Primetime: UFOs...Seeing Is Believing

ABC will be airing Primetime: UFOs...Seeing Is Believing tonight at 20:30 CST.

ABC previously aired an episode of Primetime with same title back in Feb 2005. We discussed it pretty thoroughly in this very forum. I hope it isn't just a rerun of an old show.

They may actually have some new stuff this time around, however. See Could So Many UFO Witnesses Be Right?

The site above states that these sightings will be covered:

Lets use this thread to discuss the show and critique it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I think about it, I think we actually discussed the St. Clair County sighting at length in this forum. If someone gets the opportunity to post the link to the thread/posts, please do. I'll look for it later. Right now House, M.D. is on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One of the first sightings the program discussed was the recent Stephenville, TX sighting. What the witnesses described was consistent with military maneuvers. Of course, the witnesses included various hyperbole like “they flew off toward the President’s house [in Crawford].” Crawford is about 70 miles from Stephenville. Nothing described by the witnesses cannot be explained by Air Force jets chasing each other in a military exercise using anti-missile countermeasures, which are flares. The airspace around Stephenville and the surrounding region has been used for training for decades.

The next sighting discussed was the Phoenix Lights (Phoenix, AZ). Again, there was witness after witness offering unfettered hyperbole. The witness that shot the video can be heard saying, “Ahh, you tell me what it is.” They were flares dropped on parachute, probably by an A-10 Warthog on the Goldwater Test Range near Phoenix. Nothing the described by the witnesses cannot be explained by military aircraft on exercises, flying in v-formation and then dropping flares on a military test range.

Another sighting covered in tonight’s episode was the St. Clair County, IL sighting of “a giant craft with multiple bright lights moving silently across the sky at a very low altitude” witnessed by many people, including five police officers, in different towns back in 2000. Nothing the witnesses described was inconsistent with a blimp. Such blimps are used often in baseball and football games on both the collegiate and professional levels. They move slow and relatively silent, have various exterior lights for illumination, and have to travel long distances to and from games.

That’s not to say a blimp is the only explanation, I just found it to be the first thought that came to mind based on their descriptions and it is the one that introduces the fewest new assumptions about what we know about the universe today.

What About ‘Credible’ Witnesses?

From that point, it seemed that the program focused on sightings that were from “credible” eyewitnesses rather than just people. They mentioned pilots, soldiers, airmen, etc. The appeal to authority was obvious, as was the assumption that pilot training, military servicemen, police officers, etc. are somehow infallible, better observers, less prone to deceit or desire for attention, etc.

There is some intuitive merit to this, since we expect such people to be better trained and experienced in ways that improve their critical observation skills, reliability and overall knowledge of things that fly. But the fallacy arrives in two ways:

1) People are moved by the mysterious and not all things we observe can be readily explained. There are plausible explanations for many things which for which we cannot be 100% certain of. The reflection of light in the bedroom down the hall was probably headlights of a car since that window faces the road, but I didn’t actually see the car. I’m reasonably sure, it was a car, however. When I observe something that has no analog -nothing I can say with experience is a plausible cause- I’m left with a mystery. It would matter not how experienced a pilot I was, the first time I witnessed a parhelic circle or halo from above, reflected on clouds below, I’m going to wonder what it was.

2) People lie and seek attention, going to extremes in so doing. Even highly-trained, skilled, and experienced people of high stature lie. The story in the news last year about the astronaut that put on a diaper and drove from Florida to Texas to attempt the kidnapping of Colleen Shipman drives that point home well.

The Bentwaters case was discussed on the program. Briefly, two airmen allegedly encountered a “craft” one night and others, including a Colonel, joined a search the following night. The key things are that the fewest witnesses actually saw the alleged “craft” up close. Close enough to allegedly touch. That was the two airmen. The other witnesses, the following night, only saw some lights in the woods and a cleared space that was alleged to be the “landing site.” Nothing the witnesses described was inconsistent with a hoax by the two airmen. Nothing. There simply is no good reason to accept an extraordinary explanation when a very mundane, and probable explanation already exists that introduces the fewest new assumptions about what we know: the two airmen lied and possibly planned a hoax.

Most of the rest of the program focused on “alien abductions” and the “Roswell incident.” Truly these wacky ideas belong in their own threads and are too easy to trash, so I'm not bothering with them.

They did save the most compelling sighting for the end of the show, but the only -only- thing available in the way of evidence is a camera shot (the one on Primetime might actually have been a reenactment or an animation) of a radar screen. There were, of course, several "eyewitness" anecdotes, which UFO nutters, cranks, and crackpots will undoubtedly eat up since they're from Air Force pilots. Still, other than the radar (which is a technology already flawed to begin with), there was nothing described by these eyewitnesses that was inconsistent with seeing Venus on the horizon and light reflections on water, water vapor (clouds), or ice crystals (clouds).

