How We Staged The Morristown UFO Hoax

[Gen]

this is a great thread...

 

[Stillborn]

Lance, I noticed you put skeptic below your name. Maybe "certain" would be more appropriate?

 

[Gareth]

So youre telling me that being a finger-nail painter and being the editor of Aviation Weekly are mutually exclusive?

Why can't it be both?

Ill be damned if Im gonna sit here and accept the fact that Michael Horn could never be the editor of Aviation Weekly.

 

[dhatz]

Lance,

Since you brought it up and also have it on your Avatar, can you please provide the name of the person who asserts that the Lucci photos were in fact a hoax?

And in fact I had read Klass' account of that case and tried to verify his claims that Lucci "confessed the hoax" to a third party. Who was that investigator ?

 

[David Biedny]

Those images are a joke. A blind baboon could tell you they were faked silliness. Has the whole world gone stupid?

dB

 

[Tommy Allison]

Yes David, the whole world has gone stupid.

It is now time for the alien overlords to invade, and destroy the stupid, in order for the intelligent to survive in peace.

We can have a perfect world, and it will be perfect, after every room temperature IQ, is eliminated from the planet.

That, and every politician, which I'm sure the aliens will use as guinea pigs or specimens in their interplanetary zoo.

 

[dhatz]

Those images are a joke. A blind baboon could tell you they were faked silliness. Has the whole world gone stupid?

dB

Are you referring to the Lucci photos?

Because there are a number of people who considered the Lucci case authentic, incl. three professional photographers who examined the negatives and gave signed statements to NICAP, after a 5 day on-the-spot investigation (src: Cramp p334-336)

“I interviewed James and his older brother John, and afterwards I had no particular reason to doubt their word. I also spoke with their father, who was a professional photographer in the Air Force and had been in Europe when the photos were taken. He told me that he had no idea how anyone could fake photos like that”, confessed Klass to fellow skeptic Gary Posner.

So the two boys lied to their father too, or their father was complicit to the hoax? In both cases putting his job at risk.

 

[dhatz]

Lance,

The book I just mentioned by L. Cramp devotes 3 pages on this case, with newspaper excerpts, cites NICAP investigations and signed statements by photographers who examined the Lucci negatives, as well as names and positions of local people who vouched for the character of the witnesses.

Therefore I'm willing to give the Lucci case a fair hearing, before burying it in the hoax pile, based on a hoax claim from a anonymous source, coming second-hand from Klass who I don't consider credible nor trustworthy.

 

[David Biedny]

Are you referring to the Lucci photos?

Yes, indeed. I know little about the backstory, I'm just making a statement from the images themselves. They are not convincing to my eyes. Your own mileage may vary.

dB

 

[dhatz]

Lance, are you capable of having a normal discussion like an adult? What are you, 8 years old?

As I wrote earlier, I'm willing to give any case with multiple named witnesses and seemingly competent investigation by an organisation such as NICAP a fair hearing.

I am aware of Mark Cashman and I respect his work in the UFO field.

My negative opinion of Klass has nothing whatsoever to do with the Lucci case and is based on the testimonies of people who had become his targets, read e.g. Phil Klass vs. the UFO Promoters - by Jerome Clark by Jerry Clark.

 

[dhatz]

Notice no admission of the complete collapse of all of his earlier assertions about this case--no admission that it is a hoax---never never never let any case die.

If I was 8 I would have certainly mentioned that you just got OWNED!!!!!

But alas, I am not 8.

I am well aware that certain researchers hated Klass--he showed many of them up as the fools that they were/are.

I like that. I think that is needed. I like that it happens sometimes on the Paracast.

And I like doing it myself.

Lance

Who speaks like that ? What kind of an idiot are you and what are you doing here ? I'm putting you on ignore, I guess you'll be glad to have the last word on it, because I won't read nor respond.

"assertions about this case" ? I asked who was the unnamed source.

I don't have any stake whatsoever in the Lucci case. I didn't research it, didn't vouch for it, I knew fairly little of it via older 1960s books. If it's deemed a hoax, I have no problem with it, case closed.

But I do want to give cases with named witnesses and 3rd party investigations a fair hearing.

 

[David Biedny]

OK, enough of the name calling. Everyone chill out, please.

dB

 

[Frank Warren]

Afternoon Lance,

Hi Frank,

Now I am not sure if we are arguing or not. I never disputed that the witnesses thought they saw the things above. I am simply stating that the witnesses were (quite obviously) mistaken. And I have no idea how you might suggest that this does not call the reliability of eyewitness testimony into question. That is, on the face of it, exactly what it does!

I will attempt to be more clear: Let me try employing a separate, visual analogy; suppose I'm in front of a classroom, and I pull an object out of my pocket, raise it over my head with my index finger and thumb, slowly exposing it to the entire class for a few seconds, and then put it away.

Let's further state that the object was a 1" diameter red rubber ball. After the display, lets assume that I ask the class to describe what they saw; my point is that most would accurately describe a "small, red , round object"; now let's assume I ask the class what they believed the object was; as you might surmise the answers would vary; some might say a red poker chip; some might assume correctly, and offer "a ball" as an answer; some might not have paid attention and only caught the color etc., etc.,.

The point is, in deciphering the respective declarations, collectively they would (for the most part) accurately describe what they saw, although their "assumptions" to what it was exactly will vary, perhaps dramatically.

