posted by RRRGroup at
Thursday, April 07, 2016
Seriously gave up on that after number 8. 2,3,4,6,7 have all been explained; and they're just the ones I know of. The others doubtless all have been, too. That picture on number 1 is absurd. She ran away, but then stopped and took a (crappy) picture?
By scherben, at Thursday, April 07, 2016
These were provided, Scherben, just to give Zoam some "material" to explode about.(He needs grist for his anti-UFO tirades, and I'm delighted to help him out.)RR
By RRRGroup, at Thursday, April 07, 2016
I thought it was a bit of a departure for you :)Back to number 1, the witness claims she saw a 'man', yet the figures she photographed are in the classic 'grey' shape. Surely no-one really takes it seriously?
I'm a Zoam fan, Scherben...He's a fanatic, anti-UFO nut but ya gotta love him for his enthusiasm.RR
Rich, is this list from the same group that provide the top 10 botched celebrity facelift photos.:)
By Tim Hebert, at Thursday, April 07, 2016
The heck with these 21 cases. If Zoam wants a challenge, let him explain the Leveland, Texas sightings of November 2, 1957. 15 telephone calls to the local police department concerning a large, egg-shaped UFO that "played games" with motorists within a 10 mile radius. At least 7 independent close-up eye-witnesses accounts. Headlight failures and engine stoppings...with restart as object left. And please, please, don't tell us it was probably ball-lightning (as the Air Force concluded).
By Dominick, at Thursday, April 07, 2016
Dominick:I'm sure you saw Kevin Randle's current retake on the Texas sighting. He posted it a few days ago and has much commentary from others.Most of us think the episode was a military event gone awry.RR
I'm a zoam fan, too. As for the Levelland case, I suspect he'd have this to say: http://www.theironskeptic.com/articles/levelland/levelland.htm
Thanks, Rich. No, did not see that. Military exercise gone awry...in 1957?! Sounds far fetched, given what was reported, (the U.S. military controlled electro-magnetic transmissions that could stop cars from a flying object?!!). Doubtful, but I'll take a look.
Dom:The military was more advanced than, we the public or media, knew.(This was exampled for me in the Bosco Nedlecovic information about the Villas Boas case.)RR
Rich -"The military was more advanced than, we the public or media, knew."You believe that...or are you just humoring us like you are Zoam...?
By Brian Bell, at Thursday, April 07, 2016
No, Brian....The U.S. military had and has abilities that few know about but can find more by a scrutiny of early documentation and material from various Congressional over-site committees.I'm not particularly interested but will try to import some of that material online here.You can read what CIA operative Bosco Nedelcovic told me and which I've already noted in my account of his Villas Boas tale, which I believe is true, as does Nick Redfern.RR
Rich, I may be wrong but I believe that the U.S. had not even launched a successful earth satellite by November of 1957. And you want us to believe that the military (Army?) had the ability (in Leveland, Tx, no less) to control a large, glowing egg-shaped object that could transmit an EMP and stop vehicles? Aside from what you heard (and believed) from your CIA operative about the Boas case, what info in the public domain (no reason to keep it secret now)would support the existence of such technology?
Dominick...When I researched Howard Hughes' Aircraft and Toolco activity from 1945 on, I found experiments that showed military attempts in a number of advanced areas.In the Texas case, one can speculate that an experiment went awry, indicating that the military hadn't accomplished success with some of its attempts at exploiting principles of electromagnetism, atomic fusion, and a myriad of other scientific probabilities.That the military, CIA, Atomic Energy Agency, and other groups (some secret of course) tried all kinds of things is a given when one looks at and for material confirming same.That some of the attempts and experiments went south has to be a given also -- some of the activity causing harm, as may have been the case in your Texas incident.This doesn't mean that success happened in all or many of those attempts at scientific advances for military use but one does have to accept the idea that attempts were made.Nick Redfern has documented [sic] such activity in several of his books, and I have a slew of books and documents (from online searches) showing activity that supports "EMP" and such things as holographic imagery. (See my footnotes from the phone conversation I had with Bosco Nedelcovic....online and available via a Google search I think.)November 1957 is late when it comes to Army, Air Force, and especially Naval mischief using scientific principles.RR
Title of article says it all, "Sightings You Won’t Believe." (g)Thanks, Rich!
