Media influence on UFO sightings
top...@technologist.com
(Twitchy, forget about other's opinions (quotes) since I cannot
directly ask them how this works in their mind.)
Please see the following
lists:
A. UFO's and saucers
B. Witches
C. God and Jesus
D. Foreign Invadors
E. Ghosts
1. They imagine them because they consciously believe it.
2. They imagine them because they unconsciously believe it
due to repeated exposure.
3. They imagine them simply because of repeated exposure.
If you believe the reason for imagining flying saucers
is #1, then B, C, D, and E should also be reported
fairly often, since many people also believe in these.
#1 also tends to contradict the "interest" study
you cited (showing that stated UFO interest does *not*
significanly reflect likelyhood of making
IFO perception mistakes.)
If you believe #2, then you have a similar problem
with B thru E.
If you believe #3, then you not only have to
contend with B,C,D, and E, but all the other
media icons that are generally not believed as
being real, such as Mickey Mouse, Jeanies, etc.
I do not how you reconcile your media influence
theory against the other media icons.
There is also the pre-Arnold saucer sighting and
non-saucer-shaped reports.
BTW, here is Paris Flammonde's account of the
"weatherman" report. Unlike Peebles, it mentioned
only one viewer and one disk.
"A disk-shaped unknown was followed across the
skies above Richmond, Virginia, in April [1947]
by a professional weatherman who was monitoring
a balloon with a theodolite. It was described
as being flat-bottomed and domed." [pg. 158]
This was 2 months before Arnold's report and
before disks or saucers entered into ANY aspect
of the wide media. There have been scattered reports
of disk-like objects over the centuries, but
they were infrequent and widely separated in
time.
There is evidence of a general increase in
sightings of UFO just before the Arnold
publicity occurance.
-tmind-
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>.
>
>(Twitchy, forget about other's opinions (quotes) since I cannot
>directly ask them how this works in their mind.)
>
What does this have to do with your original claims.
You remember all those claims that you couldn't back up!
Since you can't back up any of your initial claims, you just
try changing the topic.
Or I post quotes showing that what you claim isn't true and
you just change your claims.
Why should you have to ask them how this works in their
minds since you don't accept what they write anyway?
You tried claiming that since UFOs weren't repeatable:
>Therefore,
>the next best thing is "scientific democracy", where experts look at the information and
>come to a consensous.
But the NAS did exactly that!
Did you accept what you claim is the next best thing?
Hell no!
The NAS review panel did poll their members and came to a
consensus!
"We are unanimous in the opinion that this has been a very
creditable effort to apply objectively the relevant
techniques of science to the solution of the UFO problem."
If they are unanimous, they have a consensus.
So, since you don't like that, you take Dr. McDonald's word
over the NAS panel members.
A scientific democracy was good enough for Condon since he
didn't agree with your position.
Since the NAS did your scientific democracy, you claim that
is insufficent and it doesn't count since the NAS didn't do
independent verification.
When that is shown to be untrue, you change your claim to
they didn't do field research.
If I post evidence that they did field research, you'd just
change your claim again.
<snipo>
>If you believe the reason <snipo>
One of your problems is that you believe what you believe
without any evidence for that belief.
What does it matter what I believe. It is what I can
defend, what I have evidence to back up, etc.
You don't have any evidence and can't back up any of your
claims.
Like you couldn't do with your Roswell claims, like you
couldn't do with your Gulf Breeze claims, like you couldn't
do with the claims that "project Blue Book is now known to
have been directly influenced by intelligence (military
secrecy) concerns."
Like you couldn't do with your claims that:
"the Air Force eventually admitted that some of the reported
sightings were actually secret test craft. To reduce the
usefulness of such reports to foriegn militaries, the Air
Force purposely provided falsified conclusions."
Now you are trying to change the subject of the thread from
all of your claims that you couldn't back up.
Back up your earlier claims or admit that you were wrong and
we'll discuss a new topic.
No doubt Jack the Ripper excused himself on the
grounds that it was human nature.
A.A. Milne
top...@technologist.com
"me" <po...@sa.apana.org.spamless.au> wrote:
>
> top...@technologist.com wrote in message
> <7fdgg9$nkv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >.
> >
> >(Twitchy, forget about other's opinions (quotes) since I cannot
> >directly ask them how this works in their mind.)
> >
> >lists:
> >
> >A. UFO's and saucers
> >B. Witches
> >C. God and Jesus
> >D. Foreign Invadors
> >E. Ghosts
> >
> >1. They imagine them because they consciously believe it.
> >2. They imagine them because they unconsciously believe it
> > due to repeated exposure.
> >3. They imagine them simply because of repeated exposure.
> >
> >If you believe the reason for imagining flying saucers
> >is #1, then B, C, D, and E should also be reported
> >fairly often, since many people also believe in these.
>
> Good point. It's been some time since I saw a `satanists are killing babies
> in the Hills' diatribe in the local tabloid - the visions of some virgin
> popping up in a local RC church's salt-damp and the `Australian Freedom
> Scout's' plans to combat the Yellow Peril with .22s and their zimmer-frames
> must have driven them out.
>
> I guess the aliens must have finally figured that everything on a Nullabor
> road-house menu comes with chips, and have gone back to the healthy diet of
> cow-lip'n'anus.
>
>
I am talking about the same type of reports that UFO generated,
such as cops and pilots reporting them during duty; not
drunk hill folk talking to a tabloid. You are comparing
apples to oranges.
(A Correction: I should not have included "witches" in some of
the lists, since most people in the U.S. do not believe in them.)
top...@technologist.com
>
> Since you can't back up any of your initial claims, you just
> try changing the topic.
>
No no no no! I am not changing it, I am branching it.
The "old" topics should go into the original
"sham" topic just as before, not here.
If you don't want to answer questions about
media influence, then just say so.
John Cason
<7fdgg9$nkv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
>(Twitchy, forget about other's opinions (quotes) since I cannot
>directly ask them how this works in their mind.)
You've mentioned information that you got from dead UFOlogists
such as MacDonald, Hynek, Jessup, Keyhoe. Did you communicate
with them?
>Please see the following lists:
>A. UFO's and saucers
>B. Witches
>C. God and Jesus
>D. Foreign Invadors
>E. Ghosts
>1. They imagine them because they consciously believe it.
>2. They imagine them because they unconsciously believe it
> due to repeated exposure.
>3. They imagine them simply because of repeated exposure.
I have a rule against using the expression "straw man" more than
once a year, but here it is only April and you've made me use it
up for all of 1999. Other than you, who said that people "imagine" the
things on your list?
>If you believe the reason for imagining flying saucers
>is #1, then B, C, D, and E should also be reported
>fairly often, since many people also believe in these.
A huge majority of sightings start with a real stimulus that is
not imagined. For every totally imagined or hallucinatory Jesus
there are probably dozens seen on tortillas or soybean tanks or
in window reflections. Same with Mary, UFOs, ghosts, whatever.
And by the way, if you believe that people today aren't seeing
Jesus, Mary, ghosts, witches, and foreign invaders, then you
haven't bothered testing your belief with an internet search engine.
Maybe the numbers aren't what they once were, but the eyewitness
reports still come in from all over, and sometimes there is physical
evidence such as marks on the hands, or cold spots in a house, or
knocking sounds behind a wall. The similarity of the reports is eerie,
so they must be real.
Could there be cultural factors involved? In a report of an
alien airship crash from a hundred years ago, I saw that one of
the witnesses had recovered some cogwheels. What do you bet
that the cogwheels were made of unusually pure iron, a purity
unavailable to nineteenth century technology?
<snip>
me
>directly ask them how this works in their mind.)
>
>lists:
>
>A. UFO's and saucers
>B. Witches
>C. God and Jesus
>D. Foreign Invadors
>E. Ghosts
>
>1. They imagine them because they consciously believe it.
>2. They imagine them because they unconsciously believe it
> due to repeated exposure.
>3. They imagine them simply because of repeated exposure.
>
>is #1, then B, C, D, and E should also be reported
>fairly often, since many people also believe in these.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>
>>
>> Since you can't back up any of your initial claims, you just
>> try changing the topic.
>>
>
>No no no no! I am not changing it,
You are changing it.
You have totally failed to provide any evidence whatsoever
for your claims.
You haven't even read the reports but you keep libeling the
scientists who did those reports.
Based purely on your own desires and total ignorance of the
subject.
>I am branching it.
>The "old" topics should go into the original
>"sham" topic just as before, not here.
Why do you want to branch out when you have never been able
to back up a single claim?
Just making more claims when you haven't been able to back
up your original claims is changing the subject.
>
>If you don't want to answer questions about
>media influence, then just say so.
First, I want to hold you to providing some evidence for all
of your other claims.
Then we can discuss media influence.
Otherwise, it just looks like you want to change the subject
because you can't back up any of your claims.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>In article <7febhl$t1a$1...@chuckie.apana.org.au>,
> "me" <po...@sa.apana.org.spamless.au> wrote:
>>
>> top...@technologist.com wrote in message
>> <7fdgg9$nkv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >.
>> >
<snipo>
>> Good point. It's been some time since I saw a `satanists are killing babies
>> in the Hills' diatribe in the local tabloid - the visions of some virgin
>> popping up in a local RC church's salt-damp and the `Australian Freedom
>> Scout's' plans to combat the Yellow Peril with .22s and their zimmer-frames
>> must have driven them out.
>>
>> I guess the aliens must have finally figured that everything on a Nullabor
>> road-house menu comes with chips, and have gone back to the healthy diet of
>> cow-lip'n'anus.
>>
>>
>
>I am talking about the same type of reports that UFO generated,
>such as cops and pilots reporting them during duty; not
>drunk hill folk talking to a tabloid. You are comparing
>apples to oranges.
Nope. You are just claiming that he is comparing apples to
oranges but you can't show that he is. And all the evidence
is against you.
Pilots and cops are no better than anyone else when
reporting UFOs.
Notice that down below, pilots barely beat out skilled
tradesmen. Despite the fact that there were many more
skilled tradesmen making reports. In Hynek's relook at Blue
Book, a study in which they had many more pilots, he found
pilots were at 88%.
Cops came pretty far down in the list. Dead last to be
exact.
The ratio of IFOs to all reports by occupation, for the
CUFOS study, was:
Pilot/air personnel 75%
Skilled trade 75%
Forestry/farmer 86%
blue collar 87%
white collar 88%
retired/disabled 88%
education 88%
student 89%
housewife 89%
unemployed 90%
retail 91%
medical 93%
law enforcement 94%
>
>(A Correction: I should not have included "witches" in some of
>the lists, since most people in the U.S. do not believe in them.)
I don't know what the ratio of of IFOs to all reports by
witches is.
In fact, I'm not certain that any witches have ever reported
a UFO.
top...@technologist.com
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> top...@technologist.com wrote:
>
> >In article <7febhl$t1a$1...@chuckie.apana.org.au>,
> > "me" <po...@sa.apana.org.spamless.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> top...@technologist.com wrote in message
> >> <7fdgg9$nkv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >> >.
> >> >
>
> <snipo>
> >> Good point. It's been some time since I saw a `satanists are killing babies
> >> in the Hills' diatribe in the local tabloid - the visions of some virgin
> >> popping up in a local RC church's salt-damp and the `Australian Freedom
> >> Scout's' plans to combat the Yellow Peril with .22s and their zimmer-frames
> >> must have driven them out.
> >>
> >> I guess the aliens must have finally figured that everything on a Nullabor
> >> road-house menu comes with chips, and have gone back to the healthy diet of
> >> cow-lip'n'anus.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I am talking about the same type of reports that UFO generated,
> >such as cops and pilots reporting them during duty; not
> >drunk hill folk talking to a tabloid. You are comparing
> >apples to oranges.
>
> Nope. You are just claiming that he is comparing apples to
> oranges but you can't show that he is.
I just did. I am talking about reports made in the
*same manner* as UFO/IFO reports. He is counting
tabloid reports, not formal reports.
> And all the evidence
> is against you.
>
> Pilots and cops are no better than anyone else when
> reporting UFOs.
>
> Notice that down below, pilots barely beat out skilled
> tradesmen. Despite the fact that there were many more
> skilled tradesmen making reports.
[snip]
You are missing the point. I am NOT addressing the
accuracy of the witnesses here, but trying to
figure why other media icons do not have the
same effect as UFO.
Please read and understand the question instead of pasting
pre-built quotes out of habit.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
No. You just said that you did.
> I am talking about reports made in the
>*same manner* as UFO/IFO reports. He is counting
>tabloid reports, not formal reports.
There have been such formal reports. The FBI investigated
possible satanic murders before coming to the conclusion
that they were no different than UFO reports.
>> And all the evidence
>> is against you.
>>
>> Pilots and cops are no better than anyone else when
>> reporting UFOs.
>>
>> Notice that down below, pilots barely beat out skilled
>> tradesmen. Despite the fact that there were many more
>> skilled tradesmen making reports.
>[snip]
>
>
>You are missing the point. I am NOT addressing the
>accuracy of the witnesses here,
Wrong again. Your bias is still showing.
You wrote:
"such as cops and pilots reporting them during duty; not
drunk hill folk talking to a tabloid."
But there is no evidence that cops and pilots do better
reports on UFOs than anyone else.
> but trying to
>figure why other media icons do not have the
>same effect as UFO.
No, you're complaining that you don't have time to answer
the complaints about your lack of evidence in the other
thread but you are desperately trying to change the subject
away from all those claims that you couldn't back up.
>
>Please read and understand the question instead of pasting
>pre-built quotes out of habit.
>
I did.
Your comments show that you still haven't bothered to read
the rebuttals to your other claims.
When you write:
"such as cops and pilots reporting them during duty; not
drunk hill folk talking to a tabloid."
You fall into the same trap and the same quotes are totally
appropriate.
Appropriate and never answered.
top...@technologist.com
"John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
> top...@technologist.com wrote in article
> <7fdgg9$nkv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
>
> >directly ask them how this works in their mind.)
>
> such as MacDonald, Hynek, Jessup, Keyhoe. Did you communicate
> with them?
I do not "get" this insult, BTW.
>
> >Please see the following lists:
>
> >A. UFO's and saucers
> >B. Witches
> >C. God and Jesus
> >D. Foreign Invadors
> >E. Ghosts
>
> >1. They imagine them because they consciously believe it.
> >2. They imagine them because they unconsciously believe it
> > due to repeated exposure.
> >3. They imagine them simply because of repeated exposure.
>
> I have a rule against using the expression "straw man" more than
> once a year, but here it is only April and you've made me use it
> up for all of 1999. Other than you, who said that people "imagine" the
> things on your list?
>
> >If you believe the reason for imagining flying saucers
> >is #1, then B, C, D, and E should also be reported
> >fairly often, since many people also believe in these.
>
> A huge majority of sightings start with a real stimulus that is
> not imagined. For every totally imagined or hallucinatory Jesus
> there are probably dozens seen on tortillas or soybean tanks or
> in window reflections. Same with Mary, UFOs, ghosts, whatever.
>
> And by the way, if you believe that people today aren't seeing
> Jesus, Mary, ghosts, witches, and foreign invaders, then you
> haven't bothered testing your belief with an internet search engine.
> Maybe the numbers aren't what they once were, but the eyewitness
> reports still come in from all over, and sometimes there is physical
> evidence such as marks on the hands, or cold spots in a house, or
> knocking sounds behind a wall. The similarity of the reports is eerie,
> so they must be real.
>
> Could there be cultural factors involved? In a report of an
> alien airship crash from a hundred years ago, I saw that one of
> the witnesses had recovered some cogwheels. What do you bet
> that the cogwheels were made of unusually pure iron, a purity
> unavailable to nineteenth century technology?
>
> <snip>
>
I thought I addressed this already, but my replies keep
getting lost in black holes (either in cyberspace or
comprehension space).
These other media icons have NOT overall generated the
same KINDS of reports as UFO's. As an example, I see
no official police or pilot reports of ghosts or soviet
helicopters being reported.
By the way, the rust spots on some of those silos *DO* resemble
Elvis and Jesus at times. In those cases it is the SOURCE
of the image that is under dispute, not the resemblance.
A big difference.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>In article <01be8ab6$2be71cc0$15054ec6@default>,
> "John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
>> top...@technologist.com wrote in article
>> <7fdgg9$nkv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
>>
>> >(Twitchy, forget about other's opinions (quotes) since I cannot
>> >directly ask them how this works in their mind.)
>>
>> You've mentioned information that you got from dead UFOlogists
>> such as MacDonald, Hynek, Jessup, Keyhoe. Did you communicate
>> with them?
>
>
>I do not "get" this insult, BTW.
Why does this not surprise me.
<snipo>
Bruce Hutchinson
>Please see the following
>lists:
>
>A. UFO's and saucers
>B. Witches
>C. God and Jesus
>D. Foreign Invadors
>E. Ghosts
>
>1. They imagine them because they consciously believe it.
>2. They imagine them because they unconsciously believe it
> due to repeated exposure.
>3. They imagine them simply because of repeated exposure.
(snip)
If you try to focus this argument solely on the UFO, you are missing the
broad picture.
The big question simply is: what is the influence of the media on how
people think and behave?
The answer is obvious; if you are in advertising or in propaganda. The
influence is HUGE. The whole point of either skill is to infuence the mind
to react "unconsciously" to a specific stimulus. The advertising industry
revolves around successfully implanting a unconscious "desire" for a
particlular product, as successful advertising campaigns for otherwise
mundane products prove.
Equally, good propagandists can implant in otherwise intelligent people
some very unsavory ideas. Witness the huge success of totallitarian
regeimes of the past and present.
So, given the choices you posed, the answer is "all of the above". Media
influence does not have to be deliberate or programed. It simply has "to
be". The average Joe has been barraged with UFO/Alien stuff for some 40
years. Small wonder that when presented with a previously unknown, or
unrecognized phenomena, the initial reaction to correlate the observation
with something from the individual's memory banks.
If that individual is a big fan of the X-Files (and this is JUST AN
EXAMPLE!, so don't harp on it), the tendancy is to "indentify" the weather
balloon as something that (s)he has pre-programmed in their minds. Voila!
Another UFO "sighting"!
If you must have an example form the world of the UFO's, consider that in
the early '50's, the typical Alien was described as looking very much like
humans, except they tended to wear a lot of aluminum and plastic. Not
coincidently, this is the way they were drawn in countless newspapers,
magazines, sci-fi books etc of that era.
Today, most people see "Greys", and sonofagun, if this isn't the way most
papers, magazines, etc show them today? I remember a Weekly World News
report a couple of years ago [1] that contained a substantially different
written description of the "Alien rapist" [2], but the illustration was of
a stock "Grey".
It would be very interesting experiment to see if we could get some
magazine to start running pictures and descriptions of a new Alien Breed,
or a new Alien ship. Lets see... Something like a furry marroon tri-ped
that drives a ship that looks like a potato with a flat tail (sort of like
a interstellar platypus). I bet that if we could get a major mag to sell
it, there would be lots of serious sightings of our new aliens, or the
ship, within 6 weeks.
[1] It was a stalled checkout line, and I had nothing better to do...
[2] From the description, I'd say she was having an erotic dream about the
neighbor's kid.
hutch
______________
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend upon the support of Paul." --George Bernard Shaw
John Cason
<7g490n$i3g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> "John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
>>topmind wrote:
<snip>
>>>(Twitchy, forget about other's opinions (quotes) since 1
>>>cannot directly ask them how this works in their mind.)
>>You've mentioned information that you got from dead UFOlogists
>>such as MacDonald, Hynek, Jessup, Keyhoe. Did you communicate
>>with them?
> I do not "get" this insult, BTW.
It's one of those Rorschach, burnt-tortilla insults that only you can see.
>> >Please see the following lists:
>>>A. UFO's and saucers
>>>B. Witches
>>>C. God and Jesus
>>>D. Foreign Invadors
>>>E. Ghosts
>>>1. They imagine them because they consciously believe it.
>>>2. They imagine them because they unconsciously believe it
>>> due to repeated exposure.
>>>3. They imagine them simply because of repeated exposure.
>>I have a rule against using the expression "straw man" more than
<snip>
>These other media icons have NOT overall generated the
>same KINDS of reports as UFO's. As an example, I see
>no official police or pilot reports of ghosts or soviet
>helicopters being reported.
Long ago people saw airships and recovered cogwheels after crashes. In the
50s the shiny metal flying saucers left behind pieces of unusually pure
magnesium when they crashed. Lately some of the pieces have been made of
unusually pure silicon, and more triangles are seen. Scenes from science
fiction regularly influence UFO reports in later years. Do you see no
cultural influences at work?
And some of the older equivalents for ghosts and fairies and witches would
have been sheriffs and soldiers and clerics, not pilots. And they did make
'official' reports.
>By the way, the rust spots on some of those silos *DO*
>resemble Elvis and Jesus at times. In those cases it is the
>SOURCE of the image that is under dispute, not the resemblance.
>A big difference.
The resemblance perceived by the witness is the part influenced by culture.
Either you're getting the point, or you're about to slide into a different
claim as you've done so many times before.
top...@technologist.com
What specific media event influenced the triangle increase in your opinion?
It is often a chicken-or-egg puzzle. For example, UFO's making
car lights go out are found in some obscure French records of the 1950's
before the phenom became widely reported in the U.S. Thus, one cannot
really tell what caused what with regard to light-out
reports.
Then there is the month-before pre-Arnold disk sighting that you
guys conveniently have not commented on.
>
> And some of the older equivalents for ghosts and fairies and witches would
> have been sheriffs and soldiers and clerics, not pilots. And they did make
> 'official' reports.
>
> >By the way, the rust spots on some of those silos *DO*
> >resemble Elvis and Jesus at times. In those cases it is the
> >SOURCE of the image that is under dispute, not the resemblance.
> >A big difference.
>
> The resemblance perceived by the witness is the part influenced by culture.
Yeah yeah, yaddi daddi da....
> Either you're getting the point, or you're about to slide into a different
> claim as you've done so many times before.
>
When did I slide into a different claim? Please be specific
when you launch such insults. I HATE vague insults.
You still are not addressing the question of why other
media icons do not trigger similar "hallucinations".
Anyhow, I think it as a fantastic claim that requires fantastic
proof that a flight crew and several passengers can look at the same object
in broad daylight and have the same media-influenced hallucination at the same
time.
Fantastic claims require fantastic proof.
Eric Hocking
<7g8qol$l4n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> "John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
>> The resemblance perceived by the witness is the part influenced by
culture.
>
>Yeah yeah, yaddi daddi da....
I don't think this little point should be dismissed so readily, I seem to
remember *very* early *UFO* sightings, or stories thereof in the 17th
century or earlier, where the UFOs were described simply as sailing ships
flying through the air, replete with the occupants of these UFOs "swimming"
down anchor lines to the ground and playing merry hell with the
terrestrials.
I'd have to do some digging to find some sources of the above claim, but
when I read the articles and saw the woodcuts, I was impressed by the fact
that the UFO's descriptions tended to be inline with contemporary attitudes
to "modern" or futuristic.#
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
=== London, England (nee Melbourne, Australia) ===
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
top...@technologist.com
> > "John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
> >> The resemblance perceived by the witness is the part influenced by
> culture.
> >
> >Yeah yeah, yaddi daddi da....
>
> remember *very* early *UFO* sightings, or stories thereof in the 17th
> century or earlier, where the UFOs were described simply as sailing ships
> flying through the air, replete with the occupants of these UFOs "swimming"
> down anchor lines to the ground and playing merry hell with the
> terrestrials.
>
There are also stories of "firey wheels" without
sails nor rudders nor paddles.
> I'd have to do some digging to find some sources of the above claim, but
> when I read the articles and saw the woodcuts, I was impressed by the fact
> that the UFO's descriptions tended to be inline with contemporary attitudes
> to "modern" or futuristic.#
1. If they are ET's, it is possible they try to "fit in" a litte.
(one of many possibilities, so please don't dwell on this response.)
2. Flying saucers did not significantly resemble any styling
I know of from the late 40's. The cars and spaceships of SCI
FI resembled jets, rockets, and airplanes.
3. The "match" to contemporary stuff is far from perfect.
A "flying disk" was even reported around 1880.
4. It still does not answer the question about why
other media icons aren't producing similar
"professional hallucination" reports.
>
> --
> Eric Hocking
> "A closed mouth gathers no feet"
> === London, England (nee Melbourne, Australia) ===
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
>
>
-tmind-
top...@technologist.com
bhu...@SPblockAMcris.com (Bruce Hutchinson) wrote:
> top...@technologist.com scribed:
>
> >Please see the following
> >lists:
> >
> >A. UFO's and saucers
> >B. Witches
> >C. God and Jesus
> >D. Foreign Invadors
> >E. Ghosts
> >
> >1. They imagine them because they consciously believe it.
> >2. They imagine them because they unconsciously believe it
> > due to repeated exposure.
> >3. They imagine them simply because of repeated exposure.
>
>
> If you try to focus this argument solely on the UFO, you are missing the
> broad picture.
>
> The big question simply is: what is the influence of the media on how
> people think and behave?
>
> The answer is obvious; if you are in advertising or in propaganda. The
> influence is HUGE. The whole point of either skill is to infuence the mind
> to react "unconsciously" to a specific stimulus. The advertising industry
> revolves around successfully implanting a unconscious "desire" for a
> particlular product, as successful advertising campaigns for otherwise
> mundane products prove.
>
I don't remember many Unindentified Flying Deoderant reports.
> Equally, good propagandists can implant in otherwise intelligent people
> some very unsavory ideas. Witness the huge success of totallitarian
> regeimes of the past and present.
>
> So, given the choices you posed, the answer is "all of the above". Media
> influence does not have to be deliberate or programed. It simply has "to
> be". The average Joe has been barraged with UFO/Alien stuff for some 40
> years. Small wonder that when presented with a previously unknown, or
> unrecognized phenomena, the initial reaction to correlate the observation
> with something from the individual's memory banks.
>
I listed several points that tend to contradict this theory.
> If that individual is a big fan of the X-Files (and this is JUST AN
> EXAMPLE!, so don't harp on it), the tendancy is to "indentify" the weather
> balloon as something that (s)he has pre-programmed in their minds. Voila!
> Another UFO "sighting"!
>
> If you must have an example form the world of the UFO's, consider that in
> the early '50's, the typical Alien was described as looking very much like
> humans, except they tended to wear a lot of aluminum and plastic. Not
> coincidently, this is the way they were drawn in countless newspapers,
> magazines, sci-fi books etc of that era.
Most of my discussion is about UFO, not alien sightings. However,
most of the 50's reports came from the so called "Contactees",
not hypnotism. (I am not saying that hypnotism is fully reliable,
but it is a different kind of source from the 50's source.)
>
> Today, most people see "Greys", and sonofagun, if this isn't the way most
> papers, magazines, etc show them today? I remember a Weekly World News
> report a couple of years ago [1] that contained a substantially different
> written description of the "Alien rapist" [2], but the illustration was of
> a stock "Grey".
>
> It would be very interesting experiment to see if we could get some
> magazine to start running pictures and descriptions of a new Alien Breed,
> or a new Alien ship. Lets see... Something like a furry marroon tri-ped
> that drives a ship that looks like a potato with a flat tail (sort of like
> a interstellar platypus). I bet that if we could get a major mag to sell
> it, there would be lots of serious sightings of our new aliens, or the
> ship, within 6 weeks.
>
> [1] It was a stalled checkout line, and I had nothing better to do...
>
> [2] From the description, I'd say she was having an erotic dream about the
> neighbor's kid.
>
> hutch
>
> ______________
> "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
> depend upon the support of Paul." --George Bernard Shaw
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>In article <37267539...@news.cris.com>,
> bhu...@SPblockAMcris.com (Bruce Hutchinson) wrote:
>> top...@technologist.com scribed:
<snipo>
>> If you must have an example form the world of the UFO's, consider that in
>> the early '50's, the typical Alien was described as looking very much like
>> humans, except they tended to wear a lot of aluminum and plastic. Not
>> coincidently, this is the way they were drawn in countless newspapers,
>> magazines, sci-fi books etc of that era.
>
>
>Most of my discussion is about UFO, not alien sightings. However,
>most of the 50's reports came from the so called "Contactees",
>not hypnotism. (I am not saying that hypnotism is fully reliable,
>but it is a different kind of source from the 50's source.)
Hypnotism is not only not fully reliable, it ain't reliable
period.
"any memory recovered through hypnosis, dream
interpretation, or regression therapy is almost certainly
false."
(British Journal of Psychiatry, April 1998)
"it is possible for an individual to feign hypnosis and
deceive even highly experienced hypnotists... Further, it is
possible for even deeply hypnotized subjects to willfully
lie....
If the hypnotist has beliefs about what actually occurred,
it is exceedingly difficult for him to prevent himself from
inadvertently guiding the subject's recall so that he (the
subject) will eventually "remember" what he, the hypnotist,
believes actually happened."
(Doctor Martin Orne, past president of the International
Society of Experimental Hypnosis, in a paper in the
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
entitled THE USE AND MISUSE OF HYPNOSIS IN COURT.)
<snipo>
It may be that the race is not always to the swift
nor the battle to the strong - but that is the
way to bet.
Damon Runyon
Bruce Hutchinson
>In article <37267539...@news.cris.com>,
> bhu...@SPblockAMcris.com (Bruce Hutchinson) wrote:
>> top...@technologist.com scribed:
>> The big question simply is: what is the influence of the media on how
>> people think and behave?
>>
>> The answer is obvious; if you are in advertising or in propaganda. The
>> influence is HUGE. The whole point of either skill is to infuence the mind
>> to react "unconsciously" to a specific stimulus. The advertising industry
>> revolves around successfully implanting a unconscious "desire" for a
>> particlular product, as successful advertising campaigns for otherwise
>> mundane products prove.
>
>I don't remember many Unindentified Flying Deoderant reports.
>
[FX] (sound of The Obvious zipping unhindered through reader's mind..)
>> Equally, good propagandists can implant in otherwise intelligent people
>> some very unsavory ideas. Witness the huge success of totallitarian
>> regeimes of the past and present.
>>
>> So, given the choices you posed, the answer is "all of the above". Media
>> influence does not have to be deliberate or programed. It simply has "to
>> be". The average Joe has been barraged with UFO/Alien stuff for some 40
>> years. Small wonder that when presented with a previously unknown, or
>> unrecognized phenomena, the initial reaction to correlate the observation
>> with something from the individual's memory banks.
>
>I listed several points that tend to contradict this theory.
>
And your "contradictions" were insubstantial.
Look. The easiest way to show yourself the way the mind works is to
describe to someone else an object. The rules are as follows:
The object must be something the listener has never seen, nor has even
heard of. If you work in any kind of industry that produces unusual
products, this should be easy.
Now, try to describe this object without using the phrase "it looks
like", or "think of a...", or any phrase that asks for the listener to draw
up a similar image from his/her data bank.
The object here is to describe an totally unique thing, without using
known images as an "example" or "template".
Everyone uses descriptive images to describe things and events, and the
result is a distortion of reality.
>> If you must have an example form the world of the UFO's, consider that in
>> the early '50's, the typical Alien was described as looking very much like
>> humans, except they tended to wear a lot of aluminum and plastic. Not
>> coincidently, this is the way they were drawn in countless newspapers,
>> magazines, sci-fi books etc of that era.
>
>Most of my discussion is about UFO, not alien sightings. However,
>most of the 50's reports came from the so called "Contactees",
>not hypnotism. (I am not saying that hypnotism is fully reliable,
>but it is a different kind of source from the 50's source.)
The "Aliens" were just examples.
If you like, we can point to Mac Brazel. He found a shattered balloon made
of stuff he had not seen before. He also had just heard of Arnold's
"flying saucers". He put them together, and told Sheriff Wilcox he thought
he might found one of them Saucers. A legend was born...
Bruce Hutchinson
(snip)
>4. It still does not answer the question about why
> other media icons aren't producing similar
> "professional hallucination" reports.
Elvis
Perpetual Motion
MIB's
Bigfoot
The Second Gunman on the Grassy Knoll
Anastasia
D.B. Cooper
The Bermuda Triangle
Nessie
John Cason
<7g8qol$l4n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>"John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
>> top...@technologist.com wrote:
<snip>
>>Long ago people saw airships and recovered cogwheels after
>>crashes. In the 50s the shiny metal flying saucers left behind
>>pieces of unusually pure magnesium when they crashed. Lately
>>some of the pieces have been made of unusually pure silicon,
>>and more triangles are seen. Scenes from science fiction
>>regularly influence UFO reports in later years. Do you see no
>>cultural influences at work?
>What specific media event influenced the triangle increase in
>your opinion?
I haven't studied that and don't know.
>It is often a chicken-or-egg puzzle. For example, UFO's making
>car lights go out are found in some obscure French records of
>the 1950's before the phenom became widely reported in the U.S.
>Thus, one cannot really tell what caused what with regard to
>light-out reports.
As soon as there is some concept of what UFOs should look like
and how they should behave, there is a serious problem. There
were _IFOs_ in Hendry's CUFOS study that were reported as saucer
shaped even though they were seen edge-on, IFOs that sucked the
power out of buildings, IFOs that made dogs bark, IFOs that
caused physiological effects in the witnesses, IFOs that stalled
cars, etc. Because witnesses choose which sightings to report,
there is a huge selection problem in reporting.
Selection can give coincidence a huge effect in sightings. I
remember one Blue Book case with a stall at the same time that a
farmer saw a UFO. When the vehicle was checked, a broken piece
of rotor had jammed the points. Twitch pointed out that when
Coyne reflew the flight path for his famous helicopter sighting,
the radio communications were interrupted again, at exactly the
same location, due to local geography. We are practically at the
point where people will take a quick look around the sky anytime
their cars stall or their radios cut out. Any apparently
contemporaneous, otherwise normal activity may be considered
unusual and attributed to the 'UFO.'
A second level of selection occurs when UFOlogists go over the
cases that are reported and play pick-and-choose. Tom Ray who
posts here sometimes has said that true UFO sightings are the
ones with all the classical characteristics, and the others are
just misidentifications. He has pre-selected what his 'UFOs' are
going to be like. Suppose that I have test results from 1000
secret locations (Little League baseball diamonds, but you're not
supposed to know that). With a little testing and selection, I
can easily make a list of 10 or so apparently mysterious
locations where radiation levels are two standard deviations
above mean background, boron in the soil is high, and certain
ground features indicate inscrutable alien activities (chalky
deposits, soil depressions in identical square patterns, a raised
area of soil in the middle of the site). Is there anything
unusual about my group of cases?
>Then there is the month-before pre-Arnold disk sighting that
>you guys conveniently have not commented on.
There are tens of thousands of sightings that I haven't commented
on.
>>And some of the older equivalents for ghosts and fairies and
>>witches would have been sheriffs and soldiers and clerics, not
>>pilots. And they did make 'official' reports.
>>>By the way, the rust spots on some of those silos *DO*
>>>resemble Elvis and Jesus at times. In those cases it is the
>>>SOURCE of the image that is under dispute, not the
>>>resemblance. A big difference.
>>The resemblance perceived by the witness is the part influenced
>>by culture.
>Yeah yeah, yaddi daddi da....
Despite your view, the point is accepted by most UFOlogists. The
only debate is over the extent of the influence.
>>Either you're getting the point, or you're about to slide into
>>a different claim as you've done so many times before.
>When did I slide into a different claim? Please be specific
>when you launch such insults. I HATE vague insults.
That is my opinion, but you seem to see insults whenever views
contrary to yours are expressed. As an example of a slide,
consider your claim that the NAS review of the Condon Report was
a sham not up to scientific standards. When Twitch argued that
it was indeed a good scientific review of the report, and in fact
went beyond the requested review by soliciting and accepting
papers on the subject from MacDonald and others, you responded
that some ridiculously high number of scientific research
projects are unsuccessful anyway. Your second claim shifted from
bad science in the review to standards that were higher than for
other types of scientific studies. The second claim is entirely
dependent on another unreferenced claim that a huge proportion of
scientific studies are unsucessful. You don't seem to know that
scientific journals generally reject papers that report negative
results.
>You still are not addressing the question of why other
>media icons do not trigger similar "hallucinations".
I specifically denied your false 'hallucination' claim in my last
post. You are the only one to make that claim. Why do you
continue with it?
>Anyhow, I think it as a fantastic claim that requires fantastic
>proof that a flight crew and several passengers can look at the
>same object in broad daylight and have the same media-influenced
>hallucination at the same time.
How's this? --> Once every fifty years a flight crew and several
passengers will see something in daylight and have some common
misperceptions. The event will be poorly investigated and
incompletely described so that the original event is reported
with some distortion. There is no recording of the event, and it
occurred so long ago that further study is useless. The cause
will be unknown forever. Fantastic, or depressingly common in
UFOlogy?
>Fantastic claims require fantastic proof.
You make claims in every post and provide next to nothing in the
way of corroboration.
You make nonsensical arguments with no effort to think about what
you're typing. For example, when Twitch showed that pilots and
police officers are no better than the public at avoiding common
UFO misperceptions, you replied that it was a wonder that people
were able to fly planes and cross the street on a daily basis.
Pilots fly perfectly good aircraft into the ground so often that
there is a term for it, CFIT, or Controlled Flight Into Terrain.
Thousands of passengers have died in such crashes. In the U.S.
over the last few decades, 40,000-50,000 people have died in
automobile accidents every year.
From your first appearance here a couple of months ago, you've
consistently made believers look bad. I agree with Twitch most
of the time, but I could argue with him and do a better job than
you have.
***URLs related to cultural influences on UFO beliefs:***
"Screen Memories: An Exploration of the Relationship Between
Science Fiction Film and the UFO Mythology"
http://www.hedweb.com/markp/ufofilm.htm
"Entirely Unpredisposed: The Cultural Background of UFO
Abduction Reports"
http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/90/entirelymk.html
"Seeing Things"
http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/90/seeing.htm
"The Eyes That Spoke"
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9409/eyesthat.html
"Aliens have invaded the United States. No longer confined to
science fiction and tabloids, aliens appear in The New York
Times, The Washington Post, and the Wall Stret Journal, at candy
counters ... and on the Internet. Aliens are at the center of a
faculty battle at Harvard. They have ben used to market AT&T
cellular phones, Milky Way candy bars, Kodak film, Diet Coke,
Stove Top stuffing, skateboard accesories, and abduction
insurance."
(from a book review or jacket blurb)
http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/pub/8014/8468/
"But the UFO phenomenon simply does not behave like
extraterrestrial visitors. It actually molds itself in order
to fit a given culture." (see numerous quotes and references)
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/quotes.html
I don't know if it's in the archives yet, but in April Jenny
Randles started a thread in UFO Updates about the first reports
of Greys. She said that Greys were unknown in British abductions
until about 1987 after books by Strieber and Hopkins.
***Witches, Jesus, and UFOs**
UFOs are demons (see the greys)
http://www.nccg.org/Occult002-Demons.html
Virgin Mary seen by 250,000 people (including unknown number of
pilots and police officers) in daylight, plus a great photo
http://webcoast.com/features/virginmary.htm
Virgin Mary or UFO Sighting? (A cultural thing--Many UFOlogists
have claimed that the famous Fatima vision was a UFO rather than
a religious sighting. Altavista returns 4933 websites for
+Fatima +UFO.)
http://www.alienjigsaw.com/guadalup.html
http://ntdwwaab.compuserve.com/homepages/Andypage/fatima.htm
http://www.electrastar.com/ufo/
Eric Hocking
<7ggngp$5h4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>There are also stories of "firey wheels" without
>sails nor rudders nor paddles.
True, but in the instances I've seen (limited admittedly) the wheels were
invariably spoked. That is, of a contemprary style when reproduced or
described.
>> that the UFO's descriptions tended to be inline with contemporary
attitudes
>> to "modern" or futuristic.#
>1. If they are ET's, it is possible they try to "fit in" a litte.
And it is possible that they are mere inventions of man's imagination.
>2. Flying saucers did not significantly resemble any styling
>I know of from the late 40's. The cars and spaceships of SCI
>FI resembled jets, rockets, and airplanes.
That's why I added the "UFO's descriptions tended to be inline with
contemporary attitudes to "modern" or futuristic [design]". You could
probably find a Stone Age flint arrowhead that is the shape of a Stealth
bomber without looking too hard. You wouldn't then say that ET's visited
Stone Age man in B2's (or whatever they are) would you? Far simpler to see
that the shape is a good design for an arrow tip.
>3. The "match" to contemporary stuff is far from perfect.
> A "flying disk" was even reported around 1880.
I don't doubt it, humankind's imagination is practically limitless.
A quick rebuttal off the top of my head could be that the observer recalled
the biblical "fiery wheel" stories.
As I recall, the wheels tended to be horizontal. Second cab off the rank -
was there a tradition (Viking?) of carrying chieftains on shields? It
wouldn't take much extrapolation (storytelling) to extend this to a
chieftain being borne through the air on his shield, rather than the shield
being supported by his warriors. A couple of generations of legends down
the track and:
Round shield - flying disk.
>4. It still does not answer the question about why
> other media icons aren't producing similar
> "professional hallucination" reports.
I think Hutch's list covers a fair whack of them.
Sherilyn
"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> top...@technologist.com wrote in message
> <7ggngp$5h4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >There are also stories of "firey wheels" without
> >sails nor rudders nor paddles.
>
> True, but in the instances I've seen (limited admittedly) the wheels were
> invariably spoked. That is, of a contemprary style when reproduced or
> described.
Or, possibly, coded references to the gills of the kind of mushroom that
makes you see visions of this kind. :)
Sherilyn
top...@technologist.com
>
> >4. It still does not answer the question about why
> > other media icons aren't producing similar
> > "professional hallucination" reports.
>
>
> Perpetual Motion
>
> MIB's
>
> Bigfoot
>
> The Second Gunman on the Grassy Knoll
>
> Anastasia
>
> D.B. Cooper
>
> The Bermuda Triangle
>
> Nessie
>
> hutch
>
> ______________
> "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
> depend upon the support of Paul." --George Bernard Shaw
>
You have not been keeping up.
These are rarely filed by police officers
and pilots the same way UFO reports are.
top...@technologist.com
"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> top...@technologist.com wrote in message
> <7ggngp$5h4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >There are also stories of "firey wheels" without
> >sails nor rudders nor paddles.
>
> True, but in the instances I've seen (limited admittedly) the wheels were
> invariably spoked. That is, of a contemprary style when reproduced or
> described.
>
What about "flying shields" reports? They have no spokes.
> >> that the UFO's descriptions tended to be inline with contemporary
> attitudes
> >> to "modern" or futuristic.#
> >1. If they are ET's, it is possible they try to "fit in" a litte.
>
> And it is possible that they are mere inventions of man's imagination.
Sure, but witnessed phenom on occasion turn out to be right
despite being poopooed as superstition and overactive imaginations
by the "elite peer educated minds" of the time.
(Rocks falling from sky.)
>
> >2. Flying saucers did not significantly resemble any styling
> >I know of from the late 40's. The cars and spaceships of SCI
> >FI resembled jets, rockets, and airplanes.
>
> That's why I added the "UFO's descriptions tended to be inline with
> contemporary attitudes to "modern" or futuristic [design]".
I don't follow. Flying saucers did not resemble the popular
styles of the time IMO. Besides, they were reported just before
disks hit the press. These "just-pre-press" disk reports defy
the media influence theory.
> You could
> probably find a Stone Age flint arrowhead that is the shape of a Stealth
> bomber without looking too hard. You wouldn't then say that ET's visited
> Stone Age man in B2's (or whatever they are) would you? Far simpler to see
> that the shape is a good design for an arrow tip.
>
> >3. The "match" to contemporary stuff is far from perfect.
> > A "flying disk" was even reported around 1880.
>
> I don't doubt it, humankind's imagination is practically limitless.
>
> A quick rebuttal off the top of my head could be that the observer recalled
> the biblical "fiery wheel" stories.
> As I recall, the wheels tended to be horizontal. Second cab off the rank -
> was there a tradition (Viking?) of carrying chieftains on shields? It
> wouldn't take much extrapolation (storytelling) to extend this to a
> chieftain being borne through the air on his shield, rather than the shield
> being supported by his warriors. A couple of generations of legends down
> the track and:
> Round shield - flying disk.
With 5 thousand objects in a given household, no matter what appears
in the sky, someone can find something in a drawer that matches the
shape if they want to claim "previous influence".
The same with comic books.
>
> >4. It still does not answer the question about why
> > other media icons aren't producing similar
> > "professional hallucination" reports.
>
> I think Hutch's list covers a fair whack of them.
>
They are NOT the same type of reports. You are comparing
apples to oranges.
> --
> Eric Hocking
> "A closed mouth gathers no feet"
> === London, England (nee Melbourne, Australia) ===
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
>
>
-tmind-
top...@technologist.com
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <7gpf6b$pl...@atbhp.corpmel.bhp.com.au>,
> "Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > top...@technologist.com wrote in message
> > <7ggngp$5h4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > >There are also stories of "firey wheels" without
> > >sails nor rudders nor paddles.
> >
> > True, but in the instances I've seen (limited admittedly) the wheels were
> > invariably spoked. That is, of a contemprary style when reproduced or
> > described.
>
> makes you see visions of this kind. :)
>
> Sherilyn
What is more interesting is that the bad airplane food triggers almost
identical hallucinations in all the witnesses. Plus the hallucinating
witness pilots are still able to fly the plane and land safely.
Incredible claims require incredible proof.
These lock-step hallucination claims are just amazing!
top...@technologist.com
Reply to John Cason
>> As soon as there is some concept of what UFOs should look likeand how they
should behave, there is a serious problem. Therewere _IFOs_ in Hendry's CUFOS
study that were reported as saucershaped even though they were seen edge-on,
IFOs that sucked thepower out of buildings, IFOs that made dogs bark, IFOs
that caused physiological effects in the witnesses, IFOs that stalledcars,
etc. Because witnesses choose which sightings to report,there is a huge
selection problem in reporting.Selection can give coincidence a huge effect
in sightings. <<
Odd coincidences do indeed happen. But there is not near enough to extrapolate
that into
"no further study is recommended".
Scientists in the 1800's could have (and perhaps did) make a list of
"stupid witness" stories to defame the idea that rocks fall from the
sky.
There are also the just-pre-Arnold disk sightings that had no
media influence whatsoever. (Saucers were not a media icon
anywhere in the industrialized world at the time.)
>> There are tens of thousands of sightings that I haven't commented on.
[re-pre-Arnold sighting] <<
So? What does that have to do with just-before-Arnold-disk-sightings?
A good way to test the "media influence produces all saucer reports"
theory is to look BEFORE the media had saucers in it.
***********************
You guys simply ignore this. At least comment on it. Just say it was
a one-in-a-million coincidence like a good little skeptic and
leave it at that. That is preferable over silence.
***********************
P.S. See first message for details of the pre-Arnold sighting.
>> A second level of selection occurs when UFOlogists go over the
cases that are reported and play pick-and-choose. <<
Yeah, "believers" pick their favorite cases and skeptics pick
their favorite "stupid witness" stories. Same game. It is
human nature. Our preconceptions affect how we rank
and remember information.
>> Despite your view, the point is accepted by most UFOlogists.
Theonly debate is over the extent of the influence. <<
Exactly! I am not saying that the media has no influence. That is
not my point.
>> When Twitch argued thatit was indeed a good scientific review of the report,
and in factwent beyond the requested review by soliciting and accepting papers
on the subject from MacDonald and others, you responded that some ridiculously
high number of scientific research projects are unsuccessful anyway. <<
I believe you are confusing two seperate topics.
The bottom line is that such projects either need to find an objective
metric, OR a good "expert jury" system.
The Condon report did NOT find an objective metric, so they were
obligated to come up with an decent expert jury. They did NOT, yet
called it "science". THAT AINT SCIENCE, it is "sanctioned opinion".
Asking MacDonald questions has nothing to do with a good expert
jury. Consolidation prizes do not count. (Oops, I got of the topic.)
>> You make nonsensical arguments with no effort to think about whatyou're
typing. <<
You stole my criticism words about that Paste-Bot Twitchy.
Is that just a cooincidence?
BTW, I am on a "Twitch boycott". That dude is too darned annoying
for me to tolerate. Let him fill up someone else's harddrive.
>> You don't seem to know that scientific journals generally
reject papers that report negative results. <<
The issue is NOT what is to be put into scientific journals.
The Condon commitee (oxymoron) was not given the task
to edit (filter) a journal.
Besides, I have seen many volumes of AI (computer) journals
with many many many "successful" studies that never found
practical usage. "Promising" and "usable" are two different
things.
>> I specifically denied your false 'hallucination' claim in my lastpost.
You are the only one to make that claim. Why do you continue with it? <<
I did not see it. It probably got lost in twitch's Babble-Paste.
>> You make nonsensical arguments with no effort to think about whatyou're
typing. For example, when Twitch showed that pilots andpolice officers are no
better than the public at avoiding commonUFO misperceptions, you replied that
it was a wonder that peoplewere able to fly planes and cross the street on a
daily basis. Pilots fly perfectly good aircraft into the ground so often
thatthere is a term for it, CFIT, or Controlled Flight Into Terrain.Thousands
of passengers have died in such crashes. In the U.S.over the last few decades,
40,000-50,000 people have died inautomobile accidents every year. <<
But are these due to STRONG, PERSISTANT, CONSISTENT
ACROSS DIFFERENT PEOPLE hallucinations;
or fatique, drowsiness, and quick short-term mistakes.
You are comparing apples to oranges, which you seem fond of doing.
Scientists and skeptics also make stupid mistakes.
Meteorites were treated as "career kryptonite" until
they were eventually officially sanctioned as a
"legitamate scientific topic".
It is my opinion that status and peer pressure are at least equally
influential as the "will to see saucers" media influence.
There is plenty of evidence to support both sides of
the debate. Thus, I am left weighing human nature
factors, and so far the status/peer factor is stronger
than the TV-hallucination (alias "stupid witness") factor IMO.
At least you should respect that as a legitemate position.
Sherilyn
top...@technologist.com wrote:
> In article <7gplp0$je0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <7gpf6b$pl...@atbhp.corpmel.bhp.com.au>,
> > "Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > top...@technologist.com wrote in message
> > > <7ggngp$5h4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > >There are also stories of "firey wheels" without
> > > >sails nor rudders nor paddles.
> > >
> > > True, but in the instances I've seen (limited admittedly) the wheels were
> > > invariably spoked. That is, of a contemprary style when reproduced or
> > > described.
> >
> > Or, possibly, coded references to the gills of the kind of mushroom that
> > makes you see visions of this kind. :)
> >
> > Sherilyn
>
> What is more interesting is that the bad airplane food triggers almost
> identical hallucinations in all the witnesses. Plus the hallucinating
> witness pilots are still able to fly the plane and land safely.
>
> Incredible claims require incredible proof.
>
> These lock-step hallucination claims are just amazing!
>
_all_ visions would be required to be produced by the same mushroom, which
would have to _invariably_ produce identical hallucinations.
Sherilyn
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>In article <372d1079...@news.cris.com>,
> bhu...@SPblockAMcris.com (Bruce Hutchinson) wrote:
>> top...@technologist.com scribed:
>>
<snipo>
>You have not been keeping up.
>
>These are rarely filed by police officers
>and pilots the same way UFO reports are.
>
You have not been keeping up.
Police officers were found to be totally incorrect 94% of
the time when reporting UFOs. They weren't found correct
the other 6% of the time.
Hynek found that pilots were totally incorrect 88% of the
time.
With accuracy like that, who cares if they report UFOs?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>.
>
>Reply to John Cason
>
>>> As soon as there is some concept of what UFOs should look likeand how they
>
>should behave, there is a serious problem. Therewere _IFOs_ in Hendry's CUFOS
>study that were reported as saucershaped even though they were seen edge-on,
>IFOs that sucked thepower out of buildings, IFOs that made dogs bark, IFOs
>that caused physiological effects in the witnesses, IFOs that stalledcars,
>etc. Because witnesses choose which sightings to report,there is a huge
>selection problem in reporting.Selection can give coincidence a huge effect
>in sightings. <<
>
>Odd coincidences do indeed happen. But there is not near enough to extrapolate
>that into
>"no further study is recommended".
>
<snipo>
Nonsense. Even such a fanatic as topmind admits that
"I agree that UFO are probably all mistakes..."
But no one has stated that no further study is recommended
but topmind.
The Condon Report virtually repeats what topmind has claimed
and is in total agreement with him. Which is probably why
he is so unhappy with the Condon Report.
"Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the
study of UFOs in the past twenty-one years that has added to
scientific knowledge."
God knows that sentence is true even if extended to fifty
years.
"Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
Translation: They are probably all mistakes.
"We believe that any scientist with adequate training and
credentials who does come up with a clearly defined,
specific proposal for study (of UFOs) should be supported.
We think that all the agencies of the federal government,
and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to
consider UFO research proposals along with others submitted
to them on an open-minded basis."
Translation: Blue Book should be stopped and UFOs shouldn't
be treated any differently than any other research project.
Of course, topmind admits that the reports are probably all
a mistake but thinks we should fry people on that type of
mistake.
>The witness evidence is strong enought to fry
>a million OJ's, yet a great potential mystery
>is ignored simply because there is nothing that
>can be taken to a lab.
I personally don't think we should fry anyone on evidence
that is probably all mistakes.
top...@technologist.com
==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your
Own
>
I am not sure I understand what you wrote. I read it 4 times
and it still does not make sense to me. Note that the hallucinations:
1. Are almost identical in all the witnesses
2. Allow the pilots to operate and land the plane safely.
3. Left no feeling of being drugged in the witnesses.
-tmind-
(Dejanew's changes s*ck!!!!!)
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
John Cason
<snip>
>Odd coincidences do indeed happen. But there is not near enough
>to extrapolate that into "no further study is recommended".
You put quotation marks around that statement. Who said it?
If you can't name a specific source for that quote, then you're
still playing the game of inventing what your opponents say.
<snip>
>There are also the just-pre-Arnold disk sightings that had no
>media influence whatsoever. (Saucers were not a media icon
>anywhere in the industrialized world at the time.)
Trivial argument. Everyone was seeing disks within a few days of
the Arnold sighting. The bad description of his sighting that
was printed in the newspapers is a perfect demonstration of the
power of the media to influence people. In no time at all more
people had heard of flying saucers than had heard of the Marshall
Plan. They were seen all over.
<snip>
>A good way to test the "media influence produces all saucer
>reports" theory is to look BEFORE the media had saucers in it.
If you can't name a specific source for that quote, then you're
still playing the game of inventing what your opponents say.
<snip>
>The bottom line is that such projects either need to find an
>objective metric, OR a good "expert jury" system.
Door Number One or Door Number Two? This version of science is
another of your inventions.
>The Condon report did NOT find an objective metric, so they were
>obligated to come up with an decent expert jury. They did NOT,
>yet called it "science". THAT AINT SCIENCE, it is "sanctioned
>opinion".
Let's skip over all of this. Show us what science is.
Pretend that you have a million dollar genius grant to study
UFOs. Outline your hypothesis to be tested, your methods and
equipment, what observations or tests you will make, and how you
will accept or reject your hypothesis.
top...@technologist.com
"John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
> top...@technologist.com wrote in article <7h2a8i$4n1
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> >Odd coincidences do indeed happen. But there is not near enough
> >to extrapolate that into "no further study is recommended".
>
It is a paraphrase of the Condon Report, which was (is?) debated under
the "NAS Sham" thread.
>
> If you can't name a specific source for that quote, then you're
> still playing the game of inventing what your opponents say.
>
> <snip>
>
> >There are also the just-pre-Arnold disk sightings that had no
> >media influence whatsoever. (Saucers were not a media icon
> >anywhere in the industrialized world at the time.)
>
> Trivial argument. Everyone was seeing disks within a few days of
> the Arnold sighting.
I am talking about *JUST BEFORE*
> The bad description of his sighting that
> was printed in the newspapers is a perfect demonstration of the
> power of the media to influence people.
I am not posative about this, but it seems that the term
"saucer" or "flying saucer" did not enter into common association
with the phenom. until several months after the Arnold sighting.
I believe the term "disk" was used in some of the early reports,
and not even Arnolds.
Does anybody have any specifics about when "disk" and "saucer"
found their way into the 1947+ papers?
> In no time at all more
> people had heard of flying saucers than had heard of the Marshall
> Plan. They were seen all over.
>
> <snip>
>
> >A good way to test the "media influence produces all saucer
> >reports" theory is to look BEFORE the media had saucers in it.
>
> If you can't name a specific source for that quote, then you're
> still playing the game of inventing what your opponents say.
I gave TWO in these fora. One is on Page 8 of the Berkeley edition
of skeptic Peeble's "Watch the Skies!". The other is cited in the
first message from Flammonde.
>
> <snip>
>
> >The bottom line is that such projects either need to find an
> >objective metric, OR a good "expert jury" system.
>
> Door Number One or Door Number Two? This version of science is
> another of your inventions.
Is the Condon approach the more RATIONAL alternative? H*ll no!
(This is the topic of another on-going thread. Let's finish
the media influence stuff first, if you don't mind.)
>
> >The Condon report did NOT find an objective metric, so they were
> >obligated to come up with an decent expert jury. They did NOT,
> >yet called it "science". THAT AINT SCIENCE, it is "sanctioned
> >opinion".
>
> Let's skip over all of this. Show us what science is.
>
> Pretend that you have a million dollar genius grant to study
> UFOs. Outline your hypothesis to be tested, your methods and
> equipment, what observations or tests you will make, and how you
> will accept or reject your hypothesis.
>
I believe I already stated a few in the "twitchy battles". I will see
if I can collect them together and continue them in that other topic.
BTW, somebody mentioned again how I was looking for other media icons
in police and pilot reports, dispite the fact that Twitchy showed those
two groups to be no more reliable than others (in one study).
I picked those two as a consistant reference point, not nec. because
they are more reliable. I am just trying to compare apples with apples,
something which you guys don't seem to understand. You guys were
comparing tabloid accounts (apples) to official gov reports (oranges).
-tmind-
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
top...@technologist.com
>> And your "contradictions" were insubstantial. <<
Only in your mind because they contradict your world view.
A weather man spotting a "flying disk" just before
Arnold's sigthing, just before the idea of flying
disks became associated with space aliens or
the UFO mystery.
I do not find that "insubstantial". It strongly
contradicts the media influence theory because
it was triggered without any media influence.
Thus, you either have to dismiss it as a
coincidential misintrepation (not fitting
prior frequency patterns), or question the
media influence theory.
Second, other media icons fail to trigger
the same kind and frequency of "hallucinations".
You keep sidestepping and apple-oranging these
issues.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>.
>
>>> And your "contradictions" were insubstantial. <<
>
>Only in your mind because they contradict your world view.
>
>A weather man spotting a "flying disk" just before
>Arnold's sigthing, just before the idea of flying
>disks became associated with space aliens or
>the UFO mystery.
>
>I do not find that "insubstantial". It strongly
>contradicts the media influence theory because
>it was triggered without any media influence.
