More Serious UFO Reporting

[Wade]

As far as the Ray Stanford hullabaloo it's not an issue that I'm emotionally invested in so I don't really give a rats ass...about the issue Chris, Not Ray himself I would never be that disrespectful of him or you...but in as much as his reasoning is a little off- putting personally I can kind of see his point and I'm probably not in ray's target audience so I'll save myself the travel money.

Though I cannot name a particular individual I am willing to bet there are astrophyisists (spl) and other men of science with advanced knowledge or advanced theories that share Ray's reasoning. That's why I enjoy reading Brian Greene he's not afraid to dumb it down for those of us with lesser foresight. Maybe Chris should be our Brian Greene when it comes to Ray's work.

 

[Wade]

oh and happy birthday exo doc

 

[Randall]

Retired Colonel Robert B. Willingham admitted chasing a UFO across West Texas in his fighter jet, ​

seeing it crash-land near Del Rio, Texas, and then visiting the crash site later that same day in 1955. ​

The former pilot is convinced that the crashed object was extraterrestrial.​

​

 

[boomerang]

"YouTube" and "utterly factual"

There aren't many fields in which one sees those words in the same paragraph ...

Is that the best you've got? For extra credit on your homework assignment you are to research the bios of the B-52 co-pilot and radar navigator in the video I posted. Please let us know what you find.

 

[Atticus11]

If you're that concerned about Richard Sauder, why don't you contact him directly and ask like a real investigator would? Or contact Dolan about the author he profiles on his website. You could call Dolan directly and ambush him live on his own podcast! Why don't you do that? Oh and why don't you reveal your real name and your professional and educational background? I've asked multiple times but you keep ignoring it

Once again, I'm sorry you're so terribly upset. I hope you make the choice to calm down and return to a more civil form of dialog.

In response to your question, I'm not concerned about Richard Sauder. You asked for examples of obfuscated biographies and he was one of half-a-dozen I provided. The continuation of conversation about him has been your initiative.

You're being lapped but you're just too ignorant to realize it.

Self-confidence is important. When no one else will give us accolades it's important we give them to ourselves. I'm happy for you that you are not embarrassed about publicly giving yourself compliments and positive reinforcement. This is a sign of a healthy disposition.

 

[Atticus11]

SOME.....SOME ufology is like that.......actually really thinking about it, I guess more than 50% is or could be that way.

But not all of it. I mean look at Stanton Friedman ...

Stanton Friedman - he was the guy who was hired by a sci-fi movie to promote UFOs as fact as part of a viral marketing campaign, right? (Stanton Friedman Vs. The Internet | Who Forted? Magazine)

So, anyway ...

 

[Atticus11]

That's the problem w/ these anonymous avatar-types. They are emboldened to relate to others in a way they would never relate if they were public.

I am a non-public figure commenting on several public figures; people who have voluntarily thrust themselves into the spotlight of public attention for personal profit. Nothing I have said is defamatory and I have limited my comments to critiques of their work or the professional qualifications they have voluntarily chosen to exhibit as evidence of their ability to undertake that work. I have not commented on their personal lives nor any aspect of their life they have not - through their choice - presented to the public for review.

Let's be honest. Ufology does not attract an - overall - lucid or stable personality type. To expect I permanently attach my legal name, address and contact details to an opinion that goes against the pseudo-religious beliefs of a large sub-culture of people who, in many cases, are prone to irrational behavior is reckless and irresponsible advice.

To obsessively demand my legal name and address when I express an opinion that is different than yours is an overtly intimidating request that is not normal in internet message board discussions. It can only have the effect of stifling the free flow of diverse ideas, insulating you from thoughts or opinions different than your own and guaranteeing you only hear ideas that reinforce your belief system. In contrast, I enjoy seeking out and learning about ideas that challenge my worldview - which is why I am in a UFO forum.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I'm curious Atticus.. what say you about the many law enforcement, military/civilian pilots who have come forward with details of their own encounters? Stephensville events would be a good start, considering an off duty civilian pilot was witness to the fighter jets scrambled to chase the object, not to mention the police statements- as well as the radar readings, released through the Freedom of Info Act.
What on Earth have these fellow been witness to, these past 65 years?

 

[Atticus11]

I'm curious Atticus.. what say you about the many law enforcement, military/civilian pilots who have come forward with details of their own encounters? Stephensville events would be a good start, considering an off duty civilian pilot was witness to the fighter jets scrambled to chase the object, not to mention the police statements- as well as the radar readings, released through the Freedom of Info Act.
What on Earth have these fellow been witness to, these past 65 years?