By zoamchomsky, at Friday, April 08, 2016
I thought you'd get a kick out of the idea that such "sightings" are considered by some to be authentic.RR
By RRRGroup, at Friday, April 08, 2016
"The heck with these 21 cases. If Zoam wants a challenge, let him explain the Leveland, Texas sightings of November 2, 1957."Hey Dom; There's really not much there even though Kevin recently called it one of the best cases.It sounds to me like a typical case of freak weather, "UFO" small group scare and community panic.You don't want to hear ball lightning but it's real, there's a lot of weird weather in west Texas blowing off the Rockies, and simple ignition systems can fail when subjected to sudden cold and moisture.Nothing extraordinary about any of that.
Wow, Zoam, great "analysis." Have you even read the case and tried, seriously, to deal with what was reported? 200 foot long glowing egg? Object seen landing, while changing color, and then taking off? Great rush of wind and noise as the object flew over a truck "and the truck rocked from the blast."? Headlights on several different vehicles dimmed and went out as well as engines? Multiple witness accounts and 15 different phone calls to police? Even Hynek concluded that there was no lightening in the area (only an overcast with a light mist) and that ball lightening was an impossible "explanation". But hey, Zoam, it was probably "weird weather blowing off the Rockies" and that takes care of THAT UFO case. Yikes.
By Dominick, at Saturday, April 09, 2016
Thanks, Dom!Is there evidence of anything extraordinary? No, just a few stories of ambiguous bright lights and stalling cars--all without consequence. What's to analyze when there's no evidence, seriously. We have better--wilder, more complex--stories of nuts-and-bolts ET spacecraft that are just as easily debunked.There had been stormy weather for days and had been on that day also. West Texas is known to have freakish electrical storms.Witnessing a rare electrical display, a frightened man made a confused report; others had similar experiences over the next few hours. No doubt some reports were copycat reports, enhanced by their tellers in reporting and in repeated retellings by "UFO" mystery mongers.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelland_UFO_Case
By zoamchomsky, at Sunday, April 10, 2016
And the 2016 "Menzelian Trophy" goes to....Zoamchomsky. Congrats, Zoam.
By Dominick, at Sunday, April 10, 2016
Yah, Dominick, there is certainly a Menzelian tinge to Zoam's skeptical asides.(I bet he has all of Dr. Menzel's books on UFOs.)RR
By RRRGroup, at Sunday, April 10, 2016
All the name calling certainly neither refutes zoam, nor provide any evidence for UFOs. Plus ça change, eh?Dogmatically refusing to consider rational hypotheses, whilst presenting false dichotomies (it wasn't explanation x, therefore aliens), doesn't help Ufology's image. And don't deny that's what you're saying [Dominick], because it quite transparently is.
By scherben, at Sunday, April 10, 2016
Absurd, Scherben. There is no way that I think that the Levelland sightings were "aliens." But they were extraordinary (stopping multiple cars and dimming headlights) and can't be tossed off (as Zoam does) with references to poor weather days before and unsubstantiated "copycat reports". And Zoam's "ambiguous bright lights" hardly does even close justice to what multiple witnesses reported. I'll gladly buy a "rational hypothesis" concerning the Levelland sightings when skeptics present one.
A quote from Zoam's Wikipedia link: "Hynek also noted that "had I given it any thought whatsoever, I would soon have recognized the absence of any evidence that ball lightning can stop cars and put out headlights." "There was no known method to stop cars at a distance at that time. EMP keeps getting bandied about as a possibility or the Government had a "ray" of some kind to halt electrical operation. That is not likely. If there was one at that time why haven't we used it in every conflict since that time? Even if one of Rich's past contacts made such claims I think its disinformation rather than reality [Especially since that contact was working a disinformation program] .It was not until the south Atlantic nuclear tests [Project Argus that launched three X-17 missiles with a low yield nuclear weapons from a ship] in August / September 1958 that nuclear EMP that it was shown that an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) is able to interrupt radio and it wasn't until the 1962 Starfish test was EMP proven to be able to destroy electrical lights and devices at a distance. [street lights in Honolulu destroyed 1000+ miles away.]. EMP is destructive to electrical devices which are turned on. The witnesses reported their vehicles stopped working then resumed operation after the "light" left the scene.Even now the devices that are known to "stop cars at a distance" are "destructive devices"... which is to say once hit they won't run again. The use of "electromagnetic" is a misnomer. There is no known electromagnetic field / property that can suppress an electrical current "in the wire" at any distance. What is observed is an effect on an electromagnetic field but it is not caused by one. If one accepts the witness accounts at face value then something unusual occurred but we have no way to conclude the actual cause of these observation. It is only natural for a Skeptic to deny these events because they did not actually experience them but...The problem with most of this "backseat evaluation" of unusual events is it generally denies what the percipients actually observed or experienced this actually obstructs finding what is cause of the event.Skeptics and believers both tend to conclude what they want to in regards to these events because it feeds their worldview and so the experience of the [Skeptic / Debunker / Believer] all fall into a "psycho-social hypothesis" which might be stated as: [UFOs / unusual phenomena] are [delusions / real] because they fulfill the subject's preconceived notions of [reality / truth] regardless of facts or observations which show the subject's beliefs are contrary to actual [events / experience / reality]. In effect this hypothesis shows that one cannot disprove to the [Skeptic / Debunker / Believer] the things they have chosen to believe. There is no debate or fact or event that can or will make a difference. UFOlogy is dead not because there isn't something to it. It is dead because it has become a "chest beating contest" between two "religions" over which is the proper "myth" to believe.