Nonsense.
There always has to be a first time. Then came Arnold and
the term took off. It was used very extensively, which you
didn't know, in the June Media articles and in the July
media articles. It was so well-known that more people knew
what flying saucers were than people knew about the Marshall
plan.
August 1947 Gallup Poll"
What do you think these saucers are?"
No answer, don't know 33%
Imagination, optical illusions, mirages, etc. 29%
Hoax 10% US secret weapon, part of atomic bomb, etc. 15%
Weather forecasting devices 3%
Russian secret weapon 1%
Searchlights on airplanes 2%
Other explanations 9%
Total 102%"
(Adds to more than 100% because some gave more than one
answer.)
"Guesses ranged all the way from practical to miraculous.
Among the later was a woman, citing biblical text, who said
it was a sign of the world's end. A man in the West thought
the discs were radio waves from the Bikini atomic bomb
explosion while another man saw in them a new product being
put out by the 'Dupont people.'
"A few people smelled a publicity or advertising stunt,
while others felt sure that the saucers were after all only
some kind of meteor or comet."
No alien spacecraft there, however.
<snipo>
>You keep sidestepping and apple-oranging these
>issues.
>
Because your "issue" is an apple-oranging issue.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>In article <01be9b43$9defb8c0$e32b15d0@default>,
> "John Cason" <jkc...@negia.net> wrote:
>> top...@technologist.com wrote in article <7h2a8i$4n1
>$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Odd coincidences do indeed happen. But there is not near enough
>> >to extrapolate that into "no further study is recommended".
>>
>> You put quotation marks around that statement. Who said it?
>
>
>It is a paraphrase of the Condon Report, which was (is?) debated under
>the "NAS Sham" thread.
>
No, it is a total distortion, not a paraphrase.
As you know quite well.
"Careful consideration of the record
as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
Cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be
advanced thereby.
Nothing like "no further study is recommended".
You have even admitted that:
>Like I said before, I agree that UFO are probably
>all mistakes,
Which is almost exactly what the Condon Report said!
They even went out of their way to say that studying UFOs
should be considered the same as any clearly defined,
specific scientific project.
"We believe that any scientist with adequate training and
credentials who does come up with a clearly defined,
specific proposal for study (of UFOs) should be supported.
We think that all the agencies of the federal government,
and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to
consider UFO research proposals along with others submitted
to them on an open-minded basis. While we do not think at
present that anything worthwhile is likely to come of such
research, each individual case ought to be carefully
considered on its own merits.
>>
>> If you can't name a specific source for that quote, then you're
>> still playing the game of inventing what your opponents say.
He still is.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >There are also the just-pre-Arnold disk sightings that had no
>> >media influence whatsoever. (Saucers were not a media icon
>> >anywhere in the industrialized world at the time.)
>>
>> Trivial argument. Everyone was seeing disks within a few days of
>> the Arnold sighting.
>
>
>I am talking about *JUST BEFORE*
There always has to be a first.
>
>
>> The bad description of his sighting that
>> was printed in the newspapers is a perfect demonstration of the
>> power of the media to influence people.
>
>
>I am not posative about this, but it seems that the term
>"saucer" or "flying saucer" did not enter into common association
>with the phenom. until several months after the Arnold sighting.
Wrong again.
The term was from Arnold's sighting, his term mistakenly
applied. Isn't it interesting that what Arnold saw wasn't a
saucer-shaped disc but that has become the standard because
he used the term saucer.
Most of the June 1947 articles used the terms flying saucer
and flying disc (or disk) interchangeably.
It was used in most of the July newspaper accounts. It was
so popular that they even took a Gallup poll using that term
in August of 1947!
St. Louis Post-Dispatch July 8, 1947
ARMY TELLS WHAT DISCS ARE NOT
WASHINGTON, July 8 (UP)-
Official Washington was sure today that it knew what the
flying saucers were not-but it hadn't the faintest idea what
they were. The Army Air Forces said they had the matter
under investigation. Preliminary study has disclosed that
the flying discs are not:
1.Secret bacteriological weapons designed by some foreign
power.
2.New-type Army rockets.
3.Space ships.
Privately, some air Forces officers say the saucers are
not-and let it go at that. But officially, the A.A.F. said
it is "keeping an open mind" because the discs have been
reported by so many normally responsible persons. "No such
phenomena can be explained by any experiments being
conducted by the A.A.F.," the official report said. "The
statements of witnesses are being correlated in an effort to
identify the reported objects." Rear. Adm. Paul F. Lee,
director of the naval research laboratory, said tersely: "We
concur in the Army announcement." A guided missiles expert
attached to the naval research laboratory said he had seen
one of the "saucers." Dr. C. J. Zohn said he and two fellow
scientists spotted it June 29, at White Sands, N.M. When he
reported the finding to the Army, he said, he got nothing
but knowing smiles. "We noticed a glare in the sky," he
said. "We looked up and saw a silvery disc whirling along.
We watched the thing for nearly 60 seconds and then it
simply disappeared. It didn't go behind a mountain range. At
onetime it was clearly visible, and then it just wasn't
there.
It had even become part of the language!
St. Louis Dispatch
PITTSBURGH, Pa., July 8 (AP)-Many persons have seen the
mysterious "flying saucers," but Connie Dunbar knows the
source of the ones he saw.
Dunbar, who said he was struck by saucers thrown by his
wife, Mrs Bessie Dunbar, was granted a divorce yesterday by
Judge Harry H. Roward.
Roswell Daily Record - July 8, 1947
RAAF Captures Flying Saucer
On Ranch in Roswell Region
No Details of Flying Disk Are Revealed
Roswell Hardware Man and Wife Report Disk Seen
The intelligence office of the 509th Bombardment group at
Roswell Army Air Field announced at noon today, that the
field has come into possession of a flying saucer.
According to information released by the department, over
authority of Maj. J. A. Marcel, intelligence officer, the
disk was recovered on a ranch in the Roswell vicinity, after
an unidentified rancher had notified Sheriff Geo. Wilcox
here, that he had found the instrument on his premises.
Major Marcel and a detail from his department went to the
ranch and recovered the disk, it was stated.
After the intelligence officer here had inspected the
instrument it was flown to higher headquarters.
The intelligence office stated that no details of the
saucer's construction or its appearance had been revealed.
Mr. and Mrs. Dan Wilmot apparently were the only persons in
Roswell who saw what they thought was a flying disk.
[...]
San Francisco Chronicle - July 9, 1947
ROSWELL STATEMENT
"The many rumors regarding the flying disk became a reality
yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th Bomb
Group of the Eight Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was
fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the
co-operation of one of the local ranchers and the Sheriff's
Office of Chaves county.
"The flying object landed on a ranch near Roswell sometime
last week. Not having phone facilities, the rancher stored
the disc until such time as he was able to contact the
Sheriff's office, who in turn notified Major Jesse A.
Marcel, of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence office.
"Action was immediately taken and the disc was picked up at
the rancher's home. It was inspected at the Roswell Army Air
Field and subsequently loaned by Major Marcel to higher
headquarters."
The Wyoming Eagle - July 9, 1947
ONLY MEAGER DETAILS OF FLYING DISC GIVEN
Kite-Like Device Found in N.M.; Studied by Army
By WILLIAM F. McMENAMIN
Washington, July 8 --(UP) -- The mystery of the "flying
saucers" took a new twist tonight with the disclosure that
the army air forces has recovered a strange object in New
Mexico and is forwarding it to Wright Field, Dayton, O., for
examination.
Announcement of the find came first from the Roswell, N.
Mex. army air base, near where a "saucer" was found three
weeks ago.
AAF headquarters later revealed that a "security lid" has
been clamped on all but the sketchiest details of the
discovery.
AAF spokesman would say only that the "saucer" was a
flimsily-constructed, kite-like object measuring about 25
feet in diameter and covered with a material resembling tin
foil.
A telephonic report from Brig. Gen. Roger B. Ramey,
commander of the Eighth Air Force at Ft. Worth, Texas, said
the purported "saucer" was badly battered when discovered by
a rancher at Corona, 75 miles northwest of Roswell, N.M.
Ramey scoffed at the possibility that the object could have
attained the supersonic speeds credited to the "flying
saucers" allegedly spotted in recent weeks.
He reported that the object was too lightly constructed to
have carried anyone and that there was no evidence that it
had had a power plant of any sort.
It bore no identification marks and Ramey emphasized that no
one had seen it in flight.
AAF sources ruled out the possibility that it might have
been an army weather-kite. Helium balloons have been used
for weather recording for the past seven or eight years.
They said it had been sent to Ft. Worth by Superfortress for
transhipment to the AAF experimental center at Dayton.
AAF commanders in New Mexico refused to permit the object to
be photographed on the grounds that it was "high level
stuff," although Ramey indicated he was not attaching too
great importance to the find pending an investigation.
The Roswell announcement came from Col. William H.
Blanchard, commanding officer of the Roswell army air base,
who specifically described the discovery as "a flying disc."
He said the disc had been forwarded to higher headquarters,
presumably the commanding general of the 8th air force at
Ft. Worth, Tex.
Blanchard would reveal no further details.
Sheriff George Wilcox of Roswell said the disc was found
about three weeks ago by W.W. Brizell (sic), on the Foster
ranch at Corona, 75 miles northwest of Roswell.
Wilcox said that Brizell does not have a telephone and so
did not report finding the disc until the day before
yesterday. Brizell told the sheriff he didn't know just what
the disc was, but that at first it appeared to be a weather
meter.
The sheriff's office notified the army, which sent
intelligence officers to pick up the object. Then today the
army announced possession of a disc.
The sheriff quoted Brizell as saying the object "seemed more
or less like tinfoil." The rancher described the disc as
about as large as a safe in the sheriff's office.
The safe is about three and one-half by four feet.
The Ceylon Observer - July 9, 1947
"FLYING SAUCERS" OVER S. AFRICA, CANADA
AND AUSTRALIA?
Conflicting Reports on Mystery Objects
"CONCRETE EVIDENCE" IN THREE INSTANCES
LONDON, JULY 9
The "Flying Saucer" mystery deepens.
Reuter reports today indicate that the mysterious objects
have been seen not only in the U.S.A. -- where reports have
come from 41 states -- but in Canada, Australia and South
Africa.
Statements regarding the size of the discs vary from "as big
as gramaphone records" to "a diameter of 200 feet with a
centre hole."
Meanwhile, the World Inventors Congress has offered a
thousand dollars reward for the delivery of a "flying
saucer" to their exhibition at Los Angeles this week.
Concrete evidence too has not been wanting, so far three
reports of "discs" or parts of discs being reported. While
one discovery reports a "flimsy construction" with material
"some sort of tin foil," another speaks of diecast metal an
eighth of an inch thick melting only at a heat of 6,300
degrees, and third speaks of "rock-like metal" which rained
down from a huge flying disc.
In the meantime at Sydney Professor of Physiology, H. P.
Cotton of the Sydney University conducted an experiment with
his class of 450 students and demonstrated that, when one
looks at a clear sky concentrating on a fixed point while
standing perfectly still rapidly-moving bright, oval-shaped
objects are seen. This he explained was due to the red
corpuscles of the blood having (sic) in front of the retina.
The first concrete evidence was announced last night when
United States Army Air Force authorities at Roswell, New
Mexico, revealed that a flying disc had been found on the
airfield.
General Roger Ramey, Commander of the Eighth Air Force with
headquarters at Fort Worth Texas, received the object from
Roswell Army Air Base. It is being shipped by air to the
Army Air Force Research Centre at Wright Field, Ohio.
In a telephone conversation with Army Air Force Headquarters
in Washington he described the object as a "flimsy
construction almost like a box."
So far as investigation could determine no one had seen the
object in the air, the General added. Asked what the
material seemed to be, Air Force officials in Washington
described it as "apparently some sort of tin foil."
It would have had a diameter of about 20 to 25 feet if
reconstructed, the officials added. Nothing in its apparent
construction indicated any capacity for speed and there was
no evidence of a power plant. The discs construction seemed
too flimsy to have enabled it to carry a man.
METEOROLOGICAL DEVICE
Army Air Force Headquarters said later that the officer who
had seen the object held a strong opinion that it might be a
meteorological device. "There is some indication that the
object might have been attached to a balloon which squares
with the description of meteorological equipment we have in
use," it was stated.
Meanwhile a man in Oelwein, Iowa, claimed that a flying
saucer had crashed into his front yard last night. He said
that he found a piece of metal in his yard six and a half
inches in diameter and about an eighth of an inch thick.
Planes were overhead at the time of the object's descent, he
said. The man, Lloyd Bennett, stated that he had a piece of
the material analysed by a metallurgist who said that the
disc appeared to be of some diecast metal which only melted
at a heat of 6,300 degrees.
ROCKLIKE METAL
A Chicago report says that a piece of rocklike metal,
alleged to have dropped from one of the "Flying Saucers"
arrived yesterday for analysis by metallurgists of Chicago
University.
The sender, Mr. Harold Dahl, of Tacoma, Washington State,
said that on June 25 over Puget Sound, near the Canadian
border, he and two companions on board a small boat saw what
appeared to be huge silver doughnuts coming down between the
clouds.
He anchored his boat and went ashore and watched the objects
through binoculars. He saw five objects floating around a
sixth. They were about 200 feet in diameter with a centre
hole surrounded by what appeared to be a row of portholes.
The ships, as Mr. Dahl described them, came level at about
fifteen hundred feet and then rose rapidly to a height of
nearly a mile.
At this point, according to Mr Dahl, the centre ship began
trailing a substance that rained down upon the water and
along the shore. Pieces of the "metal rain" smashed a part
of the wheel house of his boat and broke a searchlight lens
on deck.
"V" FORMATION
The South African report says that two Johannesburg
residents have reported that they saw "flying saucers" over
the city early yesterday.
They said that the objects were about as big as gramaphone
records and were revolving at a great speed in a "V"
formation. The objects disappeared in a cloud of smoke, they
added.
Six people claimed to have seen "flying saucers" in the
skies over Sydney in the last 24 hours.
One man said he saw a bright, oval-shaped object in the sky
at night at a height of about ten thousand feet. His
description was identical with those of the objects reported
to have been seen in the skies over Canada and parts of the
U.S.A. -- (Reuter)
Roswell Daily Record - July 9, 1947
Gen. Ramey Empties Roswell Saucer
Ramey Says Excitement is Not Justified
General Ramey Says Disk is Weather Balloon
Fort Worth, Texas, July 9 (AP)--An examination by the army
revealed last night that mysterious objects found on a
lonely New Mexico ranch was a harmless high-altitude weather
balloon -- not a grounded flying disk. Excitement was high
until Brig. Gen. Roger M. Ramey, commander of the Eighth air
forces with headquarters here cleared up the mystery.
The bundle of tinfoil, broken wood beams and rubber remnants
of a balloon were sent here yesterday by army air transport
in the wake of reports that it was a flying disk.
But the general said the objects were the crushed remains of
a ray wind (sic) target used to determine the direction and
velocity of winds at high altitudes.
Warrant Officer Irving Newton, forecaster at the army air
forces weather station here said, "we use them because they
go much higher than the eye can see."
The weather balloon was found several days ago near the
center of New Mexico by Rancher W. W. Brazel. He said he
didn't think much about it until he went into Corona, N. M.,
last Saturday and heard the flying disk reports.
He returned to his ranch, 85 miles northwest of Roswell, and
recovered the wreckage of the balloon, which he had placed
under some brush.
Then Brazel hurried back to Roswell, where he reported his
find to the sheriff's office.
The sheriff called the Roswell air field and Maj. Jesse A.
Marcel, 509th bomb group intelligence officer was assigned
to the case.
Col. William H. Blanchard, commanding officer of the bomb
group, reported the find to General Ramey and the object was
flown immediately to the army air field here.
Ramey went on the air here last night to announce the New
Mexico discovery was not a flying disk.
Newton said that when rigged up, the instrument "looks like
a six-pointed star, is silvery in appearance and rises in
the air like a kite."
In Roswell, the discovery set off a flurry of excitement.
Sheriff George Wilcox's telephone lines were jammed. Three
calls came from England, one of them from The London Daily
Mail, he said.
A public relations officer here said the balloon was in his
office "and it'll probably stay right there."
Newton, who made the examination, said some 80 weather
stations in the U.S. were using that type of balloon and
that it could have come from any of them.
He said he had sent up identical balloons during the
invasion of Okinawa to determine ballistics information for
heavy guns.
Roswell Daily Record - July 9, 1947
Harassed Rancher who Located
'Saucer' Sorry He Told About It
W.W. Brazel, 48, Lincoln county rancher living 30 miles
south east of Corona, today told his story of finding what
the army at first described as a flying disk, but the
publicity which attended his find caused him to add that if
he ever found anything short of a bomb he sure wasn't going
to say anything about it.
Brazel was brought here late yesterday by W.E. Whitmore, of
radio station KGFL, had his picture taken and gave an
interview to the Record and Jason Kellahin, sent here from
the Albuquerque bureau of the Associated Press to cover the
story. The picture he posed for was sent out over the AP
telephoto wire sending machine specially set up in the
Record office by R. D. Adair, AP wire chief sent here for
the sole purpose of getting out the picture and that of
sheriff George Wilcox, to whom Brazel originally gave the
information of his find.
Brazel related that on June 14 he and 8-year-old son, Vernon
were about 7 or 8 miles from the ranch house of the J.B.
Foster ranch, which he operates, when they came upon a large
area of bright wreckage made up on (sic) rubber strips,
tinfoil, a rather tough paper and sticks.
At the time Brazel was in a hurry to get his round made and
he did not pay much attenion to it. But he did remark about
what he had seen and on July 4 he, his wife, Vernon, and a
daughter Betty, age 14, went back to the spot and gathered
up quite a bit of the debris.
The next day he first heard about the flying disks, and he
wondered if what he had found might be the remnants of one
of these.
Monday he came to town to sell some wool and while here he
went to see sheriff George Wilcox and "whispered kinda
confidential like" that he might have found a flying disk.
Wilcox got in touch with the Roswell Army Air Field and Maj.
Jesse A. Marcel and a man in plain clothes accompanied him
home, where they picked up the rest of the pieces of the
"disk" and went to his home to try to reconstruct it.
According to Brazel they simply could not reconstruct it at
all. They tried to make a kite out of it, but could not do
that and could not find any way to put it back together so
that it would fit.
Then Major Marcel brought it to Roswell and that was the
last he heard of it until the story broke that he had found
a flying disk.
Brazel said that he did not see it fall from the sky and did
not see it before it was torn up, so he did not know the
size or shape it might have been, but he thought it might
have been about as large as a table top. The balloon which
held it up, if that was how it worked, must have been about
12 feet long, he felt, measuring the distance by the size of
the room in which he sat. The rubber was smoky gray in color
and scattered over an area about 200 yards in diameter.
When the debris was gathered up the tinfoil, paper, tape,
and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8
inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20
inches long and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated,
the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds.
There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have
been used for an engine and no sign of any propellors of any
kind, although at least one paper fin had been glued onto
some of the tinfoil.
There were no words to be found anywhere on the instrument,
although there were letters on some of the parts.
Considerable scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed
upon it had been used in the construction.
No strings or wire were to be found but there were some
eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of
attachment may have been used.
Brazel said that he had previously found two weather
balloons on the ranch, but that what he found this time did
not in any way resemble either of these.
"I am sure what I found was not any weather observation
balloon," he said. "But if I find anything else besides a
bomb they are going to have a hard time getting me to say
anything about it."
Las Vegas Review-Journal - July 9, 1947
FLYING DISC TALES DECLINE
AS ARMY, NAVY CRACK DOWN
By United Press
(UP) -- Reports of flying saucers whizzing through the sky
fell off sharply today as the army and navy began a
concentrated campaign to stop the rumors.
One by one, persons who thought they had their hands on the
$3,000 offered for a genuine flying saucer found their hands
full of nothing.
Headquarters of the 8th army at Fort Worth, Texas. announced
that the wreckage of a tin-foil covered object found on a
New Mexico ranch was nothing more than the remanants of a
weather balloon. AAF headquarters in Washington reportedly
delivered a "blistering" rebuke to officers at the Roswell,
New Mexico, base for suggesting that it was a "flying disc."
A 16 inch aluminum disc equiped with two radio condensers, a
fluorescent light switch and copper tubing found by F.G.
Harston near the Shreveport, Louisiana, business district
was declared by police to be "obviously the work of a
prankster." Police believed the prankster hurled it over a
sign board and watched it land at Harston's feet. It was
turned over to officials at Barksdale army air field.
U.S. naval intelligence officers at Pearl Harbor
investigated claims by 100 navy men that they saw a
mysterious object "silvery colored, like aluminum, with no
wings or tail," sail over Honolulu at a rapid clip late
yesterday. The description fit a weather balloon but 5 of
the men, familiar with weather observation devices, swore
that it was not a balloon.
"It moved extremely fast for a short period, seemed to slow
down, then disappeared high in the air," said Yeoman 1/C
Douglas Kacherle of New Bedford, Massachusetts. His story
was corroborated by Seaman 1/C Donald Ferguson,
Indianapolis; Yeoman 3/C Morris Kzamme, La. Crosse,
Wisconsin, Seaman 1/C Albert Delancey, Salem, West Virginia,
and Yeoman 2/C Ted Pardue, McClain, Texas.
Admiral William H. Blandy, commander-in-chief of the
Atlantic fleet, said like everyone else he was curious about
the reported flying saucers "but I do not believe they
exist."
Lloyd Bennett, Oelwein, Iowa, salesman, was stubborn about
the shiny 6 1/2-inch steel disc he found yesterday.
Authorities said it was not a "flying saucer" but Bennett
said he would claim the reward offered for the mysterious
discs.
There were other discards. Not all the principles were
satisfied with the announcement that the wreckage found on
the New Mexico ranch was that of a weather balloon.
The excitement ran thru this cycle:
1. Lieut. Warren Haught, public relations officer at the
Roswell Base released a statement in the name of Col.
William Blanchard, base commander. It said that an object
described as a "flying disk" was found on the nearby Foster
ranch three weeks ago by W.W. Brazel and had been sent to
"higher officials" for examination.
2. Brig. Gen. Roger B. Ramey, commander of the 8th Air Force
said at Fort Worth that he believed the object was the
"remnant of a weather balloon and a radar reflector," and
was "nothing to be excited about." He allowed photographers
to take a picture of it. It was announced that the object
would be sent to Wright Field, Dayton, OH.
3. Later, Warrant Officer Irving Newton, Stetsonville,
Wisconsin, weather officer at Fort Worth, examined the
object and said definitely that it was nothing but a badly
smashed target used to determine the direction and velocity
of high altitude winds.
4. Lt. Haught reportedly told reporters that he had been
"shut up by two blistering phone calls from Washington."
5. Efforts to contact Col. Blanchard brought the information
that "he is now on leave."
6. Maj. Jesse A. Marcel, intelligence officer of the 509th
bombardment group, reportedly told Brazel, the finder of the
object, that "it has nothing to do with army or navy so far
as I can tell."
7. Brazel told reporters that he has found weather balloon
equipment before, but had seen nothing that had resembled
his latest find.
8. Those men who saw the object said it had a flowered paper
tape around it bearing the initials "D.P."
It was so common that in August 1947, the Gallup people did
a poll asking what people thought flying saucers were.
August 1947 Gallup Poll"
What do you think these saucers are?"
No answer, don't know 33%
Imagination, optical illusions, mirages, etc. 29%
Hoax 10% US secret weapon, part of atomic bomb, etc. 15%
Weather forecasting devices 3%
Russian secret weapon 1%
Searchlights on airplanes 2%
Other explanations 9%
Total 102%"
(Adds to more than 100% because some gave more than one
answer.)
"Guesses ranged all the way from practical to miraculous.
Among the later was a woman, citing biblical text, who said
it was a sign of the world's end. A man in the West thought
the discs were radio waves from the Bikini atomic bomb
explosion while another man saw in them a new product being
put out by the 'Dupont people.'
"A few people smelled a publicity or advertising stunt,
while others felt sure that the saucers were after all only
some kind of meteor or comet."
>
>I believe the term "disk" was used in some of the early reports,
>and not even Arnolds.
Flying saucers and flying disks were used in many of the
articles interchangeably.
Look at the above articles.
>
>Does anybody have any specifics about when "disk" and "saucer"
>found their way into the 1947+ papers?
>
Look at the above articles.
<snip>
>>
>> >The bottom line is that such projects either need to find an
>> >objective metric, OR a good "expert jury" system.
>>
>> Door Number One or Door Number Two? This version of science is
>> another of your inventions.
>
>
>Is the Condon approach the more RATIONAL alternative? H*ll no!
Quite the contrary. It was approved by the gov't, approved
by the NAS, and is still approved by most scientists as even
you have admitted.
The difference is that you don't know anything about
science.
>(This is the topic of another on-going thread.
But you don't address this in the other thread.
> Let's finish
>the media influence stuff first, if you don't mind.)
You started this thread to try to avoid having to back up
your claims in the other thread.
<snipo>
>BTW, somebody mentioned again how I was looking for other media icons
>in police and pilot reports, dispite the fact that Twitchy showed those
>two groups to be no more reliable than others (in one study).
>
>I picked those two as a consistant reference point, not nec. because
>they are more reliable.
Nonsense! You've written:
"The attributes that your perhaps unrepresentative
case studies give to professionals like cops and
pilots alone is a great psychological mystery
by itself.
How are they able to do a respectful job, and then
turn Venus into a dancing spaceship in their
mind?
Such controdictory behavior in itself deserves
more study."
So, you were using police and pilots as professionals and
trustworthy and accurate.
"Like I said before, if pilots are so easily biased, blind,
and error-prone, then their planes would be crashing via
hallucinations all the time."
"Of all the icons and images available to pop culture,
it is strange how UFO icons cause most of the
hallucinations in professionals like cops and
pilots."
"Plus the hallucinating witness pilots are still able to fly
the plane and land safely."
"Note that the hallucinations:
1. Are almost identical in all the witnesses
2. Allow the pilots to operate and land the plane safely."
"I am talking about the same type of reports that UFO
generated, such as cops and pilots reporting them during
duty; not drunk hill folk talking to a tabloid. You are
comparing apples to oranges."
> I am just trying to compare apples with apples,
Nope. You just invent cow patties and call them apples.
>something which you guys don't seem to understand. You guys were
>comparing tabloid accounts (apples)
Ah, the CUFOS study is a tabloid account?
Bullshit.
> to official gov reports (oranges).
The CUFOS study agrees with Blue Book, Grudge, and the
Project Stork.
John Cason
>>>Odd coincidences do indeed happen. But there is not near
>>>enough to extrapolate that into "no further study is
>>>recommended".
>>You put quotation marks around that statement. Who said it?
>It is a paraphrase of the Condon Report, which was (is?) debated
>under the "NAS Sham" thread.
You put quotations marks around that statement. Quotation marks are used
to indicate a quotation, something that someone actually said or wrote.
Paraphrases should not be placed within quotation marks.
You use quotation marks in a misleading way. Condon didn't write that.
>>If you can't name a specific source for that quote, then
>>you're still playing the game of inventing what your opponents
>>say.
Yep, you're still playing the game of inventing what your opponents say.
>>><snip>
>>>There are also the just-pre-Arnold disk sightings that had no
>>>media influence whatsoever. (Saucers were not a media icon
>>>anywhere in the industrialized world at the time.)
>>Trivial argument. Everyone was seeing disks within a few days
>>of the Arnold sighting.
>I am talking about *JUST BEFORE*
The journalistic and public reaction to the Arnold sighting are powerful
examples of how a media icon can be created in only a few days. Pointing
to a sighting that didn't stir up the same fuss does not in any way
overcome the example provided by the Arnold sighting. Your argument is
trivial.
>>The bad description of his sighting that was printed in the
>>newspapers is a perfect demonstration of the power of the media
>>to influence people.
>I am not posative about this, but it seems that the term
>"saucer" or "flying saucer" did not enter into common
>association with the phenom. until several months after the
>Arnold sighting.
>I believe the term "disk" was used in some of the early reports,
>and not even Arnolds.
>Does anybody have any specifics about when "disk" and "saucer"
>found their way into the 1947+ papers?
Twitch blew your doors off on that question. For someone who wants to
argue about the early days of UFOlogy, you don't seem to know much about
the topic.
>>In no time at all more people had heard of flying saucers than
>>had heard of the Marshall Plan. They were seen all over.
>><snip>
>>>A good way to test the "media influence produces all saucer
>>>reports" theory is to look BEFORE the media had saucers in it.
>>If you can't name a specific source for that quote, then you're
>>still playing the game of inventing what your opponents say.
>I gave TWO in these fora. One is on Page 8 of the Berkeley
>edition of skeptic Peeble's "Watch the Skies!". The other is
>cited in the first message from Flammonde.
I wasn't referring to the UFO sighting by the weatherman, but to your
quotation, "Media influence produces all saucer reports." Who said or
wrote those words that you put within the quotation marks?
You're making it up again, aren't you?
>><snip>
>>>The bottom line is that such projects either need to find an
>>>objective metric, OR a good "expert jury" system.
>>Door Number One or Door Number Two? This version of science is
>>another of your inventions.
>Is the Condon approach the more RATIONAL alternative? H*ll no!
>(This is the topic of another on-going thread. Let's finish
>the media influence stuff first, if you don't mind.)
>>>The Condon report did NOT find an objective metric, so they
>>>were obligated to come up with an decent expert jury. They did
>>>NOT, yet called it "science". THAT AINT SCIENCE, it is
>>>"sanctioned opinion".
I've seen no indication that you know enough about the Condon Report to
discuss its methods. Have you read the books by Craig and Saunders?
>>Let's skip over all of this. Show us what science is.
>>Pretend that you have a million dollar genius grant to study
>>UFOs. Outline your hypothesis to be tested, your methods and
>>equipment, what observations or tests you will make, and how
>>you will accept or reject your hypothesis.
>I believe I already stated a few in the "twitchy battles". I
>will see if I can collect them together and continue them in
>that other topic.
That would allow us to move on.
>BTW, somebody mentioned again how I was looking for other media
>icons in police and pilot reports, dispite the fact that Twitchy
>showed those two groups to be no more reliable than others (in
>one study).
>I picked those two as a consistant reference point, not nec.
>because they are more reliable. I am just trying to compare
>apples with apples, something which you guys don't seem to
>understand. You guys were comparing tabloid accounts (apples) to
>official gov reports (oranges).
If those two types of witnesses are not different from other witnesses, how
can they be a constant reference point? I don't understand the tabloid
accounts versus official gov reports bit either.
Are you saying that official government reports are more reliable than
tabloid accounts?
top...@technologist.com
Reply to John C.
>> [I am talking about *JUST BEFORE* [Arnold]]
The journalistic and public reaction to the Arnold sighting are powerful
examples of how a media icon can be created in only a few days.
Pointing
to a sighting that didn't stir up the same fuss does not in any way
overcome the example provided by the Arnold sighting.
Your argument is trivial. <<
TRIVIAL ??????????
Almost everyone who studies UFOs as a long-term hobby will agree
that the media influences some, and perhaps most sightings.
However, the ZILLION DOLLAR QUESTION is whether it is the
source of *ALL* sightings. In this "business" there is a
BIG difference between 'most' and 'all'.
Any post-Arnold disk sighting has the possibility of media
influence. Therefore, to answer the most vs. all question,
it would be helpful to REMOVE the influence of the media
from the cases we look at.
One way to do this is to look JUST BEFORE the Arnold report
hit the newspapers.
Before Arnold, flying disks were NOT a media icon in any
way. Thus, if someone spotted a flying disk a few months
before the Arnold press, it has NO MEDIA INFLUENCE, and
skeptics cannot use media influence to explain the
alleged hallucinations.
I will repeat, you cannot use the media excuse on such
sightings REGARDLESS of what happens AFTER Arnold or
how strong the media influence is (in a skeptics mind).
Unless you can find a better way to remove "media noise" from
samples, pre-Arnold sightings are hardly TRIVIAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!
------
>> You put quotations marks around that statement. Quotation marks are
used
to indicate a quotation, something that someone actually said or wrote.
Paraphrases should not be placed within quotation marks. <<
How should I represent paraphrasing to satisfy you then?
It is a good practice to present alternatives WHEN complaining
about something. (Learned from Real Working World 101).
>> Twitch blew your doors off on that question. For someone who wants
to
argue about the early days of UFOlogy, you don't seem to know much about
the topic. <<
If he did, I missed it. I have been avoiding Twitch because of his
annoying writing style (with "style" being used very loosely here).
I will go back and take a look. Do you have any dates? (I will not
reply to Twitchy until he takes his twitchING fingers off of the
paste-key.)
>> If those two types of witnesses are not different from other
witnesses, how
can they be a constant reference point? I don't understand the tabloid
accounts versus official gov reports bit either. <<
That is because you seem to spurt standard skeptic drival instead of
thinking about what is actually being said.
>> Are you saying that official government reports are more reliable
than
tabloid accounts? <<
You guys are so fricken dense !!!!!!!
Reliability of the reports and the observers has nothing to do
with my comparison. I am only looking for SIMILAR RESPONSES.
I am simply taking YOUR explanation and applying it to other
media images to see if the same result is produced. It appears that
other media images ARE NOT TRIGGERING SIMILAR RESPONSES. Thus,
there appears to be a flaw in your media-influence theory
to account for all reports.
I do not consider tabliods to be "similar responses" to
formal reports to the government. I am not judging the reliability
of gov reports versus tabliods (at this stage), I am simply
looking for the *same response to stimuli*. Tabloids and
gov reports are not the same response to stimuli (unless you
can argue otherwise).
It is all BASIC SCIENCE.
Let me rephrase it:
Symbols:
MI = media influence.
GR = official government reports
TR = tabloid reports.
MI = Media images
NUMI = non-UFO media images (foriegn invaders, ghosts, Jesus, etc.)
(NUMI is a subset of MI)
Hypoth E: "Exposure to MI produces hallucinations that result in
TR and GR." (your theory, I believe)
Question: "What is it about UFO that produce TR and GR?"
Answer M: "UFO are MI, and applying E, we get TR and GR".
If E is true, then why do NUMI *not* also produce GR (in quantity)?
What is different about UFO and NUMI that give this:
UFO -> GR, TR
NUMI -> TR
("->" means "produces" in this context.)
Why no GR under NUMI? There appears to be a flaw in E !
I am only recognizing GR and TR as different responses
to stimuli here, not judging their reliability (at this point).
I cannot get more clear than that, guys. You would have to
take Science 101 if you still don't get it.
top...@technologist.com
Reply to Twitchy-Paste-Finger:
I only broke my bycott of you because
John cited you as a superior source of
saucer sources (tung twister. Say it
20 times fast).
>> There always has to be a first. <<
There is a big difference between the first disk
sighting and the first mass-media report.
There is ZERO evidence that the pre-Arnold
sighing(s) I talked about made its way into
the popular media in any way. (There was a saucer
in a Texas paper in the mid 1800's, but it never
generated a media symbol.)
Thus, so far the Arnold episode appears to be
the lone source of mass saucerdom in the mass media.
THUS THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT THE APRIL 1947
DISK SIGHTING(S) WAS INFLUENCED BY THE MEDIA
IN ANY WAY BECAUSE DISKS WERE NOT A MEDIA
ICON IN APRIL 1947. (Nor is there any evidence
that Arnold was influenced by the April sighting.)
>> Wrong again.
The term was from Arnold's sighting, his term mistakenly
applied. Isn't it interesting that what Arnold saw wasn't a
saucer-shaped disc but that has become the standard because
he used the term saucer. <<
You are confusing the origin of the concept of disk shapes
and the term "saucer".
My question was about when the term "saucer" and/or "disk" first
appeared in the media accounts. In other words, were all
post-Arnold disk sightings reported AFTER Arnold used the
term "disk" and/or "saucer"?
Arnold's was the first modern UFO news report, but was it the
first disk/saucer report? Not quite the same thing.
Your quotes start at July 8. There were many non-Arnold reports
made before July 8.
The question about when and who first used either "saucer" or
"disk" in the press in 1947 has not yet been answered. (It is
a question on my part, not a claim.)
However, it is odd that respected people would read a few
articles about flying disks and immediately begin
your alleged Disk-Hallucinations. Not even a movie yet!
That is an awful lot of power to attribute to media
influence.
The concept has been in the paper and radio for only
a FEW DAYS, and it is already triggering 60-second
hallucinations in multiple scientists standing
together:
"Dr. C. J. Zohn said he and two fellow
scientists spotted it June 29, at White Sands, N.M. When he
reported the finding to the Army, he said, he got nothing
but knowing smiles. "We noticed a glare in the sky," he
said. "We looked up and saw a silvery disc whirling along.
We watched the thing for nearly 60 seconds and then it
simply disappeared. It didn't go behind a mountain range. At
one time it was clearly visible, and then it just wasn't there."
In my mind, your media explanation just plain sucks.
And, the haughty skeptics were already hot on the trail
of ridiculous explanations that they are infamous for:
"[July 9] In the meantime at Sydney Professor of Physiology, H. P.
Cotton of the Sydney University conducted an experiment with
his class of 450 students and demonstrated that, when one
looks at a clear sky concentrating on a fixed point while
standing perfectly still rapidly-moving bright, oval-shaped
objects are seen. This he explained was due to the red
corpuscles of the blood having (sic) in front of the retina."
(I don't remember very many cases fitting into that category in
Blue Book IFO stats.)
>> So, you were using police and pilots as professionals and
trustworthy and accurate. <<
Your quotes WERE out of context. I used those cases for
a different purpose in what you quoted. There is no
rule saying that I have to always use the same cases for
the same argument purpose.
I can present a fish as an
example of a "water dwelling animinal" in one example,
and then as "a scaly-skinned creature" in another.
All perfectly valid in the world of science and debate.
(Although, perhaps it risk generating confusion in those
who do not read carefully or who are itching [or twitching]
to improperly frame somebody using out-of-context quotes.)
>> But you don't address this in the other thread. <<
It seems like the same crap over and over again. You and
me just seem to have a different interpretation of Condon's
summary and have different ideas about the criteria
for good, unbiased science. Post-study review is
NOT suffient in my mind. They should have a FULL expert
jury from start to end. Maybe when we are done with
the media influence thing, I will return again. "However,
at this stage it appears that nothing new will result
from further debate of the topic." (roughly paraphrased)
>> Ah, the CUFOS study is a tabloid account? Bullshit. <<
What the heck are you talking about? You are appearently trying to
bring together two entirely different topics.
>> The CUFOS study agrees with Blue Book, Grudge, and theProject Stork.
<<
My favorite subset of the entire pool of studies supports my point of
view
and your favorite subset of the entire pool of studies supports your
point of view. Why is your subset better than my subset? (Please
carefully
consider the concepts of "subset" and "entire pool" before you
hit the paste buttom for your favorite standard replies. You
sometimes have forest-tree blindness.)
"Declaring victory before the war is ended is a sure
sign of either arrogance or deception." (src unkn)
-tmind-
P.S. My doors are still on, John. (Re: other messages)
John Cason
>John Cason wrote:
<snip>
>Almost everyone who studies UFOs as a long-term hobby will
>agree that the media influences some, and perhaps most
>sightings. However, the ZILLION DOLLAR QUESTION is whether it
>is the source of *ALL* sightings. In this "business" there is
>a BIG difference between 'most' and 'all'.
I don't know of *anyone* who has ever claimed that media
influence is the source of *ALL* UFO sightings. This is yet
another of your phony arguments. No one cares about your
"ZILLION DOLLAR QUESTION" because you are the only one asking it.
<snip>
>Thus, if someone spotted a flying disk a few months before the
>Arnold press, it has NO MEDIA INFLUENCE, and skeptics cannot use
>media influence to explain the alleged hallucinations.
You are again the one responsible for the claim of "alleged
hallucinations." Skeptics don't claim that all, most, or even a
significant part of UFO sightings are caused by hallucinations.
I have specifically denied this phony claim of yours earlier in
this thread. Why don't you argue with the real opinions of real
people instead of these constant stand-ins that you keep propping
up?
>I will repeat, you cannot use the media excuse on such sightings
>REGARDLESS of what happens AFTER Arnold or how strong the media
>influence is (in a skeptics mind).
In an earlier post I listed several URLs with discussions of the
influence of popular culture on UFO sightings. Did you read
them? At least two of those were from Magonia. Do you know that
Magonia is a UFO-believer publication?
Opinion within the UFO-believer camp is spread out all over the
range of possible opinion from nuts and bolts (UFOs are
physically real alien spaceships) to psychic phenomena (UFOs
don't have a physical existence and may not exist independently
from the human brain). In our posts over the last several years,
Twitch and I have recognized the differences and have not treated
all believers as cookie-cutter equivalents. You, on the other
hand, seem to be totally unable to imagine that skeptics have a
range of opinions that exist outside of your silly caricatures of
them.
<snip>
>How should I represent paraphrasing to satisfy you then?
Examples:
1. Condon said UFOs weren't worth further study.
2. Condon said that UFOs weren't worth further study.
Without quotations marks, it is obvious that you are stating your
opinion of what Condon said, rather than quoting what he said.
<snip>
>>Twitch blew your doors off on that question. For someone who
>>wants to argue about the early days of UFOlogy, you don't seem
>>to know much about the topic.
I saw your other response and you are mistaken about your
condition after Twitch's reply. You claimed that the term
"flying saucer" wasn't in general use for another several months
after the Arnold sighting. Twitch gave tons of specific examples
showing you were wrong. Not a little bit wrong, totally wrong.
You have no doors left, all four tires are flat, and the motor is
dead.
But you are still shouting, "Vroom, vroom," and shifting gears.
<snip>
>That is because you seem to spurt standard skeptic drival
>instead of thinking about what is actually being said.
"Standard skeptic drival." Is that your way of thinking about
what was said?
<snip>
>Thus, there appears to be a flaw in your media-influence theory
>to account for all reports.
Another paper doll (effigy, mannequin, puppet, scarecrow, dummy,
stand-in, substitute, double, ringer, understudy, etc). There's
that other really good term, but I use it only once a year and
you've already made me use it for 1999.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>.
>
>Reply to John C.
>
>>> [I am talking about *JUST BEFORE* [Arnold]]
>The journalistic and public reaction to the Arnold sighting are powerful
>examples of how a media icon can be created in only a few days.
>Pointing
>to a sighting that didn't stir up the same fuss does not in any way
>overcome the example provided by the Arnold sighting.
>Your argument is trivial. <<
>
>TRIVIAL ??????????
>
>Almost everyone who studies UFOs as a long-term hobby will agree
>that the media influences some, and perhaps most sightings.
Well, you just showed that your argument is trivial.
>However, the ZILLION DOLLAR QUESTION is whether it is the
>source of *ALL* sightings. In this "business" there is a
>BIG difference between 'most' and 'all'.
Well, you've finally figured out the definition of all,
excuse me, *ALL*.
You admitted that:
>Like I said before, I agree that UFO are probably
>all mistakes
Which you then tried to claim was not really any different
than your claim that:
>It is certainly possible that some may actually
>be mistakes.
Now, do you admit that all and some are slightly different?
>
>Any post-Arnold disk sighting has the possibility of media
>influence. Therefore, to answer the most vs. all question,
>it would be helpful to REMOVE the influence of the media
>from the cases we look at.
We have no way to do that.
We do have the advantage of Arnold not describing a disk,
however.
He drew a bat-shaped or cresent-shaped objct. Not a
disk-shaped object.
Now, if the media didn't influence the reports, why aren't
we getting bat-shaped objects being reported instead of
disk-shaped objects?
To see what Arnold drew, go to:
http://www.skepdic.com/comments/saucecom.html
>
>One way to do this is to look JUST BEFORE the Arnold report
>hit the newspapers.
How do you know that Arnold wasn't influenced by the
preceeding reports?
The pulp magazines frequently had saucers on their covers
prior to Arnold. IIRC, this goes back to the thirties.
But, of course, Arnold didn't report a disk. He used that
term to describe their motion!
"...in fact they reminded me of a saucer skipping across
water."
So all of the media influence is about a misunderstanding of
what Arnold reported.
Unless you are claiming that the alien spaceships seen
afterwards are from a different model year.
>
>Before Arnold, flying disks were NOT a media icon in any
>way.
Assertion with no evidence.
And Arnold didn't see a flying disk, he saw a bat-shaped
object.
So why aren't we getting bat-shaped objects if that is what
they looked like?
The media called them disks!
> Thus, if someone spotted a flying disk a few months
>before the Arnold press,
But Arnold didn't report a flying disk. The media reported
that way but that isn't anywhere near what he claimed to
have seen.
> it has NO MEDIA INFLUENCE, and
>skeptics cannot use media influence to explain the
>alleged hallucinations.
You make an assertion based on your lack of knowledge of the
subject and then use that to come to a conclusion that you
want to be true.
>
>I will repeat, you cannot use the media excuse on such
>sightings REGARDLESS of what happens AFTER Arnold or
>how strong the media influence is (in a skeptics mind).
See above.
>
>Unless you can find a better way to remove "media noise" from
>samples, pre-Arnold sightings are hardly TRIVIAL !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exclamation points do not improve poor logic on your part.
>>> You put quotations marks around that statement. Quotation marks are
>used
>to indicate a quotation, something that someone actually said or wrote.
>Paraphrases should not be placed within quotation marks. <<
>
>How should I represent paraphrasing to satisfy you then?
You say that you are paraphrasing. Use of quotation marks
means you are quoting.
>
>It is a good practice to present alternatives WHEN complaining
>about something. (Learned from Real Working World 101).
Try using the Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White, or
any other such source.
>>> Twitch blew your doors off on that question. For someone who wants
>to
>argue about the early days of UFOlogy, you don't seem to know much about
>the topic. <<
>
>If he did, I missed it.
I did. I posted a whole load of newspaper articles showing
that in July of 1947, the term flying saucer was used
extensively and interchangeably with flying disc and flying
disk.
The same is true in the newspaper articles of June 1947
which I didn't bother posting.
All of which is also shown by the Gallup Poll of August 1947
in which more people knew of flying saucers than they did of
the Marshall plan.
John is right. For someone who wants to
argue about the early days of UFOlogy, you don't seem to
know much about the topic.
> I have been avoiding Twitch because of his
>annoying writing style
What you mean is that twitch backs up his comments with
something other than fake quotes. Or claims about your
subset of studies which you have never quoted or used.
> (with "style" being used very loosely here).
As opposed to putting !!!!!!!!!!! all over the place? As
opposed to putting caps and small case interchangeably?
>I will go back and take a look. Do you have any dates? (I will not
>reply to Twitchy until he takes his twitchING fingers off of the
>paste-key.)
You just don't like having your own words reposted showing
that you are totally inconsistent and don't know what you
are talking about.
You quote James McDonald, based on his personal preferences
but not any of his research, but you don't like someone
posting Hendry based on his research.
>>> If those two types of witnesses are not different from other
>witnesses, how
>can they be a constant reference point? I don't understand the tabloid
>accounts versus official gov reports bit either. <<
>
>That is because you seem to spurt standard skeptic drival instead of
>thinking about what is actually being said.
Meaningless assertion with no evidence to back it up.
>
>
>>> Are you saying that official government reports are more reliable
>than
>tabloid accounts? <<
>
>You guys are so fricken dense !!!!!!!
Ah, back to the old !!!!!!! style of writing. If you want
to call that a style.
>
>Reliability of the reports and the observers has nothing to do
>with my comparison. I am only looking for SIMILAR RESPONSES.
Go to the insane asylum. Many people with similar mental
illnesses give similar responses.
>
>I am simply taking YOUR explanation and applying it to other
>media images to see if the same result is produced.
Nonsense. You are taking an explanation, which has decent
evidence supporting it, as even you admit:
>Any post-Arnold disk sighting has the possibility of media
>influence
and attempting to distort it totally.
Most people don't expect to see Russian Migs flying over the
US. So if they see something they don't know, they don't
think of Migs. They think of UFOs. They have been told by
the media that UFOs are alien spacecraft so they see those.
They don't believe that witches fly brooms, so they don't
report those. These people are attempting to explain what
they see in terms that they believe.
They believe in flying saucers so they report flying
saucers. Despite Arnold not reporting a flying saucer.
Some people believe that Elvis is still alive. There were
over a quarter of million Elvis sightings by people who
believed that he was still alive as of early 1997, according
to CNN.
Belief is a prime requirement in reporting something. If
you don't believe that witches fly broomsticks, you don't
report that.
If you believe that a UFO is supposed to be saucer-shaped,
you report a saucer-shape. Even if you can't see a
saucer-shape.
229 out of 230 Advertising airplanes reported as UFOs to
CUFOS, were reported to be saucer-shaped. This is
overwhelming evidence that people are media influenced to
report saucers.
<snipo>
>It is all BASIC SCIENCE.
But from your comments about the Condon Report and the NAS
review panel, you don't understand basic science.
<snipo>
>I cannot get more clear than that, guys. You would have to
>take Science 101 if you still don't get it.
>
Alas for you pathetic theory, I am a scientist and have
spent many years doing research. I have briefed the NAS and
been the official US gov't scientist at international
meetings of senior scientists.
Most scientists would agree on what John and I say but
totally disagree with you.
May I suggest that you take Science 101 since you still
don't get it?
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>
>
>Reply to Twitchy-Paste-Finger:
How cute from a man who has yet to back up one of his
claims. You invent comments and quotes because you can't
answer the real ones.
You invent things like:
>I am not posative about this, but it seems that the term
>"saucer" or "flying saucer" did not enter into common association
>with the phenom. until several months after the Arnold sighting.
And then attempt to use your errors to support your theories
in an intellectual form of circular argument.
You then attempt to answer by quoting totally out of context
and cutting everything which shows that your claims are
total bullshit.
>
>I only broke my bycott of you because
>John cited you as a superior source of
>saucer sources (tung twister. Say it
>20 times fast).
It. It. It. It. It.....
I don't see what is your problem.
John is a discriminating person.
>>> There always has to be a first. <<
>
>
>There is a big difference between the first disk
>sighting and the first mass-media report.
Yep. The pulp magazines had disks long before Arnold.
And, Arnold didn't report a disk, he reported a bat-shaped
vehicle.
Go to:
http://www.skepdic.com/comments/saucecom.html
to see a drawing that Arnold made of what he claims to have
seen. It ain't a disk!
The media invented the term disk-shaped object because of
Arnold's description of the motion of the objects. Yet,
they became disks because that is what the media called
them.
"...in fact they reminded me of a saucer skipping across
water."
Now, if the people aren't being influenced by the media, why
aren't they reporting bat-shaped objects?
>
>There is ZERO evidence that the pre-Arnold
>sighing(s) I talked about made its way into
>the popular media in any way.
But there wree pre-Arnold disks.
And Arnold didn't describe a disk. He reported a bat-shaped
object. Go look at the drawing he made regarding this.
Now, why aren't the people describing bat-shaped objects if
they aren't being influenced by the media?
> (There was a saucer
>in a Texas paper in the mid 1800's, but it never
>generated a media symbol.)
There were media reports in the 1890s about giant airships,
and this was followed by over 1,000 sightings of giant
airships.
Unfortunately, these airships didn't exist at that time.
However, based on the media reports of the time, you would
think that such things existed. People believed that they
existed so they reported them.
Since you like strange journals, go read Jerome Clark's
article on the Airships in the February,1977, issue of Fate
magazine.
There weren't any airships, but people reported them based
on the media influence and the fact that they believed that
these were real.
>
>Thus, so far the Arnold episode appears to be
>the lone source of mass saucerdom in the mass media.
What about the great airship wave of the 1890s?
This shows the same characteristics as the 1947 flying
saucer wave.
>
>THUS THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT THE APRIL 1947
>DISK SIGHTING(S) WAS INFLUENCED BY THE MEDIA
There were disks prior to this. Go look at some of the
covers of the pulp magazines, for example.
>IN ANY WAY BECAUSE DISKS WERE NOT A MEDIA
>ICON IN APRIL 1947.
Within days after the Arnold sighting the entire country had
heard of and were using the terms flying saucer and flying
disks.
>(Nor is there any evidence
>that Arnold was influenced by the April sighting.)
>
Try reading:
Washington State's UFOs of 1897 and 1947 - Lessons from
History by Robert Bartholomew
He traces the media influence from the Airships and the
saucers.
And Arnold didn't report a saucer but the media made it into
one and people accepted this as gospel.
So they reported flying disks.
>
>>> Wrong again.
>The term was from Arnold's sighting, his term mistakenly
>applied. Isn't it interesting that what Arnold saw wasn't a
>saucer-shaped disc but that has become the standard because
>he used the term saucer. <<
>
>You are confusing the origin of the concept of disk shapes
>and the term "saucer".
Nope. Your ignorance is showing again. The terms disk and
saucer were interchangeable in June 1947 because of the
media reports about Arnold. The disk shape was first used
in the media long before this.
Arnold used the term to describe the motion of the object,
not the object itself.
"...in fact they reminded me of a saucer skipping across
water."
Why didn't people report a bat-shaped object instead of a
saucer?
>
>My question was about when the term "saucer" and/or "disk" first
>appeared in the media accounts. In other words, were all
>post-Arnold disk sightings reported AFTER Arnold used the
>term "disk" and/or "saucer"?
Nope. That is just when they became fashionable. The disk
shape was used extensively in the '30s. Go do some research
at your local library.
>
>Arnold's was the first modern UFO news report, but was it the
>first disk/saucer report? Not quite the same thing.
It wasn't a disk/saucer report, it was a bat-shaped object
report.
The media reported it as a saucer and then saucer-shaped
objects started being seen and the term became the standard
term. Now, the vast majority of objects seen are
saucer-shaped.
Or are you claiming that the aliens have undergone a change
in model year designs?
Can we expect fins next year?
What about rumble seats?
>
>Your quotes start at July 8. There were many non-Arnold reports
>made before July 8.
That was what was on the old hard drive. Go to the Project
1947 web site and you'll see loads of them prior to this.
Further, your claim was:
>it seems that the term
>"saucer" or "flying saucer" did not enter into common association
>with the phenom. until several months after the Arnold sighting.
July 8th is only about two weeks after the Arnold sighting.
But you'll see the exact same reporting in June, as I
mentioned and you cut.
>
>The question about when and who first used either "saucer" or
>"disk" in the press in 1947 has not yet been answered. (It is
>a question on my part, not a claim.)
>
It was about the your ignorance, as is shown below!
>it seems that the term
>"saucer" or "flying saucer" did not enter into common association
>with the phenom. until several months after the Arnold sighting.
It was commonly used as early as the day after the Arnold
sighting if you will check the media reports. There were
even flying saucer hoaxes prior to Roswell, the media
influence was so high.
>
>However, it is odd that respected people would read a few
>articles about flying disks and immediately begin
>your alleged Disk-Hallucinations. Not even a movie yet!
>That is an awful lot of power to attribute to media
>influence.
Not any different than the great airship wave of the 1890s.
People believed in them and reported what they believed in.
Not any different than the witch reports.
People believed in witches flying broomsticks so they
reported what they believed in.
People believed in flying saucers or flying discs so they
reported what they believe in.
And Arnold didn't report a disk, but people saw them because
that is what was reported in the media.
>
>The concept has been in the paper and radio for only
>a FEW DAYS, and it is already triggering 60-second
>hallucinations in multiple scientists standing
>together:
There were loads of reports. There were even several hoaxes
by this time.
Look up the La hoax, for instance. There was also one in
Tex.
The media influence was so great that they generated hoaxes
with days of the Arnold sighting.
>
>"Dr. C. J. Zohn said he and two fellow
>scientists spotted it June 29,
When did the Arnold sighting occur?
June 25th 1947 and it had been reported in all of the
newspapers.
Arnold also had a second sighting on 29th July 1947, but
these were small brass colored objects.
The brass colored objects didn't get much publicity so we
don't hear of brass colored objects flying around much.
> at White Sands, N.M. When he
>reported the finding to the Army, he said, he got nothing
>but knowing smiles. "We noticed a glare in the sky," he
>said. "We looked up and saw a silvery disc whirling along.
>We watched the thing for nearly 60 seconds and then it
>simply disappeared. It didn't go behind a mountain range. At
>one time it was clearly visible, and then it just wasn't there."
But topmind, that is just an anecdotal report. Remember,
you're comments about Hendry's research based on anecdotal
reports?
You claim that any research you don't like is purely
anecdotal, but then you actually use an anecdotal report.
Shame, shame.
>In my mind, your media explanation just plain sucks.
That is because you don't know what you are talking about.
You think that the term didn't become popular for several
months.
It was very popular within days as is shown by the newspaper
reports from June 1947.
The super-strong media influence even caused some hoaxes to
be generated by early July.
If there wasn't a strong media influence, why did these
hoaxes appear?
>
>And, the haughty skeptics were already hot on the trail
>of ridiculous explanations that they are infamous for:
>
>
>"[July 9] In the meantime at Sydney Professor of Physiology, H. P.
>Cotton of the Sydney University conducted an experiment with
>his class of 450 students and demonstrated that, when one
>looks at a clear sky concentrating on a fixed point while
>standing perfectly still rapidly-moving bright, oval-shaped
>objects are seen. This he explained was due to the red
>corpuscles of the blood having (sic) in front of the retina."
>
This happens to be an accurate statement.
>(I don't remember very many cases fitting into that category in
>Blue Book IFO stats.)
I don't remember very many bat-shaped objects either.
Yet that is what Arnold saw.
I don't rememberr very many brass colored objects either.
Yet that is what Arnold saw on his second sighting.
Of course, the media didn't play up those, so people weren't
influenced.
>>> So, you were using police and pilots as professionals and
>trustworthy and accurate. <<
>
>Your quotes WERE out of context.
Liar.
Please show how they were out of context. You can't because
they weren't.
You just keep chaning your story whenever you are shown to
be wrong.
> I used those cases for
>a different purpose in what you quoted. There is no
>rule saying that I have to always use the same cases for
>the same argument purpose.
You don't because you don't remember what claims you made
prior to today. In a one day span, your attention span is
exceeded.
>Like I said before, I agree that UFO are probably
>all mistakes
>It is certainly possible that some may actually
>be mistakes.
Then you tried arguing that those are the same thing.
>I can present a fish as an
>example of a "water dwelling animinal" in one example,
>and then as "a scaly-skinned creature" in another.
>All perfectly valid in the world of science and debate.
But, based on past experience, you'll claim it was an
air-dwelling creature and then when someone points this out,
claim you were quoted out of context but you will be careful
not to post any evidence.
Of course, you never post any evidence.
>
>(Although, perhaps it risk generating confusion in those
>who do not read carefully or who are itching [or twitching]
>to improperly frame somebody using out-of-context quotes.)
Please back up this claim!
>>> But you don't address this in the other thread. <<
>
>It seems like the same crap over and over again.
Yep.
You just post crap and I rebut it and then you try claiming
that you addressed this in another thread.
