one is - hilariously - willing to click for fear of their fantasy being dashed!). I don't need to track down Ted Roe and play a game of "a friend of a friend of a friend of an anonymous ex-CIA agent told me" which is what passes for research in ufology. I can instantly access primary source material myself, not rely on rumor, speculation and tertiary sources ... as can anyone in this thread.

For the fourth time, verifying Courant's pilot license issue date can be done in 3 minutes with a web click for free. This thread has gone on for 5 pages and I have observed this fact 4 times. And still, no one is willing to take the very tiny step needed to check - they'd rather just trust the word of the Falun Gong cult newsletter "Epoch Times." Individuals in this thread have spent more than an hour pounding out angry messages to me when they could (most likely) definitively prove me wrong with a 3-minute FAA database search. So, you can see how terrifyingly bemusing this field is to a rational person when faced with personalities of that type - who are so terrified of having their fantasy destroyed they aren't even willing to take the 9-1 odds I'm wrong and Courant is a fully qualified pilot of 30 years service.

This thread - and the absolute terror with which its participants continue to collectively refuse to simply click on a FAA database link I provided - is really a great example of how medieval beliefs in magic and sorcerers still plague a (hopefully, shrinking) sub-culture of human minds.

Because the subject of UFOs covers a lot of ground and I, for one, am not interested in every aspect of it. If you're so interested in Jim Courant, what's stopping you from clicking on the FAA database?

 

[Atticus11]

If you're so interested in Jim Courant, what's stopping you from clicking on the FAA database?

I addressed this on three separate occasions.

Why does a math teacher assign homework rather than just doing it for her students? Only you can walk through the door of sanity - I can't walk through it for you.

If I personally click the link and spend 3 minutes to check, and post what I find here, I will be loudly denounced as a paid CIA disinformation agent or a secret operative of a reptilian infiltration commando team.

In encouraging people to move into a rational and reality-grounded mindset from an irrational and delusional mindset, the mere exercise of conducting a sound and scientific verification of data for oneself is extremely important, even if you hold their hand through the entire process. Like I said, I'm quite sure that -if someone checked - they'd find Courant has been a pilot for 40 years. That doesn't matter. Once you get people to start embracing normal, mainstream investigative technique they will be inclined to critically examine other con games and scams that are perpetrated on them.

You are all valuable human beings and you deserve the opportunity to live a fruitful and productive life in the light of day, not in a dark, fringe corner, terrified by superstition and the rantings of 21st century street preachers and video game marketers like Nick Pope. You have been so thoroughly indoctrinated and are so sure the Falun Gong cult newsletter "Epoch Times" is right that you don't have to spend 3 minutes doing a simple exercise I described (checking the FAA database and posting your findings).