You'll have to be more specific than "the many law enforcement, military/civilian pilots." I'm not aware that there have been "many law enforcement, military/civilian pilots." I am aware there is a popular meme among UFO enthusiasts that "many law enforcement, military/civilian pilots" have seen space aliens piloting flying saucers, however.

This thread was started about one of those "pilots" () , but - after four pages - no one has been able to even tell me something as simple as what airline the person everyone is entrusting with the notion that space aliens are visiting Earth flew for or the year he got his pilot license (which anyone in this thread who was curious about could have looked up in the FAA pilot registry online in all of 3 minutes). And, while no one has figured those pesky details are all that important, people are consumed in learning my name, address, social security number and inseam length. Weird.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I'm not concerned about Richard Sauder.

Even blind squirrels find an acorn once in a while.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I care not to see anyone's personal info. Just trying to "challenge your world view" -I'm surprised you haven't familiarized yourself with cases similiar to that of Stephensville, Tx. To have such an extream opinion on this subject, without digging into these reports, does not make alot of sense. It's OK to be "on the fence" -but your feet firmly planted on one particular side.
I don't have the names of the off duty pilot, or the 2 police who witnessed the object- but radar does confirm the object, as well as the jets scrambled.

 

[Atticus11]

I don't have the names of the off duty pilot, or the 2 police who witnessed the object- but radar does confirm the object, as well as the jets scrambled.

You heard pilots saw it, police saw it, and it was confirmed by radar, but you don't know who the pilots were, who the police were and you haven't seen the original, unaltered FAA radar report in full. But, damn it, you just know it happened anyway! It had to have happened just like you heard!

That, sir, is the definition of a True Believer.

To have such an extream opinion on this subject, without digging into these reports

I've dug into all of them. Stephenville, Roswell, Project Magnet, Murray Island - these and a hundred others used to be verifiable proof for me before I understand what the word "proof" means. Like you, I used to be a True Believer. In fact, more than privacy, that's part of why I don't use my real name when discussing UFOs. It's so embarrassing now that I think back on the idea that I ever believed such foolishness and Barnum-esque sucker-fodder schilled by low-level hucksters. One day you'll understand what I'm describing.

 

[Randall]

Let's be honest. Ufology does not attract an - overall - lucid or stable personality type.

What is your evidence for this statement? Do you have psychological profiles from a cross section of interest groups that rate stability, or is this another presumption based on skeptical social stereotyping?

To expect I permanently attach my legal name, address and contact details to an opinion that goes against the pseudo-religious beliefs of a large sub-culture of people who, in many cases, are prone to irrational behavior is reckless and irresponsible advice.

Don't fool yourself into thinking only groups interested in the paranormal or UFOs contain people who behave irrationally. I've experienced far worse than here on other forums, and the worst was a group claiming to support science and critical thinking. Their discussions were laced with irrational and damaging remarks. So unless you have a reason to be known, then preferring to remain anonymous on the Internet is reasonable.

To obsessively demand my legal name and address when I express an opinion that is different than yours is an overtly intimidating request that is not normal in internet message board discussions. It can only have the effect of stifling the free flow of diverse ideas, insulating you from thoughts or opinions different than your own and guaranteeing you only hear ideas that reinforce your belief system.

It seems to me that what's being implied is that before you start judging the credibility of others, you might want to be up-front about your own identity and credentials. That is just to be expected when you start pointing fingers at everyone else. Personally, I'm more interested in evidence than credentials, and a person can earn their reputation by what they have to offer in the way of genuine and constructive contributions.

In contrast, I enjoy seeking out and learning about ideas that challenge my worldview - which is why I am in a UFO forum.

So far you seem more intent on providing critical commentary on the reputations of those in ufology than challenging your worldview. I've pointed out that the time you are spending here criticizing others and defending your position could be put to more constructive use assembling bios for the community to learn from. But you've rejected that suggestion without a logical reason and continued down the road of shining a light on every negative incidence and indiscretion you can find in the field of ufology. If your agenda here is intended to be genuine and constructive, I'm missing the message. Do you really think we don't know that the field has problems? If you want to ferret out problems and make a real difference in the world why not choose political or financial or corporate targets? It's not like there's any shortage of questionable characters there, and outing them would do the communities some real good. Why pick on ufology? Please explain.

