International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   General Skepticism and The Paranormal (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Ufologist Jacques Vallee on Skepticism (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208348)

therival58 7th May 2011 01:29 AM

Ufologist Jacques Vallee on Skepticism
 
I searched "Jacques Vallee" and JREF on google to see if there were any discussions on him and his research in "UFOology."

Needless to say I just found scattered comments of him in threads and stuff, but I did come across this page from "Snarly Skepticism . . . (and Unofficial JREF Watch)":p:

http://www.theskeptoidzone.com/2007/...stence-of.html

Quote:

Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown. (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.) -- Jacques Vallee
background on Vallee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vallée

Frying Dutchmen 7th May 2011 03:41 AM

I can't find it but isn't he the guy that suggests that crop circles are created by microwaves from experimental weaponry?

Correa Neto 7th May 2011 06:27 AM

Vallée is the UFO researcher who concluded there's something really "beyond-the-borders-of-what-we-call-nature" on a suicide (or murder case) here in Brazil, more especifically at Niterói, where I live.

Check
http://forgetomori.com/2008/ufos/the-lead-masks-case/

I can see the hill from my kitchen and bathroom windows, by the way.

I think his conclusion that something which probably was a Heavens's Gate precursor had real aliens involved should give some hints on the quality of his research.

fuelair 7th May 2011 06:36 AM

For more on Vallee, you might want to check this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=208202
and comments based on what passes for research on his part.

Wolrab 7th May 2011 09:52 AM

Quote:

Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown. (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.) -- Jacques Vallee
Skeptics are the ones that seem to understand the definition of "unexplained". They aren't the ones that skip over the zillions of more likely possibilities and start bleating, "ALIENS!!!".
With my ufo experience, I faced the possibility of my whole world view being forced to change...for about a minute. I am so glad those geese circled back around.

23_Tauri 7th May 2011 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frying Dutchmen (Post 7159332)
I can't find it but isn't he the guy that suggests that crop circles are created by microwaves from experimental weaponry?

Yup.

http://boingboing.net/2010/03/23/in-...f-alien-g.html

:boggled:

sadhatter 7th May 2011 11:36 AM

God, i just love those people who equate not wasting time on every wingnuts claim of lil green men with dismissing anything we do not know.

If scientists acted like these guys wanted we would still be working on the 386 laptop because of the sheer amount of people who claim their computers were " doing stuff on their own. ".

mike3 7th May 2011 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolrab (Post 7160000)
Skeptics are the ones that seem to understand the definition of "unexplained". They aren't the ones that skip over the zillions of more likely possibilities and start bleating, "ALIENS!!!".
With my ufo experience, I faced the possibility of my whole world view being forced to change...for about a minute. I am so glad those geese circled back around.

You mean you would _not_ like having to change your world view if evidence emerged requiring it?

mike3 7th May 2011 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by therival58 (Post 7159151)
I searched "Jacques Vallee" and JREF on google to see if there were any discussions on him and his research in "UFOology."

Needless to say I just found scattered comments of him in threads and stuff, but I did come across this page from "Snarly Skepticism . . . (and Unofficial JREF Watch)":p:

http://www.theskeptoidzone.com/2007/...stence-of.html



background on Vallee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vallée

Problem with Vallee's claim: It's not that anyone is "denying" there may be unknown phenomena, it's that there's no good evidence the phenomena being claimed are going on, are actually going on. I.e. there isn't any evidence that there even is anything unknown there in the first place.

Wolrab 8th May 2011 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike3 (Post 7160282)
You mean you would _not_ like having to change your world view if evidence emerged requiring it?

I wouldn't have a choice, if the evidence was good enough.

Frying Dutchmen 8th May 2011 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri (Post 7160150)

I love the second article which is him basically saying that haha you are soooo close minded about stuff.

PS you suck.

23_Tauri 9th May 2011 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frying Dutchmen (Post 7163870)
I love the second article which is him basically saying that haha you are soooo close minded about stuff.

PS you suck.

and yet these supposedly open minded researchers like Vallee won't entertain the possibility that it could just be people with boards, measuring tape and string, coupled with a whole bunch of natural phenomena (e.g. phototropism) that we know about already. So much for the - ahem - 'open mind'..... :rolleyes:

Correa Neto 9th May 2011 03:52 AM

Nope.

They do have an open mind. They just forgot about the part regarding not allowing their brains to fall.