There are many examples of this; the flare hoax has been done on a number of occasions, one of the most notable was in Arizona last year; if you go back and listen to the 911 calls, although some people's "interpretation" was eerie, strange etc., what they described were red lights moving slowly across the sky (an accurate description of flares at a distance attached to balloons); some may have and in fact did comment on the "geometric pattern" which of course occurs randomly, but might seem odd to the observer at first, not knowing what they are witnessing.

Another example is the Chinese lanterns over in the UK (which are still occurring); the bulk of the witnesses accurately describe "orange lights floating across the sky," regardless of what they think the origin of the objects were e.g., an inter-dimensional ship from planet Zatar, or Scotty coming home.

Yet another example, to which I have dozens of, (if not more) are old newspaper reports of various phenomenon, e.g., meteors, bollides, comets, the northern lights and or the aftermath of major volcanic eruptions; a good majority of witnesses attributed some of the events as "religious experiences," or "acts of god," or some sort of "black magic"; however, if one ignores the exegesis, the "actual descriptions" are, for the most part accurate as to what they saw--this is the historical pattern. [/QUOTE]

You have been in this game long enough to know that what the "researchers" will focus on are the things like the supposed huge size and the sudden zooming off.

I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree; "most competent researchers" wouldn't focus on anything, and they would just follow protocol and investigate. Moreover, "most" called this incident for what it was prior to investigation, leaving room to be wrong after proper investigation.

I heard a TON of this kind of testimony related to the Phoenix lights. "A mile long" and so forth.

Surely you are not suggesting that the way this case would have been filed is "red lights moving slowly."

Again, you are referencing a "conclusion" or an "interpretation" . . . I'm talking about the "details of a sighting" . . . the components without supposition.

I might add that many witnesses of the Phoenix Lights in the "eight o'clock" hour depending on their position and or location to what they witnessed did describe "lights moving slowly" in their respective field of vision.

You mention sober Ufologists as though they predominate the field and they are clearly identified. Sadly, does not seem to be the case.

I mention sober Ufologists for just the opposite reason, and I certainly don't include reality type entertainment shows, or their proponents in that category.

You also seem to propose that there is a clear separation of properly vetted cases that the good researchers have filed away somewhere. I see no evidence of this.

That's not what I proposed at all (although the merits of various cases certainly can differ greatly).

My points are, that the hoax "in contrast" to the perps position i.e., that "eyewitness accounts are unreliable," is just the opposite, based on the "details" in the descriptions of their respective accounts, and "not" their interpretations/opinions of them. Moreover, this is the historic pattern.

Additionally, I stated that the criticism is misplaced, as it should be directed towards said interpretations. My last point is that "sober Ufologists weren't fooled," nor would they make definite conclusions without prior investigation.

It all gets lumped together and you can't possibly deny that if this had not been revealed as a hoax, it would have been part of the UFO mystery forever--especially after being blessed by those nitwits at UFO Hunters (Bill Birnes: "I can almost see a frame between the lights!).
Lance

I can and do deny the a fore mentioned statement, and again, being endorsed by a reality type entertainment show carries absolutely no weight with me, and or many of my colleagues.

Although I did not look into this case personally, I would imagine it was quickly discounted for what it was by competent researchers who did the field work.

Cheers,
Frank

 

[Gareth]

this:

is the most ridiculous thing Ive ever seen.

 

[skunkape]

this:
is the most ridiculous thing Ive ever seen.

Here's yer ridiculous.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3NI6iu7e91Y&hl=en&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3NI6iu7e91Y&hl=en&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

 

[David Biedny]

Meanwhile, getting back to the actual topic of this thread, the Jersey hoaxers have been brought up on charges. Priceless!


dB

 

[David Biedny]

Lance,

You know, you seem to be very happy to come on these forums and just stir up shit in a somewhat gratuitous fashion. I appreciate the good points that you make, I really, truly do, but do me a favor, before deciding to make derogatory comments to people like Frank Warren, who is a friend of this show, please think twice. At this point, your tone is really starting to become less than constructive, and I've dealt with enough attitude and horseshit this week to last a lifetime and a half. So take a chill pill, OK? If you have ANY respect for what this show tries to accomplish, please try to tone it down a notch. Thank you.

dB

 

[David Biedny]

Wow---I thought my last message was quite measured.

I mean, for me.

So was mine. Do the math.

dB

 

[Schuyler]

Ok, I am back to lurking. I didn't really do much good anyway but I was happy to be able to clear up that Phil Klass thing

Ah, Phil "It was Plasma" Klass. Love his stuff.

 

[Frank Warren]

Good Day Lance,

Hello Frank Warren!

While I disagree with some of your conclusions, I appreciate your response.

I have to admit that my jaded and low opinion of UFO research is certainly not fully accurate but your rather idyllic description of competent researchers doing pristine reporting is not reality either.

How so? Please correct me if I'm wrong . . . who are you aware of that falls into that category that "concluded" that it was anything other then what it was?

I know something about the cases in the history of this field and right from the beginning (Chiles-Whitted, Gorman, Mantell) mistaken testimony made by witnesses became part of the lore, and became the predominate features of the cases.

If I am reading you correctly, you separate the lore from the raw data but I will be dammed if I see how that is anything more than a pedantic exercise.

Thanks,

Lance

Bingo! You've got it! Separating the "raw data" from witness accounts . . . that "pedantic exercise" is called research & investigation; often times tedious & boring; nevertheless, a prerequisite in separating the wheat from the chaff.

Cheers,
Frank