> You and
>me just seem to have a different interpretation of Condon's
>summary
Mine is based on what Condon wrote. Your's is based on what
James McDonald told you to think.
Of course, I have the advantage of actually having read the
document while you haven't.
You haven't read any of the documents that you have such a
strong opinion on.
Of course, you also don't bother to check up on such things
as whether or not the use of the term flying saucer was an
immediate hit in the newspapers and people caught on right
away to this useage.
But then you don't bother to read anything at all about
MOGUL before making comments on that subject either.
Your opinions are based purely on your total ignorance of
the subject.
>and have different ideas about the criteria
>for good, unbiased science.
Mine are based on my education as a scientist and all of my
life working in research.
Your's is based on your intense desires, your total lack of
knowledge of what the documents really say, and a religious
belief in the accuracy of Jame's McDonald's comments.
> Post-study review is
>NOT suffient in my mind.
We have no evidence that you have a mind.
What do you think a review panel is supposed to do?
The Panel was charged with providing an independent
assessment of the Scope, Methodology, and findings of the
Condon Committee.
They went far beyond what they were tasked to do and spent a
lot of time checking what the Condon Report said against the
evidence that other researchers could provide.
McDonald got to provide 3 papers with the best of his
evidence. It wasn't very impressive to the NAS and didn't
alter anything that the Condon Report found.
Which they shouldn't have because the Condon Report,
including the sections written by the believers, supports
the conclusions of the report.
>They should have a FULL expert
>jury from start to end.
But this is only based on your total ignorance of the
process and the subject.
McDonald didn't want this. He just wanted the NAS to agree
with him.
Hynek was more honest and unbiased. He didn't attack the
NAS panel. He just said he didn't understand how they could
conclude what they did.
Of course, Hynek had already attacked the Condon Report so
couldn't agree with the NAS. But he never attacked their
methodology.
> Maybe when we are done with
>the media influence thing,
Well, you've shown the same lack of knowledge that you
showed about Roswell, Blue Book, the Battelle Report, Gulf
Breeze, etc.
>I will return again.
Thank you, Douglas MacArthur.
> "However,
>at this stage it appears that nothing new will result
>from further debate of the topic." (roughly paraphrased)
You still haven't address how the term flying saucer got its
name and why we don't see bat-shaped objects.
You still haven't addressed the great airship wave of the
1890s.
Both of these totally disprove your claims.
>>> Ah, the CUFOS study is a tabloid account? Bullshit. <<
>
>
>What the heck are you talking about? You are appearently trying to
>bring together two entirely different topics.
If you wouldn't cut the comment to take it totally out of
context, you would know.
>>> The CUFOS study agrees with Blue Book, Grudge, and theProject Stork.
><<
>
>My favorite subset of the entire pool of studies
What studies?
You have yet to post any of them.
You just make wild-assed claims and then keep re-defining
what you meant.
<snipo>
> Why is your subset better than my subset?
You haven't got a subset.
What large-scaled studies of UFO reports agrees with you?
Please be specific and post quotes and references.
> (Please
>carefully
>consider the concepts of "subset" and "entire pool" before you
>hit the paste buttom for your favorite standard replies. You
>sometimes have forest-tree blindness.)
I do know all about the concept of subset and entire pool.
I posted from the best of the major studies.
You have yet to post from any study at all. You just make
quotes from McDonald about a report that you haven't read
and don't know anything about.
You just quote from Hynek about the Battelle report that you
haven't read and know nothing about.
You just make comments about Roswell that show that you know
nothing about the subject.
You just make comments about Gulf Breeze that show you know
nothing about the subject.
You haven't read any of the things that you attack and do so
based purely on someone else's comments and your total
ignorance of them.
>"Declaring victory before the war is ended is a sure
>sign of either arrogance or deception." (src unkn)
And you have done it several times.
>P.S. My doors are still on, John. (Re: other messages)
>
Wrong again. You just cut the quoted articles showing that
your claim that:
>I am not posative about this, but it seems that the term
>"saucer" or "flying saucer" did not enter into common association
>with the phenom. until several months after the Arnold sighting.
was made from the purest ignorance.
The articles I posted showed that within two weeks of the
Arnold sighting, the term flying saucer and flying disk were
in almost universal use.
I can post articles starting from June 26th showing that the
term attained instant useage by virtually everyone who wrote
about the subject.
Your doors were blown so far away you probably think that
they are a flying disk.
top...@technologist.com
Reply to John C.:
>> I don't know of *anyone* who has ever claimed that media
influence is the source of *ALL* UFO sightings. This is yet
another of your phony arguments. No one cares about your
"ZILLION DOLLAR QUESTION" because you are the only one asking it. <<
Well, then what is your guess as to the source of
the April 47 disk sighting(s) by a meteorologist?
>> You are again the one responsible for the claim of "alleged
hallucinations." Skeptics don't claim that all, most, or even a
significant part of UFO sightings are caused by hallucinations. <<
The way twitchy described media influence is nothing
short of "hallucination". It might sound like a harsh
or patronizing way to describe it, but it applies to twitchy's view
quite well.
I apologize if I confused his silly pet theories
with your silly pet theories.
>> I have specifically denied this phony claim of yours earlier inthis
thread. <<
I apologize, I guess I missed it and therefore assumed that
you guys agreed because I saw no info otherwise. Could you
give me the date of the message?
I guess I will just have to take my April Saucer and
only beat twitchy over the head with it instead of you.
>> I saw your other response and you are mistaken about your
condition after Twitch's reply. You claimed that the term
"flying saucer" wasn't in general use for another several months
after the Arnold sighting. Twitch gave tons of specific examples
showing you were wrong. Not a little bit wrong, totally wrong.
You have no doors left, all four tires are flat, and the motor is dead.
<<
Here is my original statement:
"I am not posative about this, but it seems that the term
"saucer" or "flying saucer" did not enter into common association
with the phenom. until several months after the Arnold sighting."
I clearly stated that I was not sure. Further, twitchy's replies did
not address the issue of the first USAGE of the terms in press. What
came first is the real issue, not how far apart the press events are.
However, if you really crave the ego endorphins of
a transparent victory, go ahead with me. I will not
prevent you from having a false happiness.
>> In an earlier post I listed several URLs with discussions of the
influence of popular culture on UFO sightings. <<
I thot you just deflated the influence of media. Why are you
now re-emphasising it? Pick a your favorite pet skeptic theory and
stick with it please.
-tmind-
top...@technologist.com
>> Well, you just showed that your argument is trivial. <<
I am not sure what you mean. Besides, the biggest differences
between pro-explorationists and anti-explorations is
what they rank as important and trivial.
In my mind, the April (pre-Arnold) disk is significant
because it was just a few months before disks and
saucers entered into mass conciousness. (Which is also
addressed later when you challenge that.)
Sightings over-all were starting to increase just pre-Arnold
(and pre-mass-press), which tends to indicate that the
phenom is indepedant of media influence.
As to why you do not find that significant, I do not
know. I would love to rip your nearons out and examine
them under an electron microscope, but I do not have
the funds. (Besides, it is illegal at the present time).
>> Now, do you admit that all and some are slightly different? <<
That debate is not related to this. I will take it back up later.
>> Well, you've finally figured out the definition of all,
excuse me, *ALL*. <<
Okay, it was a mistake for me to use "all" in trying to
figure out what your stance is. I should have said
that you attribute *most* to media influence. (Although
I am not sure of your exact stance, it was improper for
me to guess.)
I apologize.
>> To see what Arnold drew, go
to:http://www.skepdic.com/comments/saucecom.html <<
I have read the "saucer skipping word confusion" theory
before from Sagan's 'Demon' book. It is only
a theory. Besides the timing (order) of the terms in
the papers is still up in the air, like I aready
described.
>> The pulp magazines frequently had saucers on their covers
prior to Arnold. IIRC, this goes back to the thirties. <<
Show one! I have never seen a flying saucer in any
sci-fi publication before the Arnold sighting.
SHOW IT!
The only pre-Arnold media saucer is in a painting
from roughly 1650. It depicted random satanic stuff
floating around. It appears isolated and did not
produce a LASTING media icon in any way.
>> [Before Arnold, flying disks were NOT a media icon in any
way]. Assertion with no evidence. <<
Produce one single movie or magazine with flying disks.
I cannot prove that Santa Clause does not exist, I can
only claim that no existance proof has been produced.
No significant (lasting) pre-Arnold saucer icons have been
produced.
(I would even like to see any non-lasting ones.)
(It is likely that it may have occured just by chance
in some obscure source. Being that thousands of
different space vehicles were drawn, one is bound
to be disk-shaped just by random chance. However, even
if found, it appears to not have triggered a COMMON, LASTING
ICON in sci fi circles.)
>> The same is true in the newspaper articles of June 1947
which I didn't bother posting. <<
IT gave no info about where "disk" or "saucer" first
appeared and whether it pre-dates other
near-Arnold sightings. There was a lot going on at
roughly the same time.
>> John is right. For someone who wants to
argue about the early days of UFOlogy, you don't seem to
know much about the topic. <<
What use is your alleged grand knowledge if you do not
even use it to address the topic? You seem too eager
to spout what you know and hesitent to address or
understand the tougher questions.
>> Most people don't expect to see Russian Migs flying over the
US. So if they see something they don't know, they don't
think of Migs. They think of UFOs. They have been told by
the media that UFOs are alien spacecraft so they see those. <<
Why the h*ll not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is not based on any evidence except your personal
beliefs.
A GROUP of scientists reads a FEW articles about
UFO's before any saucer movie is made and immediately
hallucinate saucers for 60 seconds (based on your
pasted 1947 article).
However, the movie RED DAWN comes out at the hight of
cold-war tensions, and it triggers no hallucinations
in scientists, pilots, police, etc.
I find your media influence theory very inconsistent.
A few words in a newspaper trigger professional hallucinations,
yet an 90-minute movie with tons of ACTUAL MOVING IMAGES
of soviet invaders does NOT do the same.
I cannot swallow that.
>> Some people believe that Elvis is still alive. There were
over a quarter of million Elvis sightings by people who
believed that he was still alive as of early 1997, accordingto CNN. <<
But no scientists, pilots, or cops reported them in official
reports. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY???????
I consider tabloid sightings (apples) and official reports
to government agencies (oranges) to be DIFFERENT RESPONSE
TO STIMULI.
Elvis did NOT trigger the SAME response to stimuli.
Back to the lab for you.
>> Belief is a prime requirement in reporting something. If
you don't believe that witches fly broomsticks, you don'treport that. <<
That other study you cited suggested otherwise. One's (stated)
prior interest in UFO's had no influence on their known error
ratio. This tends to contradict the belief claim.
I mentioned this before, but you did not really address it.
>> 229 out of 230 Advertising airplanes reported as UFOs to
CUFOS, were reported to be saucer-shaped. This is
overwhelming evidence that people are media influenced toreport
saucers. <<
If you only see the ad lights, it does suggest a disk shape. It
resembles
half of a disk, but appears to be rotating, thus suggesting
a full disk if one's extrapolates the movement around the
"edges".
Thus, they saw what is almost visually identical to a half-disk, and
(incorrectly) extrapolated the movement of the lights into a
full disk.
Plus, there is the April disk sighting(s) before Disks were a media
icon.
>> But from your comments about the Condon Report and the NAS
review panel, you don't understand basic science. <<
.....
I already said I would not address that until we are done
with media influence. (BTW, I get the impression that
you think basic science is a tally of so called "respectible"
opinions. Or only opinions that fit your view.)
.....
Alas for you pathetic theory, I am a scientist and have
spent many years doing research. I have briefed the NAS and
been the official US gov't scientist at international
meetings of senior scientists.
Most scientists would agree on what John and I say
but totally disagree with you. <<
And most respected scientists once laughed at the idea
that rocks fall from the sky. The emotional craving for
respect among scientists often makes them cave into
peer beliefs in order to appear "above the masses".
[Those kind of quotes are legitamate in my English book]
Emotions make people imagine saucers and emotions
make scientists imagine their objectivity. That is
the price of being human.
You are an arrogant fool if you think you are above that.
John Cason
>John Cason wrote:
>>I don't know of *anyone* who has ever claimed that media
>>influence is the source of *ALL* UFO sightings. This is yet
>>another of your phony arguments. No one cares about your
>>"ZILLION DOLLAR QUESTION" because you are the only one asking
>>it.
>Well, then what is your guess as to the source of
>the April 47 disk sighting(s) by a meteorologist?
I think that he probably saw something real. Considering that
the sighting took place 52 years ago and has little in the way of
evidence to go with it, we'll never know what he saw.
Is this case worthy of further study, or even capable of being
studied? Is it the best you can do?
>>You are again the one responsible for the claim of "alleged
>>hallucinations." Skeptics don't claim that all, most, or even
>>a significant part of UFO sightings are caused by
>>hallucinations.
>The way twitchy described media influence is nothing
>short of "hallucination". It might sound like a harsh
>or patronizing way to describe it, but it applies to twitchy's
>view quite well.
'Hallucination' in the first dictionary I consulted, first
definition, is 'perception of objects having no reality, usually
arising from disorder of the nervous system.'
Considering that Twitch has mentioned UFO reports that turned out
to be airplanes, stars, the moon, Venus, meteors (all real
objects), you have totally mis-described his views.
>I apologize if I confused his silly pet theories
>with your silly pet theories.
You spend far more time blowing smoke than trying to understand
other people's arguments.
>>I have specifically denied this phony claim of yours earlier
>>in this thread.
>I apologize, I guess I missed it and therefore assumed that
>you guys agreed because I saw no info otherwise. Could you
>give me the date of the message?
From this thread, in a post dated April 19 in Dejanews:
A huge majority of sightings start with a real stimulus that
is not imagined. For every totally imagined or hallucinatory
Jesus there are probably dozens seen on tortillas or soybean
tanks or in window reflections. Same with Mary, UFOs, ghosts,
whatever.
From a post dated May 4:
I specifically denied your false 'hallucination' claim in my
last post. You are the only one to make that claim. Why do
you continue with it?
>I guess I will just have to take my April Saucer and
>only beat twitchy over the head with it instead of you.
As cases go, it is incredibly weak.
>> I saw your other response and you are mistaken about your
>>condition after Twitch's reply. You claimed that the term
>>"flying saucer" wasn't in general use for another several
>>months after the Arnold sighting. Twitch gave tons of specific
>>examples showing you were wrong. Not a little bit wrong,
>>totally wrong. You have no doors left, all four tires are
>>flat, and the motor is dead.
>Here is my original statement:
>"I am not posative about this, but it seems that the term
>"saucer" or "flying saucer" did not enter into common
>association with the phenom. until several months after the
>Arnold sighting."
>I clearly stated that I was not sure. Further, twitchy's replies
>did not address the issue of the first USAGE of the terms in
>press. What came first is the real issue, not how far apart the
>press events are.
You weren't positive, but....
Your statement was about the length of time between the Arnold
sightings and the use of the term 'saucer' in the press. Why did
you write that, if you are now saying that the real issue was not
how far apart the events were, but what came first? You don't
seem to put a lot of thought into what you write.
>However, if you really crave the ego endorphins of a transparent
>victory, go ahead with me. I will not prevent you from having a
>false happiness.
I don't see how Twitch blowing your doors off has any impact on
my ego.
Do you really think that you can come to correct conclusions
about UFOs when so many of your premises are wrong?
>> In an earlier post I listed several URLs with discussions of
>>the influence of popular culture on UFO sightings.
>I thot you just deflated the influence of media. Why are you
>now re-emphasising it?
You're having your usual problem with terms like 'all' and
'some.' You could argue more effectively if you had even an
inkling of what other people think about UFOs.
>Pick a your favorite pet skeptic theory
>and stick with it please.
Top, I've stuck with this hoping that you might be able to get
out of your rut. No luck so far.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>.
>
>Reply to John C.:
>
>>> I don't know of *anyone* who has ever claimed that media
>influence is the source of *ALL* UFO sightings. This is yet
>another of your phony arguments. No one cares about your
>"ZILLION DOLLAR QUESTION" because you are the only one asking it. <<
>
>Well, then what is your guess as to the source of
>the April 47 disk sighting(s) by a meteorologist?
Do you consider guessing to be scientific?
He probably misidentified a mundane IFO, just like most of
the people who report UFOs.
>
>
>>> You are again the one responsible for the claim of "alleged
>hallucinations." Skeptics don't claim that all, most, or even a
>significant part of UFO sightings are caused by hallucinations. <<
>
>The way twitchy described media influence is nothing
>short of "hallucination".
Nope. You are just inventing quotes and misparaphrases
again.
>It might sound like a harsh
>or patronizing way to describe it, but it applies to twitchy's view
>quite well.
You are both harsh and patronizing. But then, since you
haven't even read most of the documents you are writing
about, you have nothing to be patronizing about.
>
>I apologize if I confused his silly pet theories
>with your silly pet theories.
>
You did neither. You just invented some more quotes from
other people in a vain attempt to support your pet theories.
>
>>> I have specifically denied this phony claim of yours earlier inthis
>thread. <<
>
>I apologize, I guess I missed it and therefore assumed that
>you guys agreed because I saw no info otherwise. Could you
>give me the date of the message?
>
>I guess I will just have to take my April Saucer and
>only beat twitchy over the head with it instead of you.
Well, that is all you can do since you don't know much about
the subject.
That is an incredibly weak case.
>Before Arnold, flying disks were NOT a media icon in any
>way.
Arnold didn't see a flying disk. The media made it a flying
disk.
> Thus, if someone spotted a flying disk a few months
>before the Arnold press,
But Arnold didn't report a flying disk. The media reported
that way but that isn't anywhere near what he claimed to
have seen.
> it has NO MEDIA INFLUENCE, and
>skeptics cannot use media influence to explain the
>alleged hallucinations.
You make an assertion based on your lack of knowledge of the
subject and then use that to come to a conclusion that you
want to be true.
The media influence can and has been traced.
There were media reports in the 1890s about giant airships
which were supposedly sighted.
This was followed by over 1,000 sightings of giant airships!
Unfortunately, these airships didn't exist at that time.
However, based on the media reports of the time, you would
think that such things existed. People believed that they
existed so they reported them.
Since you like strange journals, go read Jerome Clark's
article on the Airships in the February,1977, issue of Fate
magazine.
There weren't any airships, but people reported them based
on the media influence and the fact that they believed that
these were real.
This shows the same characteristics as the 1947 flying
saucer wave.
Or try reading:
Washington State's UFOs of 1897 and 1947 - Lessons from
History by Robert Bartholomew
He traces the media influence from the Airships and the
saucers.
And Arnold didn't report a saucer but the media made it into
saucer and a disk and people accepted this as gospel.
So they reported flying disks.
They didn't report flying cresent-shaped objects, which is
what Arnold said he saw.
>
>>> I saw your other response and you are mistaken about your
>condition after Twitch's reply. You claimed that the term
>"flying saucer" wasn't in general use for another several months
>after the Arnold sighting. Twitch gave tons of specific examples
>showing you were wrong. Not a little bit wrong, totally wrong.
>You have no doors left, all four tires are flat, and the motor is dead.
><<
>
>Here is my original statement:
>
>"I am not posative about this, but it seems that the term
>"saucer" or "flying saucer" did not enter into common association
>with the phenom. until several months after the Arnold sighting."
>
>I clearly stated that I was not sure.
That is because you know nothing about the early days of the
subject. Or the later days either.
> Further, twitchy's replies did
>not address the issue of the first USAGE of the terms in press. What
>came first is the real issue, not how far apart the press events are.
Your comment didn't have anything to do with first usage,
excuse me, first USAGE, it had to do with how long the term
took to come into common useage.
You are just attempting to change what you initally claimed,
as you usually do when you are shown to be wrong.
The term was in common useage within days of the Arnold
sighting. It can be found in many June 1947 reports,
starting the day after the Arnold sighting.
Despite the fact that Arnold didn't see a disk, he saw a
cresent shaped object.
The media reported it as flying saucer or flying disk.
Isn't it interesting that people don't report cresent-shaped
objects, but they do report-disk shaped objects.
Arnold drew a picture of what he claimed to have seen, go
to:
http://www.skepdic.com/comments/saucecom.html
It isn't a disk or a saucer. Now why don't people report
cresent-shaped objects if these aren't media influenced?
>
>However, if you really crave the ego endorphins of
>a transparent victory,
Translation: You got caught and are attempting to weasel
your way out.
Why would my showing your claims to be false give John ego
endorphins?
> go ahead with me. I will not
>prevent you from having a false happiness.
What you mean is that you screwed up again and are, once
again, attempting to change what you said by snipping
everything that you don't like.
>>> In an earlier post I listed several URLs with discussions of the
>influence of popular culture on UFO sightings. <<
>
>I thot you just deflated the influence of media.
He didn't. You just can't read.
>Why are you
>now re-emphasising it? Pick a your favorite pet skeptic theory and
>stick with it please.
>
Please pick your favorite pet weirdo theory and stick with
it please.
You are back to your misunderstanding of *ALL* and *SOME*.
>Like I said before, I agree that UFO are probably
>all mistakes
>It is certainly possible that some may actually
>be mistakes.
You showed your total ignorance of MOGUL and Roswell, you
showed you total ignorance of Gulf Breeze, you showed your
total ignorance of Blue Book and the Robertson Panel, and
you've showed your total ignorance of the early days of
UFOs, you showed your total ignorance of basic science,
excuse me, BASIC SCIENCE, etc.
You've got quite a track record.
John Cason
>Twitch wrote:
<snip>
>>The pulp magazines frequently had saucers on their covers
>>prior to Arnold. IIRC, this goes back to the thirties.
>Show one! I have never seen a flying saucer in any
>sci-fi publication before the Arnold sighting.
>SHOW IT!
>The only pre-Arnold media saucer is in a painting
>from roughly 1650. It depicted random satanic stuff
>floating around. It appears isolated and did not
>produce a LASTING media icon in any way.
Why don't you ever post a reference for these wonderful sweeping
assertions that you like so much?
I posted a bunch of URLs on this subject about two weeks ago, in
this thread, but you obviously construct your arguments (and
thoughts) without regard to external facts. In other words, you read
the flying saucer books and then believe them uncritically. You
don't even seem to read messages that you're replying to.
From "Screen Memories: An Exploration of the Relationship Between
Science Fiction Film and the UFO Mythology":
http://www.hedweb.com/markp/ufofilm.htm
"Flying saucer shaped space craft had been a staple of pulp SF
artwork since the early 1930's , though so had virtually any
other shape (the rocket was still the most popular), and a
wealth of non-saucer shaped UFOs have been reported over the
years."
From "Entirely Unpredisposed: The Cultural Background of UFO
Abduction Reports":
http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/90/entirelymk.html
"The boldest claim is the one by UFO historian David Jacobs. Jacobs
states 'there was no precedent for the appearance or the configuration
of the objects in 1947' in popular science fiction films, popular science
fiction or popular culture in general. They did not resemble the fanciful
rocketships or earthly space travel contraptions in the SF literature. [1]
There is a trivial sense in which this is simply wrong. Disc-shaped
spaceships have a number of precedents in popular culture. They
appear in Buck Rogers as far back as 1930.[2] They appear in a Flash
Gordon comic strip in 1934.[3] The science fiction illustrator Frank R.
Paul was drawing saucer-like craft as early as 1931 and did so
repeatedly.[4]
Other SF illustrators also utilized the disc form long before 1947.[5]
But these are inevitable coincidences in a large body of artistic
creativity.
The saucer form was not the dominant shape of spaceships in the culture;
it was the rocket. In this larger sense Jacobs is correct that one would
expect an outbreak of ghost rockets over America if the images of SF
were the determinant of what people should be imagining. They weren't.
The cultural source of the UFO lies in a journalistic error. Kenneth
Arnold's report of mysterious supersonic objects flying near Mount
Rainier was a sensation that made front-page news across the nation.
The speed was far beyond that of the planes of the era and no one
publicized the flight in advance. It was an exciting puzzle.
The shape of the objects Arnold saw is hard to describe in a word or two.
It wasn't like a plane or rocket, or even a disc. When the newsman Bill
Bequette wrote the story up for the news services he recalled Arnold's
describing the motion of the objects as like a saucer if you skip it across
the water. Jumbling the metaphorical intent of the description, Bequette
labeled the objects "flying saucers", Arnold said the term arose from "a
great deal of misunderstanding". The public, however, did not know that.
No drawing accompanied the story. People started looking for flying
saucers and that is exactly what they found. They reported flat, circular
objects that look like flying saucers sound like they should look like.
Equally important: no one reported objects like the drawing in Arnold's
report to the Air Force.[6] The implications of this journalistic error are
staggering in the extreme. Not only does it unambiguously point to a
cultural origin of the whole flying saucer phenomenon, it erects a
first-order paradox into any attempt to interpret the phenomenon in
extraterrestrial terms: Why would extraterrestrials redesign their craft to
conform to Bequette's error?
NOTES:
1. Jacobs, David M., "The New Era of UFO Research", Pursuit, no. 78,
1987, p. 50
2. Dille, Robert C. (ed), "The Collected Works of Buck Rogers in the
25th Century", Chelsea House Publishers, 1969, p. 159.
3. Lundwall, Sam J., "Science Fiction: An Illustrated History", Grosset
& Dunlap, 1977, p. 107
4. Sadoul, Jacques, "2000 AD: Illustrations from the Golden Age of
Science Fiction Pulps", Henry Regnery, 1973, pp. 63, 66, 148.
5. Ibid, pp. 69, 70
6. Steiger, Brad, "Project Blue Book", Ballantine, 1976. Arnold,
Kenneth, "How it All Began", in Fuller, Curtis G., "Proceedings of the
First International UFO Conference", Warner, 1980."
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Hey, Topmind, I noticed that you couldn't attack the 1890s
airship comments.
You still haven't address how the term flying saucer got its
name and why we don't see bat-shaped objects.
You still haven't told anyone what your favorite subset of
studies is and why it is accurate.
Interesting the way you avoid so much and snip the comments
to be out of context.
>Reply to Twitchy
>
>
>>> Well, you just showed that your argument is trivial. <<
>
>I am not sure what you mean.
Trival, of little worth or importance.
Why do you use a word if you don't know what it means?
> Besides, the biggest differences
>between pro-explorationists and anti-explorations is
>what they rank as important and trivial.
There ain't pro and anti explorationists.
There are pro and anti ETI.
The people you keep quoting were pro-ETI. Look at the
writings of James McDonald.
>
>In my mind, the April (pre-Arnold) disk is significant
>because it was just a few months before disks and
>saucers entered into mass conciousness. (Which is also
>addressed later when you challenge that.)
Disks were in the mass conciousness long before that. John
Cason addressed that weeks ago and posted easily checkable
web sites since we know you won't do any real research.
>
>Sightings over-all were starting to increase just pre-Arnold
>(and pre-mass-press), which tends to indicate that the
>phenom is indepedant of media influence.
Where is your evidence for that assertion?
How many pre-Arnold sightings do you know of?
After Arnold there are loads of them.
>
>As to why you do not find that significant, I do not
>know.
Because it isn't.
<snipo>
>>> Now, do you admit that all and some are slightly different? <<
>
>That debate is not related to this. I will take it back up later.
That is what you were doing in the other thread and you
dropped out of that thread because you couldn't back up any
of your arguments with anything like facts.
>
>
>>> Well, you've finally figured out the definition of all,
>excuse me, *ALL*. <<
>
>Okay, it was a mistake for me to use "all" in trying to
>figure out what your stance is. I should have said
>that you attribute *most* to media influence. (Although
>I am not sure of your exact stance, it was improper for
>me to guess.)
>
>I apologize.
>
And it isn't just me, it is virtually anyone who has looked
into the subject.
CUFOS, Blue Book, Condon, etc. all have come to the same
conclusion.
In fact, I know of no UFO researcher who has looked in a
number of cases who doesn't feel that the majority of UFO
reports are media influenced.
>
>>> To see what Arnold drew, go
>to:http://www.skepdic.com/comments/saucecom.html <<
>
>I have read the "saucer skipping word confusion" theory
>before from Sagan's 'Demon' book. It is only
>a theory.
Nope. Just read what Arnold said in his first press
interview.
Arnold didn't describe a disk, nor did he draw a disk when
he drew what he saw.
He did describe it's motion as:
"...in fact they reminded me of a saucer skipping across
water."
But the description of the craft and the later drawing are
not of a saucer or disk shaped object at all.
>Besides the timing (order) of the terms in
>the papers is still up in the air, like I aready
>described.
>
Wrong. The term flying saucer and flying disc were
commonplace right after the Arnold sighting.
And the disc shape was used in the 1930s for alien
spacecraft in the media.
>
>>> The pulp magazines frequently had saucers on their covers
>prior to Arnold. IIRC, this goes back to the thirties. <<
>
>
>Show one! I have never seen a flying saucer in any
>sci-fi publication before the Arnold sighting.
>
>SHOW IT!
Good god, are you really that stupid?
John Cason posted a number of web sites you could go to to
check.
But you never will do the slightest research into your pet
theories. Which is why you believe them so much.
Permit me to quote John, so you won't have to get your
little fingers tired looking up a web site.
NOTES:
>
>The only pre-Arnold media saucer is in a painting
>from roughly 1650. It depicted random satanic stuff
>floating around. It appears isolated and did not
>produce a LASTING media icon in any way.
Nonsense.
>
>
>>> [Before Arnold, flying disks were NOT a media icon in any
>way]. Assertion with no evidence. <<
>
>Produce one single movie or magazine with flying disks.
>I cannot prove that Santa Clause does not exist, I can
>only claim that no existance proof has been produced.
See John Cason's article for examples.
<snipo>
>>> The same is true in the newspaper articles of June 1947
>which I didn't bother posting. <<
>
>IT gave no info about where "disk" or "saucer" first
>appeared and whether it pre-dates other
>near-Arnold sightings. There was a lot going on at
>roughly the same time.
Your claim then was the the term saucer didn't become
commonplace until months after the Arnold sighting.
That is false.
Now you are attempting to alter the claim so you won't be
revealed so strongly as someone who posts about subjects he
knows nothing about.
>>> John is right. For someone who wants to
>argue about the early days of UFOlogy, you don't seem to
>know much about the topic. <<
>
>What use is your alleged grand knowledge if you do not
>even use it to address the topic?
I did. Then you just try to claim that what you said wasn't
the topic.
When the new claim is shown to be totally false, you just
try changing it again or changing the thread or attempt to
divert attention from all of your many errors.
<snipo>
>>> Most people don't expect to see Russian Migs flying over the
>US. So if they see something they don't know, they don't
>think of Migs. They think of UFOs. They have been told by
>the media that UFOs are alien spacecraft so they see those. <<
>
>Why the h*ll not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The media has never told them that Russian Migs are flying
over the US. They have been told by the media that UFOs are
spacecraft and look like saucers or disks.
>
>That is not based on any evidence except your personal
>beliefs.
Nonsense.
>
>A GROUP of scientists reads a FEW articles about
>UFO's before any saucer movie is made and immediately
>hallucinate saucers for 60 seconds (based on your
>pasted 1947 article).
A few articles which are supposedly factual. Not supposedly
fiction, supposedly factual.
And the comment about a group of scientists? This
experiment was shown to students to comment on the problems
of eyewitness testimony.
>"[July 9] In the meantime at Sydney Professor of Physiology, H. P.
>Cotton of the Sydney University conducted an experiment with
>his class of 450 students and demonstrated that, when one
>looks at a clear sky concentrating on a fixed point while
>standing perfectly still rapidly-moving bright, oval-shaped
>objects are seen. This he explained was due to the red
>corpuscles of the blood having (sic) in front of the retina."
The effect is real the same as the autokinetic effect is
real.
But there were a lot of the articles that you manage to
ignore.
>
>However, the movie RED DAWN comes out at the hight of
>cold-war tensions, and it triggers no hallucinations
>in scientists, pilots, police, etc.
The movie was clearly fiction.
The 1947 newspaper articles were reported as facts.
You do have a problem telling fiction from facts, don't you.
>
>I find your media influence theory very inconsistent.
>A few words in a newspaper trigger professional hallucinations,
Nonsense. You clearly haven't read the articles I posted.
>yet an 90-minute movie with tons of ACTUAL MOVING IMAGES
>of soviet invaders does NOT do the same.
One is reported as fiction. The other series of articles
are reported as facts.
>
>I cannot swallow that.
Well you certainly can swallow a lot of nonsense from
McDonald, etc.
You post on subjects that you know nothing about and make a
total ass out of yourself doing it.
>
>>> Some people believe that Elvis is still alive. There were
>over a quarter of million Elvis sightings by people who
>believed that he was still alive as of early 1997, accordingto CNN. <<
>
>But no scientists, pilots, or cops reported them in official
>reports.
So?
We know that in the CUFOS study that cops were totally
incorrect 94% of the time in their UFO studies.
>WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY???????
How do you know that no cops reported Elvis?
Have you read all of the reports?
Further, how many people believe that Elvis is alive?
What percentage of the cops think that this is the case?
>
>I consider tabloid sightings (apples) and official reports
>to government agencies (oranges) to be DIFFERENT RESPONSE
>TO STIMULI.
But the gov't agencies have decided that UFOs are bullshit.
August 1, 1952 CIA Secret memo:
"it is probable that if complete information were available
for the presently unexplainable reports they too" could be
explained. However, "so long as a series of reports remains
"unexplainable" (interplanetary aspects and alien origin not
being thoroughly excluded from consideration) caution
requires that Intelligence continue coverage of the
subject."
After following the AF reports for several more years,
another CIA memo of August 8, 1955 stated:
"In view of the fact that no positive intelligence of
significance has been produced under the subject (UFO)
project, it is recommended that the project be terminated
and the files thereof be placed in dead storage."
What part of dead storage do you think is so important to
your point?
>
>Elvis did NOT trigger the SAME response to stimuli.
>Back to the lab for you.
Elvis wasn't thought to be factual except to some wackos.
UFOs are now in the same boat with Elvis.
>
>
>>> Belief is a prime requirement in reporting something. If
>you don't believe that witches fly broomsticks, you don'treport that. <<
>
>That other study you cited suggested otherwise. One's (stated)
>prior interest in UFO's had no influence on their known error
>ratio. This tends to contradict the belief claim.
Misparaphrasing again! The study quoted indicated that
everyone had been indoctrinated and thus there were no
"innocent" from media bias UFO observers.
"For the most part, exposure to the UFO subject is being
effectively absorbed from the news and entertainment media
on an indirect basis...there are no "innocent" witnesses
even if they DON"T read the UFO literature itself."
Boy is that a different conclusion that you are
misparaphrasing.
"5) Exposure to the UFO subject is obtained primarily from
news and entertainment media which contour the public
portrayal of the total UFO phenomenon.
6) IFO witnesses appear to be unaware of their own
emotional "programming" until it is triggered by IFO
stimuli.
7) The profile of IFO and UFO witnesses demonstrates that
they are typical of all American citizens and all social
strata. Hence, the subliminal emotional programing they
exhibit on the UFO subject can safely be extrapolated to
society at large, including the readers of this book."
>I mentioned this before, but you did not really address it.
That is because you continually misparaphrase what was
written and then when you are corrected, you claim the
correction doesn't address your comments, and you quickly
claim what you claimed your remarks were about.
>>> 229 out of 230 Advertising airplanes reported as UFOs to
>CUFOS, were reported to be saucer-shaped. This is
>overwhelming evidence that people are media influenced toreport
>saucers. <<
>
>If you only see the ad lights, it does suggest a disk shape.
The last time you tried this, you admitted that your claim
was about advertising blimps at night.
What part of "airplane" didn't you understand?
>
<snipo>
>Thus, they saw what is almost visually identical to a half-disk, and
>(incorrectly) extrapolated the movement of the lights into a
>full disk.
What they saw wasn't anything like a half-disk as you would
know if you read the book about the study. They didn't just
extrapolate a half-disk moving into a full disk.
What you are commenting about was:
"Unfortunately, with regard to virtually all of the other
advertising plane REPORTS, this witness was almost in a
class by himself. The other witnesses reported them as
"rotating discs"... one in ten was convinced he could see a
dome on top... Don't think that ad planes were the ONLY IFOs
that got reconstructed into "domed discs." For example,
during the peak of the Perseid meteor shower, a witness
claimed to be able to see a domed saucer body with upswept
wings, a glowing bottom, two red lights, and rotating
windows... Look at these other examples:(next page is 11
drawings of mostly dome saucers that turned out to be ad
plens, etc.) The cresent moon was called a saucerin case 985
and was imbued with a lot of magical properties....In case
205, a weitness was "sure" a balloon was a "flying saucer."
A falling flare in case 1,003 was a called a silver-orange
disc edge on."
"We have seen the shape of stars distorted almost beyond
recognition, as well as airplanes, meteors, lights, and
advertising airplanes. More importantly, the errors were
not diverse. The ad plane witnesses wanted to "read" a
saucer body into an apparition that didn't have one and 10
per cent of these wanted to add a dome as well. The plain
desire to see disc shapes was also indicated by the way that
stars, meteors, airplanes, and balloons were described both
night and day. The "mistakes" thus adopt a repetitive,
collective nature. Treating the IFO reports as Rorschach
blots, it is clear that people want to read the same
specific models of "UFOs" into the IFO sightings....
UFOlogists like to think that concepts about UFOs being
attracted to power lines or causing electromagnetic
interference are "salient details" known only to readers of
UFO literature (or to people who have actually experienced
these effects during UFO encounters). ...
For the most part, exposure to the UFO subject is being
effectively absorbed from the news and entertainment media
on an indirect basis...there are no "innocent" witnesses
even if they DON"T read the UFO literature itself."
>
>Plus, there is the April disk sighting(s) before Disks were a media
>icon.
Wrong again. Just try to actually read one of John Cason's
articles that you respond to since he has cut your legs off
on this again and again.
>
>
>>> But from your comments about the Condon Report and the NAS
>review panel, you don't understand basic science. <<
>.....
>I already said I would not address that until we are done
>with media influence.
But that is what you intially brought up! That was in your
first article!
Now you won't address anything about it until later.
That is only because you haven't addressed it prior to know
and will soon change threads again to avoid addressing the
fact that you don't understand science at all.
Which makes your comments about Condon and the NAS review
rather pathetic.
> (BTW, I get the impression that
Instead of making erroneous assumptions, why not just
support your claims with some evidence?
You have yet to do so for even one of your claims.
<snipo>
>Alas for you pathetic theory, I am a scientist and have
>spent many years doing research. I have briefed the NAS and
>been the official US gov't scientist at international
>meetings of senior scientists.
>Most scientists would agree on what John and I say
>but totally disagree with you. <<
>
>
>And most respected scientists once laughed at the idea
>that rocks fall from the sky.
And as soon as some evidence was put forward, they
immediately changed and went with the evidence.
Alas, you don't have any decent UFO evidence.
> The emotional craving for
>respect among scientists often makes them cave into
>peer beliefs in order to appear "above the masses".
Assertion without evidence.
>[Those kind of quotes are legitamate in my English book]
What quotes? The phrase "above the masses?"
When you don't even tell what wacko source your getting your
quotes from it doesn't make them more than a wacko quote.
That sounds like that wacko Sturrock Panel. You know, the
panel which only looked at part of the evidence that agreed
with what the presenters wanted them to decide, only heard
from believers, didn't really look at any evidence at all.
And every nasty comment, and then some, you've made about
the Condon report fits them as well as the workshop being
set up totally unscientifically.
>
>Emotions make people imagine saucers
I'm glad that you admit that people are only imagining
saucers.
<snipo>
>
>You are an arrogant fool if you think you are above that.
I think I follow the evidence.
But you can't provide one piece of evidence for your
position at all.
You just make sweeping comments based on your ignorance of
the subject.
top...@technologist.com
Reply to John C. and twitchy
[If I mix you guys up accidently, live with it!]
>> There is a trivial sense in which this is simply wrong. Disc-shaped
spaceships have a number of precedents in popular culture. They
appear in Buck Rogers as far back as 1930.[2] They appear in a Flash
Gordon comic strip in 1934.[3] The science fiction illustrator Frank R.
Paul was drawing saucer-like craft as early as 1931 and did
sorepeatedly.[4]
....
Other SF illustrators also utilized the disc form long before 1947.[5]
But these are inevitable coincidences in a large body of artistic
creativity.<<
Hmmmm. You are right. Pre-Arnold sci-fi mags do have some saucers in
them. I poked around the web and even found a magazine cover with
fat disks, almost spheroid, on it from 1932.
I learned something new today. (Why you did not brings this up
earlier, I don't know.)
>> http://www.hedweb.com/markp/ufofilm.htm
"Flying saucer shaped space craft had been a staple of pulp SF
artwork since the early 1930's <<
However, it hardly appears to be a "staple". Like the above
sentence says, "in many ways they are inevitable coincidences in a
large body of artistic creativity".
One sci-fi cover had an object that kind of resembled
the Apollo moon lander. Does that mean the 1920 (or 30)
artist had fore-knowledge of Apollo? Heck no!
Does it mean that NASA copied a sci-fi mag for their
lander? Heck no!
I have no tally of pulp mag ship shapes, but it appears that
there was a wide variety of shapes floating around and that
disks are NOT a major contendor before Arnold. (A shape tally would be
an
interesting set of stats to look at though.)
If aliens DID visit earth and landed on the white-house lawn,
their ship would most likely resemble something already
drawn a few times.
I call this the "fortune cookie" principle. If you read enuf
fortune cookies, you will eventually find one that
matches your actual fortune (future).
There are horse racing scams that take advantage of this
principle. Let's say there are 20 horses in the race.
The conner then calls 400 people (20 x 20) and tells
them he/she can predict which horse is going to win.
He will be "right" with 20 of the calls. He then calls
these 20, who are now quite curious, and tells them
he can predict again.
Of course, he will be right (twice) with the one of
the 20. This one person will be amazed by his ability
to pick two races and pay a fee to get info about
the next winner.
Thus, if the sample pool is large enough, ALL outcomes
can be found by digging enough.
>> When the newsman Bill
Bequette wrote the story up for the news services he recalled Arnold's
describing the motion of the objects as like a saucer if you skip it
across
the water. Jumbling the metaphorical intent of the description, Bequette
labeled the objects "flying saucers", Arnold said the term arose from "a
great deal of misunderstanding". The public, however, did not know that.
No drawing accompanied the story. People started looking for flying
saucers and that is exactly what they found. They reported flat,
circular
objects that look like flying saucers sound like they should look like.
<<
I have heard this account before (although the name Bequette is new to
me).
But it still does NOT directly answer my question. Reports started
flowing in
I believe the same day (see cites below).
What is the exact date of the Bequette's error, and does it pre or
post date the OTHER saucer reports on nearby days?
I believe this is the third time I asked, and I only get
indirectly related answers. (Fortunately, some of it has been
interesting enough to keep my patience.)
Besides, disks were reported two months before Arnold's first sighting.
You cannot attribute that to the alleged saucer word error.
>> Hey, Topmind, I noticed that you couldn't attack the 1890s
airship comments. <<
I do not have enuf info about 1890 airships. However, I am not
about to accept your account at face value. Visit another
pro-explorationist if you want to explore those.
>> You still haven't told anyone what your favorite subset of
studies is and why it is accurate. <<
Would it make any difference? You would probably find reasons
to attack them that are similar to the reasons I attacked yours
and we would not get anywhere new. I don't feel like playing
that game again.
>> Trival, of little worth or importance.
Why do you use a word if you don't know what it means? <<
I was not asking about the definition. I was not sure how
you arrived at "Well, you just showed that your argument is trivial."
>> There ain't pro and anti explorationists.
There are pro and anti ETI. <<
I find it useful to classify people into those who think
the topic is worthy of further study and those who
don't. Pro-ET is a subset of pro-explorationists.
I don't understand your problem with this dichotomy.
However, lets finish "media" first, if you don't mind.
>> Where is your evidence for that assertion?
How many pre-Arnold sightings do you know of?
After Arnold there are loads of them. <<
Regarding "just after" or same-time sightings:
Peebles, pg. 11 Berkely edition:
[slightly paraphrased]
"The [Arnold] AP dispatch went out late morning June 25.
Newspapers in the Northwestern US carried the
report that evening. The following day it
had spread nation-wide. Newspapers not only
carried Arnold's sighting, but others which began
to be made."
Regarding just-pre-Arnold,
Paris Flammonde in UFO Exist! reports a handful
of 1947 pre-Arnold sightings on page 158. Only one
(the already-mentioned weatherman) mentions disks, and another
hints of a disk shape, but is not clear.
>>...Cason addressed that weeks ago and posted easily checkable
web sites since we know you won't do any real research. <<
If you are not nice to me, I will bring to the debate a
pro-explorationist with more time and more references
than me.
>> [As to why you do not find that significant, I do not
know.] Because it isn't. <<
Do you realize what you just said?
Put down your paste-key-gun for a second and think long and
hard about this.
You are again mistaking your opinion for cold, hard, objective
facts.
Unless you can produce an equation or Boolean-tree for "significant",
this is an error on your part.
>> That is what you were doing in the other thread and you
dropped out of that thread because you couldn't back up any
of your arguments with anything like facts. <<
Believe what you want. The real story is that I decided to
debate people who are not paste-a-holics.
>> And the disc shape was used in the 1930s for alien
spacecraft in the media. <<
And so was just about any other shape. (See above)
>> Good god, are you really that stupid? <<
Appearently David Jacobs made the same mistake.
If he is also "so stupid", then why does Peebles
cite his work so often?
Besides, it can't be near as stupid as mistaking
your personal opinion for fact (see above).
>> [What use is your alleged grand knowledge if you do not
even use it to address the topic?]
I did. Then you just try to claim that what you said wasn't
the topic. <<
You have yet to answer my question, which has not changed
(see above). Other sightings were reported the same or
next day that Arnold's first published report did.
It is not clear who disked who first.
>> The media has never told them that Russian Migs are flying
over the US. They have been told by the media that UFOs are
spacecraft and look like saucers or disks. <<
That is crock! Every fool knew that Soviet planes routinely
spy on the US and that spies ate, drank, and slept with
US citizens.
What about cop and pilot reports of Jesus? They beleive in
him.
>> And the comment about a group of scientists? This
experiment was shown to students to comment on the problems
of eyewitness testimony. <<
I tried it and only saw swirling blobs (not disks) that did
not even look real because each eye saw a different set,
and thus cannot use parallax to estimate distance. It is
a cute trick, but in no way seems real, or matches the
description. Further, one has to hold their eye still
in an unnatural and uncomfortable position.
Did the scientists decide to suddenly walk out as
a group and play funky games with their eyes
just for the h*ll of it? (Were are not talkin'
Berkeley in the 60's.)(And if they were doing
eye games, don't you think they would have
suspected the game as the source instead of
real objects?)
(How about you beat yourself over the head with
a baseball bat to see if it triggers saucers.
I will gladly assist you in the experiment.
I can make you see lots and lots of pretty saucers,
and even some stars thrown in the mix.)
Further, that phenom was not a significant portion
of Blue Book IFO's.
>> The movie was clearly fiction.
The 1947 newspaper articles were reported as facts.
You do have a problem telling fiction from facts, don't you. <<
Jesus and spy planes are also thot to be real, but do not
produce the same kinds of resulting behavior.
Note that most saucer movies are also fiction.
What about the highly viewed 'Day After' TV show?
It did not produce a rash
of mushroom sightings, especially formal gov reports.
(Although the movie was fiction, it was based on a real and
scary possibility. The Day After gave me nightmares.)
>
>[ I consider tabloid sightings (apples) and official reports
>to government agencies (oranges) to be DIFFERENT RESPONSE
>TO STIMULI. ]
>> But the gov't agencies have decided that UFOs are bullshit.
August 1, 1952 CIA Secret memo: <<
I am NOT talking about the REALNESS of ufo sightings in
this case. I am looking at it in the perspective of
being triggered by media influence, YOUR hypothesis.
Your memo quote has nothing to do with what I am talking about!!!!!!
You are making the same mistake again.
> [Elvis did NOT trigger the SAME response to stimuli.
> Back to the lab for you.]
>> Elvis wasn't thought to be factual except to some wackos.
UFOs are now in the same boat with Elvis. <<
It was one of you (skeptics) that brought up tabloid accounts,
not me.
Also, it is my experience that most skeptics lump Elvis and UFO
together in their mind very easily.
Besides, many UFO sighters did not believe in them before
their sighting.
>> Misparaphrasing again! The study quoted indicated that
everyone had been indoctrinated and thus there were no
"innocent" from media bias UFO observers. <<
Could you elaborate on this some more?
They *state* that they did not believe, yet somehow
deep down *do* believe?
Why would Red Dawn, Day After, or Elvis
not trigger a similar response?
Your quote:
"For the most part, exposure to the UFO subject is being
effectively absorbed from the news and entertainment media
on an indirect basis...there are no "innocent" witnesses
even if they DON"T read the UFO literature itself.
.....IFO witnesses appear to be unaware of their own
emotional "programming" until it is triggered by IFO
stimuli."
Note the word "exposure".
If ONLY exposure is needed, then where are the Batman, witch,
ghost, and Genie reports? (Let alone foriegn planes, Jesus,
and Elvis, which many people believe.)
Is there something BESIDES exposure and beleif as the cause
agent?
I still cannot see why you claim UFO are different than all
these other media icons in their lack of triggering the
same results.
Please explain. (I know I asked this before.)
(NOTE: in the past you pasted beleif-oriented quotes
in some cases and exposure-related quotes to others.
However, they appear to contradict each other when
applied to other media icons. Thus, I have not
received a *consistant* stimulous model from you,
just quotes to suite your short-term debate needs. For
example, you said that Red Dawn didnt trigger
reports because people "knew" {believed} it was
fiction. Yet you later say/quote that beleif is not
required, only exposure. Don't you see the
contradiction?)
>> The last time you tried this, you admitted that your claim
was about advertising blimps at night.
What part of "airplane" didn't you understand? <<
I have also seen ad planes before; and at the right angle
you see only a "moving" arc of lights, which looks very
similar to the ad blimp arc that I mentioned in the
videos.
In fact, my brother and I were arguing about whether an
ad plane we saw was a blimp because there were no visable
lights (to us) except the ad lights. I thot it was a
blimp moving sideways until it got really close.
>> That is because you continually misparaphrase what was
written and then when you are corrected, you claim the
correction doesn't address your comments, and you quickly
claim what you claimed your remarks were about. <<
My original question about the near-Arnold event sequence
seems consistant to me. Which topic are you refering to?
>> When you don't even tell what wacko source your getting your
quotes from it doesn't make them more than a wacko quote. <<
I remember from English class that quotes do not always mean
a direct copy of what someone says. Unfortunately I do not have
that book with me anymore. If it bothers you, then I don't
care because I have complained about your debate style numerous
times and you have not changed. So why should I change?
>> [Emotions make people imagine saucers ]
I'm glad that you admit that people are only imagining
saucers. <<
Many, but perhaps not all.
>> What they saw wasn't anything like a half-disk as you would
know if you read the book about the study. They didn't just
extrapolate a half-disk moving into a full disk. <<
Is the book still in publication?
Also, it is probably a mistake to make vast conclusions based
on a single study. (I know, you are going to say that it fits
the results of all the AF's other studies. No need to get
pastey on this one.)
>> I think I follow the evidence. <<
And some people appearently look at ad blimps and *think* they
see saucers.
Why are you immune from such hallucinations and delusions?
For one, you seem to constantly hallucinate your opinions into
facts. (Regarding "significant" above.)
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>.
>
>Reply to John C. and twitchy
>
>
>[If I mix you guys up accidently, live with it!]
If I mix up some of your different articles, live with it!
>
>
>>> There is a trivial sense in which this is simply wrong. Disc-shaped
>spaceships have a number of precedents in popular culture. They
>appear in Buck Rogers as far back as 1930.[2] They appear in a Flash
>Gordon comic strip in 1934.[3] The science fiction illustrator Frank R.
>Paul was drawing saucer-like craft as early as 1931 and did
>sorepeatedly.[4]
>....
>Other SF illustrators also utilized the disc form long before 1947.[5]
>But these are inevitable coincidences in a large body of artistic
>creativity.<<
>
>
>Hmmmm. You are right. Pre-Arnold sci-fi mags do have some saucers in
>them. I poked around the web and even found a magazine cover with
>fat disks, almost spheroid, on it from 1932.
There are quite a few of them.
>
>I learned something new today. (Why you did not brings this up
>earlier, I don't know.)
He did, you snipped it.
>
>
>>> http://www.hedweb.com/markp/ufofilm.htm
>"Flying saucer shaped space craft had been a staple of pulp SF
>artwork since the early 1930's <<
>
>
>However, it hardly appears to be a "staple".
It was a staple.
> Like the above
>sentence says, "in many ways they are inevitable coincidences in a
>large body of artistic creativity".
Yep. The staple is an inevitable coincidence.
" Not only does it unambiguously point to a cultural origin
of the whole flying saucer phenomenon, it erects a
first-order paradox into any attempt to interpret the
phenomenon in extraterrestrial terms: Why would
extraterrestrials redesign their craft to conform to
Bequette's error?"
Arnold didn't report a flying saucer or disk. The media
reported it that way, however, and that is what people
started seeing.
If they were real, they'd be seeing Arnold's cresent-shaped
objects.
<snipo>
>I have no tally of pulp mag ship shapes,
Then why make conclusions when you admit that you don't have
the data?
<snipo>
>If aliens DID visit earth and landed on the white-house lawn,
>their ship would most likely resemble something already
>drawn a few times.
But everyone started calling them flying saucers, despite
the fact that wasn't what was seen by Arnold. The media was
the message here.
<snipo>
>>> When the newsman Bill
>Bequette wrote the story up for the news services he recalled Arnold's
>describing the motion of the objects as like a saucer if you skip it
>across
>the water. Jumbling the metaphorical intent of the description, Bequette
>labeled the objects "flying saucers", Arnold said the term arose from "a
>great deal of misunderstanding". The public, however, did not know that.
>No drawing accompanied the story. People started looking for flying
>saucers and that is exactly what they found. They reported flat,
>circular
>objects that look like flying saucers sound like they should look like.
><<
>
>
>I have heard this account before (although the name Bequette is new to
>me).
He is the reporter who coined the term flying saucers.
William Bequette of the Pendleton, Oregon, East Oregonian.
Haven't you even bothered to go and read the original
reports?
Unfortunately the Project 1947 web site is down or I'd
direct you there as it is clearly the best web site
dedicated to UFOs that exists. (No, I am not associated
with it at all.)
"I observed, far to my left and to the north, a formation of
nine very bright objects coming from the vicinity of Mount
Baker, flying very close to the mountain tops and travelling
with tremendous speed! I could see no tails [meaning vapour
trail] on them, and they flew like no aircraft I had ever
seen before... in fact they reminded me of a saucer skipping
across water.'"
>
>But it still does NOT directly answer my question. Reports started
>flowing in
>I believe the same day (see cites below).
IOW, you don't know that for a fact either.
All you are doing is showing that you can't read. It wasn't
the same day, it was the day after.
Using Peebles's quotation as a source:
"Thus, within a few hours of the first sighting
(Arnold's)... "The [Arnold] AP dispatch went out late
morning June 25. Newspapers in the Northwestern U.S.
carried the report that evening. The following day (June
26), it had appeared nationwide. Newspapers not only
carried Reports of Arnold's sighting, but others which began
to be made."
(Page 10, Watch the Skies)
That evening.
The following day, it had appeared nationwide. Other
reports which began to be made.
Clearly even Peeble's is saying that it was the first.
Which it was.
>
>What is the exact date of the Bequette's error, and does it pre or
>post date the OTHER saucer reports on nearby days?
Predates.
>
>I believe this is the third time I asked, and I only get
>indirectly related answers. (Fortunately, some of it has been
>interesting enough to keep my patience.)
How many questions have we asked and you've snipped? Many,
many, many questions!
Please also show these gov't memos that support your
position.
>I could get into a gov "memo war" with you, but I do
>not have the time for that right now.
You've had the time to start an entire new thread, so why
can't you post these gov't memos that show that you are
correct?
>(My references are at my
>in-law's house right now, so I can't quote them yet).
Have you gotten them back yet?
"Second, project Blue Book is now known to have been
directly influenced by intelligence (military secrecy)
concerns."
Why couldn't you support this statement, topmind?
"According to Dr. Hynek and others, the Blue Book team spent
more time on the border-line cases than on the truly amazing
ones. There seemed to be unwritten encouragement to find
natural explanations for as many cases as possible, rather
than see if there was something more to it all. Explaining
was more important than learning."
Why couldn't you support this statement, topmind?
"However, there are some aspects of Roswell that I find
highly baffling. First, if it was a top-secret nuclear
detection balloon like the military claims, then why didn't
they look for the wreckage? There is no evidence that an
extensive search was done for the downed balloon(s).
Instead, they wait until a farmer finds it. The wreckage
layed there for several days even after the farmer's
discovery. It would have been easily visible from a search
plane. A very sloppy way to treat a top secret wouldn't you
say?"
Why couldn't you support this statement, topmind?
You make many, many statements but cannot support a one of
them.
>
>
>Besides, disks were reported two months before Arnold's first sighting.
>You cannot attribute that to the alleged saucer word error.
>
Three always has to be a first report. But you've claimed
that these were very rare.
>Reports of any saucer-like objects only appeared roughly
>once every 30 years before the Arnold case.
And, after Arnold they appear with great regularity.
Arnold didn't report a saucer-shaped object, however. The
term became the standard, however, with the first wide-spead
article and went into common useage by the next day!
By June 5th, it was even the talk of little Corona, New
Mexico.
And there was a $3000 reward for anyone who could provide
information that would solve the mystery of the flying
saucers by then and it was well-known. That is why Mac
Brazel went into Roswell to report the debris on his ranch
that he had ignored since he found it on June 14th. He
wanted the reward.
So, in less than two weeks, even a small town in New Mexico
was talking about the flying discs and the $3000 reward.
So even in your articles you admit that disc shaped reports
occured about every 30 years prior to Arnold but they are
reported all of the time after Arnold. But Arnold didn't
report a saucer, he reported a cresent.
Your own articles are strong evidence for the media
influence on UFO sightings!
>
>>> Hey, Topmind, I noticed that you couldn't attack the 1890s
>airship comments. <<
>
>I do not have enuf info about 1890 airships. However, I am not
>about to accept your account at face value. Visit another
>pro-explorationist if you want to explore those.
Don't accept my account at face value. I posted some
documents you could use to check up on me. The airship wave
were almost identical to the flying saucer wave of 1947.
Now, we know that there were no such airships but the media
reported a sighting and it made headlines. Over 1000 other
sightings followed. All of them following the essential
facts of the first airship sighting.
You claimed that there was no other event like the 1947
flying saucer wave, so why not go to the documents I
referenced and check it out and see if I am telling the
truth.
Hint: I am.
>>> You still haven't told anyone what your favorite subset of
>studies is and why it is accurate. <<
>
>Would it make any difference?