To the shock of woo-woos that like to frequent science boards looking for validation and self-gratification, I still found myself agreeing with Michio Kaku who said it would be foolish to discount the possibility of advanced alien life visiting us and that they could be responsible for at least some of the sightings.

I don't discount the possibility. But nor have I been faced with the evidence that it has occurred. But like Kaku said, "let the investigation begin." Just don't waste my tax dollars on it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

there were 3 USAF personnel involved
so you accuse Penniston, Cabansag and Burroughs of lying, right?
explain how you suppose they carried out this alleged hoax
thanks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

here is one of skinwalker's liars making a false statement

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

here is the "liar" again faking pics

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

People make false statements and lie all the time. Why is it impossible and improbable that they lied? What other explanations exist that introduce fewer new assumptions about the world as we already know it without supportive evidence?

It seems reasonable that the two airmen created the hoax and duped the rest.

 

ja
caused others on subsequent days to have visual hallucinations
quite
indeed

ok
2 sighted
3 investigated
more the next day

assumptions about the world? you mean universe right?
what are these? habitable planets? et sentience? an et spacefaring civ?
or that they could actually be buzzing around our airspace?

/smile

i doubt that
i'd say...... on occasion
usaf personnel? a career killer like this? unlikely

 

Debunked, fully;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series3/rendlesham_ufos.shtml

Sorry.

 

sweet
an uncritical acceptance of an explanation from a media whore

here is conde's letter to james eaton in 2001
he failed to garner any attention so whored once again in 2003
this time around, msm bit

some discrepancies as noted by bruni

1. Conde can't recall the date of his alleged prank. If this is
so then how can he claim he was responsible for the 1980
incident?

2. Conde says there was fog on the night in question, but there
was no fog during any of the incidents that week.

3. He says he played his loudspeaker, but the UFOs were silent.

4. The car he used for the prank was a 'battered 1979 Plymouth
Volare.' Let us not forget that incident took place in 1980,
which means the so called battered police vehicle would have
been less than a year old at that time.

5. Conde claims he played the prank on the taxiway! The incident
did NOT take place on or near the taxiway, but inside the
forest. And let us not forget that the UFO was first seen
falling into the forest, which prompted those at the East Gate,
John Burroughs and his sergeant, Bud Steffans, to think it was a
downed aircraft. The lights, of course, were not going up into
the sky, but were falling down from the sky.

6. Conde says he was unaware of the Rendlesham mystery until he
looked up his old base on a US military website. If this is the
case then how could he claim that as far as he was aware they
found nothing above background [radiation] levels?

7. USAF personnel usually work in pairs when patrolling the base
in vehicles. I'm assuming he was patrolling the base, and if so
then he most likely would have had a partner that night. Who was
that person and why has Conde failed to mention him?

8. When asked about the metallic spacecraft and [ground]
depressions Conde pointed out that a large helicopter had landed
the previous night, apparently with three landing skids. Conde
obviously hasn't seen the USAF photographs of the landing site
showing the three ground indentations being examined by a
British police officer and USAF Captain Mike Verano.


so far we have a meteor, a lighthouse, pranksters and a ufo
what rocks yer boat?
eh fellas?
obviously the scenario that requires the least amount of thought, ja?

goddamn simpletons with their parsimonious explanations and slavish devotion to occam

/sneer

ja, mr einstein, elegance is indeed best left for pseudo skeptics

 

james mcgaha , a csicops stooge, calling everyone damned liars on larry king

/snicker

just eyeball that shifty fat media whore and contrast with our brave and fine airmen that protect our freedoms

UFO Rendlesham Forest - Col.Halt´s Complete Tape

transcript p1
transcript p2
transcript p3

now
rule #1 in the pseudo skeptic handbook.......never ever examine the evidence

/snicker

 

Another theory is that the incident was a hoax. The BBC reported that a former US security policeman, Kevin Conde, claimed responsibility for creating strange lights in the forest by driving around in a police vehicle whose lights he had modified. Conde has since withdrawn the claim that he was responsible for the incident. "It is my impression that I pulled my stunt during an exercise. We would not have had an exercise during the Christmas holiday [when the UFO sightings occurred]. That is a strong indication that my stunt is not the source of this specific incident". However, it remains possible that the coloured lights seen in the forest on the first night of the incident were due to a hoax by a perpetrator who has never come forward. (link)

/sneer

 

What a strange phenomena this skepticism of ufo's is.
Not to be rude but it is one step away from mental masturbation.
Seriously not trying to be an ass, but see it from my point of view...if you had seen something that you without a doubt witnessed yet some one who was not there claimed it didn't happen, how would you percieve it?

