ABC News primetime special on UFOs
- Thread starter Wolfboy
- Start date
I can't believe Jennings is relying on the parachute flares that were heralded as flying saucers over Phoenix a few years ago. I remember seeing that video the week it occurred and the obvious nature of a series of flares being fired by artillery or possibly even dropped by an aircraft was immediate.
I used to see this same effect all the time when we went to the field (I was in Field Artillery for over 10 years).
Jennings is also relying on the witness testimony a tad too much. This is the worst sort of evidence as far as reliability.
The show is 1/4 over and I'm turning the channel when CSI comes on....
I used to see this same effect all the time when we went to the field (I was in Field Artillery for over 10 years).
Jennings is also relying on the witness testimony a tad too much. This is the worst sort of evidence as far as reliability.
The show is 1/4 over and I'm turning the channel when CSI comes on....
Are you saying his reliance on eyewitnesses is a detriment to a particular side of the issue or simply a flaw in the journalism of the piece? On the former I would disagree as Jennings has remained skeptical throughout the program and is providing all sides of the issue, on the latter i would also disagree as there is little other evidence to rely on 
I wouldn't switch to CSI, I find this enjoyable. My favorite line was from a (I believe) SETI researcher. "If we make claims there will be scientific data to back them up."
I wouldn't switch to CSI, I find this enjoyable. My favorite line was from a (I believe) SETI researcher. "If we make claims there will be scientific data to back them up."
SkinWalker, I cannot believe you are so dense as to not recognize that the videotape
of the flares over the mountain was 1-2 hours AFTER the UFO passed over Phoenix and
other locations in Arizona, so I assume you are just utilizing whatever means you can
to 'debunk' UFO sightings without regard to honesty. I do agree that Jennings focused
much too much on eyewitness testimony and fringe elements, and far too little on
documented evidence, ignoring completely Malmstrom AFB and the documented shutdown of the Minuteman ICBMs, for instance. Jennings briefly mentioned the May 5,
1967 sighting over Minot AFB, 15 days prior to the Malmstrom incident, but not the
June 6, 1968 incident at Minot. During the 1968 Minot incident, a Minuteman ICBM
was reportedly unlocked, put into launch mode and its nuclear warhead armed, and
it was NOT done by base personel. Perhaps the more unnerving incidents are judged
to be a little too intense for network TV.
of the flares over the mountain was 1-2 hours AFTER the UFO passed over Phoenix and
other locations in Arizona, so I assume you are just utilizing whatever means you can
to 'debunk' UFO sightings without regard to honesty. I do agree that Jennings focused
much too much on eyewitness testimony and fringe elements, and far too little on
documented evidence, ignoring completely Malmstrom AFB and the documented shutdown of the Minuteman ICBMs, for instance. Jennings briefly mentioned the May 5,
1967 sighting over Minot AFB, 15 days prior to the Malmstrom incident, but not the
June 6, 1968 incident at Minot. During the 1968 Minot incident, a Minuteman ICBM
was reportedly unlocked, put into launch mode and its nuclear warhead armed, and
it was NOT done by base personel. Perhaps the more unnerving incidents are judged
to be a little too intense for network TV.
Okay... I did both.
I recorded the ABC special and still watched CSI.
At least Jennings gave a fair shake to the Roswell nonsense. I knew that he was going to cover this and figured it would be the usual conspiracy hype. The explanation of Project Mogul was clear and concise and the correlation of the radar target debris to the alleged "alien debris" that is the theme of the whole Roswell "crash" myth was good.
It was good, too, that he included Dr. Clancy's expert opinion on the "sleep disorder" hypothesis of the alleged "alien abduction" phenomenon, where people come out of REM sleep in a brief moment of paralysis. She also made a good point about the fallibility of hypnosis as a tool to recover memory by noting that there is no scientific data to support that hypnosis can effectively recover memories without the interjection of fantasy in the memory emergence while simultaneously giving the impression that the experience was real.
