James Fox -- July 1, 2012

[SPX]

The Greek guy with the crazy hair just annoys the living heck out of me. Just because something is a complex unknown doesn't mean aliens were involved. I watch the program only very occasionally and then only if I'm just too mentally wiped to do something useful. Sometimes I have it on in the background when I'm grooming the dog. That's pretty much it.

I thought the first season was pretty good. The problem though is that they exhausted all of the best evidence supportive of the ancient astronaut hypothesis in that season, and now they have to reach pretty far to have a show. Even the successive seasons have some interesting historical information though, even if some of the conclusions regarding that information are wildly speculative.

And you gotta love Georgio Tsoukalos. That guy cracks me up. He's like a much more entertaining version of Bill Birnes.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

And yet almost everyone agrees that the 2nd event WAS flares and it STILL generated similar reports of large craft!
What happened then? Why are the witnesses so reliable in one case and completely unreliable in the other?
The actual series of events strongly shows that your assessment is in error.



Jeeze, it's hard to imagine a statement more out of touch with the facts. Witnesses are the ones who reported the thing--that's not everyone. It's like the prison guard who thinks everyone is a criminal. We have no idea how many people realized that these were just planes and went on about their business. We also don't have an accounting for how the initial reports generated the subsequent ones. But we do know that this happens all the time.

Lance

Lance, my statement about fooling all the people was about all the witnesses. I think it can be difficult to fool 100% of the people involved in something 100% of the time!

Obviously there will be variations in what people see and some witnesses will be more reliable than others - those former Air Force being more able to gauge what are jets and flares than the average person on the street.

And why does this type of event not happen more often round the world? There are many Air Force exercises going on all the time round the world, so why is it only here people mistake planes or flares for a large black boomerang or right-angle craft? (moving slowly etc)?

What about reports from people who lay or sat on ground and looked directly up? It is easy of course to say people just were mistaken.

Why would the USAF give officials the runaround if nothing weird was happening?

Lance, we aren't going to agree on this and despite what you may think, I am neither a 'believer' nor have I seen anything in the sky I could not identify. Skeptics are as bad as believers for picking and choosing cases.

Your explanation of the Lockheed (was it?) staff and a disappearing cloud is every bit as ridiculous as Billy Meier in my view.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

No, you are right - ignoring things is used by people but I was not ignoring those points - you will know yourself when you post there are things you want to get across and often these take priority!

I shall come back and address those points in fairness to you Lance.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Phoenix lights.

Lance, second event, done deal - flares.

8pm event - the one that troubles me. No-one can argue that a formation of planes at night could be mistaken for one large object - as long as reasonable formation is held.

The aircraft that were supposedly used were jets. Looking at this through a telescope from a distance with a field of view of couple of degrees I could expect someone to be able to identify the presence of aircraft.

My points on the first 'event' are as follows: witnesses claim to have seen the object go over their heads at low altitude. Again, this could be a formation of planes higher up giving the impression of a large craft lower down. But 5,6 or 7 jets at night? There is zero chance you would not hear them.
Do we know the names of the pilots from the formation - do we have their flight plans as filed etc? I've not seen them.

Flying in formation is dangerous, doing it at night much more so. Doing it at night over a large city? What on earth would be the reason to take such a risk (doing it over a city)?

I suppose my point Lance is this: If the reported large object is indeed a formation of jets, then there should be no problem identifying where they flew from and who flew them. To date I have not found what should be easy to find info?

Despite what you may think Lance, I'm not a believer and I am indeed willing to put this case to bed as poor witnessing, but a few things still don't add up?
Even if the reports of an enlisted man giving one version of the truth (we had no planes up) being replaced with an officer saying there were indeed aircraft up. All well and good, so why then was this whole case not put to bed by the Air Force or National Guard within days? Names of pilots, filed flight plans, aircraft registrations etc. It should have been easy for officials to get the media off their back within days but they did not - even when it is in their own interest?

Last point Lance, if a formation of planes at 19,000 feet went over your head directly, do you think you would be able to tell they were with the naked eye and your ears? I would hope so!

Goggs

 

[Goggs Mackay]

We can agree on Diletosser!

In my rush to respond I got a little personal over the lockheed thing Lance and I'm not really about that. I take it back and apologise.
I absolutely do give you and others credit for actually looking at events in detail - I realise that that so many 'ufo investigators' are nothing of the sort. They are more 'ufo-mad people who find things to back their story and stop their'.
I don't pretend to be any kind of investigator, pro or con, but I do call out things that don't make sense to me and having been in the military, on exercise with all sorts of aircraft etc I find it hard to think jets can be mistaken for one large craft.

I will indeed read Tony's explanation and give it due consideration.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

You may be winning me over Lance.

The point about Bin Laden tho is not valid. I was in military intelligence and I am very aware of what is likely to be kept secret and what is not. The identities of SEAL team 6 cannot be compared to the identity of 6 or so pilots on a training mission surely!