But you made the claim and won't back it up. You ask us to
back up our claims but you have yet to back up one of yours
with anything other than surmise of your own based on your
lack of knowledge.
So what are your favorite large-scale studies?
<snipo>
>>> Trival, of little worth or importance.
>Why do you use a word if you don't know what it means? <<
>
>I was not asking about the definition. I was not sure how
>you arrived at "Well, you just showed that your argument is trivial."
Ah, even you don't read your own articles!
>>> There ain't pro and anti explorationists.
>There are pro and anti ETI. <<
>
>I find it useful to classify people into those who think
>the topic is worthy of further study and those who
>don't. Pro-ET is a subset of pro-explorationists.
Contradiction time again!
You claimed that they were totally different before and
yelled about my using Pro-ETI when you weren't discussing
them at all only pro-explorationists.
Now you are claiming that they are a subset.
>I don't understand your problem with this dichotomy.
>However, lets finish "media" first, if you don't mind.
Perhaps it is the fact that you denied it earlier?
>Being ET and being
>a mystery worthy of investigation are COMPLETELY UNRELATED.
>Why you cannot separate these two must be bad science
>methodology training, which seems to be rampant out there.
So, you claimed that they were seperate and completely
unrelated.
>You are doing it again! Do not mention ET again!!!!!!!! That is not
>relavent to this discussion.
They aren't relevant either.
>
>
>>> Where is your evidence for that assertion?
>How many pre-Arnold sightings do you know of?
>After Arnold there are loads of them. <<
>
>Regarding "just after" or same-time sightings:
>
>Peebles, pg. 11 Berkely edition:
>
>[slightly paraphrased]
>
>"The [Arnold] AP dispatch went out late morning June 25.
>Newspapers in the Northwestern US carried the
>report that evening. The following day it
>had spread nation-wide. Newspapers not only
>carried Arnold's sighting, but others which began
>to be made."
>
Carried the report that evening after the AP dispatch went
out that morning. The following day newspapers carried
others which began to be made.
Translation: It was the first.
Gee, I notice that you can quote Peebles, usually
inaccurately and out of context, but you can't quote the
articles he is referring to.
Have you ever heard of radio? This report went out all over
the radio before it got printed. It went out on the AP wire
the day before.
>Regarding just-pre-Arnold,
>Paris Flammonde in UFO Exist! reports a handful
>of 1947 pre-Arnold sightings on page 158. Only one
>(the already-mentioned weatherman) mentions disks, and another
>hints of a disk shape, but is not clear.
Which shows that the media error influenced the UFO reports.
Even you've admitted that prior to Arnold, they only occured
once every 30 years or so.
But when it went big time in the media as flying saucers,
the reports started flooding in.
However, the reports were clearly influenced by the media.
No one reported a cresent-shaped object like Arnold did.
In fact, there appears to be only one other report that I
know of that the objects appear to be possibly similar to
Arnold's.
So the media influenced the reports, not what Arnold said,
but what the media reported.
>>>...Cason addressed that weeks ago and posted easily checkable
>web sites since we know you won't do any real research. <<
>
>If you are not nice to me, I will bring to the debate a
>pro-explorationist with more time and more references
>than me.
You have only referenced Peebles. I have referenced loads
of scientific journals, UFO studies, etc.
Bring on your references!
I have been asking for them for a long time now. All I ever
get is a popularizer, Peebles.
>>> [As to why you do not find that significant, I do not
>know.] Because it isn't. <<
>
>Do you realize what you just said?
From the little snippet, it isn't possible to tell. But
then you always quote out of context.
<snipo>
>>> That is what you were doing in the other thread and you
>dropped out of that thread because you couldn't back up any
>of your arguments with anything like facts. <<
>
>Believe what you want. The real story is that I decided to
>debate people who are not paste-a-holics.
No. You decided to debate people who didn't have references
but found that John has as many as I do.
You can't back up a single assertion of yours with
references or facts.
So, after saying that you didn't have time to dig up the
references:
>I could get into a gov "memo war" with you, but I do
>not have the time for that right now.
and that you had left them at your in-laws:
>(My references are at my
>in-law's house right now, so I can't quote them yet).
and that your dog ate them, you decided to try to get away
from your claims that you couldn't back up.
>>> And the disc shape was used in the 1930s for alien
>spacecraft in the media. <<
>
>And so was just about any other shape. (See above)
But the shape didn't become important until Arnold. Who
didn't report a disc!
>>> Good god, are you really that stupid? <<
>
>Appearently David Jacobs made the same mistake.
>If he is also "so stupid", then why does Peebles
>cite his work so often?
Peebles isn't quoting him to emulate but quoting him to
deter.
Jacobs isn't a good source. (And yes I can back that up!)
>
>Besides, it can't be near as stupid as mistaking
>your personal opinion for fact (see above).
>Some things are objective, others are opinions.
But all you ever do is to state opinions that are
contradicted by the facts.
You haven't read the Condon Report but you state it as an
objective fact that it was incorrect.
You haven't read the NAS Report but you state it as an
objective fact that it was a sham.
You haven't read the Battelle report nor were you even aware
of it being a part of Blue Book and referenced quite clearly
in the Condon Report, but you state it as an objective fact
that it shows something that it doesn't.
You admit that there were virtually no disc reports prior to
Arnold but you state it as an objective fact that there is
no major media influence on UFO sightings.
Despite the fact that Arnold didn't report a disc. You've
never even read that article and didn't even know who the
author was.
I quote from the CUFOS study and you claim that it is purely
anecdotal. Yet, you quote from all sorts of UFO reports and
think that they are correct, which would make them
objective.
>>> [What use is your alleged grand knowledge if you do not
>even use it to address the topic?]
>I did. Then you just try to claim that what you said wasn't
>the topic. <<
>
>You have yet to answer my question, which has not changed
>(see above).
More lies.
You commented about the term flying saucer and flying disc
not being in common useage for months after the Arnold
sighting. I showed that to be more of your subjective
opinion totally at odds with the facts.
Yet, you have yet to answer hardly any of my or John's
questions. You just snip them to hide your lack of
knowledge of the subject.
>Other sightings were reported the same or
>next day that Arnold's first published report did.
>It is not clear who disked who first.
Have you ever heard of the radio? Arnold's report was
widely reported on the radio, the others weren't. Have you
heard of the AP? They reported this on one day and the
other reports came in afterwards.
Arnold's was the first flying saucer report and you haven't
even read it.
When the Project 1947 web site is back up go and look at the
complete set of newspaper articles. You'll find that
Arnold's is the first and major one. Which is why Arnold is
so famous.
>
>
>>> The media has never told them that Russian Migs are flying
>over the US. They have been told by the media that UFOs are
>spacecraft and look like saucers or disks. <<
>
>That is crock! Every fool knew that Soviet planes routinely
>spy on the US <snipo>
That is a crock. No one believes that Soviet planes flew
over Washington State. The AF would be in hot water if that
were true.
Only you seem to believe that they routinely fly over
Washington State or the rest of CONUS.
What part of flying "over" didn't you understand?
>
>What about cop and pilot reports of Jesus? They beleive in
>him.
They don't believe that he is drunk and causing a fight
downtown.
Nor do they believe that he is making an appearance there
pushing his latest UFO book.
American's believed that the Soviets had Migs. They just
don't they were overflying the US for the most part.
>>> And the comment about a group of scientists? This
>experiment was shown to students to comment on the problems
>of eyewitness testimony. <<
>
>I tried it and only saw swirling blobs (not disks)
Isn't it funny, Arnold didn't see a disk either.
<snipo>
>Did the scientists decide to suddenly walk out as
>a group
Ah, topmind, you are having more comprehension problems
again. Those were students.
<snipo>
>(How about you beat yourself over the head with
>a baseball bat to see if it triggers saucers.
I think you have already based on your claims.
<snipo>
>>> The movie was clearly fiction.
>The 1947 newspaper articles were reported as facts.
>You do have a problem telling fiction from facts, don't you. <<
>
>Jesus and spy planes are also thot to be real, but do not
>produce the same kinds of resulting behavior.
People don't think that it is a fact that Jesus is flying
around over the US, however.
Nor do they believe that it is a fact that the U.S. AF
allows Soviet Migs to overfly the U.S.
Only you believe in those.
But people did believe that there were flying discs
overflying the U.S.
The media reported these as factual events.
>
>Note that most saucer movies are also fiction.
Yep. But people have been told that these are based on
facts.
<snipo>
>(Although the movie was fiction, it was based on a real and
>scary possibility.
A possibility is not a fact.
Only you seem to have difficulties telling the two apart.
<snipo><
>>[ I consider tabloid sightings (apples) and official reports
>>to government agencies (oranges) to be DIFFERENT RESPONSE
>>TO STIMULI. ]
>>> But the gov't agencies have decided that UFOs are bullshit.
>August 1, 1952 CIA Secret memo: <<
>
>
>I am NOT talking about the REALNESS of ufo sightings in
>this case. I am looking at it in the perspective of
>being triggered by media influence, YOUR hypothesis.
But your own articles show that this is the only rational
opinion to hold based on the evidence.
Prior to Arnold, flying disc reports were rare. Shortly
after the intense media coverage of the Arnold flying disc
report, they became commonplace.
Despite Arnold not seeing a disc-shaped object.
>
>Your memo quote has nothing to do with what I am talking about!!!!!!
Quite the contrary. You referred to gov't reports, I merely
pointed out that you don't know what you are talking about
and posted some.
<snipo>
>It was one of you (skeptics) that brought up tabloid accounts,
>not me.
Back that up with the full quote.
<snipo>
>Besides, many UFO sighters did not believe in them before
>their sighting.
But they had been conditioned by the press as I showed from
the CUFOS study of UFO reports.
>
>
>>> Misparaphrasing again! The study quoted indicated that
>everyone had been indoctrinated and thus there were no
>"innocent" from media bias UFO observers. <<
>
>Could you elaborate on this some more?
I posted the quotes and gave a full reference for where to
find the study. You have yet to read one thing about this.
<snipo>
>Your quote:
>
>"For the most part, exposure to the UFO subject is being
>effectively absorbed from the news and entertainment media
>on an indirect basis...there are no "innocent" witnesses
>even if they DON"T read the UFO literature itself.
>.....IFO witnesses appear to be unaware of their own
>emotional "programming" until it is triggered by IFO
>stimuli."
>
>Note the word "exposure".
>
Exposure as if the things are factual. Most people don't
believe Elvis is still alive but some do think it is a fact
and they report it as a fact.
<snipo><
>I still cannot see why you claim UFO are different than all
>these other media icons in their lack of triggering the
>same results.
>
>Please explain. (I know I asked this before.)
I have done so frequently and all you do is to snip it,
quote it out of context, and then say that I haven't.
>
>(NOTE: in the past you pasted beleif-oriented quotes
I posted the UFOs that were reported and found to be IFOs
showing that there is no difference between them and the
reports that were left as UFOs. This is from a study of the
UFO reports that you won't go and read.
>in some cases and exposure-related quotes to others.
>However, they appear to contradict each other when
>applied to other media icons.
Nope. Only in your mind do they contradict each other but
that is because you won't take the time to read what you
respond to.
<snipo>
> For
>example, you said that Red Dawn didnt trigger
>reports because people "knew" {believed} it was
>fiction. Yet you later say/quote that beleif is not
>required, only exposure. Don't you see the
>contradiction?)
That is only in your mind because you won't go and read the
source. The exposure is exposure as the objects being
factual.
So there is no contradiction at all. You are just grasping
at straws once again.
>>> The last time you tried this, you admitted that your claim
>was about advertising blimps at night.
>What part of "airplane" didn't you understand? <<
>
>I have also seen ad planes before; and at the right angle
When standing on your head with your thumb in your mouth.
<snipo>
>>> That is because you continually misparaphrase what was
>written and then when you are corrected, you claim the
>correction doesn't address your comments, and you quickly
>claim what you claimed your remarks were about. <<
>
>My original question about the near-Arnold event sequence
>seems consistant to me. Which topic are you refering to?
Look above.
>>> When you don't even tell what wacko source your getting your
>quotes from it doesn't make them more than a wacko quote. <<
>
>I remember from English class that quotes do not always mean
>a direct copy of what someone says.
That English teacher should be fired. Or more likely, you
weren't paying attention.
<snipo>
> So why should I change?
Well, I'll quote you as stating that "UFOS are all garbage."
Now do you see?
>>> [Emotions make people imagine saucers ]
>I'm glad that you admit that people are only imagining
>saucers. <<
>
>Many, but perhaps not all.
But the evidence supports the opposite.
>>> What they saw wasn't anything like a half-disk as you would
>know if you read the book about the study. They didn't just
>extrapolate a half-disk moving into a full disk. <<
>
>Is the book still in publication?
Nope. It didn't state UFOs are real so, even though done by
a UFO group, it was a marketing failure.
>
>Also, it is probably a mistake to make vast conclusions based
>on a single study. (I know, you are going to say that it fits
>the results of all the AF's other studies. No need to get
>pastey on this one.)
As you clearly indicate, I'm not making vast conclusions
based on a single study.
The AF studies show the exact same thing. I have also
posted from scientific journals. Of course, you just
claimed that the journal articles are just opinions since
they didn't agree with you.
<snipo>
John Cason
>John Cason quoted:
>>There is a trivial sense in which this is simply wrong.
>>Disc-shaped spaceships have a number of precedents in popular
>>culture. They appear in Buck Rogers as far back as 1930.[2]
>>They appear in a Flash Gordon comic strip in 1934.[3] The
>>science fiction illustrator Frank R. Paul was drawing
>>saucer-like craft as early as 1931 and did so repeatedly.[4]
>....
>>Other SF illustrators also utilized the disc form long before
>>1947.[5]
>>But these are inevitable coincidences in a large body of
>>artistic creativity.
>Hmmmm. You are right. Pre-Arnold sci-fi mags do have some
>saucers in them.
Twitch said that you read UFO books (Jacobs in this case) and
swallow them uncritically instead of checking the claims. A
simple net search was all it took to discover how wrong he was?
>I poked around the web and even found a magazine cover with
>fat disks, almost spheroid, on it from 1932.
You found an illustration, but you won't tell us the URL.
>I learned something new today. (Why you did not brings this up
>earlier, I don't know.)
I included the URLs and article titles in a post in this thread
on May 3 or 4. On May 16 I referred to the URLs and asked
whether you had read them. You replied to both posts.
>> http://www.hedweb.com/markp/ufofilm.htm
>>"Flying saucer shaped space craft had been a staple of pulp SF
>>artwork since the early 1930's
>However, it hardly appears to be a "staple". Like the above
>sentence says, "in many ways they are inevitable coincidences
>in a large body of artistic creativity".
You're sliding again. Just one post back you were claiming that
the only flying disk before the Arnold incident in 1947 was in a
painting in 1650, almost 300 years previously. Now, on the basis
of information that I provided, you are continuing your argument
from a slightly new position: saucer shaped disks were not a
"staple," just "inevitable consequences." I provided honest
quotes that said that disks were not the major shape in science
fiction illustrations, but were definitely present amid a variety
of representations. You have so few facts at your disposal,
you're mining a refutation of your old claim looking for support
for your new claim.
Your new view still leads you to the same basic conclusion, even
though your original premise turned out to be absurdly wrong.
<snip>
>I have no tally of pulp mag ship shapes, but it appears that
>there was a wide variety of shapes floating around and that
>disks are NOT a major contendor before Arnold. (A shape tally
>would be an interesting set of stats to look at though.)
But in the absence of data, you'll assume something that
conveniently supports your new position.
>If aliens DID visit earth and landed on the white-house lawn,
>their ship would most likely resemble something already
>drawn a few times.
>I call this the "fortune cookie" principle. If you read enuf
>fortune cookies, you will eventually find one that matches your
>actual fortune (future).
Kind of like what happens if we comb through pre-Arnold sightings
of unknown things in the sky? We run a good chance of eventually
finding a disk amid all the airships, cigars, wheels, comets,
fiery chariots, falling stars, etc?
<snip>
Twitch wrote:
>>...Cason addressed that weeks ago and posted easily checkable
>>web sites since we know you won't do any real research.
>If you are not nice to me, I will bring to the debate a
>pro-explorationist with more time and more references
>than me.
I think you "pro-explorationist" term is nonsense, but please do
bring in someone with more references. It shouldn't be
difficult.
<snip>
John Cason
<374459aa...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> top...@technologist.com wrote:
<snip>
>>Believe what you want. The real story is that I decided
>>to debate people who are not paste-a-holics.
>No. You decided to debate people who didn't have
>references but found that John has as many as I do.
Twitch, there you go with more of your nonsense. No one has as many
references as you do.
<snip>
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in article
><374459aa...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>> top...@technologist.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>Believe what you want. The real story is that I decided
>>>to debate people who are not paste-a-holics.
>
>>No. You decided to debate people who didn't have
>>references but found that John has as many as I do.
>
>Twitch, there you go with more of your nonsense. No one has as many
>references as you do.
>
Sorry.
John has almost as many references as I do.
Is that better?
><snip>
top...@technologist.com
>> It was a staple. <<
I have not seen any evidence of this. I only see
a wide variety, and disks seem to be nothing
but a coincidence out of a wide variety of
shapes. Your own quote even says, "But these are inevitable
coincidences in a large body of artistic creativity."
As further evidence of this, some of the examples I
looked at were almost half saucer and half rocket.
Others were half bugs. Some saucers looked like they
were motivated by wide beetles. (These "saucers" had
spindly, robotic legs hanging down.)
I see nothing that shows that it's a "staple".
(Unless one incorrectly looks at them in
isolation.)
However, without a tally one cannat say for sure.
It appears to me that they're simply random, and your quote
agrees with this.
>> Yep. The staple is an inevitable coincidence. <<
What you talkin' 'bout man?
>> [I have no tally of pulp mag ship shapes]
Then why make conclusions when you admit that you don't have
the data? <<
Wake Up! You don't have tallies either.
>> He is the reporter who coined the term flying saucers.
William Bequette of the Pendleton, Oregon, East Oregonian.
Haven't you even bothered to go and read the original
reports? <<
I am NOT questioning his word mistake; I am questioning,
or at least request more info on the timing.
If he "invented" the term AFTER OTHERS made disk
reports, then your argument holds much less water.
Like I quoted before, Peebles hinted that
the newspapers published other reports at the
SAME TIME as Arnolds.
>> Clearly even Peeble's is saying that it was the first. <<
First report yes, first *disk* report I don't know
and you are not helping. This issue is DISK reports,
not reports in general.
>> [What is the exact date of the Bequette's error, and does it pre or
post date the OTHER saucer reports on nearby days?]
Predates. <<
Where is your evidence?
>> How many questions have we asked and you've snipped?
Many, many, many questions! <<
I do not recall "snipping" anything significant.
Perhaps if your writing/pasting style was more
compact, less errors would be made.
It appears to me that you do not carefully read
my questions or statements, and post stuff that
does not really address it. It might superficially
cover a similar topic, but its not really addressing
the question. For example, if you REALLY wanted to
answer my timing question, you could post something
like this:
[Example only]
"In June 27, Bequettee published an article in
the Washinton Tree Carcus which incorrectly
stated, 'Kenneth saw a formation of flying disks'."
"The first NON-Arnold disk report was published
in the San Francisco Tree Carcus on June 29,
two days after Bequette's error was published."
[End example]
That is the type of evidence that I am looking
for, but you are not providing it. You are only
providing evidence of Bequette's mistake, which I
am NOT disputing. It is the timing relationship
with NON-ARNOLD disk reports that is the heart
of the issue.
But, you keep pasting in info related to the
first step, even though it is not being
disputed. I don't understand such behavior in you.
It is very very very very very annoying.
>> [I could get into a gov "memo war" with you, but I do
not have the time for that right now.]
Please also show these gov't memos that support yourposition. <<
Is this related to this topic? This appears part of the
NAS debate, not media influence.
>> Three [there?] always has to be a first report. But you've claimed
that these were very rare. <<
The April report was not influenced by the Bequette error because
April comes before June (at least on my calendar it does. Maybe
you anti-explorationists have special calendars).
And, pre-Arnold sci fi saucers still do appear rare in comparison
to all ship shapes shown. (related to the tally argument).
>> By June 5th, it was even the talk of little Corona, New Mexico. <<
I believe you mean July 5th, since June 5th was before Arnold's
flight. (July 5th is also after other non-Arnold reports
were in the paper.)
>> So even in your articles you admit that disc shaped reports
occured about every 30 years prior to Arnold but they are
reported all of the time after Arnold. But Arnold didn't
report a saucer, he reported a cresent.
Your own articles are strong evidence
for the mediainfluence on UFO sightings! <<
How is this? I only agree that sightings went up
tremendously during or after Arnold's report.
Whether the news reports triggered the full
increase, or there were simply more disks in the
actual sky is not known.
I am not disputing the numbers, just the cause.
The fact the reports of solid-like UFO's starting
going up BEFORE the first newspaper articles in
June strongly suggests that the phenom is
independant of the media.
In otherwords, it was INCREASING DISPITE NO
MASS NEWS REPORTS (before June 2x). This fact contradicts
the media influence theory.
(Note that "Foo Fighters", glowing balls of
light were reported during the war, but these
did not make a significant dent in the media,
nor were many solid-looking UFO's reported
until just before the pre-Arnold 1947 increase.)
Thus, solid-looking UFO's in general started
RAMPING UP withOUT help from the papers.
>> Now, we know that there were no such airships but the media
reported a sighting and it made headlines. Over 1000 other
sightings followed. All of them following the essential
facts of the first airship sighting. <<
How do you know there were "no such airships"?
How do you know for sure that the first report
was an indicator or a trigger of an airship
wave?
Please answer the question and ONLY the
question. Practice conciseness for once.
(He's doing it, he's dragging me into other topics.
He should be a used-car salesmen.)
>> So what are your favorite large-scale studies? <<
Are there any other pro-explorationists out
there who want to play that game? I don't have
the time nor motivation for such paper fights
right now.
>> Contradiction time again! You claimed that they were totally
different before and
yelled about my using Pro-ETI when you weren't discussing
them at all only pro-explorationists.
Now you are claiming that they are a subset. <<
Let's finish the media influence topic, then I will
gladly get back to your word games.
>> Have you ever heard of radio? This report went out all over
the radio before it got printed. It went out on the AP wire the day
before.
<<
But did it go out with the word "disk" or "saucer" in it?
>> You have only referenced Peebles. I have referenced loads
of scientific journals, UFO studies, etc. <<
Yeah, loads of stuff that DOES NOT ADDRESS THE TIMING ISSUE.
Next time go for quality instead of quantity.
>> From the little snippet, it isn't possible to tell. But
then you always quote out of context. <<
And you don't?
>> You commented about the term flying saucer and flying disc
not being in common useage for months after the Arnold
sighting. I showed that to be more of your subjective
opinion totally at odds with the facts. <<
Okay, I admit I was wrong on that, but it does not
impact the issue of who disked first (which
appearently is still up in the air).
>> When the Project 1947 web site is back up go and look at the
complete set of newspaper articles. You'll find that
Arnold's is the first and major one.
Which is why Arnold isso famous. <<
If you admit that the answer is not yet avialable, why
do you go ahead and post so much unrelated stuff
over and over?
Just simply say that it is not available yet. The
other stuff is just repetitious clutter.
>> That is a crock. No one believes that Soviet planes flew
over Washington State. The AF would be in hot water
if that were true. <<
NO NO NO YOU IDIOT!!!!!!
I am NOT talking about explanations for Arnolds sighting!
I am talking about applying YOUR media influence claims
to other media icons in general. You are mixing up two
different things.
That is another reason why I want to narrow the
topics (or deal with them one at a time). You get
them all mixed up.
>> They don't believe that he [Jesus] is drunk and causing a
fightdowntown.
Nor do they believe that he is making an appearance there
pushing his latest UFO book. <<
What the h*ll are you talking about?
Many believe that he exists and that he
appears to people on accasion. I grew up in
a religious family and I know what they believe
Jesus does and doesnt do.
(i am curious to see what kinds of quotes you produce
that indicate that religious people don't expect
to see Jesus or angles.)
Besides, you indicated that belief is NOT
a prerequisite, only repeated exposure.
>> American's believed that the Soviets had Migs. They just
don't they were overflying the US for the most part. <<
There was a lot more to the cold war than Migs.
Besides, you indicated that belief is NOT
a prerequisite.
>> Isn't it funny, Arnold didn't see a disk either. <<
Not related.
>> Ah, topmind, you are having more comprehension problems
again. Those were students. <<
NO no no, you used the expirement done by the students
to explain the scientists' sighting.
>> People don't think that it is a fact that Jesus is flying
around over the US, however. <<
But cops did not report Jesus sightings. I don't think
flying or not flying has anything to do with it.
(If you want to make a claim that flying and non-flying
are different response to stimuli, then go ahead.)
>> [mushroom clouds] A possibility is not a fact.
Only you seem to have difficulties telling the two apart. <<
1. Nukes were a fact. Nuclear war was a real possibility
and the press made that very very very very clear.
2. You indicated that belief is NOT
a prerequisite anyhow.
I don't see how saucers and mushroom clouds are
different kinds of media influence. Nuke clouds were
(are) a real possibility and mushroom clouds were
all over the media.
How is that different?
>> But your own articles show that this is the only rational
opinion to hold based on the evidence. <<
You cannot keep things strait!!!!!! YOu are pissing me
off.
I am (in this topic) applying YOUR MEDIA INFLUENCE theory
to see if it holds up to other media icons.
Forget about the other stuff for a while.
That is why I want to deal with one thing at a time
because you CANNOT KEEP THEM STRAIT!
>> Prior to Arnold, flying disc reports were rare. Shortly
after the intense media coverage of the Arnold flying disc
report, they became commonplace. <<
Is this because of media influence, or because actual
ufo's became more common? The pre-Arnold "ramp up" I talked about
earlier appears to be independant of the media.
I am sure that media influence produced many or even most
disk reports, but not necessarily all.
>> Quite the contrary. You referred to gov't reports, I merely
pointed out that you don't know what you are talking aboutand posted
some. <<
Whether I was right or wrong then, it is off the topic.
Save your ranting about that for later.
>> [It was one of you (skeptics) that brought up tabloid accounts,>not
me.]
Back that up with the full quote. <<
They mentioned Elvis and Jesus on Silos (or was it the other
way around). If you really think it pivotal, I will find
the date and poster name.
>> [Besides, many UFO sighters did not believe in them before
>their sighting.]
But they had been conditioned by the press as I showed from
the CUFOS study of UFO reports. <<
Is belief a pre-requisite or not! Make up your puny mind.
>> I posted the quotes and gave a full reference for where to
find the study. You have yet to read one thing about this. <<
That does not matter. The explanations contradict each other.
Is belief a prerequisite or not?????????????????
Your quotes waffle between that.
Quotations are NOT a substitute for consistant logic.
>> I have done so frequently and all you do is to snip it,
quote it out of context, and then say that I haven't. <<
You have not. The model(s) you present are inconsistant
with each other.
>> I posted the UFOs that were reported and found to be IFOs
showing that there is no difference between them and the
reports that were left as UFOs. This is from a study of the
UFO reports that you won't go and read. <<
1. That is one study.
2. It is not relavent to the issue of why other media
icons do not produce gov reports (assuming 99+% of
UFO reports are mistakes.)
**************
>> That is only in your mind because you won't go and read the
source. The exposure is exposure as the objects being factual. <<
But, mushroom clouds, Spies, Jesus, Angles, and Elvis are often
reported as factual, but they do not trigger gov reports
from cops and pilots.
Thus, the contradiction still stands.
**************
>> That English teacher should be fired. Or more likely, you
weren't paying attention. <<
I would go and buy an English book to quote if I thot it
would humble you and shut you up, but I doubt it would
work.
>> Well, I'll quote you as stating that "UFOS are all garbage."
Now do you see? <<
I thot your complaint was about using quotes without
directly stating where it was from? Not incorrectly
attributing something to a source. (My references to
'not-justified' did not directly state the source of
the quote. Poor form, perhaps, but not the same
as misquoting. You can call it "vague-sourcing", but
not "misquoting".)
>> The AF studies show the exact same thing. I have also
posted from scientific journals. Of course, you just
claimed that the journal articles are just opinions since
they didn't agree with you. <<
The study itself is not an opinion, but the CONCLUSION's
often are. It is my opinion that using drawings is poor
technique. If you disagree, that is your fair opinion, but
it is still opinion.
Now, see if you can build a successful physcological
model and have it apply consistantly to all other media
icons.
Quotations will not do it because I cannot ask the
quotation about any contradictions it brings up.
That is your job.
top...@technologist.com
Reply to John C.
>> Twitch said that you read UFO books (Jacobs in this case) and
swallow them uncritically instead of checking the claims. A
simple net search was all it took to discover how wrong he was? <<
Relative to all the ship shapes, they are NOT
a staple of pre-Arnold sci fi.
The David Jacobs quote is from twitch-n-paste, not me.
You mis-read twitch appearently.
Further, I searched the names of the artists quoted,
not a random mag search.
>> You found an [saucer-like] illustration, but you won't tell us the
URL. <<
It does not contradict your claims; so why do you
want it?
>> Just one post back you were claiming that
the only flying disk before the Arnold incident in 1947 was in a
painting in 1650, almost 300 years previously. Now, on the basis
of information that I provided, you are continuing your argument
from a slightly new position: saucer shaped disks were not a
"staple," just "inevitable consequences." <<
A quote from before I saw actual examples (May 18):
"(It is likely that it may have occured just by chance
in some obscure source. Being that thousands of
different space vehicles were drawn, one is bound
to be disk-shaped just by random chance. However, even
if found, it appears to not have triggered a COMMON, LASTING
ICON in sci fi circles.)"
Which is not too far off. I agree that Buck Rogers is
not "obscure", but it did not "trigger a COMMON, LASTING
ICON in sci fi circles."
Regarding my comment on the painting, I meant to
say the only *known* pre-Arnold media saucer. The
omission of "known" was purely a typo. (I have learned
long ago NOT to claim that something does not
exist, only that proof is lacking. The little lawyer
on my shulder was asleep.)
>> Your new view still leads you to the same basic conclusion, even
though your original premise turned out to be absurdly wrong. <<
"absurdly wrong" is way too strong. I will agree that some of
the air has been let out of my original premise, but it still
floats.
The fact the you used the word "absurdly" means that your
mind exaggerates minor wins in your mind into a grand
victory.
Not much different than exaggerating an arc of lights into
a saucer shape. (Although twitchy claims the CUFOS study
had more than arcs, I have no way to verify it because
the source is not currently available. Why don't skeptics
pool resources and buy the study to publish on the web
since they are so fond of it.)
If skeptics were not just as human (fallible) as the witnesses, I
might believe them.
>> [I have no tally of pulp mag ship shapes, but it appears that
there was a wide variety of shapes floating around and that
disks are NOT a major contendor before Arnold. (A shape tally
would be an interesting set of stats to look at though.) ]
But in the absence of data, you'll assume something that
conveniently supports your new position. <<
Yes, it is an assumption, but you have no counter info.
Note that one of sources twitchy quoted agreed with this
interpretation (already described). Thus, I am not
alone in that view.
>> Kind of like what happens if we comb through pre-Arnold sightings
of unknown things in the sky? We run a good chance of eventually
finding a disk amid all the airships, cigars, wheels, comets,
fiery chariots, falling stars, etc? <<
Yep, that is certainly a valid consideration.
However, the April sighting was a bit too close to
Arnold to easily dismiss.
Further, there are probably more pre-Arnold comic book ships
than there are pre-Arnold sightings on record. Thus, sci fi
perhaps has a larger pool of probability. (This excludes
multiple sightings in "flaps" like the 189x airships, the
"ghost rockets", and the "foo fighters".)
>> but please do bring in someone with more
references. It shouldn't be difficult. <<
I knew you would say something like that.
>> I think your "pro-explorationist" term is nonsense <<
I find it more useful than "believer" because it
emphasizes the border or threashold of the debate,
which is whether or not it is a legitamate scientific
topic of exploration (IMO). Whether they are ET
is a minor side issue that gets too much attention.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>.
>
>
>>> It was a staple. <<
>
>I have not seen any evidence of this.
You've only done a simple search on the web for it and found
that you could find one cover.
" Not only does it unambiguously point to a cultural origin
of the whole flying saucer phenomenon, it erects a
first-order paradox into any attempt to interpret the
phenomenon in extraterrestrial terms: Why would
extraterrestrials redesign their craft to conform to
Bequette's error?"
<snipo>
>>> [I have no tally of pulp mag ship shapes]
>Then why make conclusions when you admit that you don't have
>the data? <<
>
>Wake Up! You don't have tallies either.
We don't need them.
We claimed that they existed. So we were able to support
our claims.
You are the one who hasn't supported any of his claims.
>>> He is the reporter who coined the term flying saucers.
>William Bequette of the Pendleton, Oregon, East Oregonian.
>Haven't you even bothered to go and read the original
>reports? <<
>
>I am NOT questioning his word mistake;
You didn't even know who he was.
>I am questioning,
>or at least request more info on the timing.
>If he "invented" the term AFTER OTHERS made disk
>reports, then your argument holds much less water.
But he didn't.
And that wasn't what you were questioning, topmind.
>But it still does NOT directly answer my question. Reports started
>flowing in
>I believe the same day
Reports started flowing in the same day was your claim.
That is wrong.
>Like I quoted before, Peebles hinted that
>the newspapers published other reports at the
>SAME TIME as Arnolds.
Nope. Peebles didn't hint at any such thing. Newspapers in
the Northwest published it on the afternoon of the 25th.
The other reports didn't make it until the 26th.
Unless, of course, you can do what no one else has done,
show that there were other reports done on the 25th.
As you quoted, and now have snipped, this is after the term
was invented.
"Thus, within a few hours of the first sighting
(Arnold's)... "The [Arnold] AP dispatch went out late
morning June 25. Newspapers in the Northwestern U.S.
carried the report that evening. The following day (June
26), it had appeared nationwide. Newspapers not only
carried Reports of Arnold's sighting, but others which began
to be made."
(Page 10, Watch the Skies)
Within a few hours of the first sighting ... the AP dispatch
went out late morning of June 25... The following day
...not only ...Arnold's sighting, but others which began to
be made.
Began alone shows that they were later. The AP dispatch
went out early on the 25th and was reported on radio news
all over America.
>
>>> Clearly even Peeble's is saying that it was the first. <<
>
>First report yes, first *disk* report I don't know
>and you are not helping. This issue is DISK reports,
>not reports in general.
If it is the first report, it must be the first disk report
also.
As you can see by checking out the newspaper articles from
1947.
This issue wasn't disk reports, it was reports. The first
report was the disk report, however. It was first published
on the afternoon of the 25th. The next reports weren't
published until the 26th.
>
>>> [What is the exact date of the Bequette's error, and does it pre or
>post date the OTHER saucer reports on nearby days?]
>Predates. <<
>
>Where is your evidence?
The newspaper articles collected by Project 1947. Peebles's
own comments above.
>
>
>>> How many questions have we asked and you've snipped?
>Many, many, many questions! <<
>
>I do not recall "snipping" anything significant.
You ask us to back up our claims but you have yet to back up
one of yours with anything other than surmise of your own
based on your lack of knowledge.
So what are your favorite large-scale studies?
That is clearly significant.
>Perhaps if your writing/pasting style was more
>compact, less errors would be made.
Perhaps if you would bother to read what other people post
you would make such errors.
You snipped John's references several times than asked why
you hadn't been told this before!
So, it isn't just my articles but John's also that you can't
understand or read.
>
>It appears to me that you do not carefully read
>my questions or statements
Nope. I read what you write and respond to it, then you
change what you were claiming.
<snipo>
>It is the timing relationship
>with NON-ARNOLD disk reports that is the heart
>of the issue.
The timing is that Arnold was the first.
His report went out early on the 25th. It was in the first
newspapers on the afternoon of the 25th. The next articles
didn't appear until the 26th.
Go look at the Project 1947 newspaper articles.
<snipo>
>I don't understand such behavior in you.
>It is very very very very very annoying.
You get annoyed everytime someone shows that your
assumptions are incorrect.
Then you try to weasel out of your comments by redefining
what you said and your posting methods are chosen to make
that somewhat easier.
>"I am not posative about this, but it seems that the term
>"saucer" or "flying saucer" did not enter into common association
>with the phenom. until several months after the Arnold sighting."
When this is shown to be pure bullshit, you alter your
claim:
> Further, twitchy's replies did
>not address the issue of the first USAGE of the terms in press. What
>came first is the real issue, not how far apart the press events are.
Now the first usage becomes the issue. But that wasn't what
you were commenting on earlier.
>
>
>
>>> [I could get into a gov "memo war" with you, but I do
>not have the time for that right now.]
>Please also show these gov't memos that support yourposition. <<
>
>Is this related to this topic? This appears part of the
>NAS debate, not media influence.
But that was one of the significant questions that you
refused to answer.
>>> Three [there?] always has to be a first report. But you've claimed
>that these were very rare. <<
>
>The April report was not influenced by the Bequette error because
>April comes before June (at least on my calendar it does. Maybe
>you anti-explorationists have special calendars).
But you claimed that these appeared about once every 30
years. So?
It was totally unnewsworthy. And it didn't generate many
similar reports.
But Arnolds was considered to be newsworthy and it got wide
media coverage. Immediately, reports started flooding in
about flying saucers and flying discs, despite the fact that
Arnold hadn't seen any such thing.
Which clearly points to a strong media influence. The
reports and the terms are reacting more to the media wording
than to what Arnold reported.
Which clearly disproves your thesis.
>
>And, pre-Arnold sci fi saucers still do appear rare in comparison
>to all ship shapes shown. (related to the tally argument).
But Post-Arnold sci-fi saucers do not. Yet, that isn't what
Arnold reported. That is the mistake the newspaper made.
Unless, of course, the aliens redesigned their saucers to
fit what Arnold reported.
>>> By June 5th, it was even the talk of little Corona, New Mexico. <<
>
>I believe you mean July 5th, since June 5th was before Arnold's
>flight. (July 5th is also after other non-Arnold reports
>were in the paper.)
July 5th.
But the other non-Arnold reports are clearly influenced by
Arnold's report as reported in the media. Arnold didn't
report a flying saucer or flying disc. Yet, the reward was
for info on the flying saucers and flying discs.
IOW, there was a strong media influence on the reports.
>>> So even in your articles you admit that disc shaped reports
>occured about every 30 years prior to Arnold but they are
>reported all of the time after Arnold. But Arnold didn't
>report a saucer, he reported a cresent.
>Your own articles are strong evidence
>for the mediainfluence on UFO sightings! <<
>
>How is this?
What part didn't you understand?
> I only agree that sightings went up
>tremendously during or after Arnold's report.
And the sightings corresponded with what Arnold was
mistakenly reported to have seen for the most part. They
were called flying saucers and flying discs, yet, that
wasn't what Arnold reported.
>Whether the news reports triggered the full
>increase, or there were simply more disks in the
>actual sky is not known.
Whether there were any disks hasn't been shown.
But the reports followed what Arnold was mistakenly reported
to have said which shows a strong media influence.
>
>I am not disputing the numbers, just the cause.
Do you claim that the aliens redesigned their craft to
correspond to what Arnold was mistakenly reported to have
seen?
>
>The fact the reports of solid-like UFO's starting
>going up BEFORE the first newspaper articles in
>June strongly suggests that the phenom is
>independant of the media.
Reports? How many of them before June?
Why did the reports correspond to what Arnold was mistakenly
reported to have seen rather than what Arnold claimed to
have seen?
Media influence.
I asked in the article before this for you to back up this
assertion of them ramping up just before Arnold. You still
can't do it.
>
>In otherwords, it was INCREASING DISPITE NO
>MASS NEWS REPORTS (before June 2x). This fact contradicts
>the media influence theory.
What reports other than your April one are you referring
to?
The fact that the reports became flying saucers and flying
discs, despite the fact that this isn't what Arnold claimed
to have seen, contradicts your no media influence theory.
>
>(Note that "Foo Fighters", glowing balls of
>light
Not solid.
<snipo>
>nor were many solid-looking UFO's reported
>until just before the pre-Arnold 1947 increase.)
But many were reported before Arnold? Please back up this
statement!
>
>Thus, solid-looking UFO's in general started
>RAMPING UP withOUT help from the papers.
Please list a large number of solid-looking UFOs in the
saucer shape just prior to Arnold's report.
Please list a large number of solid-looking UFOs of any
shape just prior to Arnold.
Now you'll claim that this isn't a significant request.
>>> Now, we know that there were no such airships but the media
>reported a sighting and it made headlines. Over 1000 other
>sightings followed. All of them following the essential
>facts of the first airship sighting. <<
>
>How do you know there were "no such airships"?
Egads!
Technology didn't allow such airships to be built then. The
history of flight shows that there were no such airships.
You couldn't build such ships and fly them without some
historical evidence being found. Look at the history of
flight if you prefer.
The first design for a real airship was in 1784, but it was
only a design and had three hand-powered propellers.
In 1837, Sir George Cayley designed a steam powered airship
that was never built.
A clockwork powered airship was built as a model in 1850.
In 1852, Giffard built a 3 horsepower steam airship that was
only partially controllable.
Paul Haenlein of German made 10 mph in 1872 with a small gas
powered airship. His airship was powered by the gas in the
balloon that held it up. It was not a real success.
In 1872, Professor Richell builit a tiny virtually
uncontrollable airship with a pedal driven propellor.
The first truly steerable airship wasn't built until 1884
the La France. It was quite small and grossly underpowered
with a very short range.
The Brazilian Alberto Santos-Dumont fitted a gasoline engine
to an airship and was reasonably successful. He flew it
around the Eiffel Tower in Paris and thus won a 100,00 franc
prize in 1898.
The first of the major airships were built by the Germans.
David Schwarz in 1897 was first but Zeppelin's later
creations were still better.
Thus, there is strong evidence that earlier in the 1890s, no
such airships could be flying across America with the
properties claimed by the observers.
If you would like a reference for the above, just let me
know.
I still like the report in which they pulled up and asked
for the loan of a corkscrew so they could have some wine.
>How do you know for sure that the first report
>was an indicator or a trigger of an airship
>wave?
Well, there were no such airships at that time capable of
doing what was reported.
Yet, as soon as one report came in, loads of others came in.
Within a two year period, there were something like a
thousand such reports.
Now, with no such vessel built at that time, and all the
other reports following immediately on the first report,
what is there but media influence?
It is true, that there were some hoaxes done by people but
most of the approximately thousand reports were not likely
to be hoaxes.
>
>Please answer the question and ONLY the
>question. Practice conciseness for once.
>
I did.
>(He's doing it, he's dragging me into other topics.
>He should be a used-car salesmen.)
Nope. You made the claim that there were no waves like the
1947 flying saucer wave and I merely showed that this is
just another mistaken comment.
>>> So what are your favorite large-scale studies? <<
>
>Are there any other pro-explorationists out
>there who want to play that game? I don't have
>the time nor motivation for such paper fights
>right now.
That is what you stated the first time I asked. You claim
that these exist but you won't specify what they are.
Could it be that they don't exist?
I know of no such studies and I have looked.
>>> Contradiction time again! You claimed that they were totally
>different before and
>yelled about my using Pro-ETI when you weren't discussing
>them at all only pro-explorationists.
>Now you are claiming that they are a subset. <<
>
>Let's finish the media influence topic, then I will
>gladly get back to your word games.
That is what you kept claiming in the other thread and then
you quickly stopped posting to that thread.
I'm not inventing word games. You are.
You first claim one thing and then when it is shown to be
false, you redefine what you meant. When that is shown to
be false, you either redefine what you meant again, snip the
comment, claim that it wasn't stated, or start a new thread
to avoid answering it.
>>> Have you ever heard of radio? This report went out all over
>the radio before it got printed. It went out on the AP wire the day
>before.
><<
>
>But did it go out with the word "disk" or "saucer" in it?
It did. The report was essentially the same as the
newspaper report.
>
>
>>> You have only referenced Peebles. I have referenced loads
>of scientific journals, UFO studies, etc. <<
>
>Yeah, loads of stuff that DOES NOT ADDRESS THE TIMING ISSUE.
Sorry, but I have and you just snip it. You make a comment
that is incorrect, I post evidence that it is incorrect and
reference scientific journals about that point, and you just
claim that they aren't relevent after you snip them. But
they are relevant to the issue that you were discussing at
that time.
Then you start a new thread and post a comment in all caps
like above.
The timing issue is only an issue in your mind since you
don't know the history of the subject.
Even when you read someone who isn't wacko, like Peebles,
you either quote out of context or misinterpret it so it
agrees with you.
Look above.
>
>Next time go for quality instead of quantity.
I post both, you snip both.
John posts both, you snip both.
>
>
>>> From the little snippet, it isn't possible to tell. But
>then you always quote out of context. <<
>
>And you don't?
Nope.
>
>
>>> You commented about the term flying saucer and flying disc
>not being in common useage for months after the Arnold
>sighting. I showed that to be more of your subjective
>opinion totally at odds with the facts. <<
>
>Okay, I admit I was wrong on that, but it does not
>impact the issue of who disked first (which
>appearently is still up in the air).
>
It ain't still up in the air. The Arnold report went out on
the wire early on the morning of the 25th. The first
newspaper accounts of the Arnold report were published on
the afternoon of the 25th. The first other reports were
published on the 26th.
You can see this in Peebles or simply look up the articles.
>
>>> When the Project 1947 web site is back up go and look at the
>complete set of newspaper articles. You'll find that
>Arnold's is the first and major one.
>Which is why Arnold isso famous. <<
>
>If you admit that the answer is not yet avialable,
Not yet available?
What part of "back up" didn't you understand?
It was available and the ISP goofed and shut them down.
That site was available for several years and showed that
what you are saying was totally incorrect.
They are looking for a new ISP now and hope to have the
stuff available soon. But it was available and you can go
look at the newspapers. This is just easier.
>why
>do you go ahead and post so much unrelated stuff
>over and over?
Peebles comment that you used is unrelated?
Only in your mind.
>
>Just simply say that it is not available yet. The
>other stuff is just repetitious clutter.
The other stuff isn't just repetitious clutter as you well
know.
And, again, what part of "back up" didn't you understand.
It was available and anyone who was interested could have
looked at the newspaper reports. They were available for
the last several years, what were you doing besides looking
into the subject you are talking about?
>>> That is a crock. No one believes that Soviet planes flew
>over Washington State. The AF would be in hot water
>if that were true. <<
>
>NO NO NO YOU IDIOT!!!!!!
Ah, got your nice hat back on, huh?
>
>I am NOT talking about explanations for Arnolds sighting!
NO you weren't!
You were complaining about why people didn't report Migs
instead of flying saucers.
People didn't believe that Migs were overflying Washington
state. If they believe that something isn't happening, why
report it?
They were told, however, that flying saucers were doing so
and they believed that this is factual, so they report
flying saucers. Despite the fact that the intial report
didn't report a flying saucer!
>
>I am talking about applying YOUR media influence claims
>to other media icons in general. You are mixing up two
>different things.
Nope. I showed that people didn't believe that Migs were
flying over the US. When people don't believe that
something is happening, they don't report it.
When they are told that flying saucers are zooming all
around the US and they believe that this is a factual event,
they report flying saucers.
>
>That is another reason why I want to narrow the
>topics (or deal with them one at a time). You get
>them all mixed up.
Nope. You keep trying to claim one thing, and when that is
shown to be false, you then try this tactic.
>>> They don't believe that he [Jesus] is drunk and causing a
>fightdowntown.
>Nor do they believe that he is making an appearance there
>pushing his latest UFO book. <<
>
>What the h*ll are you talking about?
That would have been obvious if you hadn't cut the comments
so they are totally out of context.
You brought up Jesus and the Migs and wondered why people
weren't reporting them. They don't believe that Jesus is
visiting nor do they believe that Migs are overflying
Washington state, so they don't report these.
They are told that flying saucers are real and they are
overflying the US so they report flying saucers.
Despite the first report not being about a flying saucer,
The flying saucer part was a media invention, but that is
what people report.
Which shows that the media influence is very strong.
>
>Many believe that he exists and that he
>appears to people on accasion.
And those people report him.
<snipo>
>Besides, you indicated that belief is NOT
>a prerequisite, only repeated exposure.
You are just misparaphrasing again.
>
>>> American's believed that the Soviets had Migs. They just
>don't they were overflying the US for the most part. <<
>
>There was a lot more to the cold war than Migs.
But you wanted to know why the people didn't report seeing
them.
They don't believe that they are overflying America.
So they don't report it.
>
>Besides, you indicated that belief is NOT
>a prerequisite.
>
Nope. I never state that.
In fact, I stated the opposite.
You just don't read the articles before you snip them.
>
>>> Isn't it funny, Arnold didn't see a disk either. <<
>
>Not related.
Quite the contrary. Arnold was reported as seeing a disc,
even though he didn't. The media reported and other people
started talking about flying discs and seeing them also.
But Arnold didn't see a disk!
Which shows a lot of media influence.
>
>>> Ah, topmind, you are having more comprehension problems
>again. Those were students. <<
>
>NO no no, you used the expirement done by the students
>to explain the scientists' sighting.
Nope.
Just your lack of comprehension again.
>>> People don't think that it is a fact that Jesus is flying
>around over the US, however. <<
>
>But cops did not report Jesus sightings.
That is because they don't believe that they are seeing
Jesus.
<snipo>
>>> [mushroom clouds] A possibility is not a fact.
>Only you seem to have difficulties telling the two apart. <<
>
>1. Nukes were a fact. Nuclear war was a real possibility
>and the press made that very very very very clear.
Possibility. In other words they didn't expect to see them,
it was merely a possibility, not a fact.
>
>2. You indicated that belief is NOT
>a prerequisite anyhow.
Nope. Just your lack of reading comprehension.
I have stated just the opposite on several occasions and
have never stated this at all.
>I don't see how saucers and mushroom clouds are
>different kinds of media influence. Nuke clouds were
>(are) a real possibility
People would expect to hear a big boom if a nuke went off
and most people believed that the world would come close to
ending.
Those didn't happen so they didn't believe that anything
that they saw was a nuke.
They were told that flying saucers weren't a possibility,
they were told that they were a fact and that people all
over the US were seeing them.
So they saw them too. Which shows the media influence.
> and mushroom clouds were
>all over the media.
>
>How is that different?
One was reported as being factual and being over the US, the
other was reported that they would hear a big boom and
without the big boom they wouldn't see them.
No big booooooooomm, no nuke mushroom clound.
The lack of mass destruction, millions of people dead, etc.
would seem to most people to indicate that anything that
they saw in the sky wasn't a nuke mushroom cloud.
Flying saucers were supposedly a fact that other people were
seeing. So they saw what was supposed to be factually
happening. Therefore, people "knew" that these were real,
there was no external effects other than seeing them, etc.
So people reported them. The one didn't have a big boom and
millions dead and mass destruction and was supposedly real,
they reported what made sense according to what they had
been told was true.
People aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are.
>>> But your own articles show that this is the only rational
>opinion to hold based on the evidence. <<
>
>You cannot keep things strait!!!!!!
But that comment was in reference to your comment, topmind!
>I am NOT talking about the REALNESS of ufo sightings in
>this case. I am looking at it in the perspective of
>being triggered by media influence, YOUR hypothesis.
Your own articles show that this is the only rational
opinion to hold based on the evidence.
How is answering your comment not keeping things straight,
excuse me, strait!!!!?
> YOu are pissing me
>off.
I am keeping things straight, I am responding to your
claims. You just keep changing your claims to avoid being
shown totally wrong all of the time.
>
>I am (in this topic) applying YOUR MEDIA INFLUENCE theory
>to see if it holds up to other media icons.
That is not what your comment was in reference to, topmind.
But the media influence theory, which really isn't mine,
holds up well.
If people are told things are factual and they believe that
these are so, they report them.
Flying saucers for example.
If they don't believe things are factual, such as Soviet
Migs overflying Washington State or the US in general, they
don't report them.
People who believe Elvis is still alive, report that he is
alive.
People who believe Jesus is at some shrine, or the Virgin
Mary, report this.
They don't report Jesus flying over the US since they don't
believe that this is true.
>
>Forget about the other stuff for a while.
>
>That is why I want to deal with one thing at a time
>because you CANNOT KEEP THEM STRAIT!
I do keep them straight. I answer your comments, you snip
the comments, and then claim it is something other than
referring to what you were claiming.
Then you invent comments that I've never said, such as
belief isn't necessary. I've always said the opposite.
That doesn't stop you from claiming otherwise, however.
>>> Prior to Arnold, flying disc reports were rare. Shortly
>after the intense media coverage of the Arnold flying disc
>report, they became commonplace. <<
>
>Is this because of media influence, or because actual
>ufo's became more common?
Well, Arnold didn't see a flying disc. That is clearly
media influence.
>The pre-Arnold "ramp up" I talked about
>earlier appears to be independant of the media.
You talked about but couldn't back up.
>
>I am sure that media influence produced many or even most
>disk reports, but not necessarily all.
How can you tell when the media influence is so pervasive?
We have no good evidence that there are any reports but
those influenced by the media.
And, yes, I can back that up with quotes showing that
reports don't fit what people see but what people expect to
see.
I have done it often and you just call the reports
anecdotal. They are anecdotal. They are also incredibly
incorrect.
>>> Quite the contrary. You referred to gov't reports, I merely
>pointed out that you don't know what you are talking aboutand posted
>some. <<
>
>Whether I was right or wrong then, it is off the topic.
>Save your ranting about that for later.
I've been asking for this since you introduced it, but you
can't give it to me so you just ask to leave it for later.
But it was earlier than this new thread you started because
you couldn't do it.
>
>
>>> [It was one of you (skeptics) that brought up tabloid accounts,>not
>me.]
>Back that up with the full quote. <<
>
>They mentioned Elvis and Jesus on Silos (or was it the other
>way around). If you really think it pivotal, I will find
>the date and poster name.
Please do.
That is a significant request.
>
>
>>> [Besides, many UFO sighters did not believe in them before
>>their sighting.]
>But they had been conditioned by the press as I showed from
>the CUFOS study of UFO reports. <<
>
>Is belief a pre-requisite or not! Make up your puny mind.
I have always stated it is, you are the one who keeps
inventing comments of mine that I've never made.
>>> I posted the quotes and gave a full reference for where to
>find the study. You have yet to read one thing about this. <<
>
>That does not matter. The explanations contradict each other.
Nope. You claim this but can't show it because it isn't
true.
>Is belief a prerequisite or not?????????????????
I have stated time and again that it is. What more do you
need?
You just keep inventing the other claim, I didn't say it.
But then you can't keep your claims straight, excuse me,
strait!!!!!
<snipo>
>>> I have done so frequently and all you do is to snip it,
>quote it out of context, and then say that I haven't. <<
>
>You have not. The model(s) you present are inconsistant
>with each other.
Nope. That is just a claim of yours.
>>> I posted the UFOs that were reported and found to be IFOs
>showing that there is no difference between them and the
>reports that were left as UFOs. This is from a study of the
>UFO reports that you won't go and read. <<
>
>1. That is one study.
It agrees with all other large scale studies I have seen. I
keep asking you for the others but you keep claiming that
you won't give them to me because of various reasons.
I keep asking for your studies that you claim contradict
this but even now you just state:
>Are there any other pro-explorationists out
>there who want to play that game? I don't have
>the time nor motivation for such paper fights
>right now.
I can post several studies that show this. You can't post
one study that contradicts this.
>
>2. It is not relavent to the issue of why other media
>icons do not produce gov reports (assuming 99+% of
>UFO reports are mistakes.)
Because, as I have stated many, many, many, many times,
these aren't reported as being factual. People don't
believe in them.
I have always stated that belief is necessary. You just
invented the claim that I have stated otherwise.
Please post the date and title of the article in which I
stated otherwise and the actual quote.
Thank you.
You won't be able to do so.
>>> That is only in your mind because you won't go and read the
>source. The exposure is exposure as the objects being factual. <<
>
>But, mushroom clouds, Spies, Jesus, Angles, and Elvis are often
>reported as factual, but they do not trigger gov reports
>from cops and pilots.
Spies are not supposed to be noticed.
Jesus is reported by believers at shrines and such but not
in places where cops and pilots would see them.
Unless you are going back to stating that Jesus was flying
all around the US.
I do love it when you state that I can't keep it strait
(sic) but you keep talking about pilots not reporting seeing
Jesus and then get upset when I point out that they don't
believe he is flying all over the US.
Cops don't think that Elvis is flying all over the US
either.
Please post some evidence showing that cops don't report
Elvis. That is a claim and I have asked for this before.
Mushroom clouds are supposed to go boom and kill everyone.
Now why don't you suppose they aren't reported?
>
>Thus, the contradiction still stands.
There is no contradiction. Cops don't report Elvis flying
because they don't believe he is. They report flying
saucers because they believe that they are.
Pilots don't report Elvis because they don't believe that he
is flying around. They report flying saucers because they
believe that they are.
Cops and pilots don't report mushroom clouds from nuclear
weapons because they don't see a flash that blinds them,
they don't see mass destruction, they don't see millions of
people dead, etc.
Ain't no contradiction.
topmind wrote:
>I remember from English class that quotes do not always mean
>a direct copy of what someone says.
I responded:
>>> That English teacher should be fired. Or more likely, you
>weren't paying attention. <<
>
>I would go and buy an English book to quote if I thot it
>would humble you and shut you up, but I doubt it would
>work.
I would tell you to do go buy one if I thought you capable
of reading it.
Look up the word quote in the dictionary. It means an
actual, verbatim repetition of what the other person said or
did.
Look it up in the Chicago Manual of Style, etc.
Any English teacher who advocates use of quotation around
something that isn't a quotation should be fired.
>
>
>>> Well, I'll quote you as stating that "UFOS are all garbage."
>Now do you see? <<
>
>I thot your complaint was about using quotes without
>directly stating where it was from? Not incorrectly
>attributing something to a source.
They were in reference to your comment!
topmind wrote:
>I remember from English class that quotes do not always mean
>a direct copy of what someone says.
Nothing there about directly stating where it was from.
You cut your comment about them not having to be a direct
copy so you could claim that!
>(My references to
>'not-justified' did not directly state the source of
>the quote. Poor form, perhaps, but not the same
>as misquoting. You can call it "vague-sourcing", but
>not "misquoting".)
topmind wrote:
>I remember from English class that quotes do not always mean
>a direct copy of what someone says.
That is misquoting as you well know! Nothing about not
stating the source.
>
>
>>> The AF studies show the exact same thing. I have also
>posted from scientific journals. Of course, you just
>claimed that the journal articles are just opinions since
>they didn't agree with you. <<
>
>The study itself is not an opinion, but the CONCLUSION's
>often are.
229 people reporting a flying disc when mistaking an
advertising airplane fully justify the conclusions. As do
the rest of the reports that came in.
>It is my opinion that using drawings is poor
>technique. If you disagree, that is your fair opinion, but
>it is still opinion.