 

[Atticus11]

What is your evidence for this statement?

This is a preference claim based on personal observation, not an empirical claim; no evidence is required.

Don't fool yourself into thinking only groups interested in the paranormal or UFOs contain people who behave irrationally.

I neither said, nor implied, "only groups interested in UFOs contain people who believe irrationally." If I did, feel free to post a quote from me.

Personally, I'm more interested in evidence than credentials,

The flight credentials of a man who claims he was a pilot are evidence of that claim.

For the second time, a key piece of evidence concerning a man who claims space aliens in flying saucers are attacking passenger jets can be verified with a 3-minute online search of a FAA database and yet - after four pages - everyone still thinks it's more important to demand the license plate number and mother's maiden name of a random message board commenter who has dared disagree with the teachings of the Ufology cult than spend 3 minutes verifying the accuracy of a man making the single most monumental claim in 10,000 years of recorded human history.

If this is not an example of the irrational mind of the True Believers of the Ufology cult, then what is?

 

[Randall]

This is a preference claim based on personal observation, not an empirical claim; no evidence is required.

Then you should preface such claims as being your personal opinion. The standard method is "IMO" ( in my opinion ).

I neither said, nor implied, "only groups interested in UFOs contain people who believe irrationally." If I did, feel free to post a quote from me.

Whether or not you stated it or implied it isn't relevant. What is relevant is that you've focused your criticism on ufology here. My statement was rhetorical in order to provide some balance of perspective.

The flight credentials of a man who claims he was a pilot are evidence of that claim.

For the second time, a key piece of evidence concerning a man who claims space aliens in flying saucers are attacking passenger jets can be verified with a 3-minute online search of a FAA database and yet - after four pages - everyone still thinks it's more important to demand the license plate number and mother's maiden name of a random message board commenter who has dared disagree with the teachings of the Ufology cult than spend 3 minutes verifying the accuracy of a man making the single most monumental claim in 10,000 years of recorded human history.

If this is not an example of the irrational mind of the True Believers of the Ufology cult, then what is?

I've not asked you for your ID. In fact you'll notice that I made the statement that retaining anonymity online is a reasonable precaution. Also I've not engaged you with respect to the specific case you are referring to. So restating your position to me as if it's the "second time" you've tried to make your point to me on it isn't appropriate. In the context of our exchanges, what is relevant it's what the person ( anyone ) making a claim can produce as evidence for his of her claims about UFOs. Their credentials are of secondary concern.

In the absence of any independent and verifiable evidence to support a claim, then we must rely on the internal consistency of the claim itself. If we find evidence that the claim has problems of internal consistency, including fabrications of credentials, then we need to account for that when deciding how to rate the claim. But simply not being able to match a name seen on YouTube to an FAA database isn't sufficient evidence to conclude fraud or misrepresentation. For example, it is possible that the witness' name was changed for the purpose of some anonymity. Also, it is possible for records to get misplaced or lost. You need to eliminate these possibilities before drawing conclusions about misrepresentation.

May I suggest that if you want to participate in a genuine and constructive manner, that you try to alter your approach a bit. I can see where you make valid points, but I think you'd get them across more effectively if you were to put it in the form of a more complete article that minimizes the use of your subjective opinions. In the meantime, I'll have a look at that video and take your preliminary findings into account.

 

[Atticus11]

Then you should preface such claims as being your personal opinion. The standard method is "IMO" ( in my opinion ).

If I assume a level of reading comprehension on the part of my fellow board posters that did not exist then, yes, I apologize.

Whether or not you stated it or implied it isn't relevant.

What is relevant is that you've focused your criticism on ufology here.

I just double-checked and the name of this forum appears to be "The UFO Forum."

I've not asked you for your ID. In fact you'll notice that I made the statement that retaining anonymity online is a reasonable precaution. Also I've not engaged you with respect to the specific case you are referring to. So restating your position to me as if it's the "second time" you've tried to make your point to me on it isn't appropriate. In the context of our exchanges, what is relevant it's what the person ( anyone ) making a claim can produce as evidence for his of her claims about UFOs. Their credentials are of secondary concern.