I also agreed with Dr. Michio Kaku's comment that it would be foolish to rule out extraterrestrial craft. But without hard evidence, I'll not give any single sighting the benefit of being without doubt.
I recorded the ABC special and still watched CSI.
At least Jennings gave a fair shake to the Roswell nonsense. I knew that he was going to cover this and figured it would be the usual conspiracy hype. The explanation of Project Mogul was clear and concise and the correlation of the radar target debris to the alleged "alien debris" that is the theme of the whole Roswell "crash" myth was good.
It was good, too, that he included Dr. Clancy's expert opinion on the "sleep disorder" hypothesis of the alleged "alien abduction" phenomenon, where people come out of REM sleep in a brief moment of paralysis. She also made a good point about the fallibility of hypnosis as a tool to recover memory by noting that there is no scientific data to support that hypnosis can effectively recover memories without the interjection of fantasy in the memory emergence while simultaneously giving the impression that the experience was real.
I also agreed with Dr. Michio Kaku's comment that it would be foolish to rule out extraterrestrial craft. But without hard evidence, I'll not give any single sighting the benefit of being without doubt.
It was an interesting program and a sort of re-cap of UFOLOGY.
The St. Louis case was very interesting and it reminded me of some othe Unsolved Mystery stories that I grew up watching, yet this one was pretty new. Cops make the best witnesses and they got them to verify that this object was in the sky, was unusual and not anything known. It flew across the road with no sound. We have no aircraft that can do that. If we did, it would be so top secret I doubt it'd be flying in public like that. See, at the end here I started debunking the debunker's typical claim that anything unknown is "our craft". I've been at this too l long!
Of course the usual debunkers here will debunk stuff like this. You have to understand why they debunk. Try not to take it too seriously! They debunk because they are waiting for physical, tangible (bodies) evidence of aliens. Untill they get that they will continue to debunk the only other evidence available, BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE 100% PROOF THEY REQUIRE. This is the M.O. of debunker's as best as I can see. Anything less than a body, and they feel obligated to debunk the claim. I am not sure why.. As though, just because there is no body, the claim cannot be true? lol, anyways.
I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic that SETI will ever work. I love the idea, but they are looking for a needle in a haystack. No, actually they are looking for a needle that they say they don't know exists, in a hay-stack! Talk about long odds..
The St. Louis case was very interesting and it reminded me of some othe Unsolved Mystery stories that I grew up watching, yet this one was pretty new. Cops make the best witnesses and they got them to verify that this object was in the sky, was unusual and not anything known. It flew across the road with no sound. We have no aircraft that can do that. If we did, it would be so top secret I doubt it'd be flying in public like that. See, at the end here I started debunking the debunker's typical claim that anything unknown is "our craft". I've been at this too l long!
Of course the usual debunkers here will debunk stuff like this. You have to understand why they debunk. Try not to take it too seriously!
They debunk because they are waiting for physical, tangible (bodies) evidence of aliens. Untill they get that they will continue to debunk the only other evidence available, BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE 100% PROOF THEY REQUIRE. This is the M.O. of debunker's as best as I can see. Anything less than a body, and they feel obligated to debunk the claim. I am not sure why.. As though, just because there is no body, the claim cannot be true? lol, anyways.I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic that SETI will ever work. I love the idea, but they are looking for a needle in a haystack. No, actually they are looking for a needle that they say they don't know exists, in a hay-stack! Talk about long odds..
2inquisitive said:
I can't believe you're so dense as to arbitrarily accept whatever potentially status-seeking eye witnesses would say without question. Why is it that there is only video of the flares, but none of the alleged "craft?"
Answers: 1) because in all likelihood the bit about the craft was urban legend that started after the observers saw the flares. 2) there was an overflight of military aircraft in close formation, possibly in conjunction with the same military manuevers that involved the flares.
No big mystery there.
2inquisitive said:
Perhaps he avoided it because he couldn't substantiate it with any official information or primary source.