Pacal 9th May 2011 01:56 PM

Jacques Vallee was actually portrayed fictionally in the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Over the years Vallee has changed his mind numerous times over what UFOs mighty be. At times he as said aliebn space craft at others he has said they come from other dimensions and at other times from X-File like government deception operations. The man finds massive through, wide ranging, conspiracies to be very congenial. In his books Vallee has admitted to inventing people in his otherwise "non-fiction" "scholarly" studies.

dropzone 9th May 2011 04:33 PM

The first UFO book I read was by him. He claimed the DeHaviland Comet crashes of the '50s were because flying saucers shot them down. This edition was published more than ten years after it was determined that the crashes were caused by fatigue cracks coming off the sharp corners of the windows. DeHaviland changed to round windows and there were no more "UFO shootdowns." However, the book wasn't updated. Forty-five years later I've stopped being surprised because they are NEVER updated. The same crap keeps getting published, long after it was debunked.

CORed 10th May 2011 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolrab (Post 7160000)
Skeptics are the ones that seem to understand the definition of "unexplained". They aren't the ones that skip over the zillions of more likely possibilities and start bleating, "ALIENS!!!".
With my ufo experience, I faced the possibility of my whole world view being forced to change...for about a minute. I am so glad those geese circled back around.

I'm just glad I watched the jet contrail long enough that it quit looking like a metallic "flying saucer" viewed edge on. It did shift my world view a little. Prior to that, I was, while not a true believer, in the "mabye there's something to it" camp. My experience showed me just how easy it is to misinterpret what you see, and pushed me into the "It's extremely unlikely extraterrestrials are visiting or ever have visited the earth" camp.

Minarvia 10th May 2011 02:26 PM

Goodness, I don't want to sound cruel, because I know I'm not the smartest person in the world, but when Vallee says that "people aren't stupid..." I have to disagree. There are LOTS of stupid people out there.

Of course there are lots of smart ones, too, but....

Ah, I guess he is just being optimistic about people in general, eh? :)

Andrew Wiggin 10th May 2011 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropzone (Post 7166600)
The first UFO book I read was by him. He claimed the DeHaviland Comet crashes of the '50s were because flying saucers shot them down. This edition was published more than ten years after it was determined that the crashes were caused by fatigue cracks coming off the sharp corners of the windows. DeHaviland changed to round windows and there were no more "UFO shootdowns." However, the book wasn't updated. Forty-five years later I've stopped being surprised because they are NEVER updated. The same crap keeps getting published, long after it was debunked.

Aliens really really hate square windows. It's the only possible conclusion...

Explorer 10th May 2011 11:40 PM

My memories of Jaques Vallees work was his book on UFO witness reporting, "Anatomy of a phenomenon", back in the sixties.

As was stated in the OP, he was irritated by the official explanations of what eye witnesses reported. For example, even relatively close encounters of objects were dismissed as the planet Venus, etc. I remember one case where two British policemen were chasing a bright object above the tree canopy for some considerable length of time in their squad car, only to be told by MOD officials later that it was the planet Venus.

As a consequnce he decided to do some research in witness observation of UFOs. This research entailed the examination of a large number of reports which he subjected to statistical analysis to determine whether or not the observations were likely to be real observed close and solid objects, or otherwise.

His final results were published and he concluded from them that the reports did seem to reflect real objects close to the Earth, rather than mistaken remote views of the moon, Venus, weather ballons, and suchlike.

I have to admit myself at that time when so-called "flaps" were going on in Britain in the sixties, that the official explanations when compared to witness statements, seemed rather bizarre and ridiculous. This approach by government did nothing to allay the conspiracy theories that flourished afterwards in the context of these "offical" explanations.

Correa Neto 11th May 2011 06:39 AM

Despite his conclusions, people do confuse things and perceptions may be twisted. When this happens, an "UFO sighting" may be the result.

Despite his conclusions, interdimensional travellers are still nothing but fiction and the same is valid for government cover ups, etc.

Explorer 11th May 2011 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Correa Neto (Post 7171719)
Despite his conclusions, people do confuse things and perceptions may be twisted. When this happens, an "UFO sighting" may be the result.

Despite his conclusions, interdimensional travellers are still nothing but fiction and the same is valid for government cover ups, etc.

Oh yes, I have no time for Vallee's fantasies, but I think he did have a strong point re eye witness reports.