If we accept that the local government of Phoenix wanted all this UFO fuss to die down all they had to do was say 'we had such and such flying formation on this route by such and such' - job done?
At the very least it is strange behaviour. Unless there is a real reason for secrecy there is no reason the US military could not confirm the exact flight path of the jets? Military bodies admit all the time they are conducting exercises or training flights etc

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Thanks Gogg,

My understanding is that the requests for the radar info came too late (after the tapes had been recycled or destroyed). The "researchers" missed this opportunity. I do not know if the source of the flight has been ascertained (or can be). Ortega goes into this a bit, as you may have seen.

There is good evidence that at least some of the city government wanted to perpetuate the mystery.

Lance

That is an angle I've never heard. I've heard on the show that Symington, facing his own problems, might have had reason for the distraction.

 

[Doug McCrevice]

I must confess that I grow weary of the 'Destination Truth' kind of shows, where they walk around in the dark and continue to gin up suspense by seeing or hearing something unusual—of course just before the commercial break. That's when my kids all yell out "time for the commercial!"

I thought the footage shot near Stephenville was interesting. The problem is that THERE IS NO VISUAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS BELIEVABLE ANYMORE. It's just too easy to fake. Even if a particular video isn't fake-able, the general perception is that it is. When visual and audio evidence is no longer trusted, all that's left is personal experience. So those who have seen UFOs believe in UFOs. That's why the field is dying: when nobody believes any kind of evidence, it's over.

What did bother me about the first episode was some fuzzy footage of lights we were staring at for several minutes. Are you kidding me? We can see footage like that on YouTube. I would expect professionals to bring awesome cameras and tripods and people who know how to focus them. Geez. I think we were probably staring at out-of-focus video of airplanes. But, of course, they have to hold our interest somehow. And this gets me right back to my beginning comment about these 'Destination Truth' type of shows. Haunted Highway is another one.

 

[SPX]

The problem is that THERE IS NO VISUAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS BELIEVABLE ANYMORE. It's just too easy to fake. Even if a particular video isn't fake-able, the general perception is that it is. When visual and audio evidence is no longer trusted, all that's left is personal experience.

For sure. Any kind of photos or videos have to be approached critically and, at this point, I think that about the greatest amount of certainty that can be achieved would be that something is PROBABLY real. How can you really know though?

As for the reality show format in general, we've reached the point where nothing can really be trusted. Survivor started this whole trend and they were also the first ones to start portraying fiction as the truth. So even from the beginning the genre was corrupted. Just recently I was getting into Pawn Stars and then I began hearing reports that a lot of the events where people would bring items into the store were staged.

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Apocalypto]

Apocalyto's response above demonstrates the unfalsifiability of the saucer religion.

Religion? Well, that certainly is a stretch (for myself anyway). I'm actually an open-minded skeptic. I hardly adhere to the UFO topic in any sort of religious way. You go ahead and tag others with that silly accusation, if you like. It doesn't exactly make you come across as intelligent, but it's a free world.

We have a video taken from the correct time period that shows the V-shaped plane formation. The lights in the formation move independently, trying to keep in formation. I know logic is sometimes hard to locate in these discussions but perhaps someone can see that this means that they were not fixed to a single giant craft. Further the witnesses never report their huge craft AND the V-shaped flight of planes, always one or the other. Why didn't they also see the formation of planes? Hilariously, Apocalyto then goes on to affirm the quality of the witnesses!

And by that you are referring to my statement "most of them probably know the difference between a formation of airplanes and something much different"?

Well, call me guilty. I affirm their quality. I stand by my comment that hundreds, possibly thousands of people around the Phoenix area were able to discern the difference between a formation of airplanes and something much different.

Lance, it's not just that you don't have faith in average people as witnesses; you seem to have come to the conclusion that most groups of people are nothing more than a collection of dumbbells walking around in a constant daze. Gosh, it's almost amazing that the good citizens of Phoenix have enough intelligence to dress themselves in the morning.

You should tell MUFON or one of the other reporting agencies how good people are at describing things they see in the sky. By their own admission, they have to toss out 90% or more of the reports they receive.

And you should probably consider showing a bit more respect for people. Listen up, Lance, I've got respect for you for breaking the story about Phil Imbrogno, but recently I've been scanning some of your posts in this forum. At times you come across as a righteous prick.

 

[SPX]

Lance, it's not just that you don't have faith in average people as witnesses; you seem to have come to the conclusion that most groups of people are nothing more than a collection of dumbbells walking around in a constant daze. Gosh, it's almost amazing that the good citizens of Phoenix have enough intelligence to dress themselves in the morning.

My thoughts exactly.

It is as if the super-skeptical think that human beings are just walking around in mass quantities misinterpreting public busses as bananas and six packs of beer as jugs of milk.