All of that jargon, although well written is for not.
In the end these crafts exist, and probly have existed for as long as the 50's if not longer.(yes this is speculation, but not from a vacuum)
What proof do I have?...none.
Just my eyes, heart, confidence and good intentions to share what I think is somewhat significant as far as events go.
Perhaps my writing this is itself only a form of mental masturbation as I know it will fall short of my intent.

I'm curious and this goes out specifically to Skinwalker, maybe Read Only and Big O if he is reading...all logic and scientific jargon aside...what does your gut tell you about this phenomena?
And don't be pussies and beat around the bush by dressing up your awnsers with pretty intellectual vanities...just a "yeah, possibly", "bullshit", or "I don't trust my gut" should do, but I know you guys are creative so if you have to dress it up feel free.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In the end I understand why you have the positions you do on the subject.
Also, I understand that most of the skeptics interactions are simply inacted because of someone stating something in the positive on the ufo phenomena.

 

I would like to comment but as I've destroyed my PC and have little time I shall just say YES, good day : <-wacko :

 

My gut tells me that people want to believe (not just in UFOs but all sorts of things ranging from their god to tarot cards to uncle Bill's trick knee that can forecast the weather).

My gut also tells me that most of the sightings people experience are real. Except they misperceive, misunderstand, or involuntarily embellish the memory of what was observed, giving the event significance and assurance it isn't due.

But that's my gut.

 

pfft
forget the gut
if you care to actually read about rendlesham, it would be hard not to call all the players incompetent grunts

 

Cool.
Unfortunately I'm unable to assign any of those back doors to my experience.
Too clear to mispercieve, pretty straight forward to understand(metallic flying saucers), can't say I'm guilty of embellishing the event since I have down played the event substantially and was actually insecure enough to keep the event to myself except only in the company of those who I knew were open to the subject or I trusted enough.
My confidence in my self has matured over the years however and I am much more open about it now knowing full well that there is still much of a stigma attached to having such an experience...but what's a guy to do in the meantime.:noidea:
I guess just shoot the shit on good ol sciforums once and awhile and maybe leave open off in the distance the chance that an event will introduce many more people to this pain in the ass phenomena.

Anyways, thanks again for sharing.

 

You should read up on the way memory works. It's not as you imagine. In fact, it is just as you imagine.

 

I think Skinwalker's hit upon it here in the other UFO thread.

 

Hey Big O, not sure if your talking to me, but I was with someone else who witnessed it with me.
If I was alone when I had seen it I may be less inclined to share the experience, possibly doubting it's reality, my sanity to some degree...but nope.
We both saw these 25-30 metalic saucer shaped crafts all moving in complete synchronicity with each other...nothing short of incredible.

 

That you were with someone strenghtens my argument, just as your mutual discussion of what you were seeing and later what you thought you saw strenghtend your recollection of it. We manufacture memories. We misintrepret sights. We are convinced of their reality.

I am not declaring that you did not see some very strange phenomena. I am not delcaring that this phenomena might not have been some extraterrestrial craft. I am claiming that it may also have been and is more likely to have been a normal event distorted through the lens of human perception, further warped by the pressures of human interaction, and reconstructed under the factory of human memory.

I posted a personal example of the fallibility of human perception on the forum about a year ago. I was attending a football match with my son. (Football. I'm tired of making the concession of calling it by its other silly name for those who think football is the same as American football.)

I was close to the goal line of the South African goal and so had an excellent view of the Scottish forward as he moved in on an attack that resulted in a goal. I saw him, as he prepared to strike, look briefly up from the ball to confirm the position of the goal and the goalkeeper, then slam the ball into the back of the net.

I commented to my son how calm he had been to take that brief moment to check his position relative to goal and goalkeeper.

Later that evening I watched the highlights of the game on television. The goal and run in to it were shown from several angles, several times. At no time did the forward look up from the ball. He ran forward, dribbling around players and took the shot while looking at the ball, not the goal or goalkeeper.

I had completely misinterpreted what I saw, yet I would have bet my house on that misinterpretation. I had zero doubt about what I had observed. Zero. I found the filmed evidence that I was wrong quite astounding. (If I was electrafixtion I might well suspect a government cover up designed to place the skill of Scottish forwards in a poor light.)

This experience is fully in line with many tests conducted by many psychologists over the years on how the human perception and memory systems work.

So, I do not doubt your sincerity or your honesty. But I still doubt that what you think you saw was what you actually saw.