Skeptic's Corner

[pigfarmer]

Lubbock lights. First person investigators like Hynek and Ruppelt came away with a very terrestrial explanation. There were those who disputed it at the time and I suppose that's why we are still hearing about it. If they say birds we doubt, if they said ET we'd applaud because its what we want to hear. Honestly, Belief and Disbelief are so entwined the few of us - myself included - that simply say "I don't know what it was and by that definition can't say its extraterrestrial' tend to be dismissed or branded as a secret supporter of one side or the other.

Funny thing is skeptics and believers have more than 95% of their views in common. Most of what is reported as unknown is misidentified. No argument there, I hope at least. Say there's a remaining 5% as unknown. I'd be willing to make a substantial bet that most of those have an explanation that we haven't found for whatever reason. The true unknowns are the ones that have my interest, the ones like Ariel school that are very hard to just dismiss.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

I understand and agree generally but that's a leap. Many, many times things just aren't as they appear at first. A lot of reports of various types fail to stand up under scrutiny.

I would agree that it would be a leap if the quote was framed as a proclamation. Fortunately, it's phrased as a question.
In this case, having more of the original quote ( seen below ) is also essential to an accurate interpretation:

". . . although engineers had developed aircraft and rockets, witnesses were reporting craft that far exceeded the performance of such technology — and there was no technology around that could convincingly fake it. So what else could it have been other than some kind of alien craft?"

Is that not a perfectly valid question to consider.

 

[pigfarmer]

Not related to UFOs but in the same vein as 'there is always more to the story' there are two books that I have reserved a special niche in my head for.

Currently I have my nose in One-Armed Jack: Uncovering the Real Jack the Ripper but am not done with it. Frankly, the majority of the books on the topic all say about the same thing - a list of it could be this or it could be that. They all sound like nick Redfern interviews to me. They all seem to spring from the same source written by Donald Rumbelow, a former London detective. Interesting book that cuts a well researched swath that many follow on books regurgitate. Point is there's an established narrative that becomes a media fact and challenging opinions can have a difficult time of it. Sound familiar to Debunkers and Believers alike? Well, Sarah Bax Horton has produced a detailed and cogent explanation that makes me increasingly think 'she's got this right'. It's very different from some of the others I've read. The story is fascinating enough as it is without embellishment.

The other is from Bill Munns When Roger Met Patty. Again, here is a small relatively obscure work that paints the whole picture - it neatly sums up all the aspects of what we've already heard so well I believe he figured it out.

I guess I am pointing out that a lot of UFO interest is predicated on 'accepted facts' that may not actually be the case. If that happened then this must also be true .... that sort of thing. That's why I mentioned Ruppelt and Hynek as first person, boots on the ground investigators not someone writing about it decades later based on some narrow focus.

 

[pigfarmer]

I would agree that it would be a leap if the quote was framed as a proclamation. Fortunately, it's phrased as a question.
In this case, having more of the original quote ( seen below ) is also essential to an accurate interpretation:

". . . although engineers had developed aircraft and rockets, witnesses were reporting craft that far exceeded the performance of such technology — and there was no technology around that could convincingly fake it. So what else could it have been other than some kind of alien craft?"

Is that not a perfectly valid question to consider.

No its not but that explanation has been far too quick on the draw and that's why skeptics mock it.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Most of what is reported as unknown is misidentified. No argument there . . .

Um — Exactly the opposite is the case.
The people in the USAF who coined the term Unknown made it distinctly separate from misidentifications by virtue of the criteria required.
Basically — Only sightings with sufficient information to rule out misidentification were supposed to be included in the Unknowns category.
Therefore, if anything, it would be the minority of Unknowns that were misidentified.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

No its not but that explanation has been far too quick on the draw and that's why skeptics mock it.

It's actually the Skeptics who invented and started propagating that claim. The trope is, "OMG Aliens!"
The reality is very different. I've talked with literally hundreds of witnesses over the years, and they don't behave that way.
I've also interviewed a number of authors and investigators.
That said, we all know there's a fringe element too — but I think that just makes the subject of Ufology even more interesting from a historical and cultural perspective.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Skeptics do say folks automatically jump to "Aliens!!!"
But I do think it is common for people witnessing real UFOs to try and feverishly exhaust mundane possibilities first. That happened with me and is also in many accounts. Some think a plane is crashing at first, and some, even with a real eyeful, have even chosen to assume what they saw was a secret military craft of some sort (as improbable as that might be, in certain cases).

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Skeptics do say folks automatically jump to "Aliens!!!"
But I do think it is common for people witnessing real UFOs to try and feverishly exhaust mundane possibilities first. That happened with me and is also in many accounts. Some think a plane is crashing at first, and some, even with a real eyeful, have even chosen to assume what they saw was a secret military craft of some sort (as improbable as that might be, in certain cases).

Exactly — UFO witnesses don't typically jump to the conclusion that what they don't readily identify must be some kind of alien craft. That's a skeptical trope.
Where sensationalism is a problem is in the media, where they use aliens to attract ratings or hits on their websites.