By Joel Crook, at Monday, April 11, 2016
Hynek's silly revisionism and obfuscation, "ball lightning can stop cars and put out headlights."Totally ignoring the obvious fact that it was moisture that caused the electrical failures. And he knew that. Joel's "electrics" and EMP diversion is irrelevant.All the rest is more of Joel's typically new-agey baloney whose only purpose is to make all opinions equal so that the truth of the matter is relative, undecided. And so a phony rational for continuing to consider this case as "evidence" of some "UFO" reality. Then it's the hackneyed default to a contest over "religions" when no such religions exist.There is a real-world logical background for us all called "good sense" and this has been formalized over millennia as the Scientific method.When Believers in the "UFO" myth are faced with their inability to falsify the Null hypothesis, they default to phony diversions, ad hominems like "religions."I haven't seen anything that moves Levelland off the Null hypothesis. That's all that counts!
By zoamchomsky, at Monday, April 11, 2016
Zoam, you wrap yourself in the "scientific method" yet assert that is was "obvious fact ...that moisture...caused the electrical failures" at Levelland in 1957. Zoam, there are no "obvious facts" in science and nothing is obvious about what caused those vehicles to stall...and then restart when the UFO left the scene. (Guess the moisture just cleared itself up,right Zoam?) Not to mention the dozens of other car stopping and car stalling UFO incidents (one only two days later in New Mexico where a White Sands engineer, James Stokes, had his car stall...damn desert moisture!). Some of us are tired of the prostitution of the scientific method by so-called skeptics who solve cases with assertions and can't seem to deal seriously with observations from multiple witnesses concerning a strange phenomena.
By Dominick, at Tuesday, April 12, 2016
You're still assuming the answer, Dom; What "strange phenomena?"So far, "strange phenomena" subsist only in the "misperception, conception, reporting" process, in enhanced retellings of those reports, after-the-fact copycat reports, and biased narrative editing of the entire panic by "UFO" myth-makers.It doesn't require the scientific method to conclude that water caused the electrical failures--just good sense infused by scientific realism! The scientific method was only invoked because some people refuse to play by the rules of facts and reason, and default to antiscience, the woo-woo diversion into misconceived and worthless sophistry.It doesn't take much to restart a 1950s motor vehicle with a simple electrical and ignition system that has stalled for whatever reason--no more than the basic mechanical aptitude of the experienced driver of the time.And the old "radio-interferring, car-stopping, ambiguous light in the sky, first behind then blocking the road" trope is a standard of flying-saucer stories from the 1950s. It could be an individual or small group scare, it's a type of contained panic, an expression of the "UFO" delusion. It's was only excited and frightened people telling a modern version of highway ghost stories, Dom, during a period of cold-war paranoia promulgated by real-world events and the mass media.>> "James Stokes had told some individuals that he wanted to "get even with the Air Force"." >> "Investigation of originator's report revealed no "sunburn" effect from "heat" light; originator admitted radio fadeout previously in same area; none of witnesses originator cited in other automobiles could be found after extensive search".>> "EVALUATION: Hoax, presumably suggested by the Levelland, Texas reports".<<Dom; I haven't seen anything that moves Levelland off the Null hypothesis. That's all that counts!
By zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, April 13, 2016
I'm not "assuming the answer" that something strange occured in Levelland. Multiple witnesses who did not know each other REPORTED strange events for hours at several different locations; all I'm assuming is that they reported them fairly accurately. You, on the other hand, are assuming that what was reported could not be accurate and that you know the cause of the reported events...i.e, moisture, copycat retellings, just excited and freightened people with a will to believe. Thus you assume that what was reported is NOT accurate or strange (indeed, can't be since the UFO phenomena does not exist) and then "reason" that the cause of the sightings MUST have been conventional. That's not real science, Zoam, and you know it.