I also agree that witnesses can be mistaken, and those with little knowledge of astronomy and weather conditions could be confused. However, when it comes to pilots and other professionals who we rely on for good and valid observation, and are then equally ridiculed by officialdom, then we are surely entitled to query the more eccentric rebuttals.

Cannot the official view simply say that yes, OK, that report seems unusual and interesting, but there is insufficient information to confirm the source of the phenomenom, and treat us like grown up adults?

Aepervius 11th May 2011 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer (Post 7172528)
Oh yes, I have no time for Vallee's fantasies, but I think he did have a strong point re eye witness reports.

I also agree that witnesses can be mistaken, and those with little knowledge of astronomy and weather conditions could be confused. However, when it comes to pilots and other professionals who we rely on for good and valid observation, and are then equally ridiculed by officialdom, then we are surely entitled to query the more eccentric rebuttals.

Cannot the official view simply say that yes, OK, that report seems unusual and interesting, but there is insufficient information to confirm the source of the phenomenom, and treat us like grown up adults?

Campeche UFO, FLIR sdystem, Mexican (?) army. Mistaken oil rig flare for UFO. And tehre are more of those (like pilote following venus as UFO or even the moon following a crash).

You attribute a higher quality on pilote observation which is not warranted by the reality.

RoboTimbo 11th May 2011 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aepervius (Post 7172550)
Campeche UFO, FLIR sdystem, Mexican (?) army. Mistaken oil rig flare for UFO. And tehre are more of those (like pilote following venus as UFO or even the moon following a crash).

You attribute a higher quality on pilote observation which is not warranted by the reality.

The Thomas Mantell UFO incident in 1948 where he was climbing in his P51 Mustang past a safe altitude and likely blacked out from lack of oxygen approaching 25,000 feet, not having an oxygen mask. He was chasing Venus.

Correa Neto 11th May 2011 11:21 AM

The problem is that some will insist it could not have been Venus.

No one denies some people have better observation skills than others. No can deny also that their error margins are most likely smaller than everyone else's. But no one else can deny also that despite all their training, they are not error-free. All it takes for an UFO sighting report from them is an observation mistake that has not been cleared.

Add to this some poor data handling by UFOlogists and we have one of those "unexplainable cases" promoted by UFOlogists as good pieces of evidence.

Wolrab 11th May 2011 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer (Post 7172528)

Cannot the official view simply say that yes, OK, that report seems unusual and interesting, but there is insufficient information to confirm the source of the phenomenom, and treat us like grown up adults?

Isn't that the whole point of the U in UFO?

mike3 11th May 2011 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolrab (Post 7161549)
I wouldn't have a choice, if the evidence was good enough.

But you make it sound like that'd be something you'd not look forward to doing. Why? If I found truly good evidence of an extraordinary UFO, it'd be the most amazing and incredible thing ever.

mike3 11th May 2011 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Correa Neto (Post 7172707)
The problem is that some will insist it could not have been Venus.

No one denies some people have better observation skills than others. No can deny also that their error margins are most likely smaller than everyone else's. But no one else can deny also that despite all their training, they are not error-free. All it takes for an UFO sighting report from them is an observation mistake that has not been cleared.

Add to this some poor data handling by UFOlogists and we have one of those "unexplainable cases" promoted by UFOlogists as good pieces of evidence.

However, given that one cannot actually be at the time and place of the anecdote's occurrence, one cannot say for sure they must have been mistaken. Of course, one can't say they're not, either. And even a true, non-mistaken observation of something 'interesting' does not imply that the thing is somehow 'aliens' or whatever you want to say. I.e. anecdotes are of little to no use insofar as "proof" of squat goes.

not daSkeptic 11th May 2011 03:22 PM

Quote:

People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary.
The problem with this statement is that it ignores the subjectivity of what is ordinary. An event that one person finds incredible may be entirely normal to another. Failure to recognize this is ignorance. Additionally, it is arrogant to assume one's knowledge of a subject represents the extent of humanity's knowledge.

Explorer 12th May 2011 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo (Post 7172575)
The Thomas Mantell UFO incident in 1948 where he was climbing in his P51 Mustang past a safe altitude and likely blacked out from lack of oxygen approaching 25,000 feet, not having an oxygen mask. He was chasing Venus.

Fine, so the official explanation said he was observing Venus. This simply reinforces my point. Here we have a pilot who was so apparently determined to catch the image of something in the air above him to the point where he risked blacking out, killed himself in the process.