Nope. I posted the journal articles which indicated that
that was what you had to do to achieve the goal of not
influencing the person making the report.
You just have an ill-informed opinion, mine is backed by a
large number of scientific studies.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>.
>
>Reply to John C.
<sanipo<
>Regarding my comment on the painting, I meant to
>say the only *known* pre-Arnold media saucer.
But earlier you claimed:
>Reports of any saucer-like objects only appeared roughly
>once every 30 years before the Arnold case.
Now which is it.
The only known pre-Arnold saucer or did they appear roughly
every 30 years?
Were you lying when you said that the only known pre-Arnold
saucer was the painting, or were you lying when you claimed
that reports of saucer-like objects only appeared roughly
once every 30 years before the Arnold case?
They clearly contradict each other!
> The
>omission of "known" was purely a typo. (I have learned
>long ago NOT to claim that something does not
>exist, only that proof is lacking. The little lawyer
>on my shulder was asleep.)
Nonsense!
You've cut your comments to make it appear more likely that
this was the case.
>Show one! I have never seen a flying saucer in any
>sci-fi publication before the Arnold sighting.
>
>SHOW IT!
>
>The only pre-Arnold media saucer is in a painting
>from roughly 1650. It depicted random satanic stuff
>floating around. It appears isolated and did not
>produce a LASTING media icon in any way.
>
>>> Your new view still leads you to the same basic conclusion, even
>though your original premise turned out to be absurdly wrong. <<
>
>"absurdly wrong" is way too strong. I will agree that some of
>the air has been let out of my original premise, but it still
>floats.
It sank a long time ago.
Now you are just at the stage of claiming that we said
things we didn't say.
>
<snipo>
>Not much different than exaggerating an arc of lights into
>a saucer shape. (Although twitchy claims the CUFOS study
>had more than arcs, I have no way to verify it because
>the source is not currently available.
Quite the contrary, it is currently available. At used book
stores and via interlibrary loan. John got his at the used
bookstore, I got mine via interlibrary loan. Neither of us
had the slightest difficulty getting a copy.
> Why don't skeptics
>pool resources and buy the study to publish on the web
>since they are so fond of it.)
I hate to tell you this, but it is a pro-UFO study. CUFOS
ain't a skeptical web site and we wouldn't get permission to
publish it since they didn't like the results.
>
>If skeptics were not just as human (fallible) as the witnesses, I
>might believe them.
You're right, we aren't as fallible.
>
>
>>> [I have no tally of pulp mag ship shapes, but it appears that
>there was a wide variety of shapes floating around and that
>disks are NOT a major contendor before Arnold. (A shape tally
>would be an interesting set of stats to look at though.) ]
>But in the absence of data, you'll assume something that
>conveniently supports your new position. <<
>
>Yes, it is an assumption, but you have no counter info.
Quite the contrary, we pointed out lots of examples of
earlier disk shapes. We don't need the tally. You want it
to bloster your theory which sank a long time ago.
>Note that one of sources twitchy quoted agreed with this
>interpretation (already described). Thus, I am not
>alone in that view.
But the flying disc became famous with the Arnold sighting.
Despite the fact that what he saw wasn't a disc. It was
reported to be one so that is what became popular. A clear
example of media influence.
>>> Kind of like what happens if we comb through pre-Arnold sightings
>of unknown things in the sky? We run a good chance of eventually
>finding a disk amid all the airships, cigars, wheels, comets,
>fiery chariots, falling stars, etc? <<
>
>Yep, that is certainly a valid consideration.
>However, the April sighting was a bit too close to
>Arnold to easily dismiss.
Nonsense!
You claimed earlier that these occured every 30 or so years.
But the reports didn't take off until the media jumped all
over the Arnold sighting.
Then the flying saucers and flying discs became popular.
Despite the fact that that isn't what Arnold reported.
A clear example of the power of the media influence.
As is the 1890s airship wave.
>
>Further, there are probably more pre-Arnold comic book ships
>than there are pre-Arnold sightings on record.
This is exactly opposite your earlier claims.
Then there weren't any pre-Arnold comic book ships and
pre-Arnold sightings occured every 30 years or so.
<snipo>
>>> but please do bring in someone with more
>references. It shouldn't be difficult. <<
>
>I knew you would say something like that.
I knew you wouldn't be able to do it.
>>> I think your "pro-explorationist" term is nonsense <<
>
>I find it more useful than "believer" because it
>emphasizes the border or threashold of the debate,
>which is whether or not it is a legitamate scientific
>topic of exploration (IMO). Whether they are ET
>is a minor side issue that gets too much attention.
Virtually everyone who you've claimed was
pro-explorationist, was pro-ETI.
Many of them, such as your favorite, James McDonald, thought
that anyone who believed in any possibility than ETI was an
idiot.
John Cason
>John Cason wrote:
>> Twitch said that you read UFO books (Jacobs in this case) and
>>swallow them uncritically instead of checking the claims. A
>>simple net search was all it took to discover how wrong he was?
>Relative to all the ship shapes, they are NOT
>a staple of pre-Arnold sci fi.
'Staple' in this usage refers to regularity of occurrence and is
not relative to other shapes. Consider this from the Magonia
piece that I quoted:
The science fiction illustrator Frank R. Paul was drawing
saucer-like craft as early as 1931 and did so repeatedly.
Repeatedly. It was a staple. Both of the quotes that I posted
specifically said it was not in the majority, so there was no
doubt that use of the term 'staple' did not mean it was major or
predominant or whatever you are trying to force on it. You are
again arguing against a position that no one has taken.
It is also quite odd that you summarily take a piece of a
refutation of your previous argument, give it a 180 degree twist,
and announce it as your new position. I quoted this from Mark
Pilkington's "Screen Memories" article:
Flying saucer shaped space craft had been a staple of pulp SF
artwork since the early 1930's , though so had virtually any
other shape (the rocket was still the most popular), and a
wealth of non-saucer shaped UFOs have been reported over the
years."
So someone who has studied the matter says it was a staple, but
you know better without the bother of actually studying the
question. You just appropriated his statement and added a "not."
>The David Jacobs quote is from twitch-n-paste, not me.
>You mis-read twitch appearently.
Let me explain it to you.
I quoted Martin Kottmeyer's article in Magonia in which he
discussed David Jacob's claim that saucers were unknown before
1947. I quoted that specifically because Jacobs appears to be
the grand-daddy of the 'no saucers before Arnold' argument that
you got either from Jacobs or one of his fellow UFOlogists.
Twitch said some time ago that you read UFO books uncritically
and don't check their claims. Your 'no saucers 1650-1947'
statement illustrates his point. He quoted what I had posted
from Kottmeyer discussing Jacobs because it supported his
argument.
Twitch's observation that you do not check claims, but instead
accept UFO books uncritically, is illustrated by the fact that
you found some saucer illustrations when you did a net search.
>Further, I searched the names of the artists quoted,
>not a random mag search.
>>You found an [saucer-like] illustration, but you won't tell us
>>the URL.
>It does not contradict your claims; so why do you want it?
Why are you unwilling to contribute factual information to this
discussion?
>>Just one post back you were claiming that the only flying disk
>>before the Arnold incident in 1947 was in a painting in 1650,
>>almost 300 years previously. Now, on the basis of information
>>that I provided, you are continuing your argument from a
>>slightly new position: saucer shaped disks were not a "staple,"
>>just "inevitable consequences."
>A quote from before I saw actual examples (May 18):
>"(It is likely that it may have occured just by chance in
>some obscure source. Being that thousands of different space
>vehicles were drawn, one is bound to be disk-shaped just by
>random chance. However, even if found, it appears to not have
>triggered a COMMON, LASTING ICON in sci fi circles.)"
>Which is not too far off. I agree that Buck Rogers is
>not "obscure", but it did not "trigger a COMMON, LASTING
>ICON in sci fi circles."
Mark Pilkington wrote that the saucer was a staple of pulp
science fiction artwork. Martin Kottmeyer wrote that one
particular science fiction illustrator drew saucer-like craft as
early as 1931 and did so repeatedly. Saucers were in the Buck
Rogers comic strip. That sounds like a common, lasting icon in
sci fi.
I found another reference that extends the previous dates:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9712/rothman.html
One of the very first science fiction magazines I ever looked
at was the November 1929 issue of _Science Wonder Stories_,
published by the legendary Hugo Gernsback. The cover of this
magazine shows a spaceship that looks like a giant Frisbee,
clutching in its tentacles a dwarfed Woolworth building. The
cover was painted by Frank R. Paul...
An earlier issue of the same magazine (August 1929) shows on
the cover a spaceship shaped like a giant soup bowl. Clearly,
Paul enjoyed depicting space vehicles with shapes other than
the conventional torpedo. This style was adopted by other
artists. Just the other day I was poring through microfilms
of the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin from 1936.... Along the
way I observed Buck Rogers in the 25th Century comic strip
showing Buck cavorting about in a spaceship shaped just like a
saucer. Paul's influence had rippled out over the years.
The saucer was a common, lasting icon in sci fi before 1947.
<snip>
>>Your new view still leads you to the same basic conclusion,
>>even though your original premise turned out to be absurdly
>>wrong.
>"absurdly wrong" is way too strong. I will agree that some of
>the air has been let out of my original premise, but it still
>floats.
You original premise was "No saucers 1650-1947."
It never had any validity.
>The fact the you used the word "absurdly" means that your
>mind exaggerates minor wins in your mind into a grand victory.
Your original premise, "No saucers 1650-1947," is absurdly wrong.
Easily refutable with multiple examples.
I've repeatedly urged you to get off this unproductive topic and
go back to the science question where you started. Remember the
Condon investigation and the NAS sham? You've never proposed a
UFO research study that would show the errors of Condon and NAS.
<snip>
charles stuart
---cgs
P.S. Yes, I've come to rain on your parade...
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>Whatever you say, Twitchie. Whatever....
>
>So, now I'M an ass, eh, Twitch? More Twitch maturity and kindness!
>This time I mean it! I won't apologize for past insults but I will turn over a new leaf
>starting today. If I can't be cordial to that marvelous man (Twitch) I won't say anything
>at all. Twitch, you may continue to insult me if you wish but I will kill you with kindness.
Is your senile dementia bad today, Charles?
> I
>must have really struck a nerve when I nailed you on that Alien Skies
>article that you couldn't remember just a couple weeks after you
>reviewed it for me.
I didn't pay much attention to the title since I didn't read
it over the net, it was sent to me via email.
I must have really struck a nerve when I pointed out that
you couldn't even remember what you wrote one day and denied
it virtually the next day, Charles.
Of course, you do that sort of thing a lot.
>I could thrash you now but I'm not sure whether your ego could take three
>beatings in 6 months re this case.
Wer're still waiting for you to post the first two beatings,
Charles.
No one believes the rest of that claim.
I've asked you to back this up before and you just blustered
since you couldn't.
"Would you please post some info that:
A) you could thrash me on the case
B) it was done twice before within a six month period."
>(AS YOU SAID BEFORE WHEN I CHALLENGED YOU, "WHY WASTE MY TIME?")
Translation: you can't.
>Have you forgotten our Washington, D.C. 1952 ufo flap debate, in which
>you were thoroughly trounced and finally fled to paint the shed?
More bluster without any reality.
>So, now a day later, it all comes back, old man?
A little young for not remembering from one day to the next,
aren't you Charles?
>Nicap and APRO probably weren't 100% unbiased, I'll admit that.
But you accept what they write as if they were, Charles.
Even when the testimony indicates that what they were
selling is garbage. Such as Patterson's plane being
surrounded by glowing objects.
>Do you
>admit the same about the AF and PJK? Surprise me for once, Twitch..
They aren't completely unbiased. However, I have also
checked up on them. I have checked up on many of the things
that Klass has written, he has a good track record.
I didn't believe the AF until I checked up on them. They
are fantastically better than NICAP.
>You
>showed that there's a section in your library for "WOO WOO's?
Yep. They have loads of books about UFOs written by Randle,
Walton, Moore, and other woo-woo authors.
Charles, putting a question mark at the end of a sentence
doesn't automatically make it a question.
>(I asked
>you about the Lubbock Lights, yesterday, remember?)
Yep. I checked on the existance of that for a believer
friend. I offered to go and look it up and copy it for him.
>How did you show
>me that that case was for woo- woos?
I didn't show you, I told you. The same sort of woo-woos
who read that read and believe the Walton books, according
to the librarian.
<snipo>
>How do you know that I didn't look up those stars, Twitch? It just so
>happens that I did.
Ah, Charles, you indicated that you didn't when we were
discussing this. You came out and stated that you didn't
think people should automatically believe twitch. Nothing
about checking up, Charles. And the obvious implication of
your warning to not automatically believe twitch is that you
didn't check.
You initially wrote:
>This finding sent surprised professional astronomers back to their charts,
>only to confirm their original beliefs: At the time the Air Force reported
> the stars visible from the United States, they were in fact visible only from the other side of the world..."
And also wrote:
>"That is as far from the truth as you can get," Risser stated. "Somebody has made a mistake.
>THESE STARS AND PLANET ARE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE EARTH FROM OKLAHOMA
> CITY AT THIS TIME OF THE YEAR!"
I pointed out that this was total bullshit. The stars were
visible most of the time that the UFOs were being reported
and told you how to simply check up on these.
So you responded:
>Fine, Twitch. So you know more than the astronomers of the day.
>Even if we take your word for it, which is also dangerous,
That indicates that you didn't look up what I referenced,
Charles.
>ANOTHER TWITCH CRASS, KLASS ASSUMPTION!!!!
>This time I mean it! I won't apologize for past insults but I will turn over a new leaf
>starting today. If I can't be cordial to that marvelous man (Twitch) I won't say anything
>at all. Twitch, you may continue to insult me if you wish but I will kill you with kindness.
Consistency ain't your forte, Charles.
Neither, however, is accuracy. You couldn't even quote from
a magazine article without screwing up.
>The
>stars were marginally visible later that night in August, 1965,
Ah, Charles, stars are visible or not. You indicated that
hours and I pointed out that the stars that supposedly were
on the wrong side of the Earth did come out during that
time.
>It is entirely possible that these stars and Jupiter were "daytime stars"
>at that time of the year and not visible at night. Constellations move
> throughout the year, don't they?------
You still accept everything that you read by a believer as
gospel. Even when it is shown that what they are pushing is
garbage.
How could the stars be "marginally visible" if they were on
the other side of the Earth, Charles?
<snipo of assertions based on popular fiction>
>------- 9
>out of 10 and 17 out of 20 are percentage -wise just as close as 14
>days is to 12 days, remember that one Twitch?
You claimed that I had posted my comment months ago when I
stated about two weeks ago. You were as full of bullshit
then as now.
12 days is about two weeks, Charles.
Your inaccuracy is still unimpaired.
> I've explained the Patterson sighting to you a thousand times, Twitch,
>and I refuse to do it again.
Nope. You've ignored everything that you didn't like,
Charles.
You claimed that the radar operator saw glowing objects and
when I pointed out that he didn't and that wasn't possible
you blathered.
>It was not implicitly stated that the "glowing objects" were glowing on the radar scope
>(although they could have been in the darkened room). The author was probably
>combining the reports of Patterson and the radar operators when he said the
>"glowing" objects were picked up on radar
Glowing objects are not shown as glowing even in a darkened
room.
The radar operator I was referring to was in Patterson's
airplane because no other radar operator could have seen
that objects were glowing. And he didn't.
When I pointed this out:
"the other, more experienced, pilot didn't see"
You replied with your usual standards of evidence:
>(TAURUS FECES)
"And, I do love his being surrounded but his plane and his
radar operator weren't surrounded."
> (THEY WERE, ON RADAR. CAN'T YOU READ?)
>One, Lt. William Patterson, was badly frightened when a group of glowing objects
>surrounded his interceptor. AS THE CAA RADAR OPERATORS (I thought the
>CAA wasn't fooled, PAKAT?) watched the blips on the scope cluster around his
> plane, the pilot asked them in a scared voice what he should do.
If Patterson asked the ground control radar operators what
he should do, the senior pilot, McHugo would have heard, his
radar operator would have heard, Patterson's radar operator
would have heard.
None of them heard any such thing or saw all these glowing
objects surrounding Patterson's airplane. Despite McHugo
being with Patterson and Patterson's radar operator being in
the same airplane.
But the radar operator in his airplane didn't see them
surrounded, nor did the pilot or radar operator in the other
plane, Charles.
The radar operator in Patterson's airplane didn't see any
glowing objects surrounding the airplane. McHugo who was
flying along with Patterson and McHugo's radar operator
didn't see any such things.
> There are plenty of scientists who think the Sphinx dates back to
>around 10,500 B.C. Where have you been?
Plenty?
Name two egyptologists.
>I'll use one of your famous
>excuses for not naming them: "why should I waste my time?"
The difference is that when I reference, you won't spend the
time to check.
Name one time that I didn't when you referenced something as
requested.
>After today, it's "whatever you say, Twitch. Whatever you say.."
That will last a day or so. Just like:
>This time I mean it! I won't apologize for past insults but I will turn over a new leaf
>starting today. If I can't be cordial to that marvelous man (Twitch) I won't say anything
>at all. Twitch, you may continue to insult me if you wish but I will kill you with kindness.
>PS: Did I call you a "liar" recently? I thought I just said, you "lie",
Gee, Charles thinks that if you lie, you aren't a liar.
Perhaps that is why he doesn't think that Walton is a liar?
Of course, Charles's standards of evidence prove that I am a
Brit.
>which everyone has done at sometime. Anyway, I couldn't care less where
>you live, so long as it's not in Ohio!
If you don't care, why did you make such a big thing out of
it, Charles.
>PPS: I TRIED killing you with kindness, Twitch, but it just bounced off
>due to your repulsiveness.
Going back on your word is nothing new to you, Charles.
We've seen it time and again.
But you gave me permission to insult you, Charles!
>This time I mean it! I won't apologize for past insults but I will turn over a new leaf
>starting today. If I can't be cordial to that marvelous man (Twitch) I won't say anything
>at all. Twitch, you may continue to insult me if you wish but I will kill you with kindness.
You may continue to insult me if you wish is what you
claimed.
Now you are upset because you *claim* that your kindness
bounced off of me.
>
>P.S. Yes, I've come to rain on your parade...
>
More like piddle in the newsgroups.
top...@technologist.com
Note that I am introducting a new convention of
putting three stars (***) just before messages that
are of topic substance rather than personal
insults or he-said-she-said battles. (I am not
claiming *here* that my replies are of more
topic-oriented substance. I am only helping
those readers who do not care about "personality battles".)
>> [Regarding my comment on the painting, I meant to
say the only *known* pre-Arnold media saucer.]
But earlier you claimed:
[Reports of any saucer-like objects only appeared roughly
once every 30 years before the Arnold case.]
Now which is it.[?] <<
In the first I was talking about art and sci fi (fictional)
occurances, not sightings. (Sightings do not
always make it into public print, BTW.)
I should have made that more clear early on.
BTW, it just occured to me that I know of no
known saucer sightings from about 1850+- to March 1947.
Thus, the comic books appearently triggered little or no disk sightings
in that period.
>> Were you lying when you said that the only known pre-Arnold
saucer was the painting, <<
That was the only known media example that I knew of at
the time. I was excluding sightings when I said that, which
I forget to state because we were talking about *fiction*.
Ideally it should have read:
"The only fictional pre-arnold saucer account
that I know of is ..."
>> Nonsense!
You've cut your comments to make it appear more likely that
this was the case. <<
"Cut"? I am not sure what you mean. I quoted myself
accurately that I know of.
>> Quite the contrary, it is currently available. At used book
stores and via interlibrary loan. John got his at the used
bookstore, I got mine via interlibrary loan. Neither of us
had the slightest difficulty getting a copy. <<
I guess I am just less skilled at getting out-of-print
books. I know of no known method other than mass trial and
error.
>> I hate to tell you this, but it is a pro-UFO study. CUFOS
ain't a skeptical web site and we wouldn't get permission to
publish it since they didn't like the results. <<
I did *not* say CUFOS was a skeptical org. You also seem
to be predicting their behavior before even asking.
>> [If skeptics were not just as human (fallible) as the witnesses, I
might believe them.] You're right, we aren't as fallible. <<
What? I did not say (nor imply) that. What are you
talking about?
***
>> Quite the contrary, we pointed out lots of examples of
earlier disk shapes. We don't need the tally. You want it
to bloster your theory which sank a long time ago. <<
I don't know if you realize this, but there is a VAST difference
between subset collecting and tallying. Subset collecting represents
only
a subset of what is available, but tallying must pass thru
the *entire* known collection. A cheaper alternative to tallying
is tallying of a random sample.
You have only presented the first kind, subset sampling, which is *not*
sufficient to answer the staple-of-pre-arnold-sci-fi
question because it does not saying anything about the
occurance of non-disks in the population set, which
we need to know for comparison.
You have only showed that there are roughly a dozen apples
in the barrel. However, you provided no information about
what ELSE is in the barrel and nothing about the *ratio*
of apples to non-apples.
Thus, "we don't need the tally" is an insufficient
response.
>> [Note that one of sources twitchy quoted agreed with this
interpretation (already described). Thus, I am not
alone in that view.]
But the flying disc became famous with the Arnold sighting.
Despite the fact that what he saw wasn't a disc. It was
reported to be one so that is what became popular. A clear
example of media influence. <<
This is a separate issue than that of pre-arnold saucers.
I am not sure why you are "But"-ing my statement with
post- or at-arnold issues.
>>
[Yep, that is certainly a valid consideration.
However, the April sighting was a bit too close to
Arnold to easily dismiss.]
Nonsense!
You claimed earlier that these occured every 30 or so years.
But the reports didn't take off until the media jumped all
over the Arnold sighting.
Then the flying saucers and flying discs became popular.
Despite the fact that that isn't what Arnold reported. <<
You seem to be mixing pre-, during-, and post- arnold again.
I am not sure what you are "nonsense"-ing to.
>>
[Further, there are probably more pre-Arnold comic book ships
than there are pre-Arnold sightings on record. ]
This is exactly opposite your earlier claims.
Then there weren't any pre-Arnold comic book ships and
pre-Arnold sightings occured every 30 years or so. <<
I was talking about pre-arnold *disks*, not ships in general
(I don't know if that was clear or not in the original but I will not
check right now.)
>> I knew you wouldn't be able to do it. <<
Being able to and having the time and/or will are
two different things. (Unless you claim you can read
my mind like you implied you could with Condon. [me off topic])
>> Virtually everyone who you've claimed was
pro-explorationist, was pro-ETI. <<
So, a pro-ET-ist is usually a pro-explorationist.
>> Many of them, such as your favorite, James McDonald, thought
that anyone who believed in any possibility than ETI was an
idiot. <<
Perhaps your quote is from a bad day of his. One thing about
humans is that you may get different evaluation type answer
on different days because human moods are not consistant.
I call you all kinds of stuff (mostly to myself) on a bad day.
>> But the reports didn't take off until the media jumped all
over the Arnold sighting.
Then the flying saucers and flying discs became popular.
Despite the fact that that isn't what Arnold reported.
A clear example of the power of the media influence. <<
You have yet to estalish a direct cause-effect relationship.
1. There was a pre-media ramp-up of sightings.
2. You have NOT showed that all near-Arnold (time) disk sightings
post-dated the disk error. You even admitted that your source
was down.
"Clear" NOT!
Further, I saw nothing about modelling why
mushroom clouds, angles, spies, spy-planes, ghosts, etc.
did not generate cop and pilot reports to the
government. Your prior dismissals of these were
very very weak (IMO).
(Did I miss the follow-up portion? I have been
trying to find better usenet reading software,
but had config troubles.)
top...@technologist.com
Reply to John C.
>> 'Staple' in this usage refers to regularity of occurrence and is
not relative to other shapes. Consider this from the Magonia
piece that I quoted: The science fiction illustrator Frank R. Paul was
drawing "saucer-like craft as early as 1931 and did so repeatedly." <<
Being a staple to Frank R. Paul does not necessarily make it
a staple to Scifi ships in general.
Being an amature artist
myself, I noticed that artists have favorite styles and
shapes that they tend to use over and over.
Perhaps if Paul's illustrations made up a large portion
of ships, then his staple may be considered a scifi
staple. Without the "tally" studies that I talk about,
it is hard to judge.
>> It is also quite odd that you summarily take a piece of a
refutation of your previous argument, give it a 180 degree twist,
and announce it as your new position. <<
I am not sure what you mean. I agreed that my old position
understated the scifi saucer quantities, but still have seen
little to consider it more than one of many random creativity
experiments.
>> I quoted that specifically because Jacobs appears to be
the grand-daddy of the 'no saucers before Arnold' argument that
you got either from Jacobs or one of his fellow UFOlogists. <<
I simply knew of NO EXAMPLES from any of my sources or experience.
I did not quote from anybody else stating that.
It is similar to the fact that you guys appearently were not aware
of the April 1947 saucer sighting (quoted from Peebles and Flammonde).
>> Twitch's observation that you do not check claims, but instead
accept UFO books uncritically, is illustrated by the fact that
you found some saucer illustrations when you did a net search. <<
What then should I conclude about you(s) regarding your lack
of knowledge of the April 47 disk sighting?
You should step away from your glass house before you
start skipping saucers off the water toward me.
>> Why are you unwilling to contribute factual information to this
discussion? <<
You mean facts like the April 1947 sighting?
[Mom! Help, my revenge finger is twitching and I cant stop.]
>> [and...] Saucers were in the Buck
Rogers comic strip. That sounds like a common,
lasting icon insci fi. <<
Without a tally study, it is hard to say whether
disks simply popped up as one of many shapes, or
that artists gravitated toward them. Other shapes
that a tally might uncover besides rockets (tubes) are:
Spheroid (globe)
Ovoids (like a flat football)
Football-like
Banana or crescent
Cone (fatter than rocket)
Cut cone (cup-like)
Toriod (bagle)
Then "sharp" geometric shapes like:
Paramids
Triangles
Cubes
blocks
etc...
Actually, most of the shapes back then appear to
be of the smoother type, meaning that there are
only about 10 geometric variations before diskoids
are used. (This excludes combination shapes.)
There are only so many basic shapes to go around.
It just seems that without some systematic tallying
and classification scheme, that niether you, I, nor
twitch-n-paste can really answer this.
(Twitch seems to think that his quotes are all he
will ever need. No in-depth thinking required.)
>> Along the way I observed Buck Rogers in the 25th Century comic strip
showing Buck cavorting about in a spaceship shaped just like a
saucer. Paul's influence had rippled out over the years. <<
Ratios in a tally report would answer this conjecture. More disks may
simply mean more overall ships in general in which to sample disks
from. A ratio change over time may show that.
Like I said, there are only so many basic shapes to draw
from.
>> You original premise was "No saucers 1650-1947." It never had any
validity. <<
1. You appear to be rejecting my typo claim.
2. I showed you a quote where I did not dismiss ANY occurance.
>> I've repeatedly urged you to get off this unproductive topic and
go back to the science question where you started. Remember the
Condon investigation and the NAS sham? <<
The real and substantitive topic is why:
- mushroom clouds (nukes)
- spies
- spy planes
- angles
- jesus
- ghosts
- elvis
- etc.
have NOT generated a significant number (none known by me) of
cop and pilot reports like UFO's have. To me this sounds like
a huge potential flaw in the media influence explanation of
UFO's.
Another important issue is whether the Arnold "disk" error
is responsible for other June 2X 1947 sightings. In other
words, did "saucer" or "disk" appear in the media before or after the
first non-Arnold sighting (and/or publishing) of disks
in June 2X.
You have also appeared to reject speculation on what caused
the pre-media ramp-up of sightings. (Or do you reject the
ramp-up itself?)
!!!!!!!!!!
Thus, there are still lots of good media-oriented questions that have
not been answered.
!!!!!!!!!!
I want to end the "word battles" also.
I agree with you that pre-1947 saucers in sci fi is not
that significant, but I felt that I had to defend against
extreme accusations regarding my consistancy. If I am
*clearly* wrong I will admit it.
I admitted that I did not know of the 192x/3x sci fi disks. However,
I honestly did not mean to imply that such occurances did
not exist no matter what.
If you still want to call me a liar, then so be it.
>> You've never proposed a
UFO research study that would show the errors of Condon and NAS. <<
I would not label opinions as "errors". The "sham" is mostly
about poor judgement in technique and insufficient reduction of
bias than about an outright clear-cut conspiracy. However, let's finish
with media influence before getting back to that.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>Reply to Twitchy <snipo>
> I am only helping
>those readers who do not care about "personality battles".)
>
Do you see a slight contradiction between the reply to and
the other sentence?
>
>>> [Regarding my comment on the painting, I meant to
>say the only *known* pre-Arnold media saucer.]
Even that ain't correct, see Peebles.
> But earlier you claimed:
>[Reports of any saucer-like objects only appeared roughly
>once every 30 years before the Arnold case.]
> Now which is it.[?] <<
>
>In the first I was talking about art and sci fi (fictional)
>occurances, not sightings. (Sightings do not
>always make it into public print, BTW.)
But aren't the sightings also capable of influencing later
reports?
So it makes no sense to create a totally artificial
distinction.
>
>I should have made that more clear early on.
>
>BTW, it just occured to me that I know of no
>known saucer sightings from about 1850+-
But loads of media influenced airship sightings.
>to March 1947.
Wrong!
Your own source, Peebles, mentions literally hundreds of
sightings by the end of 1945. This in response to the
Amazing stories articles about alien spaceships and alien
beings.
The circulation of Amazing Stories soared to 250,000 copies
a month by the end of 1945. Letters to the editor also
soared going from 40-50 a month up to 2,500 a month! Many
of them reporting the sighting of strange objects in the sky
or meetings with alien beings.
Some of the spaceships from Amazing stories were disc
shaped.
In July 1946 issue:
"If you don't think spaceships visit the Earth regularly, as
in this story, then the files of Charles Fort and your
editor's own files are something you should see... And if
you think responsible parties in world governments are
ignorant of the fact of space ships visiting the Earth, you
just don't think the way we do."
This and all of those letters reporting sightings of
objects, including saucers, preceeded the April 1947
sighting of a disc and the May sighting of a disc and the 14
other sightings, not all of discs, referenced by Peebles
that were reported to the AF prior to the end of June 1947.
Why do you believe some of Peebles without checking on him
and ignore the rest of what he says?
>
>Thus, the comic books appearently triggered little or no disk sightings
>in that period.
Your own source says the pulp magazines triggered literally
thousands of reports about spaceships. Clearly the stage
was set by the pulp media for the Arnold sighting to take
the reports to a new high.
Arnold got the publicity and then the general public took
off on reportings of flying saucers since they were assured
in the media that these were real.
Why shouldn't we believe Peebles since you are using him for
the April 1947 sighting according to your own words?
<snipo>
>>> Nonsense!
>You've cut your comments to make it appear more likely that
>this was the case. <<
>
>"Cut"? I am not sure what you mean. I quoted myself
>accurately that I know of.
What you quote is accurate but you snip the rest.
>>> Quite the contrary, it is currently available. At used book
>stores and via interlibrary loan. John got his at the used
>bookstore, I got mine via interlibrary loan. Neither of us
>had the slightest difficulty getting a copy. <<
>
>I guess I am just less skilled at getting out-of-print
>books. I know of no known method other than mass trial and
>error.
Go to your library and fill out an interlibrary loan card
with the reference librarian. In a few weeks, at most,
you'll have the book. There usually isn't any cost to this
at all.
In our little local library, the reference librarian was
able to get on the internet and tell me where they could
borrow a copy from within three mintues of my asking. They
then contacted the other library and it was shipped to my
local library and I just took it out as I would any other
book from them.
No big deal at all.
>>> I hate to tell you this, but it is a pro-UFO study. CUFOS
>ain't a skeptical web site and we wouldn't get permission to
>publish it since they didn't like the results. <<
>
>
>I did *not* say CUFOS was a skeptical org. You also seem
>to be predicting their behavior before even asking.
Notice that the book is out of print? It was in print only
a short time. CUFOS isn't as factually oriented as they
once were.
In fact, not long ago they were told about a hoaxed document
on their web site, but they didn't remove it. Yet, that
document was known to be hoaxed back in 1983!
Now does that sound like the action of an organization that
would give permission to use the results of a study that
they really don't like?
<snipo>
>>> Quite the contrary, we pointed out lots of examples of
>earlier disk shapes. We don't need the tally. You want it
>to bloster your theory which sank a long time ago. <<
>
>I don't know if you realize this, but there is a VAST difference
>between subset collecting and tallying.
But for our theory it only requires a subset of them to be
this way.
Enough were that it was clearly referred to as a staple in
some of John's documents.
And the media had gotten thousands of sightings prior to the
April 1947 disc sighting.
Amazing stories published the articles and then got all of
those reports.
Not the other way around.
A clear case of media influence.
<snipo>
>You have only presented the first kind, subset sampling, which is *not*
>sufficient to answer the staple
Ah, John's quotes show it to be a staple. if you wish to
show it wasn't, that is up to you. John has fulfilled his
obligation by presenting the evidence that it was.
Your inventing questions that you can't answer has nothing
to do with John's responsibility which he has fulfilled
admirably.
<snipo>
>>> [Note that one of sources twitchy quoted agreed with this
>interpretation (already described). Thus, I am not
>alone in that view.]
>But the flying disc became famous with the Arnold sighting.
>Despite the fact that what he saw wasn't a disc. It was
>reported to be one so that is what became popular. A clear
>example of media influence. <<
>
>
>This is a separate issue than that of pre-arnold saucers.
What?
The topic is media influence. As you keep trying to point
out. The above is a clear example of media influence.
And shows that the media has a vast influence on UFO
sightings.
Which, of course, the CUFOS study also showed.
<snipo>
>[Yep, that is certainly a valid consideration.
>However, the April sighting was a bit too close to
>Arnold to easily dismiss.]
>Nonsense!
>You claimed earlier that these occured every 30 or so years.
>But the reports didn't take off until the media jumped all
>over the Arnold sighting.
>Then the flying saucers and flying discs became popular.
>Despite the fact that that isn't what Arnold reported. <<
>
>You seem to be mixing pre-, during-, and post- arnold again.
>I am not sure what you are "nonsense"-ing to.
Your claim that the flying disc report was too close to
Arnold to easily dismiss. It didn't get wide spread media
reporting as a fact and thus it had no influence on what
Arnold reported.
Of course, Arnold didn't report a flying saucer but
immediately (next day!) after the media reported he did,
loads of people reported that they saw one too.
That clearly shows a media influence.
The great wave occured right after the vast media reporting
of the Arnold sighting. Arnold was, mistakenly, reported as
seeing a flying saucer or flying disc. The newspapers
played up that part more than any other aspect.
The next day, other people reported seeing flying saucers or
flying discs.
Before this, Amazing Stories printed articles about the
alien spaceships and this generated thousands of reports.
Clearly media influence.
When one airship had been reported in the media in the
1890s, many, many more followed.
Clearly media influence.
However, most people wouldn't believe what was published in
Amazing Stories to be factual even if Amazing Stories
claimed, as they did, that they were. Only readers of
Amazing Stories reported to that magazine that they had seen
all of these spaceships.
The newspapers, radio, etc. are a totally different matter
and generate a lot of respectable people reporting that they
saw one of those flying saucers that Arnold had seen.
Clearly media influence.
<snipo>
>>> I knew you wouldn't be able to do it. <<
>
>Being able to and having the time and/or will are
>two different things. (Unless you claim you can read
>my mind like you implied you could with Condon. [me off topic])
You have the time to post articles, you have created a web
page that is totally inaccurate, as I have shown, etc. but
you don't have the time to ensure that what you are writing
is accurate?
Do you see something wrong here?
And, I didn't claim to be able to read your mind. I just go
by what you post. What you posted about Condon was totally
incorrect.
>>> Virtually everyone who you've claimed was
>pro-explorationist, was pro-ETI. <<
>
>So, a pro-ET-ist is usually a pro-explorationist.
They why did you keep insulting me and using all of those
!!!!!! when claiming that it was off-topic. It was
on-topic.
>
>
>>> Many of them, such as your favorite, James McDonald, thought
>that anyone who believed in any possibility than ETI was an
>idiot. <<
>
>Perhaps your quote is from a bad day of his.
Nope.
He indicated it many times. He lambasted Hynek many times
for being so cautious about the ETI and not coming out in
favor of it strongly and right away.
<snipo>
>>> But the reports didn't take off until the media jumped all
>over the Arnold sighting.
>Then the flying saucers and flying discs became popular.
>Despite the fact that that isn't what Arnold reported.
>A clear example of the power of the media influence. <<
>
>You have yet to estalish a direct cause-effect relationship.
Quite the contrary. The day after the media said that
Arnold saw a flying saucer or flying disc, all sorts of
people saw flying saucers or flying discs.
Despite the fact that Arnold didn't claim to have seen any
such craft.
As soon as Amazing Stories reported a fiction story as
factual, they got all of those reports.
As soon as the first airship was reported to be flying over
the US, they started getting those airship reports.
Now, what other reason could there be for people to see what
the media reported rather than what Arnold saw or that the
people who read and believed Amazing Stories reported what
they had been told and believed was real or what the
newspaper readers had been told was true about the airships?
One you can argue with. Two is difficult. Three is absurd
to argue is anything but media influence.
>
>1. There was a pre-media ramp-up of sightings.
I keep asking for these but you keep avoiding backing up
this claim.
Please show that there was a pre-media ramp-up of sightings.
References please!
There were only 16 reports to the AF prior to Arnold. Most
of those weren't flying saucers or flying discs.
There had been many, many more reports generated much
earlier by the Amazing Stories fiction articles that the
editor claimed was factual.
>
>2. You have NOT showed that all near-Arnold (time) disk sightings
>post-dated the disk error. You even admitted that your source
>was down.
My source is down so you can't check it. I have checked it
many times.
Your source also indicated the exact same thing.
So you want to use your source when you think it agrees with
you but when you find out that it doesn't, it is no longer a
source?
Nonsense!
There wasn't any ramp-up of disc sightings. Most of the 16
sightings weren't discs.
>
>"Clear" NOT!
>
>Further, I saw nothing about modelling why
>mushroom clouds, angles, spies, spy-planes, ghosts, etc.
>did not generate cop and pilot reports to the
>government. Your prior dismissals of these were
>very very weak (IMO).
That is because you keep claiming I have said things that I
haven't.
It requires two things for people to report something. They
must believe it to be factual is one of them.
You think that they should report mushroom clouds when they
don't hear an explosion, they don't see millions of people
dead and vast destruction, hear reports on the media it has
happened, etc?
Why do you think people are so incredibly stupid?
<snipo>
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>.
>
>Reply to John C.
>
>>> 'Staple' in this usage refers to regularity of occurrence and is
>not relative to other shapes. Consider this from the Magonia
>piece that I quoted: The science fiction illustrator Frank R. Paul was
>drawing "saucer-like craft as early as 1931 and did so repeatedly." <<
>
>Being a staple to Frank R. Paul does not necessarily make it
>a staple to Scifi ships in general.
You're saying that doesn't make it not a staple either.
Why is it that you attack any evidence, with no basis for
the attack, that disagrees with your position but can't post
any evidence to back up your position?
<snipo>
>>> It is also quite odd that you summarily take a piece of a
>refutation of your previous argument, give it a 180 degree twist,
>and announce it as your new position. <<
>
>I am not sure what you mean.
Go back and read your articles. You do this frequently.
<snipo>
>>> I quoted that specifically because Jacobs appears to be
>the grand-daddy of the 'no saucers before Arnold' argument that
>you got either from Jacobs or one of his fellow UFOlogists. <<
>
>I simply knew of NO EXAMPLES from any of my sources or experience.
>I did not quote from anybody else stating that.
Oh, you invented this on your own with no evidence at all to
support it?
But your own source, Peebles, indicates exactly the
opposite!
>
>It is similar to the fact that you guys appearently were not aware
>of the April 1947 saucer sighting (quoted from Peebles and Flammonde).
No, we knew of it but don't consider it of any importance.
Remember, John and I both have Peebles also.
Apparently, the same as you don't consider the fact that
Peebles listed Palmer and his stories, gave him a section of
the book, and discusses his work in the pulp magazines
(Amazing Stories).
Look at the section of Peebles called "The Man Who Invented
Flying Saucers."
When Palmer printed Shaver's fiction story starting in Jan
1944, Palmer rewrote Shaver's story to 3 times the original
length and advertised it as a "true" story.
The circulation of Amazing Stories soared to 250,000 copies
a month by the end of 1945. Letters to the editor also
soared going from 40-50 a month up to 2,500 a month! Many
of them reporting the sighting of strange objects in the sky
or meetings with alien beings.
Some of the spaceships from Amazing stories were disc
shaped.
In July 1946 issue:
"If you don't think spaceships visit the Earth regularly, as
in this story, then the files of Charles Fort and your
editor's own files are something you should see... And if
you think responsible parties in world governments are
ignorant of the fact of space ships visiting the Earth, you
just don't think the way we do."
This preceeded the April 1947 sighting of a disc and the May
sighting of a disc and the other 14 sightings prior to
Arnold. Most of the reports to the AF weren't of discs.
Those sighting precede Arnold it is true, but they came well
after the huge interest in the subject started by Amazing
Stories.
>>> Twitch's observation that you do not check claims, but instead
>accept UFO books uncritically, is illustrated by the fact that
>you found some saucer illustrations when you did a net search. <<
>
>What then should I conclude about you(s) regarding your lack
>of knowledge of the April 47 disk sighting?
We don't have a lack of knowledge any more than you do. We
are both using the same source of info that you are. It
doesn't say very much at all about it. That source
indicated that there were at least 2 sightings prior to
Arnold of disc-shaped objects. There were a total of 16
reports to the AF of flying objects, most not saucers.
>
>You should step away from your glass house before you
>start skipping saucers off the water toward me.
>
Ah, don't forget, we both have that source. It doesn't say
what you think it says, however.
>
>>> Why are you unwilling to contribute factual information to this
>discussion? <<
>
>You mean facts like the April 1947 sighting?
>[Mom! Help, my revenge finger is twitching and I cant stop.]
And it is going off incorrectly and shooting you in the
foot.
There were only 16 sightings reported to the AF prior to
Arnold. Two of them, at least were disc shaped. The April
report and the May report.
What other ones were disc-shaped, topmind?
Please list your sources.
>
>
>>> [and...] Saucers were in the Buck
>Rogers comic strip. That sounds like a common,
>lasting icon insci fi. <<
>
>Without a tally study, it is hard to say whether
>disks
We do have evidence that discs were a staple, however.
Unlike most of the 16 flying Objects reported to the AF,
IIRC.
<snipo>
>(Twitch seems to think that his quotes are all he
>will ever need. No in-depth thinking required.)
Nope. Twitch references where he got the quotes and where
he got the evidence.
You seem to think that calling a study of a subject purely
anecdotal means that you can ignore any research that you
don't like.
The CUFOS study wasn't anecdotal. It was a study of
anecdotes, true. But that is all UFO reports are is
anecdotes.
The CUFOS study was able to show that not only are most of
the reports mistaken, mundane IFOs but that the reports
weren't random mistakes but followed the path of the media
reports.
Which follows exactly what happened with the 1890s airship
wave and the 1947 flying saucer wave.
>>> Along the way I observed Buck Rogers in the 25th Century comic strip
> showing Buck cavorting about in a spaceship shaped just like a
> saucer. Paul's influence had rippled out over the years. <<
>
>Ratios in a tally report would answer this conjecture.
When you do this tally, you must tell us what you've found.
However, John's evidence doesn't fall because you don't like
it. If you can show it to be wrong, all well and good.
However, it totally agrees with Peebles, which is virtually
the only source you've used in this discussion.
<snipo>
>>> You original premise was "No saucers 1650-1947." It never had any
>validity. <<
>
>1. You appear to be rejecting my typo claim.
But your claim is still wrong.
>Regarding my comment on the painting, I meant to
>say the only *known* pre-Arnold media saucer.
It wasn't the only *known* pre-Arnold media saucer. There
were loads of them.
John's source referred to them as a staple of the media in
the 30s. Amazing stories used discs frequently.
>
>2. I showed you a quote where I did not dismiss ANY occurance.
But your own source indicates that you are incorrect about
most of what you've claimed.
>
>
>>> I've repeatedly urged you to get off this unproductive topic and
>go back to the science question where you started. Remember the
>Condon investigation and the NAS sham? <<
>
>The real and substantitive topic
Neither real nor substantive at all and you've been told for
many articles why not. You just invent claims you claim
we've made that are contradictory.
> is why:
>
>- mushroom clouds (nukes)
Gasp! You mean that they've invented silent nukes?
The sooper-dooper-hush-hushest nuclear weapon.
The Hush-a-Boom.
If you don't see a load of dead people, if you don't hear
the boom, if you don't see massive destruction, it ain't
gonna get reported as a nuclear mushroom cloud.
>- spies
People are told that spies are real but that they are
hidden. So no one expects to see one. Thus no one reports
them.
>- spy planes
No one has ever said that spy planes are overflying the US.
So people don't think this is happening and don't report it
since they believe it isn't factual.
They expect to see flying saucers so they report them.
>- angles
They do get reported by people who believe. But most people
don't expect to see them zooming all over the US so they
don't get reported.
They expect to see flying saucers so they report them.
>- jesus
Jesus does get reported. He has even been reported flying a
saucer at least one time.
Most people don't expect to see him flying over the US so
don't report him.
They expect to see flying saucers so they report them.
>- ghosts
There are literally thousands of ghost reports. Many by
police, scientists, etc. People don't expect to see them
flying in the sky so don't report that.
They expect to see flying saucers so they report them.
>- elvis
At least 250,000 people have reported seeing Elvis. They
don't expect to see him flying all over the US, so they
don't report seeing him do that.
They expect to see flying saucers so they report them.
>- etc.
They expect to see flying saucers so they report them.
>
>have NOT generated a significant number (none known by me) of
>cop and pilot reports like UFO's have.
But cops were totally incorrect 94% of the time that they
reported UFOs. They expect to see UFOs, so they report
seeing UFOs.
They don't expect to see Elvis flying around so don't report
that they have.
> To me this sounds like
>a huge potential flaw in the media influence explanation of
>UFO's.
Nope.
Just a desperate ploy to devert attention from your lack of
evidence.
>
>Another important issue is whether the Arnold "disk" error
>is responsible for other June 2X 1947 sightings. In other
>words, did "saucer" or "disk" appear in the media before or after the
>first non-Arnold sighting (and/or publishing) of disks
>in June 2X.
Nope. The quotes you were trying to use show that this
isn't the case.
Arnold's report went out on the newswires on June 25th in
the morning. It was in the newspapers that afternoon.
The other reports were on June 26th.
That is from your own source!
>
>You have also appeared to reject speculation on what caused
>the pre-media ramp-up of sightings. (Or do you reject the
>ramp-up itself?)
There wasn't one.
Your own source shows that rather throughly. There were
only 16 sightings reported to the AF and those are the ones
you are using.
Prior to this there were thousands reported to Amazing
Stories after they printed fiction (which they reported as
factual) stories about flying objects.
There was no ramp up to that. As soon as the readers were
told that these were real and being seen, they started
seeing them.
A clear case of media influence.
>
>
>!!!!!!!!!!
>Thus, there are still lots of good media-oriented questions that have
>not been answered.
>!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
No there aren't.
!!!!!!!!!
<snipo>
>>> You've never proposed a
>UFO research study that would show the errors of Condon and NAS. <<
>
>I would not label opinions as "errors". The "sham" is mostly
>about poor judgement in technique and insufficient reduction of
>bias than about an outright clear-cut conspiracy. However, let's finish
>with media influence before getting back to that.
>
Why?
You started your first thread with those grossly incorrect
accusations and have never been able to back up those
statements.
Or is that why you want to avoid going into that?
John Cason
<snip>
>Being a staple to Frank R. Paul does not necessarily make
>it a staple to Scifi ships in general.
From Mark Pilkington's "Screen Memories" article:
"Flying saucer shaped space craft had been a staple of
pulp SF artwork since the early 1930's...."
>Perhaps if Paul's illustrations made up a large portion of
>ships, then his staple may be considered a scifi staple.
"Flying saucer shaped space craft had been a staple of
pulp SF artwork since the early 1930's...."
Mark Pilkington has studied the matter. You haven't.
>Without the "tally" studies that I talk about, it is hard to
>judge.
Only a few posts back, you were quite comfortable arguing that
no such examples could be found, and you felt no necessity to
make even a cursory check on your fact-free belief.
The references that you have been shown so far have established
that:
(1) Illustrator Frank R. Paul drew saucers as early as 1929
(2) Did so repeatedly
(3) Did so on the cover of major science fiction magazines
(4) The Buck Rogers newspaper comic strip used saucers in 1934
and 1936
(5) Media expert Mark Pilkington said that saucers were a staple
of science fiction pulp magazines in the 1930s
This has been established using only internet resources, without
a thorough search through histories of science fiction art. Your
silly claim has been shredded, easily.
<snip>
>I simply knew of NO EXAMPLES from any of my sources or
>experience. I did not quote from anybody else stating that.
With no primary research (looking in pulp magazines or comic
strips) and no secondary research (looking in books about UFOs or
science fiction), you just made it up and posted it to usenet?
Uninformed opinions are worthless.
>It is similar to the fact that you guys appearently were not
>aware of the April 1947 saucer sighting (quoted from Peebles
>and Flammonde).
No, it's not similar.
We didn't make any stupid claims.
You made a stupid claim about no saucers in pre-1947 media.
<snip>
>What then should I conclude about you(s) regarding your lack
>of knowledge of the April 47 disk sighting?
Conclude (1) that you have no knowledge about what we know, and
(2) that we made no claims relative to that sighting.
>You should step away from your glass house before you
>start skipping saucers off the water toward me.
When you write something stupid and easily refuted, do you think
that you have some sort of immunity?
Are you talking about reality, or just expressing your feelings?
If you are just expressing your feelings, then I won't respond
to any more of your efforts to share your thoughts.
<snip>
>I want to end the "word battles" also.
Armed with your fact-free opinions, word games are all that you
can play.
>I agree with you that pre-1947 saucers in sci fi is not
>that significant, but I felt that I had to defend against
>extreme accusations regarding my consistancy.
You arguments are inconsistent. That statement is not extreme.
>If I am *clearly* wrong I will admit it.
>I admitted that I did not know of the 192x/3x sci fi disks.
>However, I honestly did not mean to imply that such occurances
>did not exist no matter what.
"I didn't know" is a poor defense when if you make sweeping
statements on subjects about which you know next-to-nothing.
>If you still want to call me a liar, then so be it.
I haven't ever called you a liar. You ignore what I write, and
argue instead against all sorts of imagined things. On that,
you're consistent.
Your posting history has not brought glory to UFO believers.
top...@technologist.com
Reply to twitchy and John C.
>> [Regarding my comment on the painting, I meant to
say the only *known* pre-Arnold media saucer.]
Even that ain't correct, <<
I realize that, but I am only showing how you are
exaggerating your insignificant little victory into
something huge.
I guess some hallucinate saucers, and other
hallucinate victories.
Note that I do not have time for he-said-she-said
games this week, so I will try to focus on only the
issues (althoug I am likely to slip).
IMO, most the times you take me up on
appearent contradictions in statements, it is
a misunderstanding. Sometimes it is my sloppy
writing, and sometimes it is your sloppy reading.
>> But aren't the sightings also capable of influencing later
reports?
So it makes no sense to create a totally artificial
distinction. <<
I suppose anything could influence anything. However,
frequency and exposure likelyhood needs to be taken
into account. True, it is a judgement call, but that
is all we have at this point.
>> Your own source, Peebles, mentions literally hundreds of
sightings by the end of 1945. This in response to the
Amazing stories articles about alien spaceships and alien
beings. <<
Your "this is in response" is pure conjecture.
>> Your own source says the pulp magazines triggered literally
thousands of reports about spaceships. <<
The use of the word "triggered" is purely conjecture, even
if Peebles said it. Just because I quote facts from
Peebles does not mean I agree with his cause-effect
conclusions.
>> Arnold got the publicity and then the general public took
off on reportings of flying saucers since they were assured
in the media that these were real. <<
I think that is about the 8th time you pasted that
conjecture.
>> Why shouldn't we believe Peebles since you are using him for
the April 1947 sighting according to your own words? <<
Are you dense?
Example of fact:
A: "On march X 19xx the Mercury Times said XXXXX"
Example of conjecture:
B: "The march X article caused people to hallucinate
glowing blobs after reading it."
"A" is an objective fact. One can dig around in libraries
and prove it by showing microfilm or whatnot. "B" is
conjecture about phsycological cause and effect.
I am tired of giving you objectivity lessons.
Just because someone is accurate about a fact does
not mean their speculations and opinions and also
fact.
>> Enough were that it was clearly referred to as a staple in
some of John's documents. <<
Well, I question that it was a staple. A shape tally is
the only way to know for sure.
>> And the media had gotten thousands of sightings prior to the
April 1947 disc sighting. <<
Very few were DISKS. I have no histogram of sightings, but
my sources suggest that other than european "ghost rockets"
and "foo fighters", there was not a lot of sky activity
reported in the mainstream of this century until 1947.
It is interesting that the foo fighters did not trigger
a media frenzy.
>> Amazing stories published the articles and then got all of
those reports.
Not the other way around.
A clear case of media influence. <<
Without histograms of fiction and non-fiction
UFO reports, I will NOT take your word for it.
>> Ah, John's quotes show it to be a staple. <<
And one of your quotes suggests that its not.
Histogram it or be quiet about it.
Numbers and dates, not vague words, are the only way to
settle this.
>> Your inventing questions that you can't answer has nothing
to do with John's responsibility which he has fulfilled
admirably. <<
Then stick a star on his forehead. However, get me a fricken
histogram and shape tally when you are done.
>> Your claim that the flying disc report was too close to
Arnold to easily dismiss. It didn't get wide spread media
reporting as a fact and thus it had no influence on what
Arnold reported. <<
Easily dismis as being media influencED, I am not talking
about influencing later saucers.
>> Before this, Amazing Stories printed articles about the
alien spaceships and this generated thousands of reports.
Clearly media influence. <<
"Clearly"? How exactly do you tell what caused what?
>> When one airship had been reported in the media in the
1890s, many, many more followed.
Clearly media influence. <<
How so? Like you always say, there has to be a first.
You have not demonstrated that one is causing the other.
>> you have created a web
page that is totally inaccurate <<
I beg to differ. Most of your conplaints
were very grey areas or trivial.
>> Do you see something wrong here? <<
YES, you are dilusional and cannot distinquish
between fact and opinion and between
cause and effect relationships.
>> [Perhaps your quote is from a bad day of his.]
Nope. <<
Now you are not only a mind reader, but a mood
reader also. Very nice.
>> He lambasted Hynek many times
for being so cautious about the ETI and not coming out in
favor of it strongly and right away. <<
That is not the same as calling Hynek "stupid".
Big deal anyhow. Perhaps he was hyper and moody
and called everybody stupid. I don't care.
It is not an important issue.
>> Quite the contrary. The day after the media said that
Arnold saw a flying saucer or flying disc, all sorts of
people saw flying saucers or flying discs.
Despite the fact that Arnold didn't claim to have seen any
such craft. <<
How do you know its the "day after". I have yet to
see the chronological proof.
Saucers appeared (reported) soon before Arnold (April) and
saucers appear (reported) soon after. (Perhaps during)
It appears that no matter when the fricken things
appear, it is "clearly media influence" in your
mind.
No matter what happens, you somehow interpret it
as clear media influence.
No sequence would satisfy you.
>> As soon as Amazing Stories reported a fiction story as
factual, they got all of those reports. <<
Give me clear, month-by-month numbers of fact (reported as)
vs. fiction accounts or shut up!
WORDS ARE USELESS here.
Give me dates and numbers.
>> One you can argue with. Two is difficult. Three is absurd
to argue is anything but media influence. <<
I have yet to figure out an order, any possible order
that you would not find as media influence.
I think I will step off of your dilusional treadmill.
>> Your source also indicated the exact same thing. <<
It does not. It is not clear enuf about the date and
times. (Re: peebles)
Here is an interesting quote from
"The UFO Phenomenon", Time-Life
books, Barnes and Nobles, 1987.
Page 37:
"Within a few days of June 24, at least 20 other
people in widely scattered parts of the
country told of seeing similar objects in
the sky. Some of the sightings
reportedly occured on the very day of
Arnold's encounter. Some had preceded it.
A few came a day or so later."
The question is, did those "same day"
reports PRECEDE the word mistake and
were they disks.
You have not provided sufficient information
to answer this.
>> There wasn't any ramp-up of disc sightings. Most of the 16
sightings weren't discs. <<
I did not say ramp up of *disks*, only reports
of ship-like objects.
>> You think that they should report mushroom clouds when they
don't hear an explosion, they don't see millions of people
dead and vast destruction, hear reports on the media it has
happened, etc? <<
A mushroom cloud spotted at a DISTANCE would not produce
any immediate sound, nor could a pilot see dead people
from the air.
Also, are you excluding sound from hallucinations?
Many UFO reports include sound. Thunder could
help out with such a hallucination also.
Your dismissal of nuke shrooms is STILL WEAK.
What about angles? Spy planes? Spies? (cop see).
>> It requires two things for people to report something. They
must believe it to be factual is one of them. <<
1. There is no signif difference between the way nuke shrooms
are reported on the news and UFO's. If anything, they
never have a Phil Klass equivalent debunking nukes, thus
they are more influential according to your theory.
2. When you say "They
must believe it to be factual". Doesn't that one
study you quoted show that stated belief has no
impact on likelyhood of IFO mistakes? It seems
contradictory to me.
You seem to be saying that the fact that it
is PRESENTED AS REAL is the main criteria, not
that the watcher has to beleive it.
Even if this was the case, it still does not explain
lack of angles, spies, and spy planes in gov
reports.
You have some more thinking to do. You
nuke exclusion is very very very weak, and
other media icons are not being addressed.
What is the matter twichy, cannot think independant
of quotations?
--------Now on to John:
>> Your
silly claim has been shredded, easily. <<
1. Mark Pilkington is one person.
2. Another quote contradicts the "staple" claim.
Why is Mark more reliable than the second source ????
"Shredded easily"? Only if you mean the shredding
process generated loose ends. You guys are just
itching (and twitching) for reasons to pat yourself on the back.
>> Uninformed opinions are worthless. <<
Should I call you an "uninformed source" because you
did not know about the April sighting?
>>We didn't make any stupid claims.
You made a stupid claim about no saucers in pre-1947 media. <<
I said that I did not know of any. How is that different?
I will put in more legalistic disclaimers in the future
if it makes you happier. However, I don't want to play
word lawyer, I want to figure out how skeptics's minds
work (or don't work).
I did not mean to imply that they did not exist,
just that I was not aware of such existence.
If it came out that way, it was a mistype.
I explained that already very clearly with the
Santa example.