 

[boomerang]

I believe one of the witnesses to a huge floating chevron was a retired airline pilot. And we know another is ex-governor, both of whom were sufficiently impressed to go on public record. This is the credible witness paradox. I don't know if I have coined this term or dredged it up from sub-conscious memory. No matter. The paradox is real and very puzzling, whatever its underlying cause.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

COME ON 'CHASING UFOS' - I was starting to enjoy the show........then Stan Romanek appeared. Puh-leeeeeeze.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Ok, back quickly to episode 4 of 'chasing ufos'. They are debating the famous piece of video that shows a white oval-shape object bouncing off the desert and then exploding on next impact.

In the episode, it is argued that no missile looks or behaves like that. Interestingly they seek advice from a retired Lt Col of USAF who worked on missiles. He states categorically that he has never seen a missile either look or behave like the object inthe video.

Check out the vid from about 8mins 06secs. Just as the object leaves the ground from the bounce, to my eyes it does not behave like a perfectly bouncing object - it looks to me like for a second it struggles to get airborne again. It is like there is some kind of propulsion. Not saying at all this is an alien craft or copy of one but for someone who worked his career at White Sands to say it is no missile he is aware of is very compelling. Even if there was some top secret test of some USAF flying object, I would expect someone in the Lt Col's position to have at least heard a rumour of such an object?

 

[SPX]

^^^ Is that the very same incident that Kevin Randle talked about in the latest episode? That is, the same incident in which we actually know what missile test the footage is from?

With that said, it doesn't look like any kind of missile test to me. Why does it bounce like that?

 

[SPX]

I'm guessing, based upon the lack of responses, that everyone has lost interest in the show.

May be for the best. I'm watching the latest episode right now--"Game of Drones"--and it is pretty worthless. To be clear, I think that some episodes actually have some merit. But not this one.

EDIT: There IS some interesting footage of an object in night-vision that seems to be flying through the air and then just disappears from view. I have no idea what that means. So for me at least it fulfills the U qualifications of UFOs. But hey, I wouldn't be shocked if that was some kind of animation created for the show. I just don't know what to believe at this point.

 

[Muadib]

I'm guessing, based upon the lack of responses, that everyone has lost interest in the show.

May be for the best. I'm watching the latest episode right now--"Game of Drones"--and it is pretty worthless. To be clear, I think that some episodes actually have some merit. But not this one.

EDIT: There IS some interesting footage of an object in night-vision that seems to be flying through the air and then just disappears from view. I have no idea what that means. So for me at least it fulfills the U qualifications of UFOs. But hey, I wouldn't be shocked if that was some kind of animation created for the show. I just don't know what to believe at this point.

In my opinion, that's the problem with all of these reality TV paranormal shows. Television is entertainment based. You can't have a paranormal show where they investigate case after case after case and come up with basically nothing. It's boring and uninteresting. So, in order to get results and make their particular show more entertaining, you'd almost have to expect that they would tweak the footage or add some evidence. Maybe it's something kind of innocuous, like finding an old Air Force button in the desert at Roswell, like Kevin Randle was talking about in this weeks episode, or something a bit more involved, like a fake UFO video. Sometimes, overly dramatic acting and "WTF" moments just aren't enough to get the job done. I wouldn't put it past a television producer or network executive to do something like that in order to make their particular show more interesting than the same type of show on another network.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I think there were decent bits but as Muadib says above, there is never gonna be enough to fill multiple episodes and producers are always going to try to 'spice it up' cos let's face it, there can be few less interesting things than an unsuccessful skywatch.

 

[SPX]

The thing that puzzles me is that it essentially uses all the same elements as UFO Hunters, but at least in my opinion, UFO Hunters was a far superior show. What is it that UFO Hunters had or did that made it so much better?

(And are we all in agreement that it WAS better?)

 

[exo_doc]

My thoughts exactly.

It is as if the super-skeptical think that human beings are just walking around in mass quantities misinterpreting public busses as bananas and six packs of beer as jugs of milk.

SPX and Apocalypto have an excellent point. I don't think Lance (not picking on Lance in particular, just skeptics with his frame of mind) give eyewitnesses a fair shake. Witnesses put people in jail and send them to the lethal injection table all the time. Biologists, zoologists, anthropologists and tons of other scientists record and publish their visual unrecorded observations all the time and we never question what they witnessed.
Why should we trust scientists or people who witness a murder more than the same people seeing a big ass chevron-shaped structured craft in the sky?
I have seen interviews with the Phoenix lights witnesses, and I'm no mind reader or psychic but they seemed genuine and sincere in what they were describing. And for the most part, they seemed relatively intelligent and not the "jumping to conclusion" types (I may be wrong).
To me it's called giving the benefit of the doubt. Am I a naive sucker? A case could be made for that, but I personally don't feel that way.( maybe blind too?)