 

[pigfarmer]

Skeptics do say folks automatically jump to "Aliens!!!"
But I do think it is common for people witnessing real UFOs to try and feverishly exhaust mundane possibilities first. That happened with me and is also in many accounts. Some think a plane is crashing at first, and some, even with a real eyeful, have even chosen to assume what they saw was a secret military craft of some sort (as improbable as that might be, in certain cases).

see if you can find some of the interviews with 'expert witnesses' that were on TV in the New Jersey area about ten years ago when a couple of kids released road flares tied to balloons. The only thing I saw exhaustively pursued was the desire to be on television - and the former military and law enforcement types were saying something very much like 'has to be an alien spaceship'

So its not as if skepticism doesn't have well founded roots.

 

[pigfarmer]

Um — Exactly the opposite is the case.
The people in the USAF who coined the term Unknown made it distinctly separate from misidentifications by virtue of the criteria required.
Basically — Only sightings with sufficient information to rule out misidentification were supposed to be included in the Unknowns category.
Therefore, if anything, it would be the minority of Unknowns that were misidentified.

Splitting hairs there. The true unknowns represent a small fraction of what is reported. That wasn't my point.

 

[pigfarmer]

Like a lot of things, there are always those on the extreme ends of opinion that will never see things the same way. But there is a great disaffected middle - and no, I am not talking about politics although I could be. Unfortunately its the squeaky wheels that get the grease, The attention getters like Jaime Maussan or Bob Lazar or Knapp/Corbell/Elizondo, Mick West, Neil deGrasse Tyson (and maybe Kirkpatrick but I just don't know what to make of him) that suck all the oxygen out of the room leaving nothing for anyone else.

I initially thought Avi Loeb was just another one pandering for attention but he's interesting and refreshing. Ignore the nonsense, concentrate on the science and not get caught up in arguing over ancient reports

 

[Todd Feinman]

see if you can find some of the interviews with 'expert witnesses' that were on TV in the New Jersey area about ten years ago when a couple of kids released road flares tied to balloons. The only thing I saw exhaustively pursued was the desire to be on television - and the former military and law enforcement types were saying something very much like 'has to be an alien spaceship'

So its not as if skepticism doesn't have well founded roots.

Yeah, the flares and fire balloons. Fire balloons were also being released way back during the "airship" days in the 19th Century, too.

 

[pigfarmer]

Too many old reports have become mythologized, Roswell being the #1 cake-taker on that subject. The reality of it, whatever that may be, is almost secondary to the multi generation story.

In that Bright Insight JFK Assassination thread I was pointing out something similar. There are 'subject matter experts' out there that weigh in on all sorts of things and I ask myself what their motivation might be. In that NJ hoax case the motive of the people who spoke about this was harmless - they were ordinary people being presented with something unusual and maybe got a little ooogly appearing on TV. I would be too, anybody would be. But there are those who have motives to say what they are saying, reasons to play into the mythology that are less than altruistic whether its to make money, sell media, get attention, get laid, whatever.

In the JFK orbit there are those who promote conspiracy theory who fit better in that latter category and one of the things they harp upon is the impossibility of the shots being from a single shooter, hence the need for conspiracy. The amount of material on this topic from so many sources is mind boggling and you could spend a lifetime reading about it forming your own opinion - very much like UFOs. Boredom one day on a business trip led me to the School Book Depository and I saw the whole thing live and in person, stood in the next window over from the one Oswald used and peered down into the street below. I guarantee you that if @Rick Hunter and @Dejan Corovic and I could just pop over there for five minutes with our transporter beams they would say something like 'oh. yes I see' Yet the mythology would have you believe you need to be Carlos Hathcock to make the shot. I wonder how many people argued this point for how long online and likely continue to do so? I bet there have been and are a bunch, and yet actually having a first hand look would erase a lot of that in an hour.

When I first joined AE I posted about witnessing the Hudson Valley Wave. Saw the huge craft myself at the time and yes it was quite startling, yet at the time I recognized it as several small ultralights. That's what it was - they deliberately did it with bright lights and formations and scared the crap out of a lot of people but it wasn't long before we all caught on. That hoax + Phil Imbrogno + the introduction in the early 80s of a large base for heavy military transport aircraft = Hudson Valley Wave. The story that gets tacked on about the Indian Point nuclear power station and security guards actually shooting at one of the huge UFOs is also something nobody around here believes for an instant. I've been there, right next to the containments several times on service calls and find all that hard to believe. Yet the myth is very different and far more widely accepted. As I said "The reality of it, whatever that may be, is almost secondary to the multi generation story".

Things like that are what reinforce my skepticism and of course, I understand that extraterrestrial contact is quite possible and maybe probable but there is so much else, so much baggage that goes along with all this that I need to filter it all heavily and like panning for gold you have to throw away a lot of crap before you get to something good.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Splitting hairs there. The true unknowns represent a small fraction of what is reported. That wasn't my point.

Not really. The distinction is important, and nearly 27% isn't really that "small" a fraction.
Of course, I suppose we could keep moving the goalposts.
Like maybe out of all sightings everywhere of anything that isn't readily identifiable ( how we'd determine that I don't know ) — but out of all that, it seems like a "small" fraction is a reasonable assumption.
But even then — let's suppose only .007% have been actual alien craft. Does that small number make the phenomenon irrelevant?
The skeptics often seem to go there. They suggest that the number is so small that it can be overlooked as noise ( nothing to see here ).
I think we'd both agree that isn't a fair minded evaluation.