I was unaware of certain comic books and you were
unware of certain important sightings. Can we
call it even and be done with the bickering?
>> Your posting history has not brought glory to UFO believers. <<
I am not impressed with your writings either. I only
see arrogance, not clear, logical thought.
However, you are less of a repetitious
paste-head than twitchy,
and that is a good thing.
--------back to twitchy
>> Why is it that you attack any evidence, with no basis for
the attack, that disagrees with your position but can't post
any evidence to back up your position? <<
I am only saying that it is an unknown, X, until
proven otherwise.
You are the one making sweeping conclusions about
media influence without providing any cause-to-effect
proof.
>> No, we knew of it but don't consider it of any importance.
Remember, John and I both have Peebles also. <<
Why did John then ask for sources and you said that you
could not find it in your edition. Remember?
>> Apparently, the same as you don't consider the fact that
Peebles listed Palmer and his stories, gave him a section of
the book, and discusses his work in the pulp magazines
(Amazing Stories). <<
Palmer did not describe disks, and no cause and effect
relationship has been shown between Palmer's stories
and reports (of ships in general).
Sci Fi and rumors have been around long
before Palmer. There is nothing significantly new
or different about Palmer's stories.
>> Ah, don't forget, we both have that source. It doesn't say
what you think it says, however. <<
What do you mean?
>> What other ones were disc-shaped, topmind?
Please list your sources. <<
I did NOT say there were other pre-ARnold 1947 sightings.
I already quoted all my sources of these.
>> The CUFOS study was able to show that not only are most of
the reports mistaken, mundane IFOs but that the reports
weren't random mistakes but followed the path of the media
reports. <<
Either post the whole CUFOS report that you keep hugging
or stop mentioning it. I have no way to verify what you
say at this time. Maybe I will try the library, but not
right now. Cork it for now. Mentioning it is just
annoying noise at this point.
>> However, John's evidence doesn't fall because you don't like
it. If you can show it to be wrong, all well and good. <<
How can it fall when it cannot even stand up. Plus, it
contradicts other evidence you presented.
>> However, it totally agrees with Peebles, which is virtually
the only source you've used in this discussion. <<
(as far as I know)
Peebles did not mention pre-47 disks in comic books.
Thus, how can they agree?
>> Gasp! You mean that they've invented silent nukes? <<
See above about silent hallucinations and eat your
defeated words. (UFO's are often reported with sounds
like hummings and pops.)
>> People are told that spies are real but that they are
hidden. So no one expects to see one. Thus no one reports
them. <<
Hidden like the ones on trial in the news?
Hidden like James Bond and his enemies?
You are confusing them with Disney's "Invisable Man".
WILTED!
>> No one has ever said that spy planes are overflying the US.
So people don't think this is happening and don't report it
since they believe it isn't factual. <<
Are you saying more people believed in ET saucers than
in Soviet spy planes?
THAT IS REEEEEDIIIIIIICUUUUULOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUS!
THAT IS SO D*MNED SILLY.
Jesus Kenneth Arnold Christ!
>> They do get reported by people who believe. But most people
don't expect to see them zooming all over the US so they
don't get reported......Most people don't expect to see him [Jesus]
flying over the US so
don't report him. <<
Where did you get this "evidence"?
WILTED!
I have postcards of religious paintings with Jesus walking
out of the sky for the second comming. It comes from
a Bible SCRIPTURE about the heavens opening up and Jesus
walking out of the clouds.
Do you want me to quote the Bible also?
>> There are literally thousands of ghost reports. Many by
police, scientists, etc. <<
Any numbers? Any PILOT ghost sightings?
>> At least 250,000 people have reported seeing Elvis. They
don't expect to see him flying all over the US, so they
don't report seeing him do that. <<
What about official cop reports of him on the GROUND?
>> But cops were totally incorrect 94% of the time that they
reported UFOs. <<
That is not relavant here! My criticism of your
theory does NOT depend on witness ACCURACY here.
I have explained that a jillion times already.
If beleived media accounts trigger
hallucinations, then other media icons should do the SAME.
However, other media icons are not triggering anywhere near
the same amount of official reports as UFOs.
>> Nope.
Just a desperate ploy to devert attention from your lack of
evidence. <<
You are the one who sounds desperate to me. People don't
beleive spies overfly the US? HA HA HA HA. And then
I debunked your stupid "silence nuke" theory.
Your explanations for the alternative icons are
very very very weak and silly.
>> Nope. The quotes you were trying to use show that this
isn't the case.
Arnold's report went out on the newswires on June 25th in
the morning. It was in the newspapers that afternoon.
The other reports were on June 26th.
That is from your own source! <<
There is a period (.) between "nationwide" and "newspapers".
It also does not establish the exact date of the
saucer/disk word error.
>> As soon as the readers were
told that these were real and being seen, they started
seeing them.
A clear case of media influence. <<
Whatever you say Mr. Mindreader.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>.
>
>Reply to twitchy and John C.
>
>
>>> [Regarding my comment on the painting, I meant to
>say the only *known* pre-Arnold media saucer.]
>Even that ain't correct, <<
>
>I realize that, but I am only showing how you are
>exaggerating your insignificant little victory into
>something huge.
It is an insignificant little victory to show that you know
nothing about what you post?
<snipo>
>>> But aren't the sightings also capable of influencing later
>reports?
>So it makes no sense to create a totally artificial
>distinction. <<
>
>I suppose anything could influence anything. However,
>frequency and exposure likelyhood needs to be taken
>into account. True, it is a judgement call, but that
>is all we have at this point.
>
And the judgement of virtually everyone who has actually
gone and read the articles and looked into the history of
the subject is exactly the opposite of yours.
You haven't read the articles nor have you looked into the
history of the subject.
"Not only does it unambiguously point to a cultural origin
of the whole flying saucer phenomenon, it erects a
first-order paradox into any attempt to interpret the
phenomenon in extraterrestrial terms: Why would
extraterrestrials redesign their craft to conform to
Bequette's error?"
What part of unambiguously don't you understand?
>
>>> Your own source, Peebles, mentions literally hundreds of
>sightings by the end of 1945. This in response to the
>Amazing stories articles about alien spaceships and alien
>beings. <<
>
>Your "this is in response" is pure conjecture.
Really?
Please show that they weren't then.
As soon as the magazine started publishing articles about
these being facts, they started getting overwhelmed with
people seeing them.
As soon as Arnold was widely quoted as haveing factually
seen a flying saucer, the media was overwhelmed with people
seeing them.
As soon as the the media reported that there were airships
flying all over the US the reports of them were over one
thousand. (Despite there being no such airships - a clear
case of media influence)
>
>>> Your own source says the pulp magazines triggered literally
>thousands of reports about spaceships. <<
>
>The use of the word "triggered" is purely conjecture, even
>if Peebles said it.
But it is the only theory that fits the facts.
You attempt to ignore the airships then try to claim that we
don't know that there were such airships when we know quite
well that there weren't.
You just snip everytime you are shown to be wrong and go
back to claiming the exact same thing, such as we don't know
that Arnold was the first.
>Just because I quote facts
Since you haven't checked up on him in the slightest, how do
you know that they are facts?
> from
>Peebles does not mean I agree with his cause-effect
>conclusions.
You don't quote facts from him. You still haven't admitted
that he indicated strongly that the Arnold sighting was the
first of that wave.
Yet, Peebles says that right out.
>>> Arnold got the publicity and then the general public took
>off on reportings of flying saucers since they were assured
>in the media that these were real. <<
>
>I think that is about the 8th time you pasted that
>conjecture.
Ain't just conjecture. It fits all of the other waves as
well.
On June 24th, Kenneth Arnold landed and told some of his
friends what had happened and afterwards he told reporters.
He told them that the motion of the strange objects was like
that of skimming saucers. A reporter, named Bill Bequette,
heard this and put the words "flying saucer" in his article
about Arnold.
The next day there were headlines in papers all over the
country about hat Kenneth Arnold had seen.
"After Arnold's sighting, there were hundreds of reports of
the strange flying disks every day."
The dispatch went out on the morning of the 25th. Later
that day:
"On June 25th, there were two major sightings. The first was
made at Kansas City, Missouri. There were nine objects in
loose formation. Another sighting was made by Lloyd Lowry in
Pueblo, Colorado. There were two objects close together. It
seemed as if one was chasing the other.
On the 26th, there was an incredible amount of sightings.
There were sightings from Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas,
and New Mexico. There were sightings all over the
south-west.
On the 27th, the reports started to change. The reports were
more wide spread. Some came as far north as Canada and
Michigan. The reports came from all over the world now."
(UFOs, and their impact on history by Jake Schneider and
Jake Uretsky - 1995)
"It was the next day, after a restless night in the
Pendleton Hotel, in mid-morning, June 25, that Arnold walked
into the offices of the six-times-a-week East Oregonian to
tell his story to Nolan Skiff, editor, and then to Bill
Bequette, reporter.
Soon, Skiff hammered out a story, "Impossible? Seein' is
Believin', Says Flyer," which briefly described the objects
with their saucer-like motion; Bequette edited it, and he
dropped the story into a hole on the front page of the
newspaper and sent it sailing over the AP wires.
In an hour, the East Oregonian was besieged with phone calls
wanting to know more about what Arnold had seen.
Arnold was hounded by reporters, attacked by doubters.
Arnold was trapped for three days in Pendleton, hounded by
reporters, and attacked by doubters. And during those three
days, and over the next six weeks after Arnold had returned
home, hundreds of reports of strange flying objects, many
coming out of the Pacific Northwest, poured into police
stations, radio stations, newspaper offices, and military
bases. The objects were described as disks because of their
silver, metallic color and lens or ovular discoid shape; and
also dubbed "flying saucers," a term coined by excited
newsmen who kept returning to the source of the first
report, to the description of the man who remained in the
spotlight of the saucer blitz, the man who seemed to have
started it all — Kenneth Arnold.
And so, it was that Arnold's report launched the modern era
of flying saucer sightings, later termed Unidentified Flying
Objects, or UFOs, by the U.S. Air Force."
(June 24, 1997 — the 50th Anniversary of "Flying Saucers"
by Greg Long — June 24, 1997)
"The modern age of UFO phenomena began on a July afternoon
in 1947 when private pilot Kenneth Arnold reported nine
unidentifiable silvery, crescent-shaped objects that skimmed
through the sky at an incredible rate of speed.
Their motion, Arnold said, reminded him of "a saucer
skipping over water." A news reporter took up Arnold's
description and the phrase "flying saucers" soon become
imprinted on the collective consciousness."
(UFOs and the CIA By Reg A. Davidson)
"Author's Note: Using several thousand rare press reports,
and conventional theories of social psychology, I have
examined the context and meaning of UFO sighting waves,
including incidents in Washington State.
[...]
On June 24, 1947, Kenneth Arnold was flying over the Cascade
Mountains of Washington State when he saw what appeared to
be nine glittering objects flying like geese in formation
near Mount Rainier (pictured right).(8) His use of the word
"saucer" received intense media coverage and is generally
credited with providing the motif for the massive wave of
worldwide flying saucer sightings that almost immediately
followed during that year and numerous other waves since.(9)
Despite this subsequent deluge of saucer reports, a review
of his original news conference reveals that Arnold
described the objects as crescent-shaped, referring only to
their movement as "like a saucer would if you skipped it
across the water."(10) "
8 Johnson, D. (1950). Flying Saucers - Fact or Fiction?
Master's thesis, University of California, journalism
department.
9 Sheaffer, R. (1981). The UFO Verdict. Buffalo, NY:
Prometheus Books. Bullard, T. (1982). Mysteries in the Eye
of the Beholder: UFOs and their Correlates as a Folkloric
Theme Past and Present. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University Folklore Department.
10 Gardner, M. (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of
Science. New York: Dover, p. 56; Story, R. (1980). The
Encyclopedia of UFOs. NY: Doubleday, p. 25; Sachs, M.
(1980). The UFO Encyclopedia. NY: Perigee, pp. 207-208.
(Washington State's UFOs of 1897 and 1947 - Lessons from
History by Robert Bartholomew)
"The man who's sighting of 9 'disc' shaped objects on June
25th 1947 over the Cascade Mountains, Washington coined the
phrase 'Flying Saucer'
Few people are aware that he had a second sighting on 29th
July 1947, when he saw 20-25 small brass coloured objects.
These objects came within 400 yards of his plane as he was
flying over the La Grande Valley, Oregon."
(The Who Who's of UFOLOGY)
"Sightings
The sighting is one of the most common areas associated with
UFO's. This idea gained popularity after pilot Kenneth
Arnold reported that on June 24, 1947, while flying a search
mission for a downed Marine Corps. transport plane over the
Cascade mountain range, he saw a series of objects flying in
a V formation. He described these objects as "flat like a
pie pan and so shiny they reflected the sun like a mirror,"
and flying like "a saucer would if you skipped it across the
water."
Standing in the audience during the pilot's press
conference, Kenneth Arnold's description of the crafts as
saucers stuck in report Bill Bequettes mind. Latter, the
newsman used the phrase "flying saucer," in the story about
the sighting over the Cascades, coining a phrase that easily
became mainstream.
Arnold's sighting touched off a surge of similar sightings,
many hoaxed, over the next few years. From the smallest
towns to the largest cities, reports of triangular,
dumbbell, cigar, and saucer shaped crafts, as well as
mysterious lights, became fairly commonplace."
(Modern History Of Abductions and Experiences by Stephen
Daniels)
"Within hours, things of every size and shape were being
sighted in the skies across the U.S"
(From Kenneth Arnold and Ray Palmer, The Coming of the
Saucers, Amherst, Wisconsin. Privately printed, 1952).
Now, please post some evidence for Arnold's not being the
first at that time.
>>> Why shouldn't we believe Peebles since you are using him for
>the April 1947 sighting according to your own words? <<
>
>
>Are you dense?
Nope, you are.
<snipo>
>I am tired of giving you objectivity lessons.
You haven't done so so far.
All you've done is claim something and then run like hell.
>
>Just because someone is accurate about a fact does
>not mean their speculations and opinions and also
>fact.
When the opinions are a natural outcome and fit the facts an
no other theory does, however....
You prefer speculations that are contrary to facts, and when
the facts are posted, you just stick to the speculation that
you prefer.
"Within hours, things of every size and shape were being
sighted in the skies across the U.S"
(From Kenneth Arnold and Ray Palmer, The Coming of the
Saucers, Amherst, Wisconsin. Privately printed, 1952).
>>> Enough were that it was clearly referred to as a staple in
>some of John's documents. <<
>
>Well, I question that it was a staple.
That's nice.
<snipo>
>>> And the media had gotten thousands of sightings prior to the
>April 1947 disc sighting. <<
>
>Very few were DISKS.
You don't know this for a fact!
You just like screaming and hope that will make your
ill-informed speculations look better.
"Within hours, things of every size and shape were being
sighted in the skies across the U.S"
(From Kenneth Arnold and Ray Palmer, The Coming of the
Saucers, Amherst, Wisconsin. Privately printed, 1952).
> I have no histogram of sightings, but
>my sources suggest that other than european "ghost rockets"
>and "foo fighters", there was not a lot of sky activity
>reported in the mainstream of this century until 1947.
What sources?
Peebles showed that this was totally erroneous.
The circulation of Amazing Stories soared to 250,000 copies
a month by the end of 1945. Letters to the editor also
soared going from 40-50 a month up to 2,500 a month! Many
of them reporting the sighting of strange objects in the sky
or meetings with alien beings.
Some of the spaceships from Amazing stories were disc
shaped.
In July 1946 issue:
"If you don't think spaceships visit the Earth regularly, as
in this story, then the files of Charles Fort and your
editor's own files are something you should see... And if
you think responsible parties in world governments are
ignorant of the fact of space ships visiting the Earth, you
just don't think the way we do."
This and all of those letters reporting sightings of
objects, including saucers, preceeded the April 1947
sighting of a disc and the May sighting of a disc and the 14
other sightings, not all of discs, referenced by Peebles
that were reported to the AF prior to the end of June 1947.
Why do you believe some of Peebles without checking on him
and ignore the rest of what he says?
>It is interesting that the foo fighters did not trigger
>a media frenzy.
>
They weren't reported much in the media. Which shows the
influence of the media on such things.
>
>>> Amazing stories published the articles and then got all of
>those reports.
>Not the other way around.
>A clear case of media influence. <<
>
>Without histograms of fiction and non-fiction
>UFO reports, I will NOT take your word for it.
Even with histograms, if it doesn't fit your wild
speculations, you won't accept it.
I can post a hundred sources but you'll not go and check on
a one.
However, if it fits your speculations, you'll accept the
wildest of inaccurate sources.
Why would there constantly be UFO reports right after media
frenzy if the media isn't causing them?
The UFOs like to read about themselves and show up to buy
the magazines?
>>> Ah, John's quotes show it to be a staple. <<
>
>And one of your quotes suggests that its not.
Which of my quotes?
You keep claiming this but can't back it up.
<snipo>
>Numbers and dates, not vague words, are the only way to
>settle this.
Doesn't matter, when Peebles showed that the numbers
followed the reports, you won't accept it. If it doesn't
fit what you want, you won't accept it. Period.
>>> Your inventing questions that you can't answer has nothing
>to do with John's responsibility which he has fulfilled
>admirably. <<
>
>Then stick a star on his forehead. However, get me a fricken
>histogram and shape tally when you are done.
You are the one who wants a histogram. Of course, you only
wanted one after it was shown that you were totally
incorrect on your statements.
Before that, you didn't want one.
>>> Your claim that the flying disc report was too close to
>Arnold to easily dismiss. It didn't get wide spread media
>reporting as a fact and thus it had no influence on what
>Arnold reported. <<
>
>Easily dismis as being media influencED, I am not talking
>about influencing later saucers.
Doesn't matter. There were only a few disc sightings, just
prior to Arnold, most of them weren't disc shaped.
However, disc sightings right after Arnold soared.
Despite the fact that Arnold didn't see a disc.
"Within hours, things of every size and shape were being
sighted in the skies across the U.S"
(From Kenneth Arnold and Ray Palmer, The Coming of the
Saucers, Amherst, Wisconsin. Privately printed, 1952).
>>> Before this, Amazing Stories printed articles about the
>alien spaceships and this generated thousands of reports.
>Clearly media influence. <<
>
>"Clearly"? How exactly do you tell what caused what?
Look at the airships, or the other examples I posted. The
media reports something as factual and people start
reporting it as factual.
Amazing Stories had frequently published articles about
alien spaceships that were clearly fiction.
No thousands of reports of seeing things that were reported
to be fictional.
Amazing Stories publishes stories and claims that they are
factual, virtually immediately they get thousands of reports
about the other people seeing these things.
Clearly media-influenced.
>>> When one airship had been reported in the media in the
>1890s, many, many more followed.
>Clearly media influence. <<
>
>How so? Like you always say, there has to be a first.
>You have not demonstrated that one is causing the other.
There were no reports prior to that one. The airships
didn't exist. Then someone says that they saw one and it is
reported as factual, suddenly there are over a thousand
reports of other people seeing something that didn't exist
but which they were told existed.
Clearly media influence.
"Washington State's UFOs of 1897 and 1947 - Lessons from
History
by Robert Bartholomew
Robert Bartholomew is a sociologist at James Cook
University, Queensland, Australia.
Author's Note: Using several thousand rare press reports,
and conventional theories of social psychology, I have
examined the context and meaning of UFO sighting waves,
including incidents in Washington State....
On thursday evening April 15, 1897, a mysterious flying
object was observed by several residents passing over
Spokane, Washington between 8 and 8:30 pm. According to the
Spokesman-Review, one witness was Miss T. Kiesling, a nurse
who saw it for half an hour. "While I watched it the light
changed from a dazzling whiteness to a bright green. It was
like nothing I ever saw before in the sky."
Another witness was Jack L. Ford who estimated the
illuminated object to have been 2 miles high. He said it was
larger than a star and appeared to move around in the sky.
Based on witness descriptions, the newspaper reported that
those who saw it were "certain that it was a machine for
navigating the air, the work of humans, and bearing evidence
of containing people who were directing its progress."(1)
About 3 weeks later in early May, an even more spectacular
sighting report occurred at the small town of Marble Siding,
about 7 miles from Northport along the Spokane Falls &
Northern railroad.
"Marble, Wash., May 5: The town of Marble was greatly
excited today over the appearance of an airship. Some men
working at the mill discovered it as it appeared over the
mountains at the southern part of town, and watched it
disappear in a northeasterly direction. It was in full view,
and the fans could easily be recognized. It had an apparatus
in front resembling a rotary snow-plow ...that seemed to be
revolving rapidly. The whole thing moved very rapidly, and
was only a few minutes passing from view. It was seen by
nearly all the mill crew and myself passing away in a
northerly direction. The citizens were quite worked up over
its appearance, having read of the existence of such a
machine as an airship. If anyone doubts the authenticity of
this, every man in town can vouch for it. by E.E.
Horton."(2)
These are just two of several sightings recorded over
Washington State during April of 1897. How should we
evaluate these reports? Looking at the history of UFOs is
important because it distances us from events and helps
people to gain a greater perspective in understanding
incredible claims. This is especially useful when it comes
to evaluating that aliens are presently visiting earth. In
the remainder of this article I will very briefly examine
the historical context in which the Washington episode
occurred, and then draw parallels with contemporary "UFO"
sightings.
1897 America: Technology Mania
Between 1896-97, US newspapers and magazines were saturated
with speculative stories that an American inventor was on
the verge of perfecting the world's first practical
heavier-than-air flying machine. It was within this context
that citizens began searching the skies for evidence of the
vessel and people from across the country and numbering in
the tens of thousands, reported seeing an imaginary airship.
It was commonly described as resembling the Goodyear blimp
but sported giant fans or wings protruding from both sides.
The airship was almost exclusively seen at night, far
exceeded the period technology - by many decades, and was
often seen simultaneously in different states.
The airship sightings have been described as a classic case
of mass hysteria,(3) transpiring during a period of rapid
technological change. The second half of the nineteenth
century was marked by a series of revolutionary inventions
from electric lights to the telephone, the motorcar and
X-rays. In the 20 years preceding the airship mania, the
American public became preoccupied with the popular
literature on science and inventions.(4) It was within this
unique setting which was characterized by a collective mood
that almost any invention was possible, that the airship
delusion occurred.
Washington's phantom airship wave of 1897 can be explained
using theories of social psychology. Human perception is
very unreliable,(5) and is greatly influenced by a person's
frame of reference at the time of a perception.(6) In
addition, stars and planets often appear to move, flicker
and change colors. In fact, misidentification of stars and
planets are the most common explanation for contemporary
flying saucer reports.(7)
1 Review, April 16, 1897, p. 6. Also see "Spokane Saw the
Airship," Walla Walla Union, April 17, 1897, p.4. "...Saw an
Air Ship. Peculiar Aerial Visitor seen over Spokane last
night..." Spokane Spokesman.
2 "...Saw an airship in Broad Daylight..." Spokesman-Review
(Spokane), May 7, 1897, p.1. For other accounts of this
sighting, see: "A Washington Airship," Ellensburg Localizer,
May 15, 1897, p.2; "State News," Chelan Leader, May 14,
1897, p.1.
3 Bartholomew, R. (1990). "The airship hysteria of
1896-1897," The Skeptical Inquirer 14(2):171-181.
4 Clarke, I. (1986). "American anticipations: the first of
the futurists." Futures 18(4):584-596
5 Loftus, E. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
6 Buckhout, R. (1974). "Eyewitness Testimony." Scientific
American 231, pp. 23-33; Wells, G., and Turtle. J. (1986).
"Eyewitness Identification: The Importance of Lineup
Models." Psychological Bulletin 99: 320-329. Condon, E.
(1969).
7 Condon, E.U. (1969). Scientific Study of Unidentified
Flying Objects. New York: Bantam."
>>> you have created a web
>page that is totally inaccurate <<
>
>I beg to differ. Most of your conplaints
>were very grey areas or trivial.
I beg to differ, my comments showed that you didn't do any
actual investigation but merely took wacko sources and
accepted them as being accurate.
"Our nation (U.S.) spent hundreds of billions of dollars
exploring the mysteries or our solar system, yet only about
$700,000 investigating the UFO mystery."
Grossly incorrect.
"The antiexplorationists tend to emphasize one of two views.
One is that humans are incompetent observers, the other is
that the observers are heavily influenced by UFO lore and
unintentionally embellish their memory of the events.
The problem with the first view is that many observers are
highly experienced and reliable. These include veteran
police, airline pilots, weather experts, and so forth. "
Grossly incorrect.
"The lore influence belief is also hard to swallow because
many observers state that they either never had any interest
in the subject of UFO's, or never believed UFO reports
before their own experience."
Grossly immaterial. Research shows that they have been
influenced without knowing it.
"Newton's laws of physics were much simpler than Relativity
and Quantum Physics, but Newton still ended up taking a back
seat."
Newton's laws are used more often by physicists than
Einstein's.
"Another allegation made by Carl Sagan in his "Demon" book
concerns the phrase "flying saucer". Kenneth Arnold, the
person who is credited with the first widely-reported
"modern" UFO report, said that the MOVEMENT of the UFOs
resembled a saucer (plate) skipping on water. He was not
directly talking about the crafts' shape (although they were
described as flat). According to Sagan's view, people took
to the word "saucer" and started reporting them as a shape,
thus being influenced by the media."
"I wish the people who make allegations of media influence
show us the numbers. Quoting a few selected cases is not
useful evidence. "
Sagan is quite right and we've shown the numbers to you.
Peebles did with the Amazing Stories. You just decide that
you need more info after hearing this.
You didn't need any info to make up your mind, however.
"However, there are some aspects of Roswell that I find
highly baffling. First, if it was a top-secret nuclear
detection balloon like the military claims, then why didn't
they look for the wreckage? There is no evidence that an
extensive search was done for the downed balloon(s).
Instead, they wait until a farmer finds it. The wreckage
layed there for several days even after the farmer's
discovery. It would have been easily visible from a search
plane. A very sloppy way to treat a top secret wouldn't you
say?"
Grossly incorrect and shows no effort was expended in
looking at Mogul at all. Total ignorance of Mogul and
Roswell.
"Second, why doesn't the military release more details about
the event? For example, who was in charge of the debris
recovery? Who was in charge of evaluating, storing,
shipping, and guarding the debris? Who created the original
"flying disk" cover story? These details don't need to be
secret after 50 years, do they?"
The military has published several thousand pages of details
about the event. Who was in charge of the debris is a
non-sensical question regarding Balloon #4 as you'd know.
What flying disc cover story?
Etc.
"Second, project Blue Book is now known to have been
directly influenced by intelligence (military secrecy)
concerns."
Grossly incorrect.
"According to Dr. Hynek and others, the Blue Book team spent
more time on the border-line cases than on the truly amazing
ones. There seemed to be unwritten encouragement to find
natural explanations for as many cases as possible, rather
than see if there was something more to it all. Explaining
was more important than learning."
Grossly incorrect. Hynek showed that Blue Book could have
easily written off another 10% of the cases. He solved them
easily when he went back over the reports. Blue Book didn't
give a damn about UFOs by not that far into it as even Hynek
admitted!
"Soon after moving with his family into the new home,
someone claimed to have found a 10-inch paper UFO model at
the old house, which stood vacant for about a month before
new owners moved in.
Upon examination, the model was found to contain house
blueprints drawn by Ed. Ed studied a copy of the blueprints
and eventually found evidence that seems to indicate that
the plans were made AFTER the first publicized UFO photos.
Thus, it was not the model used in the original photos. This
strengthens Ed's claim that he did not build models. In
addition, the "window" spacing and aspect of the model was
different than the photos. …"
Grossly incorrect.
Clearly you haven't bothered to check up on most of what you
believe or what you write.
>>> Do you see something wrong here? <<
>
>YES, you are dilusional and cannot distinquish
>between fact and opinion and between
>cause and effect relationships.
Funny, you are the one who keeps changing his tune and his
rationales.
>>> [Perhaps your quote is from a bad day of his.]
>Nope. <<
>
>Now you are not only a mind reader, but a mood
>reader also. Very nice.
You are the one who commented on his having a bad day. But
your theory would require almost all of his days to be bad
ones.
Very nice.
>>> He lambasted Hynek many times
>for being so cautious about the ETI and not coming out in
>favor of it strongly and right away. <<
>
>That is not the same as calling Hynek "stupid".
Idiot. And he called Hynek worse than that.
>Big deal anyhow. Perhaps he was hyper and moody
>and called everybody stupid. I don't care.
>It is not an important issue.
Isn't it interesting that you think it important and then
when you find that you are wrong, it becomes not important.
Perhaps he was hyper and moody and called everybody stupid?
Now you are not only a mind reader, but a mood
reader also. Very nice.
>>> Quite the contrary. The day after the media said that
>Arnold saw a flying saucer or flying disc, all sorts of
>people saw flying saucers or flying discs.
>Despite the fact that Arnold didn't claim to have seen any
>such craft. <<
>
>How do you know its the "day after". I have yet to
>see the chronological proof.
I have seen it, I told you where it was, it is also in
Peebles as your own quote showed.
You don't quote that anymore since it shows exactly that!
>Saucers appeared (reported) soon before Arnold (April)
Two!
Big deal!
There were 14 non-saucers also reported to the AF at that
time.
But as soon as Arnold's report hit the media (incorrectly)
there were loads of saucer reports.
>and
>saucers appear (reported) soon after. (Perhaps during)
Perhaps?
Nope.
>
>It appears that no matter when the fricken things
>appear, it is "clearly media influence" in your
>mind.
Isn't it interesting that Amazing Stories doesn't get many
letters when they print alien spaceships as fiction. As
soon as they report them as being factual, they get 2500
letters many of them about sightings.
Media influence.
Isn't it interesting that there are no reports of airships
before the media blows it out of reason, then there are over
1000 of them.
Despite there being no such airships, which you didn't know.
Media influence.
Isn't it interesting that there are only two saucer reports
prior to Arnold and they don't make it to the media.
But after Arnold, there are loads of them. Despite Arnold
not reporting a saucer. The media, however, reported it as
a saucer and the saucer reports flooded in.
Media influence.
<snipo>
>>> As soon as Amazing Stories reported a fiction story as
>factual, they got all of those reports. <<
>
>Give me clear, month-by-month numbers of fact (reported as)
>vs. fiction accounts or shut up!
Why?
You can't post the evidence of a ramp up. You just pulled
those from Peebles. I pulled the others from the same
source.
Post the evidence by cases with names, what they reported,
etc. for a ramp-up or shut up!
<snipo>
>>> One you can argue with. Two is difficult. Three is absurd
>to argue is anything but media influence. <<
>
>I have yet to figure out an order, any possible order
>that you would not find as media influence.
>
>I think I will step off of your dilusional treadmill.
Translation: You can't back up your claims so are planning
to try to get off having to once again.
>
>
>>> Your source also indicated the exact same thing. <<
>
>It does not. It is not clear enuf about the date and
>times. (Re: peebles)
It is. (Re: Peebles)
It is. (Re:newspaper reports - the reports that you have
never bothered to go and read despite them having been
available on the web for years!)
>Here is an interesting quote from
>"The UFO Phenomenon", Time-Life
>books, Barnes and Nobles, 1987.
Wow!
I am impressed. You still can't go to anything but wacko
sources!
<snipo>
>You have not provided sufficient information
>to answer this.
I have. I have referenced the newspaper accounts. You can
simply go and check them.
Isn't it interesting that you don't feel the need to ever be
able to provide sufficent information or, in most cases, any
information for your claims but you feel that none posted by
anyone else is sufficent?
>>> There wasn't any ramp-up of disc sightings. Most of the 16
>sightings weren't discs. <<
>
>I did not say ramp up of *disks*, only reports
>of ship-like objects.
There wasn't a ramp up. There was a ramp down of the
thousands of reports from earlier that went to Amazing
Stories.
Or do you feel that a thousand or so in a month is less than
16 over several months?
>>> You think that they should report mushroom clouds when they
>don't hear an explosion, they don't see millions of people
>dead and vast destruction, hear reports on the media it has
>happened, etc? <<
>
>A mushroom cloud spotted at a DISTANCE would not produce
>any immediate sound,
It would produce the sound at the speed of sound. Why would
people report it prior to being able to hear it?
What about seeing the flash?
Your idiotic example is pretty putrid.
>nor could a pilot see dead people
>from the air.
They could see mass destruction, however.
<snipo>
>Your dismissal of nuke shrooms is STILL WEAK.
Only to someone who believes wacko claims with no evidence
required.
>
>What about angles? Spy planes? Spies? (cop see).
I covered this and you cut it. I recover it and you recut
it.
>>> It requires two things for people to report something. They
>must believe it to be factual is one of them. <<
>
>1. There is no signif difference between the way nuke shrooms
>are reported on the news and UFO's.
Bullshit!
Name one media account that listed nuke mushrooms in Kansas!
The media accounts listed above ground tests only in a few
places as being factual. Those were testing grounds, not
over cities or farms.
the Media lists UFOs as being factual almost everywhere.
<snipo>
>2. When you say "They
>must believe it to be factual". Doesn't that one
>study you quoted show that stated belief has no
>impact on likelyhood of IFO mistakes?
Nope. That is purely your inability to read.
<snipo>
>You seem to be saying that the fact that it
>is PRESENTED AS REAL is the main criteria, not
>that the watcher has to beleive it.
They must believe it is real for them to report it. I
listed two criteria. Can you name both of them?
Go back and look up the articles then.
>
>Even if this was the case, it still does not explain
>lack of angles, spies, and spy planes in gov
>reports.
I explain it, you cut the explanation and then post the same
stupid question. I re-explain it, you cut the
re-explanation and post the same stupid question.
You have yet to address the explanation.
Go look it up in the articles you've responded to but cut
that part.
<snipo>
>What is the matter twichy, cannot think independant
>of quotations?
>
If you feel that, why do you keep cutting the explanations
and then posting the same stupid questions?
What is the matter, you cannot think?
>
>--------Now on to John:
>
>
>>> Your
>silly claim has been shredded, easily. <<
>
>1. Mark Pilkington is one person.
>
>2. Another quote contradicts the "staple" claim.
Nope.
<snipo>
>>> Uninformed opinions are worthless. <<
>
>Should I call you an "uninformed source" because you
>did not know about the April sighting?
Ah, Topmind, he does know about it. Remember, he has
Peebles also.
The difference is that he actually can read.
>>>We didn't make any stupid claims.
>You made a stupid claim about no saucers in pre-1947 media. <<
>
>I said that I did not know of any. How is that different?
Because the evidence was easy to find and you were trying to
use your total ignorance of the subject to back up your
claims.
<snipo>
>I was unaware of certain comic books and you were
>unware of certain important sightings.
Nope. He's got a copy of Peebles also. That is where you
got it from as even you admitted.
<snipo>
>>> Your posting history has not brought glory to UFO believers. <<
>
>I am not impressed with your writings either. I only
>see arrogance, not clear, logical thought.
Nope. You can only see that someone disagrees with you.
You refuse to look at what they write for fear that they
will show you to be incorrect again.
>However, you are less of a repetitious
>paste-head than twitchy,
>and that is a good thing.
What you mean is that you cannot back up your claims and
like to make stupid nasty comments to hide the fact.
Like your comment about daylight sightings.
Yet, the daylight discs examined in the CUFOS study were
anything but impressive after being researchered.
There were 89 Daylight Discs reported to CUFOS during this
time.
71 of the reported Daylight Discs were found to be IFOs and
18 were left in the UFO category.
"Near IFO DDS" consisted of 3 cases.
"Problematic DDS" consisted of 9 cases.
"Good DDS" cases were 2 cases.
"Best DDS" cases were 4 cases.
Thus approximately 4% of the DDS cases were classified as
the "Best DDS" cases.
>--------back to twitchy
>
>
>>> Why is it that you attack any evidence, with no basis for
>the attack, that disagrees with your position but can't post
>any evidence to back up your position? <<
>
>
>I am only saying that it is an unknown, X, until
>proven otherwise.
Nope. You are saying that it is worth research. But that
is based purely on your own ignorance of the subject.
>The witness evidence is strong enought to fry
>a million OJ's
>Like I said before, I agree that UFO are probably
>all mistakes
<snipo>
>>> No, we knew of it but don't consider it of any importance.
>Remember, John and I both have Peebles also. <<
>
>Why did John then ask for sources and you said that you
>could not find it in your edition. Remember?
I said I couldn't find the page since you were using a
different edition.
John was probably hoping that you had an original source to
reference. I wouldn't make that mistake since I've seen
your "research."
>>> Apparently, the same as you don't consider the fact that
>Peebles listed Palmer and his stories, gave him a section of
>the book, and discusses his work in the pulp magazines
>(Amazing Stories). <<
>
>Palmer did not describe disks,
Wrong!
Go look at some of the Amazing Stories!
>and no cause and effect
>relationship has been shown between Palmer's stories
>and reports (of ships in general).
>Sci Fi and rumors
Sci Fi and rumors? These were reported as being factual
which was different.
When they were reported as being sci fi, they didn't get
those reports.
Clearly media influence.
"If you don't think spaceships visit the Earth regularly, as
in this story, then the files of Charles Fort and your
editor's own files are something you should see... And if
you think responsible parties in world governments are
ignorant of the fact of space ships visiting the Earth, you
just don't think the way we do."
>have been around long
>before Palmer. There is nothing significantly new
>or different about Palmer's stories.
What part of reported as being factual weren't you capable
of understanding?
>>> Ah, don't forget, we both have that source. It doesn't say
>what you think it says, however. <<
>
>What do you mean?
Peebles.
>
>>> What other ones were disc-shaped, topmind?
>Please list your sources. <<
>
>I did NOT say there were other pre-ARnold 1947 sightings.
>I already quoted all my sources of these.
But you claimed just that!
Peebles.
Which is a secondary source and one you've kept reading
improperly.
>>> The CUFOS study was able to show that not only are most of
>the reports mistaken, mundane IFOs but that the reports
>weren't random mistakes but followed the path of the media
>reports. <<
>
>Either post the whole CUFOS report that you keep hugging
>or stop mentioning it.
I've never hugged it. Enjoyed, it yes. Hugged it, no.
>I have no way to verify what you
>say at this time.
That is purely your fault. John has checked me, however,
and knows that what I post from it is factual.
You can find this out too if you'll just go and check up on
it.
>Maybe I will try the library, but not
>right now.
I can't post the whole CUFOS report or I'll be guilty of
copyright law violations.
I've told you where to go and how to get a copy. If you are
too lazy to do so, that isn't my fault.
John went and got a copy with no trouble.
I got hold of a copy with no trouble.
topmind can't get hold of a copy....
<snipo>
>>> However, John's evidence doesn't fall because you don't like
>it. If you can show it to be wrong, all well and good. <<
>
>How can it fall when it cannot even stand up. Plus, it
>contradicts other evidence you presented.
Nope. There is only a contradiction in your mind due to a
lack of reading expertise.
It stood up well enough to show that you didn't know what
you were talking about with regard to the saucers in the
media.
>>> However, it totally agrees with Peebles, which is virtually
>the only source you've used in this discussion. <<
>
>(as far as I know)
>Peebles did not mention pre-47 disks in comic books.
>Thus, how can they agree?
As far as you know?
Thus, how can you say that they disagree?
>>> Gasp! You mean that they've invented silent nukes? <<
>
>See above about silent hallucinations and eat your
>defeated words.
See about your silent hallucinations and eat your words.
Hush-a-boom!
>(UFO's are often reported with sounds
>like hummings and pops.)
UFOs are frequently reported as silent. It is good to see
you equate UFOs with hallucinations.
Alas, the IFOs and UFOs are both reported virtually the same
way.
Since you love the CUFOS study since you've bothered to go
and check, here is some more of it.
Premise 3 - UFO are unique because they make no noise or at
least very little noise.
"It is true that in the 113 UFO reports collected here, only
17 percent of the reports were alleged to make noise... The
problem is that IFO reports are equally quiet. Only 20
percent of the 1,158 reports involved noise, even though
listening conditions for both IFOs and UFOs were the same:
UFO witnesses IFO witnesses
Outside 52% 58%
In vehicle 33% 30%
Indoors 15% 12%
Of course, stars, as a rule, don't make noise...nor do
weather balloons or meteors. Still the big surprise here is
that airplanes were not heard."
No difference between the mistakes and the ones that
couldn't be shown to be mistakes.
>>> People are told that spies are real but that they are
>hidden. So no one expects to see one. Thus no one reports
>them. <<
>
>Hidden like the ones on trial in the news?
People believe that these are real since the media tells
them so. People also believe that until they are caught,
they are hidden from view and won't be seen.
>
>Hidden like James Bond and his enemies?
What part of Factual aren't you capable of understanding?
<snipo>
>WILTED!
>
Yep. Your theories wilt all of the time.
>
>>> No one has ever said that spy planes are overflying the US.
>So people don't think this is happening and don't report it
>since they believe it isn't factual. <<
>
>Are you saying more people believed in ET saucers than
>in Soviet spy planes?
>
>THAT IS REEEEEDIIIIIIICUUUUULOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUS!
I am saying that more people believe that saucers are
overflying the US than Mig fighters are flying over the US.
And, initially, the people who were reporting the saucers
didn't believe that they were ET saucers. They just
believed that they were real and overflying the US.
August 1947 Gallup Poll"
What do you think these saucers are?"
No answer, don't know 33%
Imagination, optical illusions, mirages, etc. 29%
Hoax 10% US secret weapon, part of atomic bomb, etc. 15%
Weather forecasting devices 3%
Russian secret weapon 1%
Searchlights on airplanes 2%
Other explanations 9%
Total 102%"
(Adds to more than 100% because some gave more than one
answer.)
"Guesses ranged all the way from practical to miraculous.
Among the later was a woman, citing biblical text, who said
it was a sign of the world's end. A man in the West thought
the discs were radio waves from the Bikini atomic bomb
explosion while another man saw in them a new product being
put out by the 'Dupont people.'
"A few people smelled a publicity or advertising stunt,
while others felt sure that the saucers were after all only
some kind of meteor or comet."
>THAT IS SO D*MNED SILLY.
Yep. Your deliberate misstating of what I wrote is damned
silly.
>
>Jesus Kenneth Arnold Christ!
I wondered who you prayed to.
>>> They do get reported by people who believe. But most people
>don't expect to see them zooming all over the US so they
>don't get reported......Most people don't expect to see him [Jesus]
>flying over the US so
>don't report him. <<
>
>Where did you get this "evidence"?
Ah, did you ever go to see the CNN evidence referenced
earlier?
>
>WILTED!
Yep. You're rather wacko theories are definitely looking
wilted.
>
>I have postcards of religious paintings with Jesus walking
>out of the sky for the second comming. It comes from
>a Bible SCRIPTURE about the heavens opening up and Jesus
>walking out of the clouds.
When did you last report him, topmind?
>
>Do you want me to quote the Bible also?
Only a handfull of people, fundamentalists, believe the
bible is factually accurate about everything it says. The
vast majority of Christians don't believe this at all.
>>> There are literally thousands of ghost reports. Many by
>police, scientists, etc. <<
>
>Any numbers? Any PILOT ghost sightings?
Most of the media coverage has always stated that the ghost
is constrained to the place he died.
However, there have been ghost airplane sightings.
>>> At least 250,000 people have reported seeing Elvis. They
>don't expect to see him flying all over the US, so they
>don't report seeing him do that. <<
>
>What about official cop reports of him on the GROUND?
What official cops believes him on the GROUND?
Please provide names and addresses.
>>> But cops were totally incorrect 94% of the time that they
>reported UFOs. <<
>
>That is not relavant here! My criticism of your
>theory does NOT depend on witness ACCURACY here.
>I have explained that a jillion times already.
No. You've attempted to claim that after I showed that you
were full of it in your other claims.
Initially, it was because they were highly experienced and
reliable!
"The problem with the first view is that many observers are
highly experienced and reliable. These include veteran
police, airline pilots, weather experts, and so forth. "
If they are inaccurate, their reports aren't reliable.
And, highly experienced?
How does one gain experience in spotting UFOs?
The fact is that police and pilots are no more reliable than
other professions when reporting UFOs.
The ratio of peoplre making mistaken reports to all reports
by occupation, for the CUFOs study, was:
Pilot/air personnel 75%
Skilled trade 75%
Forestry/farmer 86%
blue collar 87%
white collar 88%
retired/disabled 88%
education 88%
student 89%
housewife 89%
unemployed 90%
retail 91%
medical 93%
law enforcement 94%
FAA controllers were included among the pilot category.
Neither education nor occupation seems to be any real
safeguard against misperception.
Now tell us how that make them reliable observers?
>
>If beleived media accounts trigger
>hallucinations, then other media icons should do the SAME.
>However, other media icons are not triggering anywhere near
>the same amount of official reports as UFOs.
Apples and Oranges.
The other media icons are not reported to be real and
factually overflying the US and that this is being covered
up by the gov't.
>>> Nope.
>Just a desperate ploy to devert attention from your lack of
>evidence. <<
>
>You are the one who sounds desperate to me. People don't
>beleive spies overfly the US?
Please post the media accounts that indicates that this is
happening and that ordinary people are seeing them.
Thank you.
> HA HA HA HA.
Manical laughter 101 you obviously passed.
>And then
>I debunked your stupid "silence nuke" theory.
Nope. You merely showed a pathetic lack of knowledge about
this as well as about UFOs.
>
>Your explanations for the alternative icons are
>very very very weak and silly.
Your claims for this icons are very, very, very weak and
damned silly.
>>> Nope. The quotes you were trying to use show that this
>isn't the case.
>Arnold's report went out on the newswires on June 25th in
>the morning. It was in the newspapers that afternoon.
>The other reports were on June 26th.
>That is from your own source! <<
>
>There is a period (.) between "nationwide" and "newspapers".
BFD, there is no doubt of the meaning at all. Especially if
you go and look at the newspaper accounts instead of relying
purely on second hand sources.
"Thus, within a few hours of the first sighting
(Arnold's)... "The [Arnold] AP dispatch went out late
morning June 25. Newspapers in the Northwestern U.S.
carried the report that evening. The following day (June
26), it had appeared nationwide. Newspapers not only
carried Reports of Arnold's sighting, but others which began
to be made."
(Page 10, Watch the Skies)
The AP dispatch went out late moring June 25.
Newspapers in the Northwestern U.S. carried the report that
evening (June 25).
The following day (June 26) it had appeared nationwide.
Newspapers not only carried reports of Arnold's sighting but
others WHICH began to be made.
It is clearly chronological.
>
>It also does not establish the exact date of the
>saucer/disk word error.
>
You didn't even know the exact date of Bequette's article
earlier!
>What is the exact date of the Bequette's error
Bequette wrote the first article on Arnold, which is the
first report of that time as even you admitted.
>>> Clearly even Peeble's is saying that it was the first. <<
>
>First report yes, first *disk* report I don't know
>and you are not helping. This issue is DISK reports,
>not reports in general.
If it is the first report, it must be the first disk report
also.
As you can see by checking out the newspaper articles from
1947.
This issue wasn't disk reports, it was reports. The first
report was the disk report, however. It was first published
on the afternoon of the 25th. The next reports weren't
published until the 26th.
>
>>> As soon as the readers were
>told that these were real and being seen, they started
>seeing them.
>A clear case of media influence. <<
>
>Whatever you say Mr. Mindreader.
>
The difference is that I have a mind to read, you lack that.
Please answer the above articles in detail with facts and
not with your usual attempts to wishy-washy talk your way
out of your claims.
John Cason
>John Cason wrote:
>> Uninformed opinions are worthless.
>Should I call you an "uninformed source" because you
>did not know about the April sighting?
Let’s review. Here’s my first mention of the case (May 15) in
response to one of your misunderstandings:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=478014821
********* begin quote *********
T>>>> A good way to test the "media influence produces all
T>>>> saucer reports" theory is to look BEFORE the media had
T>>>> saucers in it.
J>>> If you can't name a specific source for that quote, then
J>>> you're still playing the game of inventing what your
J>>> opponents say.
T>> I gave TWO in these fora. One is on Page 8 of the Berkeley
T>> edition of skeptic Peeble's "Watch the Skies!". The other
T>> is cited in the first message from Flammonde.
J> I wasn't referring to the UFO sighting by the weatherman,
J> but to your quotation, "Media influence produces all saucer
J> reports." Who said or wrote those words that you put within
J> the quotation marks?
********* end quote *********
How can anyone misunderstand, now or then, what was being said?
How can you still misunderstand after my response in that post
on May 15, and twist that exchange into something different?
Instead of admitting that you invented that quotation, you went
off track. Your misunderstanding is the basis of your current
argument that this particular case was news to me. On April 9,
however, in the “NAS Sham” thread,
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=464242335
I translated the page numbers in your edition of the Peebles book
into the equivalent page numbers in Twitch’s copy, which is a
different edition. I was able to do that because I had a library
copy of the Peebles book. If I checked out the Peebles book and
mentioned it in April, what evidence do you have that the
sighting mentioned in Peebles’ first chapter was new to me when
it came up in May? The answer is, none, no evidence at all. You
dreamed it up, as you seem to do with most of your claims.
Whatever I knew about the case is irrelevant anyway, because I
haven’t made any stupid claims that are impacted by that case
or any others, whether known or not.
You, on the other hand, have done exactly that.
>>You made a stupid claim about no saucers in pre-1947 media.
>I said that I did not know of any.
That is a mischaracterization of your remarks. Let’s review
some of your comments:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=478777217
T> Show one!
...
T> SHOW IT!
...
T> The only pre-Arnold media saucer is in a painting from
T> roughly 1650.
...
T> Before Arnold, flying disks were NOT a media icon in any way.
...
T> Produce one single movie or magazine with flying disks.
...
You later denied that you had a reference in mind when you made
those bald statements. I had no trouble finding lots of
specific examples that refuted your claim. You even found one
flying saucer drawing yourself, although you didn’t give us a
URL so we could have a look.
When you first started posting your amazing comments about
Condon and the NAS, I thought that you were just another
individual temporarily lost in the dense underbrush of UFOlogy.
You said that all UFO sightings were probably mistakes (that’s
a paraphrase), but many of your subsequent arguments indicate a
deeper commitment to the idea of some sort of lurking
extraterrestrial mystery, even though the evidence you have at
hand is close to nonexistent, judging by the references that
you’ve offered and your lack of familiarity with UFOlogy.
The pattern so far is (1) you make various claims and (2) Twitch
and I cite references, URLs, and your previous posts to correct
your errors. You then counter with (1) and Twitch and I respond
with (2) again. Stay tuned for a recap.
If you ever get back to discussing things that have some sort of
factual basis, then maybe I’ll comment again, but as long as you
follow your current direction, I’m finished with you.
******** Recap of references in this thread ********
When I started this tally, there were 68 messages in this thread
according to Deja.com, most by Topmind, Twitch, or John. I
reread all of them and counted references only if there was some
substantive reference to the contents, not just a mention.
Quality is more important than quantity.
From Topmind:
1. Paris Flammonde, UFO Exist, p. 158
2. Peebles, Watch the Skies, p. 8
3. Peebles, Watch the Skies, p. 11
4. Sagan's Demon book
5. David Jacobs
6. Red Dawn (movie)
7. Day After (TV show)
8. Texas paper in mid 1800s
9. UFO Phenomenon, Time-Life Books, p. 37
From Twitch:
1. Hynek's look at Blue Book
2. Hendry's CUFOS study
3. NAS Review Panel
4. Condon Report
5. St Louis Post-Dispatch July 8, 1947
6. Roswell Daily Record July 8, 1947
7. Roswell Daily Record July 9, 1947
8. San Francisco Chronicle July 9, 1947
9. Wyoming Eagle July 9, 1947
10. Ceylon Observer July 9, 1947
11. Arnold sighting in Peebles
12. 1890s airship wave
13. Amazing Stories Jan 1944
14. Amazing Stories July 1946
15. MacDonald's opinion of Hynek
16. http://www.skepdic.com/comments/saucecom.html
17. Several big piles of references
a. Washington State's UFOs of 1897 and 1947 - Lessons from
History by Robert Bartholomew
b. UFOs, and their impact on history by Jake Schneider and Jake
Uretsky - 1995
c. 50th Anniversary of "Flying Saucers" by Greg Long _ June 24,
1997
d. UFOs and the CIA By Reg A. Davidson
e. Johnson, D. (1950). Flying Saucers - Fact or Fiction?
f. Sheaffer, R. (1981). The UFO Verdict.
g. Bullard, T. (1982). Mysteries in the Eye of the Beholder:
UFOs and their Correlates as a Folkloric Theme Past and
Present
h. Gardner, M. (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.
i. Story, R. (1980). The Encyclopedia of UFOs. p. 25
j. Sachs, M. (1980). The UFO Encyclopedia. pp. 207-208.
k. The Who Who's of UFOLOGY
l. Kenneth Arnold and Ray Palmer, The Coming of the Saucers
m. Modern History Of Abductions and Experiences by Stephen
Daniels
n. Review, April 16, 1897, p. 6. Also see "Spokane Saw the
Airship," Walla Walla Union, April 17, 1897, p.4. "...Saw an
Air Ship. Peculiar Aerial Visitor seen over Spokane last
night..." Spokane Spokesman.
o. "A Washington Airship," Ellensburg Localizer, May 15, 1897,
p.2; "State News," Chelan Leader, May 14, 1897, p.1.
p. Bartholomew, R. (1990). "The airship hysteria of 1896-1897,"
The Skeptical Inquirer 14(2):171-181.
q. Clarke, I. (1986). "American anticipations: the first of
the futurists." Futures 18(4):584-596
r. Loftus, E. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony
s. Buckhout, R. (1974). "Eyewitness Testimony." Scientific
American 231, pp. 23-33
t. Wells, G., and Turtle. J. (1986). "Eyewitness Identification:
The Importance of Lineup Models." Psychological Bulletin 99:
320-329.
u. Martin Orne, International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis. THE USE AND MISUSE OF HYPNOSIS IN
COURT
18. Las Vegas Review journal July 9, 1947
19. August 1947 Gallup Poll
20. Jerome Clark article in Fate Feb 1977
21. Sturrock Panel
22. long discussion on history of airship development
23. Project 1947 website
24, Aug 1 1952 CIA memo
25. Aug 8 1955 CIA memo
26. Kenneth Arnold's UFO sighting in Peebles
From John:
1. Hendry's CUFOS study
2. books by Craig and Saunders
3. quoted same thread April 19 and May 4
4. Refs within refs
a. Buck Rogers
b. Flash Gordon
c. Frank R. Paul
d. various science fiction pulp magazines
e. histories of science fiction art
5. David Jacobs
6. http://www.hedweb.com/markp/ufofilm.htm
7. http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/90/entirelymk.html
8. http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/90/seeing.htm
9. http://www.csicop.org/sb/9409/eyesthat.html
10. http://www.ufomind.com/catalog/pub/8014/8468/
11. http://www.mt.net/~watcher/quotes.html
12. Jenny Randles in UFO Updates, April
13. http://www.nccg.org/Occult002-Demons.html
14. http://webcoast.com/features/virginmary.htm
15. http://www.alienjigsaw.com/guadalup.html
16. http://ntdwwaab.compuserve.com/homepages/Andypage/fatima.htm
17. http://www.electrastar.com/ufo/
18. http://www.csicop.org/sb/9712/rothman.html
19. http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=478014821
20. http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=464242335
21. http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=478777217
See Twitch, I told you that you had cited more references.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John,
I'm wondering if we should hit topmind with the infamous
Randi experiment showing cause and effect of the media on
UFO sightings, John.
It shows it clearly, but topmind will claim it doesn't and
bring up hush-a-boom again.
Randi decided to show that the UFO reports were driven by
the media and told a radio shows host that he was going to
do the experiment. The radio show host agreed.
He invented a flight of triangular, orange UFOs flying in a
northerly direction. He said he wasn't certain if there was
any noise or not.
Immediately, the station switchboard was overwhelmed by the
callers who claimed to be witnesses to this event. Within a
half hour the callers told Randi the exact number of
triangles and the speed, altitude, and precise direction of
the formation, and had discovered that Randi had seen only
one pass of the "saucers" when there had been several!
To avoid this 'case' from going into the books, Randi
announced on the air that he had invented the initial flight
of objects.
Clearly a case of media influence.
BTW, John, you're cheating. You are counting some of the
references I posted yesterday to increase my score. If you
ignore those, we are awfully close in our referencing!
Damn, now John will count Randi's book.
It may be that the race is not always to the swift
top...@technologist.com
.
Reply to twitch-N-paste
I did not even bother to read half the
crap you posted because you are not
ansering my concerns and repeating stuff
already posted.
Note that I agree that press exposure
accounts for a large portion of sighting
increases. Whether this means that
people look in the sky more, become more
aware of certain objects, or simply start hallucinating
saucers (as you maintain) has *not*
been established. We don't know whether there
is simply more observing and/or reporting, or
more hallucinations.
Thus, the fact that the press increases reported
sightings does not prove the sightings
are bogus and/or not worthy of more study.
I cannot stand debating you because your
responses are bloated, poorly organized, repetitous, and
fail to address the main issues.
>> And the judgement of virtually everyone who has actually
gone and read the articles and looked into the history of
the subject is exactly the opposite of yours. <<
Like I stated many times, one of your own quotations backs me up!
>> Later, the
newsman used the phrase "flying saucer," in the story about
the sighting over the Cascades, coining a phrase that easily
became mainstream. <<
Note the use of the word "later". How much later?
>> I beg to differ, my comments showed that you didn't do any
actual investigation but merely took wacko sources and
accepted them as being accurate. <<
Twitchy's definition of "whacko sources": A source that
does not fit his point of view.
>> Grossly immaterial. Research shows that they have been
influenced without knowing it. <<
The research is very incomplete, speculative, and
contradictory.
Almost no research was done on the ACTUAL cops and pilots (and others
making professional reports) who allegdely made IFO mistakes.
A psych study can be rigged to show just about anything.
Further, your stupid theory is not working on
non-UFO media icons that are beleived.
>> Newton's laws are used more often by physicists than
Einstein's. <<
But they are only an approximation of reality.
A "shortcut" in essence.
>> Sagan is quite right and we've shown the numbers to you.
Peebles did with the Amazing Stories. You just decide that
you need more info after hearing this. <<
These are not REPRESENTATIVE samples. Annocdotes are
not a substitute for thorough numbers.
>> Funny, you are the one who keeps changing his tune and his
rationales. <<
Bull crap! You are just trying to play word games to
avoid ansering tough questions.
>> You are the one who commented on his having a bad day. But
your theory would require almost all of his days to be bad
ones. <<
Oh, so you have quotes from *every day* of his adult life?
Or, do you only keep (and find) those that fit your
opinion?
>> Isn't it interesting that you think it important and then
when you find that you are wrong, it becomes not important. <<
You are the one who did the ranking of my words, not me.
I did not assign an importance rank to any of my
Mcdonald statements. More evidence that you are
dilusional. You see rankings that are CLEARLY not there.
