ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th May 2011, 01:29 AM   #1
therival58
Muse
 
therival58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 540
Arrow 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)":

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

Last edited by therival58; 7th May 2011 at 01:37 AM.
therival58 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2011, 03:41 AM   #2
Frying Dutchmen
Critical Thinker
 
Frying Dutchmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 387
I can't find it but isn't he the guy that suggests that crop circles are created by microwaves from experimental weaponry?
__________________
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Carl Sagan
Frying Dutchmen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2011, 06:27 AM   #3
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,578
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.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2011, 06:36 AM   #4
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,372
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.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2011, 09:52 AM   #5
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,076
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.

Last edited by Wolrab; 7th May 2011 at 09:54 AM. Reason: forgot the quote function
Wolrab is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2011, 11:10 AM   #6
23_Tauri
Illuminator
 
23_Tauri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,927
Originally Posted by Frying Dutchmen View Post
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

23_Tauri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2011, 11:36 AM   #7
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,286
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. ".
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2011, 11:59 AM   #8
mike3
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,465
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th May 2011, 12:00 PM   #9
mike3
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,465
Originally Posted by therival58 View Post
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)":

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.
mike3 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2011, 12:02 AM   #10
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,076
Originally Posted by mike3 View Post
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.
Wolrab is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th May 2011, 10:58 PM   #11
Frying Dutchmen
Critical Thinker
 
Frying Dutchmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by 23_Tauri View Post
I love the second article which is him basically saying that haha you are soooo close minded about stuff.

PS you suck.
__________________
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Carl Sagan
Frying Dutchmen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2011, 02:34 AM   #12
23_Tauri
Illuminator
 
23_Tauri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,927
Originally Posted by Frying Dutchmen View Post
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'.....
23_Tauri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2011, 03:52 AM   #13
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,578
Nope.

They do have an open mind. They just forgot about the part regarding not allowing their brains to fall.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2011, 01:56 PM   #14
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 853
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.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2011, 04:33 PM   #15
dropzone
Master Poster
 
dropzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,009
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.
dropzone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2011, 02:18 PM   #16
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,350
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
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.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2011, 02:26 PM   #17
Minarvia
fading orb
 
Minarvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,224
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?
__________________
"Hercules, what is a secret?"
"Why, a secret is something you tell practically everybody confidentially." Wheeler and Woolsey in "Diplomaniacs."
Minarvia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2011, 09:45 PM   #18
Andrew Wiggin
Master Poster
 
Andrew Wiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,915
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
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...
__________________
"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the
world." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled,
the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in
them?' " - H. G. Wells
Andrew Wiggin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th May 2011, 11:40 PM   #19
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
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.

Last edited by Explorer; 10th May 2011 at 11:51 PM. Reason: ommissions
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2011, 06:39 AM   #20
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,578
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.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2011, 10:38 AM   #21
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by Correa Neto View Post
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?
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2011, 10:44 AM   #22
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
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.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2011, 10:50 AM   #23
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
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.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2011, 11:21 AM   #24
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,578
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.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2011, 02:59 PM   #25
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,076
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post

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?
Wolrab is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2011, 03:09 PM   #26
mike3
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,465
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2011, 03:13 PM   #27
mike3
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,465
Originally Posted by Correa Neto View Post
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.
mike3 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2011, 03:22 PM   #28
not daSkeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,913
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.
not daSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 06:23 AM   #29
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
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.
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 01:19 PM   #30
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,076
Originally Posted by mike3 View Post
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.

Last edited by Wolrab; 12th May 2011 at 01:43 PM. Reason: 10 year old son absolutely positively had to be somewhere
Wolrab is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 01:49 PM   #31
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
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.

Last edited by Aepervius; 12th May 2011 at 01:51 PM.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 04:23 PM   #32
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
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!
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 05:00 PM   #33
AtomicMysteryMonster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
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.
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher

You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber

Last edited by AtomicMysteryMonster; 12th May 2011 at 05:00 PM. Reason: Added co-author
AtomicMysteryMonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 05:27 PM   #34
therival58
Muse
 
therival58's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 540
Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster View Post
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.
therival58 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 06:09 PM   #35
Laton
Critical Thinker
 
Laton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 263
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
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?
Laton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 07:28 PM   #36
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
 
Apology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,123
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
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.
Apology is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 08:21 PM   #37
AtomicMysteryMonster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,004
Originally Posted by therival58 View Post
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!
__________________
Open your mind and let the sun shine in. Let a wild hairy ape in there too, would you please? - William Parcher

You can fool too many of the people too much of the time. - James Thurber
AtomicMysteryMonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 10:31 PM   #38
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
 
Access Denied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
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…

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
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.”

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
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
__________________
Men go and come but Earth abides.
Access Denied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 10:36 PM   #39
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 41,331
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.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2011, 11:12 PM   #40
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by Laton View Post
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.
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.