Now, I am not a pilot, but one thing I do know is that distant objects like stars stay put when you change the angle of observation, by virtue of that distance. In the air, the position of that object has no reference points, but its size and position relative to say the observers compass position from the plane, would display fixed point characteristics. There would be no confirmatory information for such an observer to be confused or miscontrue a star with an object that is close, manouvering and/or speeding away. Only objects that are relatively close and in terrestial airspace would provide observational information to suggest that case.

In other words, we are being asked to believe by the official explanation, that Captain Mantell, who had flown many times before and would be familiar with stars in the sky, had a bad day at the office on this occasion, and because Venus was particularly bright, and only because of that, confused it with an object close, in terrestial airspace, and worthy of a chase to the point where his life was on the line.

My own common sense tells me that he saw something much more impressive and interesting than simply a bright planet Venus. What "that" actually was remains a mystery, and as some other poster said above, it has to be tagged as the "U" in UFO.

Wolrab 12th May 2011 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike3 (Post 7173541)
But you make it sound like that'd be something you'd not look forward to doing. Why? If I found truly good evidence of an extraordinary UFO, it'd be the most amazing and incredible thing ever.

I too would love for a UFO to be identified as something either far advanced for us, or even better, something extraterrestrial.

The circumstances of my sighting was an apparently huge triangular shaped craft (my mind was positive it was solid) slowly turned (making it controlled) as it silently drifted over myself and several friends out by my brother's observatory.

All of us that saw it were floored and started sharing details. A few minutes later, the triangle reappeared only this time with honking. With that one noise, all of us now saw the individual geese in their V formation as they went to land at a nearby pond.


What I am getting at is my whole worldview was profoundly shook up for the minutes I thought I had seen something incredible. All my senses confirmed a huge solid UFO that was defying the laws of physics, as known to me. I am somewhat of a sky watcher and know what is up there on most nights. The object I thought I saw was extraordinary, to say the least.

To be so deceived by something so mundane as geese dimly lit from from below by street lights proved to me that others, not as knowledgeable of the night sky, and without the added bonus of the geese immediately returning, would probably be convinced they had saw an alien craft. That is, hands down, the longest sentence I have ever written.

Aepervius 12th May 2011 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer (Post 7175582)
Fine, so the official explanation said he was observing Venus. This simply reinforces my point. Here we have a pilot who was so apparently determined to catch the image of something in the air above him to the point where he risked blacking out, killed himself in the process.

Now, I am not a pilot, but one thing I do know is that distant objects like stars stay put when you change the angle of observation, by virtue of that distance. In the air, the position of that object has no reference points, but its size and position relative to say the observers compass position from the plane, would display fixed point characteristics. There would be no confirmatory information for such an observer to be confused or miscontrue a star with an object that is close, manouvering and/or speeding away. Only objects that are relatively close and in terrestial airspace would provide observational information to suggest that case.

In other words, we are being asked to believe by the official explanation, that Captain Mantell, who had flown many times before and would be familiar with stars in the sky, had a bad day at the office on this occasion, and because Venus was particularly bright, and only because of that, confused it with an object close, in terrestial airspace, and worthy of a chase to the point where his life was on the line.

It happened to others. But even if it did not, again you are using an argumetn of incredulity "it could not happened that way". Why not ? Errare humanum est. He could *Indeed* have had a bad day, drink too much coffee, had already climbed too high which already partially impaired his judgement, then see venus, climbing more and impairing more. He could have made an error of pilotage. He could have had an small aneuvrism or small blood clot which partially impaired his judgement. He could have taken cokes. Maybe he was not as good as you think he was. Etc...etc...etc...

Quote:

My own common sense tells me that he saw something much more impressive and interesting than simply a bright planet Venus. What "that" actually was remains a mystery, and as some other poster said above, it has to be tagged as the "U" in UFO.
Common sense is a bitch. It tells you a lot of things which are definitively wrong. Like for example common sense would be if you accelerate infinitely you reach infinite speed. Except that due to scientific advancement and knowledge, we know it is not the case. Common sense would indicate you can only have wave if you have a medium. Well tehre is no aether. Common sense would mean that matter is like at amcro level, at smaller level : small little orbiting planet. And not cloud. Common sense means matter is not *MOSTLY* empty void. But it is.
That is the one which come to my head as physicist. Gimme a few minutes and I could probably come with a lot more.

Wanna let me continue with destroying common sense ? Common sense is anything but reliable.