>> Isn't it interesting that Amazing Stories doesn't get many
letters when they print alien spaceships as fiction. As
soon as they report them as being factual, they get 2500
letters many of them about sightings.
Media influence. <<
How do you know what letters they REJECTED?
You are again speculating without sufficient info.
>> Isn't it interesting that you don't feel the need to ever be
able to provide sufficent information or, in most cases, any
information for your claims but you feel that none posted by
anyone else is sufficent? <<
You either did not answer the disk timing question or
sandwiched it in between irrelavant, repetitious crap.
Western Digital is almost certainly paying you
commision on how much disk space you fill up,
because there could not be any other rational
reason for the irrelavent, repetitous bloat
you keep pasting in over and over and over
and over again.
>> There wasn't a ramp up. There was a ramp down of the
thousands of reports from earlier that went to Amazing
Stories. <<
You are comparing apples to oranges again.
>> Name one media account that listed nuke mushrooms in Kansas!
The media accounts listed above ground tests only in a few
places as being factual. Those were testing grounds, not
over cities or farms.
the Media lists UFOs as being factual almost everywhere. <<
How the h*ll is that of any real difference? Nukes were reported
as real and it was reported that USSR POINTED THEM AT US!
IT DONT GET REALER THAN THAT!
>> If you feel that, why do you keep cutting the explanations
and then posting the same stupid questions? <<
I did not cut them, I had not seen them when I wrote that.
(I should have gone back and edited it when I later saw
them, but thot that since you did not try to cut down
on repetition and irrelavence, why should I? Do until others....)
>> Ah, Topmind, he does know about it. Remember, he has
Peebles also. <<
Then why did he ask for a source?
>> Nope. He's got a copy of Peebles also. That is where you
got it from as even you admitted. <<
lIKE i already said, I saw NO mention of pre-47 saucers
in peebles. Ships yes, disks, no.
>>
[The witness evidence is strong enought to fry
a million OJ's]
[Like I said before, I agree that UFO are probably
all mistakes] <<
I explained this twice already.
>> John was probably hoping that you had an original source to
reference. I wouldn't make that mistake since I've seen
your "research." <<
And you are "probably" a mind reader.
First he asked for a source. Then when I pointed out
that I already gave some, he simply said it
was not significant. Why would he ask for more
sources if it was not signficant to him? Further,
why would he wait until after the sources are
uncovered before saying it was not significant?
It is possible that he already knew, but the
evidence is stacked against that.
>> [Palmer did not describe disks]
Wrong!
Go look at some of the Amazing Stories! <<
Do you have any quotations of Palmer describing
disks? (beyond random shape frequencies.)
>> Nope. There is only a contradiction in your mind due to a
lack of reading expertise. <<
Perhaps I should attend the Phil Klass Interpretation School
to improve my "skills" like you probably did.
>> UFOs are frequently reported as silent. It is good to see
you equate UFOs with hallucinations. <<
Frequently, but not always.
>> Alas, the IFOs and UFOs are both reported virtually the same
way. <<
Tell that to Chi-square.
(Oops, mentioning that will trigger pasting diarrehia in twitchy)
>> It is good to see
you equate UFOs with hallucinations. <<
I am only attempting to think like you to figure out
how you think. So far my conclusion is that you dont.
>> People also believe that until they [spies] are caught,
they are hidden from view and won't be seen. <<
That is just plain silly. Lame city.
>> I am saying that more people believe that saucers are
overflying the US than Mig fighters are flying over the US. <<
I am not talking just about Migs.
Roughly half of the US believes that UFO's might
be "real". Are you saying that less than 50% beleive
that spy planes pass overhead? Even if by some
strange twist (or twitch) of the imagination
only 10% beleive in spy planes, it should still
generate a fair amount of reports.
>> And, initially, the people who were reporting the saucers
didn't believe that they were ET saucers. They just
believed that they were real and overflying the US. <<
What does that have to do with anything?
>> Ah, did you ever go to see the CNN evidence referenced
earlier? <<
NOPE! It must have got lost in the your pastey bloated text soup.
>> Only a handfull of people, fundamentalists, believe the
bible is factually accurate about everything it says. The
vast majority of Christians don't believe this at all. <<
A "handfull"? I beleive it is roughly 10 to 30 percent.
>> Most of the media coverage has always stated that the ghost
is constrained to the place he died. <<
Boy, since when are hallucinations so logical?
>> However, there have been ghost airplane sightings.<<
Compared to on-duty gov UFO reports, they are very very
rare.
>> No. You've attempted to claim that after I showed that you
were full of it in your other claims.
Initially, it was because they were highly experienced and
reliable! <<
I already went over your "context switching" accusation.
However, *my* reason for the selection of cops and pilots
has nothing to do with fact that your explanations are
lame. You are probably trying to change the focus off of your
wilting defense of non-UFO media icons.
>> Neither education nor occupation seems to be any real
safeguard against misperception. <<
This statement seems to apply to much more than just
saucers.
>> The other media icons are not reported to be real and
factually overflying the US <<
BULL CRAP!
NUKES ARE REAL.
NUCLEAR MISSLES ARE REPORTED AS BEING POINTED TOWARD THE US.
MOST BELEIVE THAT NUCLEAR WAR COULD HAPPEN AT *ANY* TIME.
THE CUBAN CRISIS WAS BROADCAST LIVE.
The distinctions you dig up between UFO's, nukes, and
Jesus are very very very very insignificant (IMO).
You allegedly showed how an itsy bitsy
small newspaper article triggers
mass hallucinations of saucers.
Now, you are SLAPPING ON all kinds of
(silly) RESTRICTIONS for other icons to
do the same thing.
It is a FAT contradiction.
In my mind this makes you look very stubborn
or delusional.
>> and that this is being covered
up by the gov't. <<
What does gov coverups have to do with anything?
Saucers were being reported long before coverup
rumors became common.
>> Bequette wrote the first article on Arnold, which is the
first report of that time ... <<
Do you have the article text, date, and paper name?
>> If it is the first report, it must be the first disk report
also. <<
How does that follow?
>> This issue wasn't disk reports, it was reports. <<
Yes it is. You are the one who keeps bringing up
the saucer word error issue as proof.
>> Please answer the above articles in detail with facts and
not with your usual attempts to wishy-washy talk your way
out of your claims. <<
You are fricken dilusional. No wonder you attribute so much
hallucination power to cops and pilots---you think they are
as screwed up as you.
-tmind-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>
On June 24th, Kenneth Arnold landed and told some of his
friends what had happened and afterwards he told reporters.
He told them that the motion of the strange objects was like
that of skimming saucers. A reporter, named Bill Bequette,
heard this and put the words "flying saucer" in his article
about Arnold.
The next day there were headlines in papers all over the
country about what Kenneth Arnold had seen.
"After Arnold's sighting, there were hundreds of reports of
the strange flying disks every day."
The dispatch went out on the morning of the 25th. Later
that day:
"On June 25th, there were two major sightings. The first was
made at Kansas City, Missouri. There were nine objects in
loose formation. Another sighting was made by Lloyd Lowry in
Pueblo, Colorado. There were two objects close together. It
seemed as if one was chasing the other.
On the 26th, there was an incredible amount of sightings.
There were sightings from Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas,
and New Mexico. There were sightings all over the
south-west.
On the 27th, the reports started to change. The reports were
more wide spread. Some came as far north as Canada and
Michigan. The reports came from all over the world now."
(UFOs, and their impact on history by Jake Schneider and
Jake Uretsky - 1995)
Now please quite proudly parading your total ignorance of
the Arnold sighting.
>
>
>.
>
>Reply to twitch-N-paste
I'm breaking this response to topmind into several littler
pieces hoping that will encourage him to actually read what
is written instead of bragging how he doesn't bother to read
what he responds to.
>
>I did not even bother to read half the
>crap you posted
Like this.
> because you are not
>ansering my concerns and repeating stuff
>already posted.
I do answer your concerns.
But you've never read it and responded to it.
However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and
believe you didn't read it.
>
>Note that I agree that press exposure
>accounts for a large portion of sighting
>increases.
You've kept claiming that Arnold's sighting wasn't the first
reported in the media and didn't trigger the rest. Based on
no evidence whatsoever!
Even Arnold disagreed with you!
"Within hours, things of every size and shape were being
sighted in the skies across the U.S"
(From Kenneth Arnold and Ray Palmer, The Coming of the
Saucers, Amherst, Wisconsin. Privately printed, 1952).
>Whether this means that
>people look in the sky more, become more
>aware of certain objects, or simply start hallucinating
>saucers (as you maintain) has *not*
>been established. We don't know whether there
>is simply more observing and/or reporting, or
>more hallucinations.
Quite the contrary, in the section you didn't bother to
read, I clearly showed that it increases dramatically.
The infamous Randi experiment showed cause and effect of the
media on UFO sightings, topmind
Randi decided to show that the UFO reports were driven by
the media and told a radio shows host that he was going to
do the experiment. The radio show host agreed.
He invented a flight of triangular, orange UFOs flying in a
northerly direction. He said he wasn't certain if there was
any noise or not.
Immediately, the station switchboard was overwhelmed by the
callers who claimed to be witnesses to this event. Within a
half hour the callers told Randi the exact number of
triangles and the speed, altitude, and precise direction of
the formation, and had discovered that Randi had seen only
one pass of the "saucers" when there had been several!
To avoid this 'case' from going into the books, Randi
announced on the air that he had invented the initial flight
of objects.
Clearly a case of media influence showing how rapidly the
public reacts to reports of UFOs and chimes in with
duplicate reports.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Please stop proudly parading your total ignorance of the
Arnold sighting and the aftermath!
On June 24th, Kenneth Arnold landed and told some of his
friends what had happened and afterwards he told reporters.
He told them that the motion of the strange objects was like
that of skimming saucers. A reporter, named Bill Bequette,
heard this and put the words "flying saucer" in his article
about Arnold.
The next day there were headlines in papers all over the
country about what Kenneth Arnold had seen.
"After Arnold's sighting, there were hundreds of reports of
the strange flying disks every day."
The dispatch went out on the morning of the 25th. Later
that day:
"On June 25th, there were two major sightings. The first was
made at Kansas City, Missouri. There were nine objects in
loose formation. Another sighting was made by Lloyd Lowry in
Pueblo, Colorado. There were two objects close together. It
seemed as if one was chasing the other.
On the 26th, there was an incredible amount of sightings.
There were sightings from Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas,
and New Mexico. There were sightings all over the
south-west.
On the 27th, the reports started to change. The reports were
more wide spread. Some came as far north as Canada and
Michigan. The reports came from all over the world now."
(UFOs, and their impact on history by Jake Schneider and
Jake Uretsky - 1995)
>
>Thus, the fact that the press increases reported
>sightings does not prove the sightings
>are bogus and/or not worthy of more study.
>
See above.
>
>I cannot stand debating you because your
>responses are bloated, poorly organized, repetitous, and
>fail to address the main issues.
Translation: You keep changing your claims and then
complain that the responses fail to address the main issues.
Randi's experiment showed clearly that you are wrong.
I've posted a lot showing that you are totally wrong and all
you do is to cut the response and invent the claim that it
failed to address the main issue.
The main issue here is media influence on UFO sightings, see
the subject of the thread if you've forgotten.
>You seem to be mixing pre-, during-, and post- arnold again.
>I am not sure what you are "nonsense"-ing to.
You keep mixing up whether what Arnold saw might be real and
media influence.
Shortly after Arnold saw his most famous flying discs, which
weren't discs, he saw some 20-25 objects which certainly
sounded like birds to most people. He went on to report
seven UFO sightings total. He eventually concluded that
UFOs are space animals -- "living organisms...in the
atmosphere.
I don't think we need worry too much about whether what he
saw was real on his first account. But, what the media
reported he saw, incorrectly, was what formed the 'reality'
of what other people reported. Clearly media influence.
Your claim that the flying disc report was too close to
Arnold to easily dismiss. That other report didn't get wide
spread media reporting as a fact and thus it had no
influence on what Arnold reported and on the generation of
the myth of UFOs.
Of course, Arnold didn't report a flying saucer but
immediately (next day!) after the media reported he did,
loads of people reported that they saw one too.
That clearly shows a media influence.
The great wave occured right after the vast media reporting
of the Arnold sighting. Arnold was, mistakenly, reported as
seeing a flying saucer or flying disc. The newspapers
played up that part more than any other aspect.
The next day, other people reported seeing flying saucers or
flying discs.
Before this, Amazing Stories printed articles about the
alien spaceships and this generated thousands of reports.
Clearly media influence.
When one airship had been reported in the media in the
1890s, many, many more followed.
Clearly media influence.
However, most people wouldn't believe what was published in
Amazing Stories to be factual even if Amazing Stories
claimed, as they did, that they were. Only readers of
Amazing Stories reported to that magazine that they had seen
all of these spaceships.
The newspapers, radio, etc. are a totally different matter
and generate a lot of respectable people reporting that they
saw one of those flying saucers that Arnold had seen.
Clearly media influence.
Randi invented a UFO flight and told about it on the air,
immediately afterwards the switchboard was lit up with other
people reporting the same thing.
What can that be but media influence because the UFO flight
was a total invention to show the media influence and that
people will happily report seeing what they are told is true
and they believe.
>
>
>>> And the judgement of virtually everyone who has actually
> gone and read the articles and looked into the history of
> the subject is exactly the opposite of yours. <<
>
>Like I stated many times, one of your own quotations backs me up!
Like I stated many times, only if you misread it!
The same as you quoted Peebles out of context several times.
The same as you misread what Peebles said about the Arnold
sighting and its effect on other reports.
The same as you ignored all of the other documentary sources
in which the author has gone and looked at the original
reports and the timing.
[...]
saucers stuck in report Bill Bequettes mind. Latter, the
newsman used the phrase "flying saucer," in the story about
the sighting over the Cascades, coining a phrase that easily
became mainstream.
Arnold's sighting touched off a surge of similar sightings,
many hoaxed, over the next few years. From the smallest
towns to the largest cities, reports of triangular,
dumbbell, cigar, and saucer shaped crafts, as well as
mysterious lights, became fairly commonplace."
(Modern History Of Abductions and Experiences by Stephen
Daniels)
"Within hours, things of every size and shape were being
sighted in the skies across the U.S"
(From Kenneth Arnold and Ray Palmer, The Coming of the
Saucers, Amherst, Wisconsin. Privately printed, 1952).
Now, please post some evidence for Arnold's not being the
first at that time.
"Not only does it unambiguously point to a cultural origin
of the whole flying saucer phenomenon, it erects a
first-order paradox into any attempt to interpret the
phenomenon in extraterrestrial terms: Why would
extraterrestrials redesign their craft to conform to
Bequette's error?"
The same as you have yet to get the UFO Handbook to check up
on it. You just criticise it without knowing what is in it.
When Palmer printed Shaver's fiction story starting in Jan
1944, Palmer rewrote Shaver's story to 3 times the original
length and advertised it as a "true" story.
The circulation of Amazing Stories soared to 250,000 copies
a month by the end of 1945. Letters to the editor also
soared going from 40-50 a month up to 2,500 a month! Many
of them reporting the sighting of strange objects in the sky
or meetings with alien beings.
It may be that the race is not always to the swift
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Please read the quotes and stop proudly parading your total
ignorance of the Arnold sighting.
>
>
>>> Later, the
>newsman used the phrase "flying saucer," in the story about
>the sighting over the Cascades, coining a phrase that easily
>became mainstream. <<
>
>
>Note the use of the word "later". How much later?
>
Go look up at the full quotes!
"After Arnold's sighting, there were hundreds of reports of
the strange flying disks every day."
The dispatch went out on the morning of the 25th. Later
that day:
"On June 25th, there were two major sightings. The first was
made at Kansas City, Missouri. There were nine objects in
loose formation. Another sighting was made by Lloyd Lowry in
Pueblo, Colorado. There were two objects close together. It
seemed as if one was chasing the other.
On the 26th, there was an incredible amount of sightings.
There were sightings from Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas,
and New Mexico. There were sightings all over the
south-west.
On the 27th, the reports started to change. The reports were
more wide spread. Some came as far north as Canada and
Michigan. The reports came from all over the world now."
(UFOs, and their impact on history by Jake Schneider and
Jake Uretsky - 1995)
>
>>> I beg to differ, my comments showed that you didn't do any
>actual investigation but merely took wacko sources and
>accepted them as being accurate. <<
>
>Twitchy's definition of "whacko sources": A source that
>does not fit his point of view.
Nope. Twitch's definition of wacko sources are the ones
that maintain what is documented to be untrue.
If you can misinterpret it as being in favor of you, you
accept it. If it is shown that you are incorrect, the
author doesn't know what he is talking about.
We've all gone and checked up on the newspaper articles,
etc. and know the sequence of events. You haven't, but
simply believe because you want to.
The information on your web page is totally incorrect in
most regards. Because you simply read some wacko sources
and didn't bother checking up on them.
When I post the information from the real source, you won't
read it.
>
>
>>> Grossly immaterial. Research shows that they have been
>influenced without knowing it. <<
>
>The research is very incomplete, speculative, and
>contradictory.
Nonsense.
Statement is a gross generalization without evidential
backup.
>
>Almost no research was done on the ACTUAL cops and pilots (and others
>making professional reports) who allegdely made IFO mistakes.
>A psych study can be rigged to show just about anything.
Oh, you wish to maintain that the cops and pilots who
reported UFOs were all crazy?
Gee, I think you're being rather harsh.
The evidence is that they were just normal people, the same
as the rest of the people who report UFOs.
But if you wish to think that all people are crazy who
report UFOs, go ahead, but the evidence is all against you.
>
>Further, your stupid theory is not working on
>non-UFO media icons that are beleived.
That is because you will never read what I post. You simply
cut and then comment without having read the material.
You've been shown to be wrong every single time. Not just
by me but also by John.
>
>
>>> Newton's laws are used more often by physicists than
>Einstein's. <<
>
>But they are only an approximation of reality.
>A "shortcut" in essence.
Nope. They are used because they are more accurate than the
measurements.
The spacecraft flies there based on calculations done on
Newton's laws.
Further, a good case can be made that Newton was
relativistically correct because he didn't formulate
equations but merely described everything in terms of
momentum. Euler changed what Newton wrote.
For example, Newton wrote in words, what can only be
described as F=d(mv)/dt. Which is relativistically correct.
Euler wrote it as an equation as F=ma or, if you prefer,
F=mdv/dt. Which is relativistically incorrect.
Although, it is what NASA uses because it is more than
accurate enough.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>
>
>>> Sagan is quite right and we've shown the numbers to you.
>Peebles did with the Amazing Stories. You just decide that
>you need more info after hearing this. <<
>
>These are not REPRESENTATIVE samples. Annocdotes are
>not a substitute for thorough numbers.
What is your evidence that these are not representative
samples.
You're saying it isn't reality, but you opinion only.
And the other examples all show the same thing.
So if 100% of the examples show something and you don't like
it, it isn't REPRESENTATIVE!
>
>
>>> Funny, you are the one who keeps changing his tune and his
>rationales. <<
>
>Bull crap! You are just trying to play word games to
>avoid ansering tough questions.
I have answered all that you have posed. You just cut them
and pretend that the responses didn't answer your questions.
You do the same to John. Like your claim that he asked for
a reference for the weatherman sighting. He's responded to
you on at least two different occasions showing that what
you are claiming isn't true.
You just snip his comment and then go on claiming what he
has shown isn't true.
Or when you are forced to accept something, you just change
your claim.
>
>
>>> You are the one who commented on his having a bad day. But
>your theory would require almost all of his days to be bad
>ones. <<
>
>Oh, so you have quotes from *every day* of his adult life?
>Or, do you only keep (and find) those that fit your
>opinion?
Let's see, you make the claim that he was having a bad day,
which is contrary to all of the evidence.
Then you demand that I have quotes from *every day* of his
life to back up my evidence that you don't know what you are
talking about!
The evidence shows that you are wrong. If you wish to post
evidence that he only said such things on his bad days,
please do.
You won't because this is just an attempt to wiggle out of
your claims after they've been shown to be wrong.
>
>
>>> Isn't it interesting that you think it important and then
>when you find that you are wrong, it becomes not important. <<
>
>You are the one who did the ranking of my words, not me.
Wrong!
>3. NAS did no independent verification of the report (according to Dr. James
>McDonald).
Notice the number in front?
You were the one who initially ranked what you claimed, not
me.
The other two before this were also shown to be pure
bullshit.
>I did not assign an importance rank to any of my
>Mcdonald statements.
Wrong.
>3. NAS did no independent verification of the report (according to Dr. James
>McDonald).
>More evidence that you are
>dilusional. You see rankings that are CLEARLY not there.
You mean that the number 3 isn't there?
>3. NAS did no independent verification of the report (according to Dr. James
>McDonald).
One of us is certainly delusional.
Now you'll claim that isn't what you were referring to.
But above you claimed:
>I did not assign an importance rank to any of my
>Mcdonald statements.
>
>
>>> Isn't it interesting that Amazing Stories doesn't get many
>letters when they print alien spaceships as fiction. As
>soon as they report them as being factual, they get 2500
>letters many of them about sightings.
>Media influence. <<
>
>How do you know what letters they REJECTED?
And you claim that I am delusional?
Boy, is you the delusional one.
Earlier you claimed that this was just conjecture!
They didn't reject letters, they just got them!
Letters to the editor also soared going from 40-50 a month
up to 2,500 a month! Many of them reporting the sighting of
strange objects in the sky or meetings with alien beings.
What part of "letters to the editor" were you incapable of
understanding?
Peebles is referring to the total number of letters received
by Amazing Stories.
>
>You are again speculating without sufficient info.
Nope. You are just cutting the rest and then making stupid
comments. You could easily go to your copy of Peebles and
check but that would be too much like work.
Like going to the library and getting the UFO Handbook.
You avoid backing up a single claim of yours, and then
refuse to even read what other people post with references
provided so you can check up on them.
However, since you won't read the words, I suppose it is
asking too much for you to check up on something.
>
>
>>> Isn't it interesting that you don't feel the need to ever be
>able to provide sufficent information or, in most cases, any
>information for your claims but you feel that none posted by
>anyone else is sufficent? <<
>
>You either did not answer the disk timing question or
>sandwiched it in between irrelavant, repetitious crap.
Wrong. I posted many, many times many, many comments
showing that what I've posted is true. I have gone and seen
all of the newspaper articles, you have yet to read a one.
I continually hope that if I post something five times,
you'll read it as least once. So far, you have yet to be
able to read and understand any of the articles I've posted
as back up.
"After Arnold's sighting, there were hundreds of reports of
the strange flying disks every day."
The dispatch went out on the morning of the 25th. Later
that day:
"On June 25th, there were two major sightings. The first was
made at Kansas City, Missouri. There were nine objects in
loose formation. Another sighting was made by Lloyd Lowry in
Pueblo, Colorado. There were two objects close together. It
seemed as if one was chasing the other.
On the 26th, there was an incredible amount of sightings.
There were sightings from Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas,
and New Mexico. There were sightings all over the
south-west.
On the 27th, the reports started to change. The reports were
more wide spread. Some came as far north as Canada and
Michigan. The reports came from all over the world now."
(UFOs, and their impact on history by Jake Schneider and
Jake Uretsky - 1995)
"Within hours, things of every size and shape were being
sighted in the skies across the U.S"
(From Kenneth Arnold and Ray Palmer, The Coming of the
Saucers, Amherst, Wisconsin. Privately printed, 1952).
>
>Western Digital is almost certainly paying you
>commision on how much disk space you fill up,
Nope. I only have a 2.5 gig hd and about 1 gig is empty.
>because there could not be any other rational
>reason for the irrelavent, repetitous bloat
>you keep pasting in over and over and over
>and over again.
The only reason I do is the vain hope that one time you
might actually read it.
So far we have precious little evidence that you can read.
>
>
>>> There wasn't a ramp up. There was a ramp down of the
>thousands of reports from earlier that went to Amazing
>Stories. <<
>
>You are comparing apples to oranges again.
No. I'm comparing you to an intelligent human. You keep
losing.
What you are resonding to was when I responded to your
claims of a ramp-up that lead to the Arnold sighting:
>>> There wasn't any ramp-up of disc sightings. Most of the 16
>sightings weren't discs. <<
>
>I did not say ramp up of *disks*, only reports
>of ship-like objects.
You also cut the response, I posted:
"There wasn't a ramp up. There was a ramp down of the
thousands of reports from earlier that went to Amazing
Stories.
Or do you feel that a thousand or so in a month is less than
16 over several months?"
Notice that I wasn't just talking about disks, I was talking
about reports, which was in direct answer to your comment.
So, once again you are changing your claims. You claimed
that there was a ramp up, I show that there wasn't, and you
come back with:
>You are comparing apples to oranges again.
It is just you being intellectually dishonest again.
>
>
>
>>> Name one media account that listed nuke mushrooms in Kansas!
>The media accounts listed above ground tests only in a few
>places as being factual. Those were testing grounds, not
>over cities or farms.
>the Media lists UFOs as being factual almost everywhere. <<
>
>How the h*ll is that of any real difference?
What part of factual were you incapable of understanding?
It requires two things for people to report something.
They must believe it to be factual is one of them was my
initial claim and which was agreed to by the quotes which
you insist on misreading.
>You seem to be saying that the fact that it
>is PRESENTED AS REAL is the main criteria, not
>that the watcher has to beleive it.
Bullshit! I have said exactly the opposite each time and
you just snip it. If people don't believe, they don't
report is what I've said from the beginning and I'll keep
saying.
What media report listed nuclear explosions as being
factual?
None.
What media reports listed UFOs as being factual.
Thousands of reports!
If they aren't reported as happening, people don't believe
that they are happening, so if they see a puffy little
cloud, they don't suspect a nuclear bomb. The fact that
they don't hear a boom, the fact that they don't see or hear
about massive destruction, the fact that they don't see the
fierce blast of light that arrives before the boom and the
mushroom cloud, etc. all back up the fact that they don't
believe it to be factual that nuclear bombs are falling all
over America.
<snipo>
>>> If you feel that, why do you keep cutting the explanations
>and then posting the same stupid questions? <<
>
>I did not cut them
Nonsense. You continually cut the explanations and then
keep posting the same stupid questions.
<snipo>
>>> Ah, Topmind, he does know about it. Remember, he has
>Peebles also. <<
>
>Then why did he ask for a source?
He didn't. As he has explained to you several times.
Your reading comprehension problems are showing again.
>
>
>>> Nope. He's got a copy of Peebles also. That is where you
>got it from as even you admitted. <<
>
>
>lIKE i already said, I saw NO mention of pre-47 saucers
>in peebles. Ships yes, disks, no.
Which is why you were ignorant of all of the pre-47 saucers.
You didn't bother to go and check up at all.
You just took it that way because you wanted it to be that
way.
>
>
>>>
>[The witness evidence is strong enought to fry
>a million OJ's]
>[Like I said before, I agree that UFO are probably
>all mistakes] <<
>
>I explained this twice already.
Lamely and falsely.
This is simply you changing your claims.
>
>
>>> John was probably hoping that you had an original source to
>reference. I wouldn't make that mistake since I've seen
>your "research." <<
>
>And you are "probably" a mind reader.
Nope. I've emailed John for a long time and he is a great
one for doing real research into primary sources.
>
>First he asked for a source.
No he didn't.
>Then when I pointed out
>that I already gave some, he simply said it
>was not significant.
It isn't.
>Why would he ask for more
>sources if it was not signficant to him? Further,
>why would he wait until after the sources are
>uncovered before saying it was not significant?
He was hoping, as I keep hoping that someday you'll use a
primary source?
You criticised the Condon Report without reading it but
judged it purely from secondary sources.
You criticised the NAS Review Panel report without reading
it but judged it purely from secondary sources.
You accepted the Battelle report without reading it but
judged it purely from secondary sources.
You made claims about pre-47 disk shapes without checking
but made the claim based on the fact that one secondary
source didn't mention any.
You've made incorrect claims about Roswell without going to
the primary sources.
You've made incorrect claims about Gulf Breeze without
looking at any primary sources.
We keep hoping. You keep avoiding any primary sources at
all.
Checking primary sources would require you to read, think,
and make up your own mind.
>
>It is possible that he already knew, but the
>evidence is stacked against that.
Nope. He responded to you on that long before with a
comment on Peebles.
He even posted telling me what page it was on in my copy!
>
>
>>> [Palmer did not describe disks]
>Wrong!
>Go look at some of the Amazing Stories! <<
>
>Do you have any quotations of Palmer describing
>disks? (beyond random shape frequencies.)
I've read the copies of Amazing Stories. My brother-in-law
used to collect them.
>
>
>>> Nope. There is only a contradiction in your mind due to a
>lack of reading expertise. <<
>
>Perhaps I should attend the Phil Klass Interpretation School
>to improve my "skills" like you probably did.
Well, it would be better to use Phil's methods rather than
merely accepting what you want because you want it and
reading that interpretation into any document you read
because it is what you want.
>
>
>>> UFOs are frequently reported as silent. It is good to see
>you equate UFOs with hallucinations. <<
>
>Frequently, but not always.
What was your claim here, Topmind?
Now what was it about not cutting things. I posted the
evidence to show you totally incorrect, you snip the
evidence and then make a change in your claim.
>
>
>>> Alas, the IFOs and UFOs are both reported virtually the same
>way. <<
>
>Tell that to Chi-square.
>(Oops, mentioning that will trigger pasting diarrehia in twitchy)
Nope. It will simply point out that you haven't read the
report and that you are taking the interpretation of Hynek
as gospel.
But then you never go read the actual documents, you prefer
to have your opinions predigested for you by people who will
tell you what you want to hear.
>
>
>>> It is good to see
>you equate UFOs with hallucinations. <<
>
>I am only attempting to think like you to figure out
>how you think. So far my conclusion is that you dont.
That is only because of your reading comprehension problems.
<snipo>
>>> I am saying that more people believe that saucers are
>overflying the US than Mig fighters are flying over the US. <<
>
>I am not talking just about Migs.
When I don't answer each point, you ask why not. When I
answer each point, you go I'm not talking just about ...
>
>Roughly half of the US believes that UFO's might
>be "real".
But more of them claim to have seen a ghost than a UFO.
>Are you saying that less than 50% beleive
>that spy planes pass overhead?
Hell Yes!
Most Americans believe that the AF wouldn't allow Spy planes
to overfly the US.
And they are right.
Without a belief that it is factual, it isn't reported.
> Even if by some
>strange twist (or twitch) of the imagination
>only 10% beleive in spy planes, it should still
>generate a fair amount of reports.
What percentage of people believe that Migs are overflying
the US?
Please list your sources.
>
>
>>> And, initially, the people who were reporting the saucers
>didn't believe that they were ET saucers. They just
>believed that they were real and overflying the US. <<
>
>What does that have to do with anything?
It shows that people report what the media tells them is
actually happening.
People didn't believe that they were ET spacecraft, so they
didn't report ET spacecraft.
They did believe that flying saucers were overflying the US,
because the media told them that flying saucers were
overflying the US.
Of course, the media invented the term, it wasn't what
Arnold reported.
>
>
>>> Ah, did you ever go to see the CNN evidence referenced
>earlier? <<
>
>NOPE! It must have got lost in the your pastey bloated text soup.
But you never read anything you don't like nor go to any
source that might disagree with you.
<snipo>
>>> The other media icons are not reported to be real and
>factually overflying the US <<
>
>BULL CRAP!
Bullshit!
>
>NUKES ARE REAL.
But they are not reported to be factually overflying the US!
>NUCLEAR MISSLES ARE REPORTED AS BEING POINTED TOWARD THE US.
>MOST BELEIVE THAT NUCLEAR WAR COULD HAPPEN AT *ANY* TIME.
>THE CUBAN CRISIS WAS BROADCAST LIVE.
The nukes aren't reported to be factually overflying the US!
I love the way you jump on only one part of a two part
response and pretend that it answers what was said.
It doesn't.
>
>The distinctions you dig up between UFO's, nukes, and
>Jesus are very very very very insignificant (IMO).
But you just showed that you didn't bother to read what was
posted!
So your opinions are very, very, very, very unintelligent.
<snipo>
>It is a FAT contradiction.
>
No. It is just your reading disability.
>In my mind this makes you look very stubborn
>or delusional.
Coming from you, I take this as a compliment.
<snipo>
>>> Bequette wrote the first article on Arnold, which is the
>first report of that time ... <<
>
>Do you have the article text, date, and paper name?
I have posted it several times!
Go look it up in deja news.
>
>
>>> If it is the first report, it must be the first disk report
>also. <<
>
>How does that follow?
How can there be a disk report before the first report?
The first report was a disk report, therefore, it was not
only the first disk report but the first report.
>
>
>>> This issue wasn't disk reports, it was reports. <<
>
>Yes it is. You are the one who keeps bringing up
>the saucer word error issue as proof.
Nope. I wrote:
"There wasn't a ramp up. There was a ramp down of the
thousands of reports from earlier that went to Amazing
Stories.
Or do you feel that a thousand or so in a month is less than
16 over several months?"
You were the one who altered it to disk reports.
>
>
>>> Please answer the above articles in detail with facts and
>not with your usual attempts to wishy-washy talk your way
>out of your claims. <<
>
>You are fricken
You is a prety pur spuller, to.
<snipo>
top...@technologist.com
Reply to John Cason:
>> If you ever get back to discussing things that have some sort of
factual basis, then maybe I’ll comment again, but as long as you
follow your current direction, I’m finished with you. <<
You characterisation of me [prior message] is distorted and
misrepresentated to say the least.
Part of the problem here is twitchy going off on wild tangents
and excessive repetition and bloat in material presented.
Perhaps if he knew how to be precise and concise there would be less
he-said-she-said games going on here.
Further, "factual basis" is not really the issue in most
cases, unfortunately. There are studies to support both
sides of the issue. The fact that twitchy clings to one
study (CUFOS) that relies on specific objects (ad vehicles),
and adult drawings of night objects (a very poor basis
for research IMO), shows how nowhere such battles will be.
The situation went roughly like this:
Me: Night drawings are a poor research tool
Tw: The phsycologist in the study said drawing was okay
Me: One could probably find a psycologist that would
not agree with drawing usage.
Tw: One could probably find a psycologist who would say
pigs fly.
Me: But you have no survey about how many psycologists
accept drawings for research.
Tw: Either do you.
Same game over and over again.
Thus, we are left with making our own very subjective judgements
based on partial, incomplete, and possibly unrepresentative research.
I find "skeptics" just as prone to human error and stubburness
as the so called believers.
>> Recap of references in this thread <<
You seem to treat reference counts like a phallic symbol;
Like teenagers racing cars to see who is the most macho.
Most of it is OPINIONS from others. Other than things like
the timing of newspaper articles on public beleifs,
most will not get us anywhere where we have not already been.
Further, many of twitchies references were not relevent
to the discussion.
If this is only a battle of references, then you guys win.
Go find a pro-explorationist packrat if you want to
play "see who has the biggest stack".
However, there are weak spots in your pet
pscyco theories that you have not satisfactorily answered
dispite having more references. Examples:
1. Why don't media icons like angles, ghosts, jesus, spies,
spy planes, and nuclear blasts trigger formal reports
to government agencies in anywhere near the numbers that
UFO's do.
Twitchies attempts to paint these as significantly different
than saucer icons is honestly very weak in my opinion.
For example, he suggests that nuclear clouds do not trigger
official reports because people don't believe that ordinary
people see them.
However, many religious people *do* believe that ordinary people
see angles. Therefore, he finds a DIFFERENT reason to
dismiss lack of formal angle/jesus reports: too small percentage
of the population. But the population of those who believe in
visual angles is probably larger than Twitchy beleives.
(Note that fundimentalists are not the only believers
in angle sightings.)
Even if only 1% (probably way too low) of the
population believed in visual angles
(seen by ordinary people), then we should still see
hundreds of official reports from cops and pilots.
2. Further, there are cases like the 1954 James Howard case in
which the object did not resemble any common media icon.
How can 15 (apprx) people have the same hallucination at
the same time if there were no common media icon to
trigger the same hallucination?
Saucer hallucinations were allegedly triggered by
small newspaper articles without any visuals. Yet other
icons are pounded into our heads in movies, news, and
documentaries, yet fail to trigger official reports.
It is a double standard.
3. Twitchy's own reference has shown that STATED belief has
no sig. effect on IFO mistakes. Yet he insists that being
presented as *real* is a significant factor in the
media hallucination theory. It implies some bizzar Freudian
dual belief system with an "external" belief system and
"internal" belief system. I wont completely rule out the
idea, but it is about to hop aboard the hokey wagon.
These are issues I brought up very early in this discussion
which you seem to be beating around the bush with by
launching irrelavent personal attacks.
Your big reference d*ck is not answering these questions.
Or, do you only want to play where the light is bright
enough for the girls to see your reference bulge?
>> You said that all UFO sightings were probably mistakes (that’s
a paraphrase), but many of your subsequent arguments indicate a
deeper commitment to the idea of some sort of lurking
extraterrestrial mystery, even though the evidence you have at
hand is close to nonexistent, <<
The evidence you "have at hand" for outright dismissing significant
sightings as MEDIA HALLUCINATIONS is close to nonexistent.
Further, being "probably mistakes" is not a sufficient reason
to stop exploring mysteries.
There is "probably not life" on Europa (moon of Jupiter), but
the slim possibility carries a lot of exploration weight,
and thus NASA is preparing exploration missions that may cost
billions of dollars. (quotes paraphrased.)
On my webpage I have an equation that is something like:
r = sp
where
r = research rank
p = probability of finding something
s = significance of find
My statement about "probably all mistakes" means that
p is small. However, since s may be large, the final
r is within range of most modern research projects IMO.
Unfortunately, many scientists are too worried about
stigma and prestige to risk their career on such
PR-loaded topic. Thus, they would rather avoid it.
-tmind-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
twi...@worldnet.att.net
><Tell that to Chi-square.>
Ah, another reference to a report that you haven't read!
Of course, topmind, this isn't relevant to the discussion,
and I know how you hate irrelevant comments.
But, I'll happily respond to this comment. Especially since
it shows how little you know about what you comment on.
You didn't know that the Battelle report was part of Blue
Book or that it was referenced fully by Condon.
You didn't know that it was part of Project Stork.
But that is only because you haven't read it.
You took Hynek's opinons regarding this report.
Do you even know what a chi-square is, topmind?
Those chi-square tests that show that "unknowns" in UFO
sightings are apparently different in kind from the "knowns"
are not born out by the mirror graphs that inspired them!
Isn't that strange?
Makes you kind of suspicious regarding the accuracy of the
chi-squared tests, don't it?
Those chi-square tests that show that "unknowns" in UFO
sightings are apparently different are qualified by two
comments by the authors who are afraid that people will
misuse them.
Of the 12 best reports of "unknowns",the authors wrote:
"...some of the cases of the KNOWNS, before identification,
appeared fully as bizarre as any of the 12 cases of good
UNKNOWNS, and, in fact, would have been placed in the class
of good UNKNOWNS had it not been possible to establish their
identity."
"The danger lies in forgetting the subjectivity of the data
at the time that conclusions are drawn from the analysis. It
must be emphasized, again and again, that any conclusions
contained in this report are based NOT on facts, but on what
many observers thought and estimated the true facts to be."
GIGO!
"On the basis of this study it is believed that all the
unidentified aerial objects could have been explained if
more observational data had been available...
Therefore, on the basis of the evaluation, it is considered
to be highly improbable that reports of unidentified aerial
objects examined in this study represent observations of
technical developments outside the range of present-day
scientific knowledge. It is emphasized that there has been a
complete lack of any valid evidence of physical matter in
any case of a reported unidentified aerial object."
Now, what was it you were saying about the chi-squared
tests, topmind?
Or why you abandoned the earlier thread because you didn't
know what you were talking about and you kept getting
embarrassed by your ignorance.
When are you going to abandon this thread which shows the
same deplorable ignorance and start a new one in which you
can misparaphrase people to create strawmen you can attack.
Of course, so far, it is:
Strawmen 9
topmind 0
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>.
The infamous Randi experiment showed cause and effect of the
media on UFO sightings, topmind
Randi decided to show that the UFO reports were driven by
the media and told a radio shows host that he was going to
do the experiment. The radio show host agreed.
He invented a flight of triangular, orange UFOs flying in a
northerly direction. He said he wasn't certain if there was
any noise or not.
Immediately, the station switchboard was overwhelmed by the
callers who claimed to be witnesses to this event. Within a
half hour the callers told Randi the exact number of
triangles and the speed, altitude, and precise direction of
the formation, and had discovered that Randi had seen only
one pass of the "saucers" when there had been several!
To avoid this 'case' from going into the books, Randi
announced on the air that he had invented the initial flight
of objects.
Clearly a case of media influence showing how rapidly the
public reacts to reports of UFOs and chimes in with
duplicate reports.
>
>Reply to John Cason:
No. Avoidance of what John wrote by your patented snip the
meat of the article you are responding to.
>
>>> If you ever get back to discussing things that have some sort of
>factual basis, then maybe I’ll comment again, but as long as you
>follow your current direction, I’m finished with you. <<
>
>You characterisation of me [prior message] is distorted and
>misrepresentated to say the least.
>
No, it is accurate.
Such as your claiming he asked for references when he has
posted several times showing that isn't true.
>Part of the problem here is twitchy going off on wild tangents
>and excessive repetition and bloat in material presented.
But you won't read anything.
And the wild tangents are in response to your wildly
inaccurate comments.
>Perhaps if he knew how to be precise and concise there would be less
>he-said-she-said games going on here.
But you are the only one playing he-said-she-said games.
>
>Further, "factual basis" is not really the issue in most
>cases, unfortunately.
Only because you won't look at the facts.
> There are studies to support both
>sides of the issue.
I've asked you several times for the ones that support you
and you always cut the request and just go back to making
the same comments without being able to support your claims.
>The fact that twitchy clings to one
>study (CUFOS) that relies on specific objects (ad vehicles),
Twitch has referenced many different studies, research, etc.
Blue Book, the Condon Report, etc. And lots of research
work, such as:
Loftus, E.F., & Loftus, G.R. (1980). On the permanence of
stored information in the human brain. American
Psychologist, 35, 409-420.
Loftus, E.F. & Pickrell, J.E. (1995) The formation of
false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725.
Good,M (1998) FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME: A MECHANISM FOR ITS
DEVELOPMENT DISCOVERED. The Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association
Loftus, Garry, Feldman (1994) Forgetting sexual trauma: what
does it mean when 38% forget? Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology
McHugh, P (1993) HOW CAN SOMEONE GET FALSE MEMORIES? Paper
presented at Memory and Reality Conference
Loftus, Elizabeth (1996) Memory Distortion and False Memory
Creation. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry
and the Law, 24 (3) 281-295.
You haven't bothered to read any of them at all.
Oh, that's right, that research doesn't agree with you so it
is just opinions.
<snipo>
>The situation went roughly like this:
Oh goody, a perfect example of topmind framing it as a
he-said-she-said when he hasn't gone and looked at any of
the sources.
<snipo>
>Same game over and over again.
Yep. You never answer any thing at all.
I post research showing that virtually all modern
psychological research shows that leading questions or
leading photographs alters what people respond.
You just claim that you might be able to find a psychologist
who disagreed so all of the rest of the psychologists must
be wrong because, without having done so or checked up on
any of the references and based purely on your conjecture.
Then you imply that the two are equal. My research
references in peer-reviewed journals and your wild claims
without any evidence supporting you.
>
>Thus, we are left with making our own very subjective judgements
Only because you won't go and check up on anything.
I posted the complete references for the UFO Handbook.
Did you go and look it up.
Nope, you complained that you couldn't find it.
I said you could get it via interlibrary loan, so you
complained about how you didn't know how to do that, so I
tell you how to go to the reference librarian and ask.
Do you do it?
Nope.
<snipo>
>>> Recap of references in this thread <<
>
>You seem to treat reference counts like a phallic symbol;
>Like teenagers racing cars to see who is the most macho.
He was just showing that you don't reference hardly at all.
You did start it by posting the opinions of McDonald and
Hynek but when it is shown that you are using a bad source,
you object to references.
>
>Most of it is OPINIONS from others.
Ah, research articles in peer-reviewed journals are just
OPINIONs, now!
The Randi experiment is just an opinion.
The psychological research papers published in peer-reviewed
journals are just opinion.
Everything that you don't like is just an opinion, whether
it is or not.
>Other than things like
>the timing of newspaper articles on public beleifs,
More claims without backing them up.
The infamous Randi experiment showed cause and effect of the
media on UFO sightings, topmind
Randi decided to show that the UFO reports were driven by
the media and told a radio shows host that he was going to
do the experiment. The radio show host agreed.
He invented a flight of triangular, orange UFOs flying in a
northerly direction. He said he wasn't certain if there was
any noise or not.
Immediately, the station switchboard was overwhelmed by the
callers who claimed to be witnesses to this event. Within a
half hour the callers told Randi the exact number of
triangles and the speed, altitude, and precise direction of
the formation, and had discovered that Randi had seen only
one pass of the "saucers" when there had been several!
To avoid this 'case' from going into the books, Randi
announced on the air that he had invented the initial flight
of objects.
Clearly a case of media influence showing how rapidly the
public reacts to reports of UFOs and chimes in with
duplicate reports.
Then we have the airship wave.
Then we have the Amazing Stories wave.
Then we have the 1947 UFO wave.
Etc.
>most will not get us anywhere where we have not already been.
>Further, many of twitchies references were not relevent
>to the discussion.
You admitted that you didn't read them, so how can you know
whether or not they were relevant?
Isn't the James Randi experiment relevant to media
influence?
Isn't the Amazing Stories experience relevant to media
influence?
Isn't the airship wave relevant to media influence?
You don't go and look up anything. You just snip it and
claim it is irrelvant since you can't answer it.
<snipo>
>1. Why don't media icons like angles, ghosts, jesus, spies,
>spy planes, and nuclear blasts trigger formal reports
>to government agencies in anywhere near the numbers that
>UFO's do.
God, what a stupid question!
>
>Twitchies attempts to paint these as significantly different
>than saucer icons is honestly very weak in my opinion.
That is because you haven't read what I wrote.
I wrote in response, you claimed I didn't.
I wrote in response, you claimed I didn't.
I wrote in response, you just claimed that I said something
different.
I wrote in response, you invented new comments from me by
paraphrasing.
You have never answered one of the points I made with
respect to this.
You feel that you don't have to since you "KNOW" your
beliefs are correct.
The hell with all the research, information, etc.
What you "KNOW" is far more important than any possible
research.
Of course, you got what you "KNOW" from secondary sources
that told you exactly what to think.
>
>For example, he suggests that nuclear clouds do not trigger
>official reports because people don't believe that ordinary
>people see them.
>
See. I have never stated such a thing.
You are just inventing a misparaphrasing so you can attack
your strawman.
And the strawman is winning.
<snipo>
>2. Further, there are cases like the 1954 James Howard case in
>which the object did not resemble any common media icon.
>How can 15 (apprx) people have the same hallucination at
>the same time if there were no common media icon to
>trigger the same hallucination?
How about the Aurora case? Approximately the same number of
people saw that. Of course, they were all incorrect.
What about the Bloomington, Indiana case? Thirteen adults,
including a policeman saw that. Of course, they were all
incorrect.
If you like I can provide a case where forty people all saw
the same thing.
Of course, they were all wrong.
If you like, I can provide a case where thirty people all
saw the same thing.
Of course, they were all wrong.
I've posted this before.
How come you never answer anything about those?
Oh that's right, you haven't bothered to go and get the
referenced material.
<snipo>
>3. Twitchy's own reference has shown that STATED belief has
>no sig. effect on IFO mistakes.
Boy, is that dishonest misparaphrasing!
"1) The recent influx of IFO reports is generated primarily
by an emotional climate which surrounds the total UFO
subject.
2) This climate visible affects the objectivity of those
IFO percipients.
3) The profile of the IFO witnesses is the same as that of
UFO witnesses. Thus it is safe to assume that the UFO
witnesses are subject to similar errors.
4) The distorted observations of IFO appearances and
motions are NOT random in nature, but are channeled by a
seemingly universal desire to see a specific model of UFO
that appears and behaves in predetermined ways.
5) Exposure to the UFO subject is obtained primarily from
news and entertainment media which contour the public
portrayal of the total UFO phenomenon.
6) IFO witnesses appear to be unaware of their own
emotional "programming" until it is triggered by IFO
stimuli.
7) The profile of IFO and UFO witnesses demonstrates that
they are typical of all American citizens and all social
strata. Hence, the subliminal emotional programing they
exhibit on the UFO subject can safely be extrapolated to
society at large, including the readers of this book."
<snipo>
>These are issues I brought up very early in this discussion
>which you seem to be beating around the bush with by
>launching irrelavent personal attacks.
What hypocrisy! Who started the irrelevant personal
attacks?
topmind!
What you mean is that when your issues were answered, you
then started making personal attacks and don't like having
your wacko ideas shot down.
Like using the word "Twitchy".
Would you like me to post about a dozen of your personal
attacks.
>
>
>Your big reference d*ck is not answering these questions.
Ah, now there is probably topmind's most relevant,
unpersonal attack.
>
>Or, do you only want to play where the light is bright
>enough for the girls to see your reference bulge?
>
Ah, more of topmind's relevant, unpersonal attacks.
>
>
>>> You said that all UFO sightings were probably mistakes (that’s
>a paraphrase), but many of your subsequent arguments indicate a
>deeper commitment to the idea of some sort of lurking
>extraterrestrial mystery, even though the evidence you have at
>hand is close to nonexistent, <<
>
>The evidence you "have at hand" for outright dismissing significant
>sightings as MEDIA HALLUCINATIONS is close to nonexistent.
Nope. The evidence at hand is very strong.
Forty people in one case, thirty people in another case,
etc. And all wrong.
The Randi experiment clearly shows that all reports in at
least one instance were totally driven by the influence of a
media report.
But you wouldn't know since you won't go and look at the
references.
<snipo>
>On my webpage
You have loads of things that have been shown to be based
purely on your ignorance.
Your comments about Roswell on your webpage shows that you
don't do any research.
Your comments about Gulf Breeze on your webpage shows that
you don't do any research.
Your comments about Blue Book and the Robertson Panel on
your webpage shows that you don't do any research.
Your comments in these different threads shows that you
don't do any research.
You comment on a lot of reports that you not only haven't
read, but don't know anything about them at all.
<snipo>
>Unfortunately, many scientists are too worried about
>stigma and prestige to risk their career on such
>PR-loaded topic. Thus, they would rather avoid it.
>
And you tried to back that claim up by quoting Peebles
totally out of context!
Dan Clore
> top...@technologist.com wrote:
> The infamous Randi experiment showed cause and effect of the
> media on UFO sightings, topmind
>
> Randi decided to show that the UFO reports were driven by
> the media and told a radio shows host that he was going to
> do the experiment. The radio show host agreed.
>
> He invented a flight of triangular, orange UFOs flying in a
> northerly direction. He said he wasn't certain if there was
> any noise or not.
>
> Immediately, the station switchboard was overwhelmed by the
> callers who claimed to be witnesses to this event. Within a
> half hour the callers told Randi the exact number of
> triangles and the speed, altitude, and precise direction of
> the formation, and had discovered that Randi had seen only
> one pass of the "saucers" when there had been several!
>
> To avoid this 'case' from going into the books, Randi
> announced on the air that he had invented the initial flight
> of objects.
>
> Clearly a case of media influence showing how rapidly the
> public reacts to reports of UFOs and chimes in with
> duplicate reports.
This all assumes that we must take Randi's word (in _FLIM-FLAM!_) for
the event. It assumes (for example) that Randi had not set up the
"experiment" beforehand, having confederates call in to verify the
alleged sighting. Furthermore, if we assume that Randi did not arrange
this episode with confederates, we have no way to know what made the
callers say they had seen the alleged UFOs. Randi was a regular on the
Long John Nebel show, and the listeners surely knew his attitude towards
UFOs. They would therefore spot this bullshit for what it was as soon as
Randi made his bogus claim, and may just have decided it would be fun to
play along. There is no evidence that any of the callers believed that
they had seen UFOs.
In short, the account is worthless. Please to apply skepticism to the
work of "skeptics" like Randi as well as to everything else.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> top...@technologist.com wrote:
>
>> The infamous Randi experiment showed cause and effect of the
>> media on UFO sightings, topmind
>>
>> Randi decided to show that the UFO reports were driven by
>> the media and told a radio shows host that he was going to
>> do the experiment. The radio show host agreed.
>>
>> He invented a flight of triangular, orange UFOs flying in a
>> northerly direction. He said he wasn't certain if there was
>> any noise or not.
>>
>> Immediately, the station switchboard was overwhelmed by the
>> callers who claimed to be witnesses to this event. Within a
>> half hour the callers told Randi the exact number of
>> triangles and the speed, altitude, and precise direction of
>> the formation, and had discovered that Randi had seen only
>> one pass of the "saucers" when there had been several!
>>
>> To avoid this 'case' from going into the books, Randi
>> announced on the air that he had invented the initial flight
>> of objects.
>>
>> Clearly a case of media influence showing how rapidly the
>> public reacts to reports of UFOs and chimes in with
>> duplicate reports.
>
>This all assumes that we must take Randi's word (in _FLIM-FLAM!_) for
>the event.
Long John, the shows host, has also stated this was true.
<snipo>
> They would therefore spot this bullshit for what it was as soon as
>Randi made his bogus claim, and may just have decided it would be fun to
>play along. There is no evidence that any of the callers believed that
>they had seen UFOs.
Oh, IOW, the callers are all liars and by extension those
others who report UFOS?
>
>In short, the account is worthless. Please to apply skepticism to the
>work of "skeptics" like Randi as well as to everything else.
I do.
His account is backed by the host, it fits in with the great
airship wave, the Amazing Stories wave, the 1947 "flying
saucer" wave, etc.
It also fits what psychologists have been finding out by
studying memory and eyewitness testimony.
Mike Combs
> It assumes (for example) that Randi had not set up the
> "experiment" beforehand, having confederates call in to verify the
> alleged sighting.
Why do we instantly assume lying and trickery for the skeptics, but not for
the sighters? If we apply the same skepticism you urge on us whenever Randi
is involved, we could say that we will assume all UFO sighters are liars
until we have proof otherwise.
By the way, one needn't assume all UFO sighters are liars to be skeptical.
> They would therefore spot this bullshit for what it was as soon as
> Randi made his bogus claim, and may just have decided it would be fun to
> play along. There is no evidence that any of the callers believed that
> they had seen UFOs.
OK. So you're saying that a person reporting that they spotted a UFO is not
proof that they really believe they saw a UFO. Fine. So why pay any
attention to ANY UFO report?
By the way, one needn't believe that all UFO reporters don't really believe
they saw a UFO to be skeptical.
> In short, the account is worthless. Please to apply skepticism to the
> work of "skeptics" like Randi as well as to everything else.
We wish we could get you to apply skepticism to anything in the world other
than James Randi.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, where's the moonbase? Where're the Eagles? What a rip...
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >> top...@technologist.com wrote:
> >> The infamous Randi experiment showed cause and effect of the
> >> media on UFO sightings, topmind
> >>
> >> Randi decided to show that the UFO reports were driven by
> >> the media and told a radio shows host that he was going to
> >> do the experiment. The radio show host agreed.
> >>
> >> He invented a flight of triangular, orange UFOs flying in a
> >> northerly direction. He said he wasn't certain if there was
> >> any noise or not.
> >>
> >> Immediately, the station switchboard was overwhelmed by the
> >> callers who claimed to be witnesses to this event. Within a
> >> half hour the callers told Randi the exact number of
> >> triangles and the speed, altitude, and precise direction of
> >> the formation, and had discovered that Randi had seen only
> >> one pass of the "saucers" when there had been several!
> >>
> >> To avoid this 'case' from going into the books, Randi
> >> announced on the air that he had invented the initial flight
> >> of objects.
> >>
> >> Clearly a case of media influence showing how rapidly the
> >> public reacts to reports of UFOs and chimes in with
> >> duplicate reports.
> >
> >This all assumes that we must take Randi's word (in _FLIM-FLAM!_) for
> >the event.
>
> Long John, the shows host, has also stated this was true.
Fair enough, though it makes no difference to any scenarios I proposed.
> <snipo>
> > They would therefore spot this bullshit for what it was as soon as
> >Randi made his bogus claim, and may just have decided it would be fun to
> >play along. There is no evidence that any of the callers believed that
> >they had seen UFOs.
>
> Oh, IOW, the callers are all liars and by extension those
> others who report UFOS?
No, not at all. Relying just on Randi's account, we have no way to know
whether the callers were:
(1) totally sincere;
(2) Randi's confederates, who agreed beforehand to lie about the alleged
UFOs;
or
(3) regular listeners who knew who Randi was, and therefore knew that
Randi was bullshitting.
Since Randi was a regular on the show, it seems unlikely the switchboard
would immediately be swamped with calls from people who had no no idea
who he was, so I'd guess that (1) is probably out. Giving Randi the
benefit of the doubt, that leaves (3) as the most probable explanation.
How you expect to extend a case like this one to legitimate cases I have
little idea.
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore wrote:
> > It assumes (for example) that Randi had not set up the
> > "experiment" beforehand, having confederates call in to verify the
> > alleged sighting.
>
> Why do we instantly assume lying and trickery for the skeptics, but not for
> the sighters? If we apply the same skepticism you urge on us whenever Randi
> is involved, we could say that we will assume all UFO sighters are liars
> until we have proof otherwise.
>
> By the way, one needn't assume all UFO sighters are liars to be skeptical.
I do not assume lying and trickery for skeptics, merely the possibility,
just as with UFO sighters. There have been quite a number of hoax
sightings you know.
> > They would therefore spot this bullshit for what it was as soon as
> > Randi made his bogus claim, and may just have decided it would be fun to
> > play along. There is no evidence that any of the callers believed that
> > they had seen UFOs.
>
> OK. So you're saying that a person reporting that they spotted a UFO is not
> proof that they really believe they saw a UFO. Fine. So why pay any
> attention to ANY UFO report?
>
> By the way, one needn't believe that all UFO reporters don't really believe
> they saw a UFO to be skeptical.
I was pointing to a specific characteristic of this specific case that
makes it unlikely that it can be taken at face value. Offhand I don't
recall any other cases featuring the same characteristic.
> > In short, the account is worthless. Please to apply skepticism to the
> > work of "skeptics" like Randi as well as to everything else.
>
> We wish we could get you to apply skepticism to anything in the world other
> than James Randi.
Your wish is granted, milord.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >> top...@technologist.com wrote:
>
<snipo>
>> >This all assumes that we must take Randi's word (in _FLIM-FLAM!_) for
>> >the event.
>>
>> Long John, the shows host, has also stated this was true.
>
>Fair enough, though it makes no difference to any scenarios I proposed.
Scenarios without evidence are not worth much.
I particularly love the one a few people have come up with.