By Dominick, at Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Dom says, "all I'm assuming is that they reported them fairly accurately."Even when they reported them differently? That would have been a foolish thing to do in 1957 when there was NO EVIDENCE of anything but freakish weather and cars stalling because of sudden cold and rain.And it's definitely a foolish thing to do nearly sixty years later given everything we know about the fallability of the human perceptual apparatus under extraordinary conditions, and so the inherent unreliability of perception, conception and reporting. As if that weren't enough, it's foolish because of everything we know about social psychology, the history of the "UFO" myth and collective delusion, and the failure of the pseudoscience of ufxlogy.However rare an electrical display might be--as this particular case has been explained repeatedly--there was no "UFO" there, there was never anything "UFOish" about this story except in the entirely predisposed minds of a few frightened people, copycat reports, a hoaxer and "UFO" mystery-mongers after the fact. Sound familiar? On such stories the entire "UFO" myth rests. A "blue flash," a "flaming thing," a "fiery thing" http://www.ghosttheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Levelland-News.jpg"You, on the other hand, are assuming that what was reported could not be accurate and that you know the cause of the reported events...i.e, moisture, copycat retellings, just excited and freightened people with a will to believe. Thus you assume that what was reported is NOT accurate or strange (indeed, can't be since the UFO phenomena does not exist) and then "reason" that the cause of the sightings MUST have been conventional.That's entirely accurate, Dom. That's almost exactly what I've said. And it's all perfectly reasonable, rational: In the absence of extraordinary evidence, I assume the world is as I know it to be.That's the practical Null hypothesis. Given over a century of the "UFO" collective delusion, the probability of any one case being evidence of a real "UFO" of any kind is so unlikely it's not worth considering--especially one as easily explained and utterly without evidendence as Levelland 1957. It doesn't require the scientific method to conclude that a few people may have witnessed rare but completely natural electrical discharges during a freak storm and that water caused the electrical failures--just good sense infused by scientific realism! Dom says, "That's not real science, Zoam, and you know it."Gosh, Dom, that takes me back twenty years at least when I told another "UFO" believer that "No one practices science on an Internet discussion board." It also reminds me of a great insight into the minds of those haunted by the myth:"If you really think that the UFO issue is even remotely undecided, then no new information is likely to change your mind."
By zoamchomsky, at Thursday, April 14, 2016
But Zoam, there was no freak storm! Where are you getting that? And if moisture killed the engines, why did the cars restart when the (non-existent) UFO departed? As we say in court, you are assuming facts not in evidence that allow you to "solve" the case. Objection, your honor! "Objection sustained." None the less, we have had a reasonable debate on these issues and we will have to agree to disagree.
By Dominick, at Thursday, April 14, 2016
Yes, Dom, good talking to you too. And we agreed on Cisco Grove 1967! ;-)On a freak electrical storm off of the Colorado Plateau--an area known for intense electrical storms:>>...the evidence leads to an overwhelming probability: the fiery unknown at Levelland was ball lightning." Menzel argued that "in Levelland on the night of November 2 conditions were ideal for the formation of ball lightning. For several days the area had been experiencing freak weather, and on the night in question had been visited by rain, thunderstorms and lightning."<<On cars restarting after stalling I said yesterday:"It doesn't take much to restart a 1950s motor vehicle with a simple electrical and ignition system that has stalled for whatever reason--no more than the basic mechanical aptitude of the experienced driver of the time."Otherwise, both the reports and the wild interpretations of those reports commit the simple logical error of confusing correlation with causation, thinking that the cars stalled because of the "blue flash" or "fiery thing" when it was actually the rain.>> The engine failures mentioned by the eyewitnesses were blamed on "wet electrical circuits."<<>> Menzel admitted that "since ball lightning is short-lived and cannot be preserved as tangible evidence, its appearance on the night of November 2 can never be absolutely proved." However, he also argued that "only the saucer proponents could have converted so trivial a series of events - a few stalled automobiles, balls of flame in the sky at the end of the thunderstorm - into a national mystery."<< (vbg)Be seeing you!
Menzel's assertions that (on the night in question and during the relevant time period) Levelland had been "visited by rain, thunderstorms, and lightning" is open to reasonable dispute. Several commentators that have examined the weather in Levelland that night disagree. No rain and no thunderstorms during the time of the multiple sightings and car stoppings. And if this is accurate...no ball lightening as Menzel speculates and, perhaps, no "wet electrical circuits" as he and you also speculate. It has been interesting, Zoam.
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile