Sightings By Sceptics?

[BS3]

I consider myself a fully paid-up sceptic who, I suppose, believes the UFO phenomenon says more about human consciousness than it does about anything non-human. Yet I have actually seen, and indeed photographed, what I have to call a 'UFO' (the picture isn't that interesting, though does establish that something was actually there). I guess this is partly because as someone with an occasional interest in how things in the sky are misperceived, I'm often looking up - I wouldn't have noticed otherwise.

This got me thinking - I seem to remember reading a similar statistic about astronomers, but surely sceptics should have more UFO sightings than most other people? I'm only really aware of Donald Menzel's sighting in New Mexico in 1949. Is anyone aware of any others?

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Is anyone aware of any others?

What a fascinating topic... I shall have a think about this.

It's one aspect of the overall question - have you ever experienced something so anomalous, it defies any inherent skepticism and rationalisation.

Personally, I haven't seen an inexplicable 'UFO', ghost or creature popping up from the depths of Loch Ness during my frequent fishing trips there, when very much younger!

I did however, have an opportunity to both witness and document in real time, an occurrence which makes no logical reasoning.

Post in thread 'Contact From Beyond The Grave? (IHTM)' https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/contact-from-beyond-the-grave-ihtm.63685/post-1965377

Thc elemental factor was that neither my son, myself, or anyone in the anyone in the immediate family was aware that during her last time alone with mum, who we knew had only a day or so left to live, she promised my little granddaughter a unicorn ring. The little one only explained this to us afterwards.

It was on returning home from a walk with my son, when he suggested they could ask mum for a sign she was in Heaven, that I was there when they came back, my granddaughter went straight to her bedroom to put her backpack away and returned in triumph holding up a unicorn ring, which was lying right in the middle of her bedroom floor.

My son completely freaked out!

The point being, I guess, if anyone has an experience of their own to relate and whilst we might ponder a conceivable explanation, I am acutely now aware there simply might not be one.

It's actually taken these past two years, almost to the day, for it to fully sink in that there is only one possible answer to my own Fortean encounter and it's not possible.

If that makes any sense...

Shall endeavour to find something directly related to the question.... I'm sure there are at least a couple of examples I have come across.

 

[EnolaGaia]

This got me thinking ... , but surely sceptics should have more UFO sightings than most other people? ...

I'm not understanding this proposition at all. Why should skeptics have more UFO sightings than people who are neutral about UFOs or UFO believers?

 

[BS3]

I'm not understanding this proposition at all. Why should skeptics have more UFO sightings than people who are neutral about UFOs or UFO believers?

Because active sceptics, by which I mean people who are actively interested in the phenomenon but are sceptical, would surely be paying attention to the sky a bit more than people who have no interest?

Believers are another matter

 

[EnolaGaia]

Isn't that simply claiming that the people more / most likely to pay attention to the skies are the people who are interested in UFOs - regardless of their position on what UFOs represent?

 

[BS3]

What a fascinating topic... I shall have a think about this.

It's one aspect of the overall question - have you ever experienced something so anomalous, it defies any inherent skepticism and rationalisation.

Personally, I haven't seen an inexplicable 'UFO', ghost or creature popping up from the depths of Loch Ness during my frequent fishing trips there, when very much younger!

I did however, have an opportunity to both witness and document in real time, an occurrence which makes no logical reasoning.

Post in thread 'Contact From Beyond The Grave? (IHTM)' https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/contact-from-beyond-the-grave-ihtm.63685/post-1965377

Thc elemental factor was that neither my son, myself, or anyone in the anyone in the immediate family was aware that during her last time alone with mum, who we knew had only a day or so left to live, she promised my little granddaughter a unicorn ring. The little one only explained this to us afterwards.

It was on returning home from a walk with my son, when he suggested they could ask mum for a sign she was in Heaven, that I was there when they came back, my granddaughter went straight to her bedroom to put her backpack away and returned in triumph holding up a unicorn ring, which was lying right in the middle of her bedroom floor.

My son completely freaked out!

The point being, I guess, if anyone has an experience of their own to relate and whilst we might ponder a conceivable explanation, I am acutely now aware there simply might not be one.

It's actually taken these past two years, almost to the day, for it to fully sink in that there is only one possible answer to my own Fortean encounter and it's not possible.

If that makes any sense...

Shall endeavour to find something directly related to the question.... I'm sure there are at least a couple of examples I have come across.