Randi may have invented the flight or triangular orange
objects, but we have no evidence that there wasn't a number
of flights of triangular orange objects flying over at that
time that the other people saw.
I do love scenarios without evidence.
I don't attack sightings of UFOs with fanciful scenarios.
>
>> <snipo>
>> > They would therefore spot this bullshit for what it was as soon as
>> >Randi made his bogus claim, and may just have decided it would be fun to
>> >play along. There is no evidence that any of the callers believed that
>> >they had seen UFOs.
>>
>> Oh, IOW, the callers are all liars and by extension those
>> others who report UFOS?
>
>No, not at all. Relying just on Randi's account, we have no way to know
>whether the callers were:
>(1) totally sincere;
We accept the UFO sighters as sincere until proven
otherwise.
Interesting difference, no.
And most people who report UFOs are sincere and reporting
what they think that they have seen.
>(2) Randi's confederates, who agreed beforehand to lie about the alleged
>UFOs;
Interesting, a claim of a double-hoax!
But it isn't required, since it fits in with everything else
we know about eyewitnesses.
>or
>(3) regular listeners who knew who Randi was, and therefore knew that
>Randi was bullshitting.
But you have no evidence for any of the scenarios at all.
Interesting how believers can claim all sorts of things
without evidence.
>
>Since Randi was a regular on the show, it seems unlikely the switchboard
>would immediately be swamped with calls from people who had no no idea
>who he was,
Assertion without evidence.
How regular a guest was he?
Please list the exact dates of this experiment and all of
the dates he was on the show prior to this.
Thank you.
If you can't do this, you have no evidence for your claims.
<snipo>
>How you expect to extend a case like this one to legitimate cases I have
>little idea.
>
Because it fits the rest of the evidence.
The great airship wave.
The amazing stories wave.
The "flying saucer" wave of 1947.
And the evidence of the researchers into eyewitness
testimony.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>Mike Combs wrote:
>> Dan Clore wrote:
>
>> > It assumes (for example) that Randi had not set up the
>> > "experiment" beforehand, having confederates call in to verify the
>> > alleged sighting.
>>
>> Why do we instantly assume lying and trickery for the skeptics, but not for
>> the sighters? If we apply the same skepticism you urge on us whenever Randi
>> is involved, we could say that we will assume all UFO sighters are liars
>> until we have proof otherwise.
>>
>> By the way, one needn't assume all UFO sighters are liars to be skeptical.
>
>I do not assume lying and trickery for skeptics, merely the possibility,
Nonsense!
You claimed it was the most probable event! That the
callers were just bullshitting.
That means that you assume lying and trickery.
But you do it based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
>just as with UFO sighters. There have been quite a number of hoax
>sightings you know.
They aren't called a hoax until there is evidence for a
hoax.
You don't have any evidence, you just assume that it is one,
by either Randi and his cohorts or other listeners.
Based on absolutely no evidence.
>
>> > They would therefore spot this bullshit for what it was as soon as
>> > Randi made his bogus claim, and may just have decided it would be fun to
>> > play along. There is no evidence that any of the callers believed that
>> > they had seen UFOs.
>>
>> OK. So you're saying that a person reporting that they spotted a UFO is not
>> proof that they really believe they saw a UFO. Fine. So why pay any
>> attention to ANY UFO report?
>>
>> By the way, one needn't believe that all UFO reporters don't really believe
>> they saw a UFO to be skeptical.
>
>I was pointing to a specific characteristic of this specific case that
>makes it unlikely that it can be taken at face value. Offhand I don't
>recall any other cases featuring the same characteristic.
How regular a guest was he?
Please list the exact dates of this experiment and all of
the dates he was on the show prior to this.
Thank you.
If you can't do this, you are just inventing evidence.
>
>> > In short, the account is worthless. Please to apply skepticism to the
>> > work of "skeptics" like Randi as well as to everything else.
>>
>> We wish we could get you to apply skepticism to anything in the world other
>> than James Randi.
>
>Your wish is granted, milord.
>
Assertion without evidence.
SantyClz
<hack/>
>
> I particularly love the one a few people have come up with.
> Randi may have invented the flight or triangular orange
> objects, but we have no evidence that there wasn't a number
> of flights of triangular orange objects flying over at that
> time that the other people saw.
>
You miss the point. Randi didn't consciously see the flights
of triangular orange objects. He detected them psychically.
Thereby winning his own challenge.
Joe "and we'll make sure he pays" Shair
--
Remove invisible words to reply.
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >Mike Combs wrote:
> >> Dan Clore wrote:
> >> > It assumes (for example) that Randi had not set up the
> >> > "experiment" beforehand, having confederates call in to verify the
> >> > alleged sighting.
> >>
> >> Why do we instantly assume lying and trickery for the skeptics, but not for
> >> the sighters? If we apply the same skepticism you urge on us whenever Randi
> >> is involved, we could say that we will assume all UFO sighters are liars
> >> until we have proof otherwise.
> >>
> >> By the way, one needn't assume all UFO sighters are liars to be skeptical.
> >
> >I do not assume lying and trickery for skeptics, merely the possibility,
>
> Nonsense!
>
> You claimed it was the most probable event! That the
> callers were just bullshitting.
>
> That means that you assume lying and trickery.
I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
> But you do it based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Based on no evidence *that you accept*, you mean.
> >> > They would therefore spot this bullshit for what it was as soon as
> >> > Randi made his bogus claim, and may just have decided it would be fun to
> >> > play along. There is no evidence that any of the callers believed that
> >> > they had seen UFOs.
> >>
> >> OK. So you're saying that a person reporting that they spotted a UFO is not
> >> proof that they really believe they saw a UFO. Fine. So why pay any
> >> attention to ANY UFO report?
> >>
> >> By the way, one needn't believe that all UFO reporters don't really believe
> >> they saw a UFO to be skeptical.
> >
> >I was pointing to a specific characteristic of this specific case that
> >makes it unlikely that it can be taken at face value. Offhand I don't
> >recall any other cases featuring the same characteristic.
>
> How regular a guest was he?
>
> Please list the exact dates of this experiment and all of
> the dates he was on the show prior to this.
>
> Thank you.
>
> If you can't do this, you are just inventing evidence.
Inventing what evidence? I've seen Nebel say that Randi was a regular
guest on the show. I don't (of course) have all of the dates etc as you
demand. Nonetheless, if you are accept the conclusion that you draw from
this case, then we have to assume that Randi was unknown to the
listeners, leaving you in the same boat. Not very satisfying either way.
Furthermore, based on the account Randi gives in _FLIM-FLAM!_, a careful
reading seems to reveal that his listeners were in fact confederates:
"As it was, we mercifully terminated the hoax to show listeners just
how easy it was to create from nothing a full-blown flim-flam that
would be supported and built upon by willing conspirators."
Note two things here: "just how easy it was", not "just how easy it
would have been", and "willing conspirators". Those who believed that
they had witnessed the alleged UFOs would not have been "willing
conspirators", they would have been unwilling dupes. Yet Randi asserts
that this was the case. If he had said "just how easy it would have
been" he could be taken as extrapolating from this case to a
hypothetical case in which "willing conspirators" confirmed a hoax
sighting, but he did not.
Of course, this assumes that Randi meant what he wrote, and not
something else. Randi is a sloppy writer so this assumption may not be
warranted.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> >Mike Combs wrote:
>> >> Dan Clore wrote:
>
>> >> > It assumes (for example) that Randi had not set up the
>> >> > "experiment" beforehand, having confederates call in to verify the
>> >> > alleged sighting.
>> >>
>> >> Why do we instantly assume lying and trickery for the skeptics, but not for
>> >> the sighters? If we apply the same skepticism you urge on us whenever Randi
>> >> is involved, we could say that we will assume all UFO sighters are liars
>> >> until we have proof otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> By the way, one needn't assume all UFO sighters are liars to be skeptical.
>> >
>> >I do not assume lying and trickery for skeptics, merely the possibility,
>>
>> Nonsense!
>>
>> You claimed it was the most probable event! That the
>> callers were just bullshitting.
>>
>> That means that you assume lying and trickery.
>
>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
Sorry, the evidence for that claim is no stronger than for a
claim that what people were mistakenly reporting was really
Loki and his two giant friends in the Nglfar, in the form of
an orange triangle, fighting Satan and Judas for the rights
to the peanut and beer consession at Giant Stadium.
No evidence exists for either conclusion.
>> But you do it based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
>
>Based on no evidence *that you accept*, you mean.
Nope. No evidence at all.
>
>> >> > They would therefore spot this bullshit for what it was as soon as
>> >> > Randi made his bogus claim, and may just have decided it would be fun to
>> >> > play along. There is no evidence that any of the callers believed that
>> >> > they had seen UFOs.
>> >>
>> >> OK. So you're saying that a person reporting that they spotted a UFO is not
>> >> proof that they really believe they saw a UFO. Fine. So why pay any
>> >> attention to ANY UFO report?
>> >>
>> >> By the way, one needn't believe that all UFO reporters don't really believe
>> >> they saw a UFO to be skeptical.
>> >
>> >I was pointing to a specific characteristic of this specific case that
>> >makes it unlikely that it can be taken at face value. Offhand I don't
>> >recall any other cases featuring the same characteristic.
>>
>> How regular a guest was he?
>>
>> Please list the exact dates of this experiment and all of
>> the dates he was on the show prior to this.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> If you can't do this, you are just inventing evidence.
>
>Inventing what evidence? I've seen Nebel say that Randi was a regular
>guest on the show.
How could you see him say something. The normal orifice is
the ear for sound.
> I don't (of course) have all of the dates etc as you
>demand.
Translation: You don't have the evidence to support your
claim.
> Nonetheless, if you are accept the conclusion that you draw from
>this case, then we have to assume that Randi was unknown to the
>listeners<snipo>
Nonsense!
Randi was seen with Carlos in Australia during that episode
where Carlos was performing as a channeler. Randi was even
backstage giving Carlos the answers.
When Randi and Carlos came clean that they were showing how
gullible the media and people were, the people inisisted
that it wasn't true and that Carlos was a real channeler.
When people are told that they are a victim of a hoax to
show that they are gullible, they deny it.
So your conclusion is based purely on your beliefs and not
on any evidence, while I have some evidence to back up mine.
>
>Furthermore, based on the account Randi gives in _FLIM-FLAM!_, a careful
>reading seems to reveal that his listeners were in fact confederates:
>
>"As it was, we mercifully terminated the hoax to show listeners just
>how easy it was to create from nothing a full-blown flim-flam that
>would be supported and built upon by willing conspirators."
>
>Note two things here: "just how easy it was", not "just how easy it
>would have been",
How easy it was because he did it. Would have been would
mean that he hadn't done it.
>and "willing conspirators". Those who believed that
>they had witnessed the alleged UFOs would not have been "willing
>conspirators", they would have been unwilling dupes.
Boy is that dishonest quoting!
Look up earlier and don't quote out of context!
"...most people love to get in on a good thing."
This clearly shows that he didn't plant conspirators but
counted on the public. It is also an assumption on his part
that the people just wanted to gain a few minutes of
publicity for themselves and pretend that they saw it too.
The psychological research shows that they may truly believe
what they were claiming.
"It is not known how to distinguish, with complete accuracy,
memories based on true events from those derived from other
sources... Memories also can be significantly influenced by
a trusted person (Long John) ... It has also been shown that
repeated questioning may lead individuals to report memories
of events that never occurred."
( American Psychiatric Association, Statement on Memories of
Sexual Abuse News Release, Dec. 12, 1993. American
Psychiatric Association, Washington, D.C.)
"... We must not be surprised that the witness may under
certain
circumstances not merely make a certain statement
incompatible with facts, but may even insist in his
erroneous belief in the face of overwhelming evidence
against it -- and all this in perfectly good faith."
-- from "Falsification of Evidence by Suggestion"
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Supplement to Vol 74, p.215
"... the misinformation effect in
eyewitness testimony. Based on the premise that memory for
an event becomes weakened with time, increased time
intervals should result in larger acceptance of
misinformation. Results of the experiment, obtained by
analysis of accuracy and confidence levels, were consistent
with this finding. ...
The likelihood of false information about an event being
adopted as truth is affected by the interaction of several
factors, including age, cognitive, affective, environmental
and social variables ( O'Sullivan et al., 1995)."
(The Effects of Time Delay and Credibility on Eyewitness
Testimony by Jason Seiler, Jason Zawada, Debra Heard, Karrie
Smith, Marcy Broysdal)
"Literally thousands of studies have documented how our
memories can be disrupted by things that we experienced
earlier (proactive interference) or things that
we experienced later (retroactive interference)....The new,
post-event information often becomes incorporated into the
recollection, supplementing or altering it, sometimes in
dramatic ways. ...
misleading post-event information can alter a person's
recollection in a powerful ways, even leading to the
creation of false memories of objects that never in fact
existed."
(Loftus, E.F. & Pickrell, J.E. (1995) The formation of
false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725.)
Loftus, Elizabeth, and D. Fishman, "Expert Psychological
Testimony on Eyewitness Identification," Law and Psychology
Review, 4 (1978):87-103
Loftus, Elizabeth, and W. Wagenaar, "Ten Cases of Eyewitness
Identification: Logical and Procedural Problems," Journal of
Criminal Justice, 18 (1990):291-319
Cutler, Brian, et al., "The Reliability of Eyewitness
Identification: The Role of System and Estimator Variables,"
Law and Human Behavior, 11, 3 (1987): 233-258
The Effects of Time Delay and Credibility on Eyewitness
Testimony by Jason Seiler, Jason Zawada, Debra Heard, Karrie
Smith, Marcy Broysdal
Loftus, E.F., & Loftus, G.R. (1980). On the permanence of
stored information in the human brain. American
Psychologist, 35, 409-420.
Loftus, Elizabeth (1996) Memory Distortion and False Memory
Creation. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry
and the Law, 24 (3) 281-295.
Or:
FRONTLINE: What Jennifer Saw at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/
Those all would back up the claim that the people reported
what they believed, not that they were will conspirators.
>Yet Randi asserts
>that this was the case. If he had said "just how easy it would have
>been" he could be taken as extrapolating from this case to a
>hypothetical case in which "willing conspirators" confirmed a hoax
>sighting, but he did not.
>
Boy are you pushing it. He said just how easy it was
because he did it then. And the willing conspirators is
referring to people wanting to get into the act, which is
clearly an assumption, if you look at the entire section
instead of quoting out of context.
>Of course, this assumes that Randi meant what he wrote, and not
>something else. Randi is a sloppy writer so this assumption may not be
>warranted.
>
Sorry, but you are quoting totally out of context in an
effort to push your claims.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
><hack/>
>>
>> I particularly love the one a few people have come up with.
>> Randi may have invented the flight or triangular orange
>> objects, but we have no evidence that there wasn't a number
>> of flights of triangular orange objects flying over at that
>> time that the other people saw.
>>
><hack/>
>You miss the point. Randi didn't consciously see the flights
>of triangular orange objects. He detected them psychically.
Many people have ernestly made this claim. They claim that
Randi is so powerful a psychic that he disrupts all other
psychics.
>
>Thereby winning his own challenge.
>
>Joe "and we'll make sure he pays" Shair
>--
>
>
>Remove invisible words to reply.
It may be that the race is not always to the swift
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >> >Mike Combs wrote:
> >> >> Dan Clore wrote:
> >> >> > It assumes (for example) that Randi had not set up the
> >> >> > "experiment" beforehand, having confederates call in to verify the
> >> >> > alleged sighting.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do we instantly assume lying and trickery for the skeptics, but not for
> >> >> the sighters? If we apply the same skepticism you urge on us whenever Randi
> >> >> is involved, we could say that we will assume all UFO sighters are liars
> >> >> until we have proof otherwise.
> >> >>
> >> >> By the way, one needn't assume all UFO sighters are liars to be skeptical.
> >> >
> >> >I do not assume lying and trickery for skeptics, merely the possibility,
> >>
> >> Nonsense!
> >>
> >> You claimed it was the most probable event! That the
> >> callers were just bullshitting.
> >>
> >> That means that you assume lying and trickery.
> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
> Sorry, the evidence for that claim is no stronger than for a
> claim that what people were mistakenly reporting was really
> Loki and his two giant friends in the Nglfar, in the form of
> an orange triangle, fighting Satan and Judas for the rights
> to the peanut and beer consession at Giant Stadium.
>
> No evidence exists for either conclusion.
Evidence exists for my conclusion -- you merely refuse to accept it.
> >> But you do it based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
> >
> >Based on no evidence *that you accept*, you mean.
>
> Nope. No evidence at all.
I already presented evidence. You deny it, without providing any reason
to disbelieve it or doubt it. You lose.
> >> >> > They would therefore spot this bullshit for what it was as soon as
> >> >> > Randi made his bogus claim, and may just have decided it would be fun to
> >> >> > play along. There is no evidence that any of the callers believed that
> >> >> > they had seen UFOs.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK. So you're saying that a person reporting that they spotted a UFO is not
> >> >> proof that they really believe they saw a UFO. Fine. So why pay any
> >> >> attention to ANY UFO report?
> >> >>
> >> >> By the way, one needn't believe that all UFO reporters don't really believe
> >> >> they saw a UFO to be skeptical.
> >> >
> >> >I was pointing to a specific characteristic of this specific case that
> >> >makes it unlikely that it can be taken at face value. Offhand I don't
> >> >recall any other cases featuring the same characteristic.
> >>
> >> How regular a guest was he?
> >>
> >> Please list the exact dates of this experiment and all of
> >> the dates he was on the show prior to this.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> If you can't do this, you are just inventing evidence.
> >
> >Inventing what evidence? I've seen Nebel say that Randi was a regular
> >guest on the show.
>
> How could you see him say something. The normal orifice is
> the ear for sound.
It was written statement, dimbulb. Now you're claiming that you don't
understand standard English. I find that an extraordinary claim. Please
provide extraordinary evidence.
> > Nonetheless, if you are accept the conclusion that you draw from
> >this case, then we have to assume that Randi was unknown to the
> >listeners<snipo>
>
> Nonsense!
>
> Randi was seen with Carlos in Australia during that episode
> where Carlos was performing as a channeler. Randi was even
> backstage giving Carlos the answers.
>
> When Randi and Carlos came clean that they were showing how
> gullible the media and people were, the people inisisted
> that it wasn't true and that Carlos was a real channeler.
>
> When people are told that they are a victim of a hoax to
> show that they are gullible, they deny it.
(E.g. skeptics getting caught believing some of Randi's whoppers. See
earlier posts on the Sirius Mystery.)
> So your conclusion is based purely on your beliefs and not
> on any evidence, while I have some evidence to back up mine.
Who was Carlos? "that episode" of what? You haven't provided any
evidence for claim, if I accept your own denials that I have provided
evidence for my conclusion.
> >Furthermore, based on the account Randi gives in _FLIM-FLAM!_, a careful
> >reading seems to reveal that his listeners were in fact confederates:
> >
> >"As it was, we mercifully terminated the hoax to show listeners just
> >how easy it was to create from nothing a full-blown flim-flam that
> >would be supported and built upon by willing conspirators."
> >
> >Note two things here: "just how easy it was", not "just how easy it
> >would have been",
>
> How easy it was because he did it. Would have been would
> mean that he hadn't done it.
In which case the listeners who called in were, according to Randi,
"willing conspirators". Which is impossible unless they had conspired
with Randi to do so.
> >and "willing conspirators". Those who believed that
> >they had witnessed the alleged UFOs would not have been "willing
> >conspirators", they would have been unwilling dupes.
>
> Boy is that dishonest quoting!
Your performance above is dishonest quoting, Mr. Snip-meister.
> Look up earlier and don't quote out of context!
>
> "...most people love to get in on a good thing."
>
> This clearly shows that he didn't plant conspirators but
> counted on the public.
Yes, Randi contradicts himself. I agree with you there. BTW, how can
Randi generalize from (some of) the listeners to one late-night radio
show to "most people"? Note that he says that he "proved" this.
> It is also an assumption on his part
> that the people just wanted to gain a few minutes of
> publicity for themselves and pretend that they saw it too.
Oh, so now they didn't believe they saw it too, they were lying. Cf.
your earlier claims that they *did* believe they saw it.
> The psychological research shows that they may truly believe
> what they were claiming.
[snip of citations]
This part of your post I have no quarrel with. If you stuck to this sort
of thing, I wouldn't have any argument with you at all.
> Those all would back up the claim that the people reported
> what they believed, not that they were will conspirators.
Then why did Randi assert that they were "willing conspirators"? Was he
lying? (I think he was just being sloppy, as I said before.)
> >Yet Randi asserts
> >that this was the case. If he had said "just how easy it would have
> >been" he could be taken as extrapolating from this case to a
> >hypothetical case in which "willing conspirators" confirmed a hoax
> >sighting, but he did not.
> >
> Boy are you pushing it. He said just how easy it was
> because he did it then. And the willing conspirators is
> referring to people wanting to get into the act, which is
> clearly an assumption, if you look at the entire section
> instead of quoting out of context.
He makes "an assumption" that they had conspired with him?
> >Of course, this assumes that Randi meant what he wrote, and not
> >something else. Randi is a sloppy writer so this assumption may not be
> >warranted.
> >
> Sorry, but you are quoting totally out of context in an
> effort to push your claims.
Not at all, just taking Randi at his word.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
twi...@worldnet.att.net
I love the way you attempt to counter the fact that you
dishonestly quoted out of context by claiming dishonesty on
my part.
Unless, of course, you are attempting to show that you
suffer from terminal ignorance so couldn't have been
dishonest when you quoted out of context.
What part of paraphrase are you too stupid to understand?
This is a paraphrase, not a quote:
"You claimed it was the most probable event!"
Since when do you show a snip in a paraphrase?
So your wacko claim of my snipping it dishonestly is as
wacko and dishonest as everything else you've written.
>
>> Sorry, the evidence for that claim is no stronger than for a
>> claim that what people were mistakenly reporting was really
>> Loki and his two giant friends in the Nglfar, in the form of
>> an orange triangle, fighting Satan and Judas for the rights
>> to the peanut and beer consession at Giant Stadium.
>>
>> No evidence exists for either conclusion.
>
>Evidence exists for my conclusion -- you merely refuse to accept it.
Funny, you have yet to show any evidence except an inability
to quote from Flim Flam in context and to dishonestly claim
that people should show snips when paraphrasing.
>
>> >> But you do it based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
>> >
>> >Based on no evidence *that you accept*, you mean.
>>
>> Nope. No evidence at all.
>
>I already presented evidence.
Nope. You wave your arms, quote dishonestly out of context,
make absurd claims about how paraphrasing without snips is
dishonest, etc.
You didn't present evidence.
>You deny it, without providing any reason
>to disbelieve it or doubt it. You lose.
You dishonestly quoted out of context in a vain attempt to
justify your conclusions which have been presented without
evidence.
You lose.
<snipo.
>>
>> When people are told that they are a victim of a hoax to
>> show that they are gullible, they deny it.
>
>(E.g. skeptics getting caught believing some of Randi's whoppers. See
>earlier posts on the Sirius Mystery.)
Ah, the old I'm caught being dishonest so I'll try changing
the subject ploy.
<snipo>
>> >Furthermore, based on the account Randi gives in _FLIM-FLAM!_, a careful
>> >reading seems to reveal that his listeners were in fact confederates:
>> >
>> >"As it was, we mercifully terminated the hoax to show listeners just
>> >how easy it was to create from nothing a full-blown flim-flam that
>> >would be supported and built upon by willing conspirators."
>> >
>> >Note two things here: "just how easy it was", not "just how easy it
>> >would have been",
>>
>> How easy it was because he did it. Would have been would
>> mean that he hadn't done it.
>
>In which case the listeners who called in were, according to Randi,
>"willing conspirators". Which is impossible unless they had conspired
>with Randi to do so.
Dishonest bullshit based purely on your quoting out of
context.
"...most people love to get in on a good thing."
>
>> >and "willing conspirators". Those who believed that
>> >they had witnessed the alleged UFOs would not have been "willing
>> >conspirators", they would have been unwilling dupes.
>>
>> Boy is that dishonest quoting!
>
>Your performance above is dishonest quoting, Mr. Snip-meister.
What part of the word "paraphrase" are you too stupid to
understand?
I didn't quote you above, I paraphrased.
But since you have been shown to be dishonest, you attempt
to lie to get even in the vain hope that someone here is
sufficently ignorant of the English Language to understand
that your claim, like your claim of presenting evidence, is
pure bullshit.
>
>> Look up earlier and don't quote out of context!
>>
>> "...most people love to get in on a good thing."
>>
>> This clearly shows that he didn't plant conspirators but
>> counted on the public.
>
>Yes, Randi contradicts himself.
Nope.
Well, if you are a wacko, you might deliberately
misinterpret it that way.
His writing was clear and to the point as is shown in the
book.
You just dishonestly quoted out of context the portion and
didn't quote the rest which shows you were lying.
<snipo> <= this is a snip and is used when you cut the other
person's comments that you are quoting. You don't use it
when you are paraphrasing.
>> It is also an assumption on his part
>> that the people just wanted to gain a few minutes of
>> publicity for themselves and pretend that they saw it too.
>
>Oh, so now they didn't believe they saw it too, they were lying.
> Cf.
>your earlier claims that they *did* believe they saw it.
I stated that this was his assumption, not that this was
reality.
I also posted loads of citations and a few quotations as
evidence to back up my position.
>
>> The psychological research shows that they may truly believe
>> what they were claiming.
>[snip of citations]
>
>This part of your post I have no quarrel with. If you stuck to this sort
>of thing, I wouldn't have any argument with you at all.
Nonsense!
You deliberately quoted out of context. You lied about your
evidence. You lied about my quoting you.
>
>> Those all would back up the claim that the people reported
>> what they believed, not that they were willing conspirators.
>
>Then why did Randi assert that they were "willing conspirators"?
What part of the word "assumption" are you too stupid to
understand?
>Was he
>lying?
No. We leave that to you.
<snipo>
>> >Yet Randi asserts
>> >that this was the case. If he had said "just how easy it would have
>> >been" he could be taken as extrapolating from this case to a
>> >hypothetical case in which "willing conspirators" confirmed a hoax
>> >sighting, but he did not.
>> >
>> Boy are you pushing it. He said just how easy it was
>> because he did it then. And the willing conspirators is
>> referring to people wanting to get into the act, which is
>> clearly an assumption, if you look at the entire section
>> instead of quoting out of context.
>
>He makes "an assumption" that they had conspired with him?
That is what he indicates in his book. He believes that
they want to get in on a good thing so they phone in on what
they haven't seen to agree with him.
>
>> >Of course, this assumes that Randi meant what he wrote, and not
>> >something else. Randi is a sloppy writer so this assumption may not be
>> >warranted.
>> >
>> Sorry, but you are quoting totally out of context in an
>> effort to push your claims.
>
>Not at all, just taking Randi at his word.
Not at all. You're just taking Randi's words totally out of
context.
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >> >> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >> >> >Mike Combs wrote:
> >> >> >> Dan Clore wrote:
> >> >> You claimed it was the most probable event! That the
> >> >> callers were just bullshitting.
> >> >>
> >> >> That means that you assume lying and trickery.
> >
> >> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
> >> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
> >> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
> >> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
> >> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
> >[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
Note: Twitch had snipped the above. It appeared in his post as follows:
[begin quote]
>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
[end quote]
(See http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487594146 for
archive of Twitch's post.)
Twitch explicitly acknowledges his snippage, which by some odd
coincidence leaves out essential information. And yet here is Twitch's
comments on this matter:
> I love the way you attempt to counter the fact that you
> dishonestly quoted out of context by claiming dishonesty on
> my part.
>
> Unless, of course, you are attempting to show that you
> suffer from terminal ignorance so couldn't have been
> dishonest when you quoted out of context.
>
> What part of paraphrase are you too stupid to understand?
>
> This is a paraphrase, not a quote:
> "You claimed it was the most probable event!"
Whether this is a paraphrase or a quote is irrelevant, since it is not
under discussion. Perhaps Twitch would like the reader to believe that I
claimed that he "snipped" this rather than paraphrased it. If that were
so, then I would have put the phrase "[dishonestly snipped portion
restored]" directly underneath the paraphrase, rather than directly
underneath the passage that Twitch had dishonestly snipped in order to
deceive readers and which I restored to reveal this deliberate
out-of-context quotation.
> Since when do you show a snip in a paraphrase?
>
> So your wacko claim of my snipping it dishonestly is as
> wacko and dishonest as everything else you've written.
This claim is as wacko and dishonest as anything published by Twitch's
usual true believer adversaries.
From the rest of his post Twitch seems to have become utterly obsessed
with this wacko and dishonest claim. For example:
> Funny, you have yet to show any evidence except an inability
> to quote from Flim Flam in context and to dishonestly claim
> that people should show snips when paraphrasing.
And again:
> Nope. You wave your arms, quote dishonestly out of context,
> make absurd claims about how paraphrasing without snips is
> dishonest, etc.
And again:
> What part of the word "paraphrase" are you too stupid to understand?
>
> I didn't quote you above, I paraphrased.
And yet Twitch presented the quotation as a quotation (the line began
with ">"), not as a paraphrase, and included notice of his snippage
("<snipo>").
Here Twitch explains that what this means:
> <snipo> <= this is a snip and is used when you cut the other
> person's comments that you are quoting. You don't use it
> when you are paraphrasing.
And here he is again, lying that I lied:
> You deliberately quoted out of context. You lied about your
> evidence. You lied about my quoting you.
I used to have a fairly high opinion of Twitch. And yet here we see him
telling ridiculous, pathetic lies in order to smear me. From his lame
non-arguments and utter failure to support his own claims, I can only
assume that he has no interest whatsoever in discussing the supposed
subject under discussion. I have to say I'm disappointed. Twitch has
presented a lot of interesting information in the newsgroups, and
discovering that he's actually as dishonest as his nuttiest opponents
comes as rather a surprise.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
<snip of attributions>
>
Notice that Dan has snipped a considerable portion of the
articles and hasn't shown that he did so!
What he dishonestly snipped without showing it was:
">
>> >> >> > It assumes (for example) that Randi had not set up the
>> >> >> > "experiment" beforehand, having confederates call in to verify the
>> >> >> > alleged sighting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why do we instantly assume lying and trickery for the skeptics, but not for
>> >> >> the sighters? If we apply the same skepticism you urge on us whenever Randi
>> >> >> is involved, we could say that we will assume all UFO sighters are liars
>> >> >> until we have proof otherwise.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By the way, one needn't assume all UFO sighters are liars to be skeptical.
>> >> >
>> >> >I do not assume lying and trickery for skeptics, merely the possibility,
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense!"
End of section showing that Dan is a real snip-meister and a
dishonest one!
Emperor Dan is wearing no clothes.
>> >> >> You claimed it was the most probable event! That the
>> >> >> callers were just bullshitting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That means that you assume lying and trickery.
>> >
>> >> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
>> >> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
>> >> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
>> >> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
>> >> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
>> >[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
>
>Note: Twitch had snipped the above. It appeared in his post as follows:
>
>[begin quote]
>
>>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
Bullshit! That isn't the article you were responding to
when you made your charge. So you didn't have to restore it
here at all.
What I wrote and you responded to with your above lie was:
"You claimed it was the most probable event!"
That is what was in the article you responded to and lied
about.
Nothing snipped in that article at all.
<snipo>
>Twitch explicitly acknowledges his snippage,
In the article you responded to, I didn't snip it asshole.
You are just vainly attempting to turn people away from your
deliberately and totally dishonestly quoting out of context.
You are known for this sort of thing in sci.skeptic.
And, you even lied about which article your responded to!
(Begin article from deja news)
Subject: Re: Media influence on UFO sightings
Date: 1999/06/08
Author: twitchb <twi...@worldnet.att.net>
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Mike Combs wrote:
>> Dan Clore wrote:
>
>> > It assumes (for example) that Randi had not set up the
>> > "experiment" beforehand, having confederates call in to verify the
>> > alleged sighting.
>>
>> Why do we instantly assume lying and trickery for the skeptics, but not for
>> the sighters? If we apply the same skepticism you urge on us whenever Randi
>> is involved, we could say that we will assume all UFO sighters are liars
>> until we have proof otherwise.
>>
>> By the way, one needn't assume all UFO sighters are liars to be skeptical.
>
>I do not assume lying and trickery for skeptics, merely the possibility,
Nonsense!
You claimed it was the most probable event! That the
callers were just bullshitting.
That means that you assume lying and trickery.
But you do it based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
(snip of rest of article)
That can be found at:
http://x42.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487133260&CONTEXT=929118084.1822949395&hitnum=2
<snipo>
>> I love the way you attempt to counter the fact that you
>> dishonestly quoted out of context by claiming dishonesty on
>> my part.
>>
>> Unless, of course, you are attempting to show that you
>> suffer from terminal ignorance so couldn't have been
>> dishonest when you quoted out of context.
>>
>> What part of paraphrase are you too stupid to understand?
>>
>> This is a paraphrase, not a quote:
>> "You claimed it was the most probable event!"
>
>Whether this is a paraphrase or a quote is irrelevant,
Boy, what a big lie.
You accused me of:
>Your performance above is dishonest quoting, Mr. Snip-meister.
So you clearly didn't think it was irrelevant when you were
lying about it!
What part of "quoting" are you too stupid to understand, Mr.
Lie-meister?
If I paraphrased it, I didn't quote it. If I didn't quote
it, I couldn't snip out the essential part.
You kept claiming that I deliberately misquoted you and
dishonestly snipped your words in the article you were
responding to.
How can I snip your words when it is a paraphrase?
> since it is not
>under discussion.
Bullshit! More of Dan's lies.
>Your performance above is dishonest quoting, Mr. Snip-meister.
What part of "quoting" are you too stupid to understand, Mr.
Lie-meister?
>Perhaps Twitch would like the reader to believe that I
>claimed that he "snipped" this rather than paraphrased it. If that were
>so, then I would have put the phrase "[dishonestly snipped portion
>restored]" directly underneath the paraphrase
>Your performance above is dishonest quoting, Mr. Snip-meister.
What part of "quoting" are you too stupid to understand, Mr.
Lie-meister?
This is just a lying attempt to turn the discussion away
from your dishonestly quoting out of context.
<snipo of more lies from Dishonest Dan>
(My ISP rejected this article saying that line 6 was too
long. So to post it, I copied the title and the newsgroups)
Dan Clore
My agreement with James Randi seems to have Twitch very upset. He's
fallen into telling bizarre lies, which any reader who looks at earlier
posts in the same thread will discover are lies.
> Dan "Dishonest Dan" Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> <snip of attributions>
<snip of wacko claim I somehow lied by snipping irrelevant material>
> >> >> >> You claimed it was the most probable event! That the
> >> >> >> callers were just bullshitting.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That means that you assume lying and trickery.
> >> >
> >> >> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
> >> >> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
> >> >> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
> >> >> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
> >> >> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
> >> >[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
> >
> >Note: Twitch had snipped the above. It appeared in his post as follows:
> >
> >[begin quote]
> >
> >>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
>
> Bullshit! That isn't the article you were responding to
> when you made your charge. So you didn't have to restore it
> here at all.
As a matter of fact, it *was* the article I was responding to. My
article http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487894998
appeared in response to Twitch's article
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487594146
as anyone who checks them will see. Twitch's says:
[begin quote]
>> Nonsense!
>>
>> You claimed it was the most probable event! That the
>> callers were just bullshitting.
>>
>> That means that you assume lying and trickery.
>
>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
Sorry, the evidence for that claim is no stronger than for a
claim that what people were mistakenly reporting was really
Loki and his two giant friends in the Nglfar, in the form of
an orange triangle, fighting Satan and Judas for the rights
to the peanut and beer consession at Giant Stadium.
No evidence exists for either conclusion.
[end quote]
And I responded:
[begin quote]
> >> Nonsense!
> >>
> >> You claimed it was the most probable event! That the
> >> callers were just bullshitting.
> >>
> >> That means that you assume lying and trickery.
> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
> Sorry, the evidence for that claim is no stronger than for a
> claim that what people were mistakenly reporting was really
> Loki and his two giant friends in the Nglfar, in the form of
> an orange triangle, fighting Satan and Judas for the rights
> to the peanut and beer consession at Giant Stadium.
>
> No evidence exists for either conclusion.
Evidence exists for my conclusion -- you merely refuse to accept it.
[end quote]
I have added a little context. But note in Twitch's article -- the
article I was responding to:
[begin quote]
>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
[end quote]
That is what Twitch snipped, as he there admits, and that is what I
objected to, as Twitch clearly omitted the rest of that paragraph in
order to deceive his readers.
I snip the rest of Twitch's idiotic and insane invective as unworthy of
response, since he simply repeats the same lie over and over in a vain
hope that repetition will make it credible. It is truly pathetic -- this
soi-disant "skeptic" has slunk as low as the worst of the true
believers. I invite those skeptics who disapprove of rank dishonesty and
smear campaigns to check out the facts in this case and post the
results.
Postscript: it seems somewhat odd that my agreeing with Randi could
elicit such a storm of vitriolic mendacity from a "skeptic".
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>My agreement with James Randi seems to have Twitch very upset.
What agreement? We haven't discussed any agreement between
you and Randi?
You have made a number of assertions without evidence.
You have deliberately quoted out of context.
You have lied.
> He's
>fallen into telling bizarre lies,
Like the fact that you came into the thread and immediately
began quoting out of context?
Like the fact that you tried to change the subject from your
quoting out of context and total lack of evidence by
bringing in the Sirius discussion?
Like the fact that you claimed, right below a paraphrase,
that is was a misquote?
Like the fact that you then tried claiming it didn't matter
whether or not it was a quote?
Like the fact that you complained about missnipping when you
snipped without showing it?
<snipo>
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >My agreement with James Randi seems to have Twitch very upset.
>
> What agreement? We haven't discussed any agreement between
> you and Randi?
Randi believes the callers who claimed they saw his imaginary UFO
formation were lying. I consider that conclusion more probably than
Twitch's conclusion, that they believed that they had seen it. I agree
with Randi.
[Lies snipped.]
Here is a recap of the thread to cover Twitch's ridiculous, wacked-out
lies so that everyone can follow this absurd soap opera without getting
lost in the web of falsehoods spun by this noted pseudo-skeptic:
A. http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487205540
I say the following:
I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
[Note that not having checked _FLIM-FLAM!_ yet I believed that Twitch's
claim was the same as Randi's, rather than the opposite, since Twitch
cited Randi but made no note of the fact that they reached opposite
conclusions. So now I would have to modify that statement.]
B. http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487594146
Twitch quotes me as follows:
>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
This takes one small fragment of what I wrote out of context in order to
mislead the reader about what I said.
C. http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487894998
I restore the snipped material and note the fact that Twitch snipped it
in order to misrepresent what I said:
> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
D. http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=488015482
Twitch lies that I accused him of snipping when he paraphrased me but
didn't quote me:
I love the way you attempt to counter the fact that you
dishonestly quoted out of context by claiming dishonesty on
my part.
Unless, of course, you are attempting to show that you
suffer from terminal ignorance so couldn't have been
dishonest when you quoted out of context.
What part of paraphrase are you too stupid to understand?
This is a paraphrase, not a quote:
"You claimed it was the most probable event!"
[Note that I never even mentioned this line. Twitch is the first to
bring it up, completely irrelevantly.]
Since when do you show a snip in a paraphrase?
So your wacko claim of my snipping it dishonestly is as
wacko and dishonest as everything else you've written.
[Torrents of asinine and idiotic abuse follow, all based on the lie
above.]
E. http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=488147141
I expose Twitch's lie for what it is:
> >> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
> >> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
> >> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
> >> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
> >> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
> >[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
Note: Twitch had snipped the above. It appeared in his post as follows:
[begin quote]
>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
[end quote]
(See http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487594146 for
archive of Twitch's post.)
Twitch explicitly acknowledges his snippage, which by some odd
coincidence leaves out essential information. And yet here is Twitch's
comments on this matter:
> I love the way you attempt to counter the fact that you
> dishonestly quoted out of context by claiming dishonesty on
> my part.
>
> Unless, of course, you are attempting to show that you
> suffer from terminal ignorance so couldn't have been
> dishonest when you quoted out of context.
>
> What part of paraphrase are you too stupid to understand?
>
> This is a paraphrase, not a quote:
> "You claimed it was the most probable event!"
Whether this is a paraphrase or a quote is irrelevant, since it is not
under discussion. Perhaps Twitch would like the reader to believe that I
claimed that he "snipped" this rather than paraphrased it. If that were
so, then I would have put the phrase "[dishonestly snipped portion
And again:
And again:
F. http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=488486481
Twitch, caught lying, piles another whopper on top of his first lie in
the vain hope that this will convince the credulous:
>> >> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
>> >> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
>> >> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
>> >> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
>> >> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
>> >[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
>
>Note: Twitch had snipped the above. It appeared in his post as follows:
>
>[begin quote]
>
>>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
Bullshit! That isn't the article you were responding to
when you made your charge. So you didn't have to restore it
here at all.
What I wrote and you responded to with your above lie was:
"You claimed it was the most probable event!"
That is what was in the article you responded to and lied
about.
Nothing snipped in that article at all.
<snipo>
>Twitch explicitly acknowledges his snippage,
In the article you responded to, I didn't snip it asshole.
You are just vainly attempting to turn people away from your
deliberately and totally dishonestly quoting out of context.
You are known for this sort of thing in sci.skeptic.
And, you even lied about which article your responded to!
[Now get a load of this:]
That can be found at:
http://x42.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?
AN=487133260&CONTEXT=929118084.1822949395&hitnm=2
[Link split in half to make it fit.]
[Check out that article. Is it identical to B,
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487594146
which I was in fact responding to? No, it's the article two posts back
in the thread, the one in which I replied to Twitch with the material
that he responded to by dishonestly snipping and quoting out of
context!]
G. http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=488801486
I expose Twitch's newest lie for what it is:
> Bullshit! That isn't the article you were responding to
> when you made your charge. So you didn't have to restore it
> here at all.
As a matter of fact, it *was* the article I was responding to. My
article http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487894998
appeared in response to Twitch's article
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487594146
as anyone who checks them will see. Twitch's says:
[Quoted material repeats material above.]
[Attempts to change the subject from Twitch's lies snipped.]
Here we see him yet again repeat his outrageous lies:
> Like the fact that you claimed, right below a paraphrase,
> that is was a misquote?
This is a lie, as everyone has already seen. Once again, what I said
was:
> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
This was not "right below a paraphrase", but right below the quote that
I restored from Twitch's out-of-context snippage.
> Like the fact that you then tried claiming it didn't matter
> whether or not it was a quote?
I hadn't mentioned the paraphrase, so it didn't matter. Twitch was the
only one who had mentioned the paraphrase: I had only referred to a
quote as a quote. I can't imagine who Twitch thinks he's going to fool
with this one.
> Like the fact that you complained about missnipping when you
> snipped without showing it?
I did not, as Twitch did, snip a quote down to a little sentence
fragment in order to mislead readers. Now everyone has seen
incontrovertible proof that Twitch not only did so, but piled outrageous
and unbelievable lies on top of them. But no one is fooled.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
>twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>My agreement with James Randi seems to have Twitch very upset. . He's fallen into telling bizarre lies, >which any reader who looks at earlier posts in the same thread will discover are lies.
No. Your dishonest quoting out of context and character
assassination has twitch upset.
>Furthermore, based on the account Randi gives in _FLIM-FLAM!_, a careful reading seems to reveal that >his listeners were in fact confederates:
>"As it was, we mercifully terminated the hoax to show listeners just how easy it was to create from >nothing a full-blown flim-flam that would be supported and built upon by willing conspirators."
Which is a totally dishonest quote taken entirely out of
context. From the entire section it is clear that he
assumed that the people would want to get in on a good thing
and just jump in and claim that they had seen it too.
>Note two things here: "just how easy it was", not "just how easy it would have been", and "willing >conspirators". Those who believed that they had witnessed the alleged UFOs would not have been "willing >conspirators", they would have been unwilling dupes. Yet Randi asserts that this was the case. If he had >said "just how easy it would have been" he could be taken as extrapolating from this case to a >hypothetical case in which "willing conspirators" confirmed a hoax sighting, but he did not.
From the above:
>Note two things here: "just how easy it was", not "just how easy i twould have been",
To which I responded:
How easy it was because he did it. Would have been would
mean that he hadn't done it. (It being done the experiment
and shown that he could generate UFO responses with no
stimulus other than his stating so in the media)
What had he done according to Dan?
>In which case the listeners who called in were, according to Randi, "willing conspirators". Which is >impossible unless they had conspired with Randi to do so.
So Dan is using his dishonestly quoted out of context
quotation to claim that Randi had indeed conspired with the
listeners ahead of time to call in!
That is totally dishonest and Dan knows it!
And now Randi is in agreement with him on this!
>My agreement with James Randi seems to have Twitch very upset.
Twitch is upset at your blatent dishonesty in quoting out of
context what you are presenting as evidence to back up your
character assassinations.
And, the article in which he attempts to turn the tables and
claim that I dishonestly snipped him was:
> > Nonetheless, if you are accept the conclusion that you draw from
> >this case, then we have to assume that Randi was unknown to the
> >listeners<snipo>
>
I responded "Nonsense" and gave the Carlos in Australia
example to show that you don't have to accept that
conclusion at all.
Where upon, Dan went in for more character assassination of
Randi:
>(E.g. skeptics getting caught believing some of Randi's whoppers. See earlier posts on the Sirius >Mystery.)
And in that article, he claimed that:
>Your performance above is dishonest quoting, Mr. Snip-meister.
My performance above!
All I wrote above was:
"You claimed it was the most probable event!"
Which isn't a quote at all!
This is just more of Dan's dishonesty and willingness to
stoop to any level to perform his character assassination.
Now he claims it is myself that is:
>He's fallen into telling bizarre lies, which any reader who looks at earlier posts in the same thread will >discover are lies.
I post the entire article in which he made his charge of my
"dishonest" quoting so that people can see who is lying. Or
the info from the header is sufficent for them to go to deja
news and check up on this.
You can go and look and see if what he is claiming is true
or not.
>That is what Twitch snipped, as he there admits, and that is what I objected to, as Twitch clearly omitted >the rest of that paragraph in order to deceive his readers.
Not true.
The article he claimed that:
>Your performance above is dishonest quoting, Mr. Snip-meister.
All I wrote above was:
"You claimed it was the most probable event!"
Which isn't a quote at all!
But Dan is trying to claim it was in that article. It
wasn't as you can see below. Just more of Dan's lies.
Before this, it was:
>Your performance above is dishonest quoting, Mr. Snip-meister.
Above, Dan, above!
The only comment above was:
"You claimed it was the most probable event!"
But, in your many lies, you have later claimed it was:
>Note: Twitch had snipped the above. It appeared in his post as follows:
Above Dan, above!
Here is the complete article showing his comment that I was
quoting dishonestly above!
Subject: Re: Media influence on UFO sightings
Date: 1999/06/10
Author: Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org>
Posting History
Message segment 2 of 2 - Get Previous Segment - Get All 2
Segments
> > Nonetheless, if you are accept the conclusion that you draw from
> >this case, then we have to assume that Randi was unknown to the
> >listeners<snipo>
>
> Nonsense!
>
> Randi was seen with Carlos in Australia during that episode
> where Carlos was performing as a channeler. Randi was even
> backstage giving Carlos the answers.
>
> When Randi and Carlos came clean that they were showing how
> gullible the media and people were, the people inisisted
> that it wasn't true and that Carlos was a real channeler.
>
> When people are told that they are a victim of a hoax to
> show that they are gullible, they deny it.
(E.g. skeptics getting caught believing some of Randi's
whoppers. See earlier posts on the Sirius Mystery.)
> So your conclusion is based purely on your beliefs and not
> on any evidence, while I have some evidence to back up mine.
Who was Carlos? "that episode" of what? You haven't provided
any evidence for claim, if I accept your own denials that I
have provided evidence for my conclusion.
> >Furthermore, based on the account Randi gives in _FLIM-FLAM!_, a careful
> >reading seems to reveal that his listeners were in fact confederates:
> >
> >"As it was, we mercifully terminated the hoax to show listeners just
> >how easy it was to create from nothing a full-blown flim-flam that
> >would be supported and built upon by willing conspirators."
> >
> >Note two things here: "just how easy it was", not "just how easy it
> >would have been",
>
> How easy it was because he did it. Would have been would
> mean that he hadn't done it.
In which case the listeners who called in were, according to
Randi, "willing conspirators". Which is impossible unless
they had conspired with Randi to do so.
> >and "willing conspirators". Those who believed that
> >they had witnessed the alleged UFOs would not have been "willing
> >conspirators", they would have been unwilling dupes.
>
> Boy is that dishonest quoting!
Your performance above is dishonest quoting, Mr.
Snip-meister.
> Look up earlier and don't quote out of context!
>
> "...most people love to get in on a good thing."
>
> This clearly shows that he didn't plant conspirators but
> counted on the public.
Yes, Randi contradicts himself. I agree with you there. BTW,
how can Randi generalize from (some of) the listeners to one
late-night radio show to "most people"? Note that he says
that he "proved" this.
> It is also an assumption on his part
> that the people just wanted to gain a few minutes of
> publicity for themselves and pretend that they saw it too.
Oh, so now they didn't believe they saw it too, they were
lying. Cf. your earlier claims that they *did* believe they
saw it.
> The psychological research shows that they may truly believe
> what they were claiming.
[snip of citations]
This part of your post I have no quarrel with. If you stuck
to this sort of thing, I wouldn't have any argument with you
at all.
> Those all would back up the claim that the people reported
> what they believed, not that they were will conspirators.
Then why did Randi assert that they were "willing
conspirators"? Was he lying? (I think he was just being
sloppy, as I said before.)
> >Yet Randi asserts
> >that this was the case. If he had said "just how easy it would have
> >been" he could be taken as extrapolating from this case to a
> >hypothetical case in which "willing conspirators" confirmed a hoax
> >sighting, but he did not.
> >
> Boy are you pushing it. He said just how easy it was
> because he did it then. And the willing conspirators is
> referring to people wanting to get into the act, which is
> clearly an assumption, if you look at the entire section
> instead of quoting out of context.
He makes "an assumption" that they had conspired with him?
> >Of course, this assumes that Randi meant what he wrote, and not
> >something else. Randi is a sloppy writer so this assumption may not be
> >warranted.
> >
> Sorry, but you are quoting totally out of context in an
> effort to push your claims.
Not at all, just taking Randi at his word.
(End quoted article)
Dan Clore
The same lies all over again. I have adequately covered this, including
references to all relevant posts in the Deja.com archive, in another
post. In case anyone has somehow missed this, I present this information
yet again. I also ask that other skeptics check this out and report
their observations.
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >My agreement with James Randi seems to have Twitch very upset.
>
> What agreement? We haven't discussed any agreement between
> you and Randi?
Randi believes the callers who claimed they saw his imaginary UFO
formation were lying. I consider that conclusion more probably than
Twitch's conclusion, that they believed that they had seen it. I agree
with Randi.
[Lies snipped.]
Here is a recap of the thread to cover Twitch's ridiculous, wacked-out
lies so that everyone can follow this absurd soap opera without getting
lost in the web of falsehoods spun by this noted pseudo-skeptic:
I say the following:
I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
[Note that not having checked _FLIM-FLAM!_ yet I believed that Twitch's
claim was the same as Randi's, rather than the opposite, since Twitch
cited Randi but made no note of the fact that they reached opposite
conclusions. So now I would have to modify that statement.]
Twitch quotes me as follows:
>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
This takes one small fragment of what I wrote out of context in order to
mislead the reader about what I said.
I restore the snipped material and note the fact that Twitch snipped it
in order to misrepresent what I said:
> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
D. http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=488015482
Twitch lies that I accused him of snipping when he paraphrased me but
didn't quote me:
I love the way you attempt to counter the fact that you
dishonestly quoted out of context by claiming dishonesty on
my part.
Unless, of course, you are attempting to show that you
suffer from terminal ignorance so couldn't have been
dishonest when you quoted out of context.
What part of paraphrase are you too stupid to understand?
This is a paraphrase, not a quote:
"You claimed it was the most probable event!"
[Note that I never even mentioned this line. Twitch is the first to
bring it up, completely irrelevantly.]
Since when do you show a snip in a paraphrase?
So your wacko claim of my snipping it dishonestly is as
wacko and dishonest as everything else you've written.
[Torrents of asinine and idiotic abuse follow, all based on the lie
above.]
I expose Twitch's lie for what it is:
> >> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
> >> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
> >> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
> >> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
> >> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
> >[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
Note: Twitch had snipped the above. It appeared in his post as follows:
[begin quote]
>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
[end quote]
(See http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487594146 for
archive of Twitch's post.)
Twitch explicitly acknowledges his snippage, which by some odd
coincidence leaves out essential information. And yet here is Twitch's
comments on this matter:
> I love the way you attempt to counter the fact that you
> dishonestly quoted out of context by claiming dishonesty on
> my part.
>
> Unless, of course, you are attempting to show that you
> suffer from terminal ignorance so couldn't have been
> dishonest when you quoted out of context.
>
> What part of paraphrase are you too stupid to understand?
>
> This is a paraphrase, not a quote:
> "You claimed it was the most probable event!"
Whether this is a paraphrase or a quote is irrelevant, since it is not
under discussion. Perhaps Twitch would like the reader to believe that I
claimed that he "snipped" this rather than paraphrased it. If that were
so, then I would have put the phrase "[dishonestly snipped portion
And again:
And again:
>> >> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,
and
>> >> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
>> >> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
>> >> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
>> >> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
>> >[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
>
>Note: Twitch had snipped the above. It appeared in his post as follows:
>
>[begin quote]
>
>>I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case,<snipo>
Bullshit! That isn't the article you were responding to
when you made your charge. So you didn't have to restore it
here at all.
What I wrote and you responded to with your above lie was:
"You claimed it was the most probable event!"
That is what was in the article you responded to and lied
about.
Nothing snipped in that article at all.
<snipo>
>Twitch explicitly acknowledges his snippage,
In the article you responded to, I didn't snip it asshole.
You are just vainly attempting to turn people away from your
deliberately and totally dishonestly quoting out of context.
You are known for this sort of thing in sci.skeptic.
And, you even lied about which article your responded to!
[Now get a load of this:]
That can be found at:
http://x42.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?
AN=487133260&CONTEXT=929118084.1822949395&hitnm=2
[Link split in half to make it fit.]
[Check out that article. Is it identical to B,
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487594146
which I was in fact responding to? No, it's the article two posts back
in the thread, the one in which I replied to Twitch with the material
that he responded to by dishonestly snipping and quoting out of
context!]
I expose Twitch's newest lie for what it is:
> Bullshit! That isn't the article you were responding to
> when you made your charge. So you didn't have to restore it
> here at all.
As a matter of fact, it *was* the article I was responding to. My
article http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487894998
appeared in response to Twitch's article
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=487594146
as anyone who checks them will see. Twitch's says:
[Quoted material repeats material above.]
[Attempts to change the subject from Twitch's lies snipped.]
Here we see him yet again repeat his outrageous lies:
> Like the fact that you claimed, right below a paraphrase,
> that is was a misquote?
This is a lie, as everyone has already seen. Once again, what I said
was:
> I consider it the most probable explanation in this specific case, and
> only after considering the plausibility of other possibilities. I am
> neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. Even after going over
> this one the strongest conclusion I can draw is that it provides no
> evidence of Randi's claim, due to insufficient information.
[dishonestly snipped portion restored]
This was not "right below a paraphrase", but right below the quote that
SantyClz
that the two of you calling each other "liar",
how about taking it to email.
Joe "d&r4c" Shair
twi...@worldnet.att.net
I have gone back and the part that Dan has said was snipped
by me was snipped by me in that area.
He apparently is correct on this. I do apologize for my
mistake in this area.
Which is far more honest than Dan has been!
He is lying when he says it was dishonestly snipped.
Of course, he only brought this up to hide the fact that he
was caught lying by dishonestly quoting out of context.
But, let’s look at this claim of his about my "dishonest
quoting" anyway.
" I consider it the most probable explanation in this
specific case,"
This is the claim and here is where I snipped it in a
totally different article than you lied about in your claim.
Was it because I wrote <snipo>?
I notice that you alter the articles without telling anyone,
Dan.
Snip, snipo, cut, […], etc. are considered to be necessary
if you are going to be honest, Dan. Perhaps that doesn’t
matter to you? With your reputation in sci.skeptic, I can
understand why you don’t worry about being considered
honest, Dan.
What did I remove?
"and only after considering the plausibility of other
possibilities."
Dan, that isn’t part of the claim that I cared about.
This is what you are claiming was the background of your
beliefs for your claim. Totally unnecessary to show that
your claim was nonsense and thus I didn’t include it.
"I am neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever."
Why is that necessary to be included in your claim?
It is just a statement, a lie, it is true, but not necessary
to include to answer your claim.
"Even after going over this one the strongest conclusion I
can draw is that it provides no evidence of Randi's claim,
due to insufficient information."
Gee, Dan, how is it dishonest to snip this since it is
merely a qualifier about it providing no evidence for what
Randi claimed and nothing about your claim and it doesn’t
alter the:
" I consider it the most probable explanation in this
specific case,"
If you are saying that you lie with the later sentence and
it wasn’t the most probable explanation, I will agree.
Otherwise it ain’t important to me.
I answered the charge that:
"I consider it the most probable explanation in this
specific case,"
I answered it honestly and showed the fact that I snipped
the section.
On June 11, I pointed out that the real difference was that
you don't show when you snip an article. Wouldn't you admit
that not showing the fact that you altered the article is
dishonest? Especially when you are accusing someone else of
dishonesty when they show the snips?
This whole thing started when you dishonestly quoted totally
out of context from Flim-Flam.
This was to allow you to make some nasty charges against
Randi. If you had quoted in context, you wouldn't have been
able to do so.
>Furthermore, based on the account Randi gives in _FLIM-FLAM!_, a careful reading seems to reveal that >his listeners were in fact confederates:
A careful reading of the entire section would show that
isn’t true, so you dishonestly didn’t quote the rest, Dan.
>My agreement with James Randi seems to have Twitch very upset.
Oh, Randi agrees that he conspired ahead of time with his
listeners now! I don’t suppose you’d care to post the
evidence for that?
No, I didn’t think so.
>Which is impossible unless they had conspired with Randi to do so.
That lie also would be shown up by a complete quote from the
book, Dan, which is why you dishonestly quoted the section
out of context so you could lie.
>My agreement with James Randi seems to have Twitch very upset.
Ah, the listeners conspired ahead of time with Randi and he
agrees with you about that.
I don’t suppose you’d care to post the evidence for that
now?
No, I thought you wouldn’t.
>(E.g. skeptics getting caught believing some of Randi's whoppers. See earlier posts on the Sirius >Mystery.)
Gee, other than character assassination, what does that have
to do with the episode you dishonestly quoted out of
context, Dan?