In the absence of any independent and verifiable evidence to support a claim, then we must rely on the internal consistency of the claim itself. If we find evidence that the claim has problems of internal consistency, including fabrications of credentials, then we need to account for that when deciding how to rate the claim. But simply not being able to match a name seen on YouTube to an FAA database isn't sufficient evidence to conclude fraud or misrepresentation. For example, it is possible that the witness' name was changed for the purpose of some anonymity. Also, it is possible for records to get misplaced or lost. You need to eliminate these possibilities before drawing conclusions about misrepresentation.

May I suggest that if you want to participate in a genuine and constructive manner, that you try to alter your approach a bit. I can see where you make valid points, but I think you'd get them across more effectively if you were to put it in the form of a more complete article rather than in a fragmented discussion. In the meantime, I'll have a look at that video and take your preliminary findings into account.

This guy may very well be listed as a fully licensed pilot of 30 years experience in the FAA certification database. I haven't checked. I don't think anyone here has checked. You haven't checked. It would take you 3 minutes but, instead of doing that, you've spent that time dreaming up some kind of elaborate explanation as to how his story could still be consistent just in case his name is nowhere to be found! In other words, you've arrived at a conclusion and are now trying to arrange the evidence in a way that would support your conclusion (instead of assembling the evidence and then making a conclusion based on what you've found).

This medieval, pre-rational approach to thinking is a hallmark of ufology and other cults, superstitions and conspiracy theories and cornerstones the wild works of pseudo-science writers like Richard Dolan, Kerry Cassidy, Robert Hastings, L. Ron Hubbard and Linda Molton Howe. It is the way humans used to think before the age of reason when critical thinking skills were developed and spread to a large portion of the species. This is a process of education that is, obviously, still in-progress.

 

[Randall]

I just double-checked and the name of this forum appears to be "The UFO Forum."

Actually it's the thread topic that is most relevant to the discussion. It's, "More Serious UFO Reporting".

This guy may very well be listed as a fully licensed pilot of 30 years experience in the FAA certification database. I haven't checked. I don't think anyone here has checked. You haven't checked. It would take you 3 minutes but, instead of doing that, you've spent that time dreaming up reasons to explain how his story would still be consistent just in case his name is nowhere to be found!

It gets funnier and funnier.

Actually, I've been discussing the concept of "More Serious UFO Reporting" in the context of a genuine and constructive interest in the phenomenon, as it relates to your various comments, a number of which quite frankly qualify as flames on the thread. I've also made reasonable suggestions to try to turn that around, and I've indicated that I would take a look at your specific issue. I'd also be happy to take a look at the database you mention. Can you please post a link to it so that we're sure we're looking at the same thing?

 

[Atticus11]

Actually it's the thread topic that is most relevant to the discussion. It's, "More Serious UFO Reporting".

So you're mad I'm "singling out ufology" [sic] in a thread titled "more serious UFO reporting" in a forum titled "The UFO Forum?"

lol - OK ... if you want me to start discussing numbers games, black cat superstitions and ghosts so I'm not "singling out ufology" [sic] in a thread titled "more serious UFO reporting" in a forum titled "The UFO Forum" then I'm afraid I will have to politely decline that invitation - SORZ, bro!

Can you please post a link to it so that we're sure we're looking at the same thing?

I already did, long ago. Just scroll up.

 

[Randall]

So you're mad I'm "singling out ufology" [sic] in a thread titled "more serious UFO reporting" in a forum titled "The UFO Forum?"

I'm not "mad" so much as involuntarily beginning to shake my head. If you would genuinely like to see more serious UFO reporting, then set that aside the unconstructive criticism and do some serious UFO reporting. If not then just admit you're trolling for reactions to get your laughs.

lol - OK ... if you want me to start discussing numbers games, black cat superstitions and ghosts so I'm not "singling out ufology" [sic] in a thread titled "more serious UFO reporting" in a forum titled "The UFO Forum" then I'm afraid I will have to politely decline that invitation - SORZ, bro!

You're not helping your case. BTW, I checked out the link you mentioned. I also checked out the database. It would seem that verifying who this person is will take more than a few minutes on the FAA website. But I don't suppose you would be interested in doing that would you?

 

[Atticus11]

I'm not "mad" so much as involuntarily beginning to shake my head. If you would genuinely like to see more serious UFO reporting, then set that aside the unconstructive criticism and do some serious UFO reporting.

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.

You're not helping your case. BTW, I checked out the link you mentioned. I also checked out the database. It would seem that verifying who this person is will take more than a few minutes on the FAA website.

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

But I don't suppose you would be interested in doing that would you?

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