ETA: It remain a U as in Unknown *BUT* it does not need to be "much more impressive". It can simply be VERY BANAL , but stay unknown due to lack of data evidence.

Explorer 12th May 2011 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aepervius (Post 7177216)
It happened to others. But even if it did not, again you are using an argumetn of incredulity "it could not happened that way". Why not ? Errare humanum est. He could *Indeed* have had a bad day, drink too much coffee, had already climbed too high which already partially impaired his judgement, then see venus, climbing more and impairing more. He could have made an error of pilotage. He could have had an small aneuvrism or small blood clot which partially impaired his judgement. He could have taken cokes. Maybe he was not as good as you think he was. Etc...etc...etc...



Common sense is a bitch. It tells you a lot of things which are definitively wrong. Like for example common sense would be if you accelerate infinitely you reach infinite speed. Except that due to scientific advancement and knowledge, we know it is not the case. Common sense would indicate you can only have wave if you have a medium. Well tehre is no aether. Common sense would mean that matter is like at amcro level, at smaller level : small little orbiting planet. And not cloud. Common sense means matter is not *MOSTLY* empty void. But it is.
That is the one which come to my head as physicist. Gimme a few minutes and I could probably come with a lot more.

Wanna let me continue with destroying common sense ? Common sense is anything but reliable.

ETA: It remain a U as in Unknown *BUT* it does not need to be "much more impressive". It can simply be VERY BANAL , but stay unknown due to lack of data evidence.

I have researched the Mantell incident in more detail. NICAP published a comprehensive repot on this case and came to conclusion that Mantell had not seen or was chasing the planet Venus, but that he had seen a new experimental balloon at high altitude. The balloon was not of the traditional design, i.e. a round shape made from an orange skin of rubber, but was made of a transluscent polymer film, never seen before. This was part of the "Skyhook" balloon launch programme, examining cosmic rays in the atmosphere conducted in 1948. It would indeed have been the "impressive and interesting" candidate for Mantell to have the incentive to "chase". This type of balloon also matched the ground witness observations, being a cone shaped object, reflecting light giving it a metallic appearance, with a long trailing tail.

Mantell did a very brave but foolish thing, and that was to try and achieve an altitude where he could close in on the object, but he was not carrying any oxygen equipment. Above 14000 feet he would have started the process of hypoxia in his body. At 25000 feet, his aspirational target altitude, he would only have around two minutes of consciousness before he passed out, and it seems that this did happen. A few minutes after his last radio contact, his aircraft descended in a spiral and disintegrated under a high speed descent.

The Airforce were embarrased by the initial explanation of Venus, and later changed it to the Skyhook description of events. This again reinforced my point. The attitude seemed to be any explanation however improbable was good enough, but in this case the Venus explanation was ridiculed by the more probable explanation of Skyhook.

Personally, I am completely happy with Skyhook explanation. It was a new pioneering design very different from the old. It is an impressive large and metallic looking object that owing to the secrecy of the project in 1948, would have been unknown to pilots and ground witnesses of the day. Mantell, it seems, was "hyped up" by the strange reports and his instructions to pusue and identify the unknown object. He was too brave for his own good, broke regulations, and flew at an unwise altitude for too long to get a closer look at what he thought could be an extra-terrestial object, and died for his trouble.

The secrecy behind the launch of pioneering aerial man-made objects, appears to be the cause of this tragic case. My common sense is fully in tact and working fine, thanks!

AtomicMysteryMonster 12th May 2011 05:00 PM

The Ufo Enigma: The Definitive Explanation of the Ufo Phenomenon by Donald H. Menzel and Ernest H. Taves has some fascinating insights as to pilots' knowledge of meteorological phenomena.

therival58 12th May 2011 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster (Post 7177934)
The Ufo Enigma: The Definitive Explanation of the Ufo Phenomenon by Donald H. Menzel and Ernest H. Taves has some fascinating insights as to pilots' knowledge of meteorological phenomena.

heres a summary fromm google books:

Quote:

Contends that UFOs are easily explainable meteorological and optical phenomena and explains each of the most publicized sightings between 1963 and 1975
Very interesting premise have you read the book? I might pick up a copy its real cheap on amazon.

Laton 12th May 2011 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer (Post 7177838)
Mantell, it seems, was "hyped up" by the strange reports and his instructions to pusue and identify the unknown object. He was too brave for his own good, broke regulations, and flew at an unwise altitude for too long to get a closer look at what he thought could be an extra-terrestial object, and died for his trouble.