SkinWalker, perhaps you could point out where I 'arbitrarily accepted' the eye witness
testimony without question. I stated those were two separate incidents due to the
time factor. It is just as easy to 'speculate' the flares were dropped after the UFO
incident in order to provide a 'cover story' for the masses. And as you are well aware,
there are several FOIA documents easily accessible regarding the Malmstrom incident.
testimony without question. I stated those were two separate incidents due to the
time factor. It is just as easy to 'speculate' the flares were dropped after the UFO
incident in order to provide a 'cover story' for the masses. And as you are well aware,
there are several FOIA documents easily accessible regarding the Malmstrom incident.
btimsah said:
Tell that to the guys that pilot these:
<img src="http://www.boschaero.com/blimp2.gif">
<img src="http://photo.dennisfox.net/galleries/2003/hodgepodge2/images/l14.jpg">
I don't remember what time they said the sighting occurred, but if it was early in the morning (3 or 4 am) it could have been a Goodyear Blimp on its way to an event, at which time it would have possibly had its landing lights on.
So the officers working late, probably bored out of their minds, high on caffeine and sugar-coated donuts, spot a UFO moving at blimp speed, at blimp altitude, and with blimp lights...
Its a good bet they only saw one blimp at night their whole lives and that was it...
But that's the problem with UFO proponents: they automatically exclude all possibilities except alien. Any hypothesis that doesn't include an extraterrestrial origin is considered "debunking," rather than "investigation." But had I said, "it couldn't have been a blimp because who ever heard of a blimp flying at night?" I would have gotten a pat on the back... the idea that a blimp flying at night with landing lights on is somehow more fantastic than an alien spacecraft making a billion light-year journy only to screw with a few hick cops... or maybe they heard about the great fun of cow tipping?
2inquisitive said:
You said, "the videotape of the flares over the mountain was 1-2 hours AFTER the UFO passed over Phoenix and other locations in Arizona..."
How do you know?
I contend that the only actual sighting was the flares and possibly an aircraft/flight of aircraft shortly before. The 2 to 3 hour time bracket (I've seen anything from 7:30 to 10:30 pm in regards to the flare sightings) that is assigned to the incident is simply the poor reliability of eye witnesses. Some know what time it was and some are guessing or correlating the event to other events that they think will give them an accurate reference.
Where's the evidence of any sighting other than the flares?
There were many calls recieved by newspapers, such as The Arizona Republic, UFO
reporting centers and police stations beginning around 7:30 on March 13 and recorded
by the agencies. The reports began around the Nevada/Arizona state line and continued to just north of Tucson, about a 300 mile track. Quite a distance to see
a few flares, right SkinWalker? I know you know how to google, you use it all the time
in your responses in these threads. Like in your response to the South African Spheres:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html
reporting centers and police stations beginning around 7:30 on March 13 and recorded
by the agencies. The reports began around the Nevada/Arizona state line and continued to just north of Tucson, about a 300 mile track. Quite a distance to see
a few flares, right SkinWalker? I know you know how to google, you use it all the time
in your responses in these threads. Like in your response to the South African Spheres:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html
SkinWalker I think we all know about the cases you feel are weak, but I'd be more interested to know if you've ever seen any UFO case or report that you did think had some potential ETI substance to it?
It would be kind of intersting to know what you consider a "Good case". If I remember you mentioned something about the Iran UFO case.
If you don't know of any good case, then arguing about this one won't do much good.
It would be kind of intersting to know what you consider a "Good case". If I remember you mentioned something about the Iran UFO case.
If you don't know of any good case, then arguing about this one won't do much good.
2inquisitive said:
They should have went over about 3-5 UFO cases, which contained some sort of verifiable evidence that the object had extraordinary technology and physical proof the object landed, or otherwise affected the environment. The story you sited about the ICBM is a great example of one of those unsolved stories. Then they should have used those "well documented stories, with good evidence" to ask what's the governments official response to this? I mean, if you are gonna do a story on UFO'S then pick the strongest cases! This was a rather lazy, poorly researched attempt to get people to watch ABC like we used to watch Unsolved.
Hell, CrazyMikey's UFO stories were a helluvalot more interesting than what I saw Thursday night.
2inquisitive said:
I'm only going by what I've seen on television specials, the internet, and from my father's opinion (who didn't see the lights, but lives in the Phoenix area).
The only consistent thing with the above sources is that is consistent is the flare event, of which there is even video. There are tons of sources that say they've seen other objects etc., but this most likely just hysteria that you should expect from something like this. Everybody wants to see something.
Phoenix lights = Flares. QED
SkinWalker said:
Skinny guess you havent been too close to a real Blimp before.
1. They are very loud they have outboard props with engines that make plenty of noise.
2. When you make a silly claim that a Police Officer would not know a Blimp when it flys just over his head, you might as well say it was Dumbo flying with his ears and he held flashlights between the toes. I think then you would make more sense.
Starman said:
Of course I have, that's how I knew some can have a set of flood lights they use for landing when it is dark.
Starman said:
They may. The one's I've seen have electric engines that are variable. No sense in running a prop when the wind is doing most of the work for you... i.e. the wind direction of a particular altitude is working for you, you stay at that altitude and only use the electric engine to make minor course adjustments.
Starman said:
Don't be ignorant, Starman. You can't expect even a police officer to be less fallible than any other human being. He has the same kind of brain with the same set of beliefs as any other average person. Moreover, if he had never seen a blimp flying up close, particularly at night, then he has no frame of reference, a very key cognitive process the human mind needs to classify and make comparissons.
Face it... it was more likely to be a blimp than an alien spacecraft.... at least we have proof that blimps exist!
btimsah said:It was an interesting program and a sort of re-cap of UFOLOGY.
The St. Louis case was very interesting and it reminded me of some othe Unsolved Mystery stories that I grew up watching, yet this one was pretty new. Cops make the best witnesses and they got them to verify that this object was in the sky, was unusual and not anything known. It flew across the road with no sound. We have no aircraft that can do that. If we did, it would be so top secret I doubt it'd be flying in public like that. See, at the end here I started debunking the debunker's typical claim that anything unknown is "our craft". I've been at this too l long!
Of course the usual debunkers here will debunk stuff like this. You have to understand why they debunk. Try not to take it too seriously!
I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic that SETI will ever work. I love the idea, but they are looking for a needle in a haystack. No, actually they are looking for a needle that they say they don't know exists, in a hay-stack! Talk about long odds..
Iagree
Now was this a Documentary or News Story?
What it was is evident, it was a desperate attempt for ABC to gain some quick ratings. It was produced by Peter Jennings. Did you notice the extreme amount of commercials. This happens when a interesting subject is to be broadcast. Well if you are ABC and you need to get the fire going by all means talk about UFO's.
The fact of the matter is that their two hour special was actually a One hour program when you take out all the commercials. I was not surprised that Jennings was not very objective in this program. To be politically correct is his primary focus. Nor would ABC allow their top News Commentator to allege that he even remotely believed in UFO's this would jeopardize ABC and Jennings creditability.
The fact remains that UFO's are real. I for one have witnessed two of them up close and personal. Where did they come from, this I do not know, were they our secret flying spacecraft? I would say not, the two I saw were being chased by two F-16's in full afterburner. If I could compare it to something else I would say it was like a guy on foot trying to catch a corvette.
Ok you say there is no evidence and eye witness testimonials are worthless. Then I would submit this evidence.
1. Any eye witness account that can be verified by radar. And there are many of them. You might be able to say people see things yes, radar also sees things that are flying in such a manor unlike any flying craft known on earth.
So go ahead, I say to people that can not accept the thought something is out there and it is real, close you eyes and hide your head in the sand and maybe it will go away.
I for one know they are real and I chose to accept I do not know what they are or where they came from. I can not help but believe that someday the truth will be known.
Starman said:
Do you think he was biased "for" or "against" the UFO phenomenon and why?