I recall reading somewhere that Mantell was a cargo (C-47) pilot who had only recently transitioned to fighters at the time of the incident and that his unfamiliarity with the F-51's systems may have been a contributing factor. Have you read anything simillar or is my memory playing tricks on me?

Apology 12th May 2011 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer (Post 7177838)
The secrecy behind the launch of pioneering aerial man-made objects, appears to be the cause of this tragic case. My common sense is fully in tact and working fine, thanks!

I always thought that secret military crafts were the sources of many UFO sightings. Witnesses often say "It didn't move like any known man-made craft!!!" but the truth is, the witnesses don't know that we have a craft that can move like that, because if everybody knew, it wouldn't be a secret any more!

For instance, consider all the triangular-shaped UFO sightings in the 80s and 90s. After the B-2 Stealth Bomber was revealed, all of a sudden we knew that there was a man-made craft that looked like that, and we'd had it for years and years. In addition, all the "It moved so fast, it disappeared in an instant!" anecdotes were explained pretty well by Stealth technology. It's far more likely that the "UFO" simply banked into a curve and disappeared from sight that way.

AtomicMysteryMonster 12th May 2011 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by therival58 (Post 7177987)
Very interesting premise have you read the book? I might pick up a copy its real cheap on amazon.

That I have and I highly recommend it. There's a bit involving "intelligent" UFOs and rainbows that will make you smack yourself on the head and ask "Why didn't I think of that?" It should also be noted that the book does cover the hoax angle, including medieval dragon hoax instructions!

Access Denied 12th May 2011 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer (Post 7175582)
Fine, so the official explanation said he was observing Venus.

Actually, that was the initial explanation, subsequently changed to unidentified… for reasons I would suggest should be become more clear given the nature of the alternative explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer (Post 7177838)
I have researched the Mantell incident in more detail. NICAP published a comprehensive repot on this case and came to conclusion that Mantell had not seen or was chasing the planet Venus, but that he had seen a new experimental balloon at high altitude.

Actually, Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt (head of Project BLUE BOOK at the time), working with Dr. J. Allen Hynek (the consultant to Project SIGN who rejected the Venus explanation at the time), was the one who first suggested that explanation in 1952. The position of NICAP (like Vallée) throughout it’s history was that the government was covering up evidence of ET visitation so I’m not surprised if you were lead to believe the following by consulting their material…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer (Post 7177838)
The Airforce were embarrased by the initial explanation of Venus, and later changed it to the Skyhook description of events. This again reinforced my point.

See above, the official explanation was never changed to Skyhook… it remained listed as Unidentified by the Air Force at the close of Project BLUE BOOK in 1969. In fact, even the Condon Report (that mercifully got the Air Force out of the UFO business) had this to say about the balloon explanation…

“This explanation, though plausible, is not a certain identification.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer (Post 7177838)
The attitude seemed to be any explanation however improbable was good enough, but in this case the Venus explanation was ridiculed by the more probable explanation of Skyhook.

Ridiculed by who, UFOlogists? I don’t know about you but I have to admit some of the witness descriptions do sound vaguely like a misidentified celestial object…

Mantell UFO incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantell_UFO_incident

Quote:

Base commander Colonel Guy Hix reported an object he described as "very white," and "about one fourth the size of the full moon ... Through binoculars it appeared to have a red border at the bottom ... It remained stationary, seemingly, for one and a half hours." Observers at Clinton County Army Air Field in Ohio described the object "as having the appearance of a flaming red cone trailing a gaseous green mist" and observed the object for around 35 minutes.
Can you say Catch 22?

AD

Ron_Tomkins 12th May 2011 10:36 PM

Yet another human being who mistakes skepticism with blind cynicism. Yeah, yeah... we've got plenty of them. No particular reason this one should stand out from the rest.

Explorer 12th May 2011 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laton (Post 7178071)
I recall reading somewhere that Mantell was a cargo (C-47) pilot who had only recently transitioned to fighters at the time of the incident and that his unfamiliarity with the F-51's systems may have been a contributing factor. Have you read anything simillar or is my memory playing tricks on me?

It does mention this in the NICAP report, however, it seems that hypoxia which can occur above 14000 ft without oxygen equipment, would have happened in the same way regardless of what aircraft Mantell was flying.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.