The aspect of something defying inherent rationalisation is an interesting one, particularly how the brain reacts when confronted with this situation.

In my own case, the object could perhaps have been a foil or mylar balloon of some kind. The thing is, as a person with an interest in explaining such things, I've several times noticed and followed with the eye escaped balloons of this type, and the appearance and movement of this object was quite different. I still suspect it was a balloon, but just couldn't get enough corroborating information, so have to fall back on...well, belief, really. This felt immediately uncomfortable and I wonder what the effect would be on someone in a more excitable state of mind. Perhaps the most disturbing part was that the photograph actually showed it, I was sort of hoping it wouldn't.

 

[BS3]

Isn't that simply claiming that the people more / most likely to pay attention to the skies are the people who are interested in UFOs - regardless of their position on what UFOs represent?

Well yes, but that also means that sceptics - who are interested in UFOs - should see more than the average disinterested person? I wasn't claiming any great insight here, just wondering if any well known sceptics other than Menzel had reported their own sighting.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

I'm only really aware of Donald Menzel's sighting in New Mexico in 1949. Is anyone aware of any others?

This is quite a challenge, nonetheless, I have come across something in my archives which maybe comes close.

Whilst not tantamount to an admission that certain well documented triangular-shaped UFO sightings are inexplicable, we have acknowledgement of a point I have long emphasised - it typically makes no sense that they are clandestine, or covert, military aircraft.

It's from an e-mail, sent to myself some years ago:

"Interestingly support for this conclusion comes for the most unlikely of sources. Philip Klass (as senior editor for Av Week) was asked whether there could be any validity to explaining the Hudson Valley and Belgian flaps with Secret military aircraft, Stealth or otherwise. "In my opinion the answer is absolutely not," responded Klass, adding that only those sightings "in the vicinity of Nellis Air Force Base" in Nevada could be caused by military aircraft tests. "If there were a secret airplane," continued Klass, "for goodness' sake, the last place in the world you'd want to fly it is in Duchess County, where people have been alerted to look for objects."

Wish I had the opportunity to ask, "so, where do you reckon they come from then, Phil..."?

 

[eburacum]

I've certainly seen a lot of phenomena which might have been classified as a UFO or UAP by a different observer. Indeed, I scan the ephemera looking for astronomical conjunctions, apparitions and oppositions which might provoke such observations, and keep an eye on weather conditions on the look out for weather phenomena such as lenticular clouds and parhelia. I've seen plenty of weird stuff, but explained it all to my own satisfaction.

In some cases, I've explained these phenomena in real time, or soon afterwards, to a witness who might have otherwise believed they had seen an anomalous craft. One time I received a phone call to report a UFO which turned out to be a conjunction between Mars and Jupiter, and another time (on this forum) I successfully explained a UFO as the tip of the Emley Moor transmitter as seen from a passing aircraft.

My first UFO experience at the age of eleven (an actual flying saucer) was successfully explained to me by my brother as a deflating weather balloon, and that account is on this forum as well. Maybe if my brother hadn't explained this event I would still be a UFO believer.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

I consider myself a fully paid-up sceptic who, I suppose, believes the UFO phenomenon says more about human consciousness than it does about anything non-human. Yet I have actually seen, and indeed photographed, what I have to call a 'UFO' (the picture isn't that interesting, though does establish that something was actually there). I guess this is partly because as someone with an occasional interest in how things in the sky are misperceived, I'm often looking up - I wouldn't have noticed otherwise.

This got me thinking - I seem to remember reading a similar statistic about astronomers, but surely sceptics should have more UFO sightings than most other people? I'm only really aware of Donald Menzel's sighting in New Mexico in 1949. Is anyone aware of any others?

Interesting topic.

Two thoughts come to mind:

Firstly, so many supposed UFO sightings are explainable as natural phenomena, mis-identified aircraft, the tip of a tv mast etc. that seeing something UFO-like and then being able to rationalise it perhaps serves to entrench a skeptic's beliefs.

Secondly, many paranormal witnesses are former skeptics who have had to come to terms with what they saw/experienced. Some even continue to state that they don't believe in the paranormal but they cannot explain the ghost that walked through the door or the giant triangular craft that floated silently overhead. For example, in the 'Credible Witness' books by Andy Gilbert, several of the serving and retired Police officers state they don't believe in ghosts but have experienced something ghostly they simply cannot explain in rational terms.

Then you have those who do believe in poltergeists and hauntings but not UFOs. Personally, I dod not believe in the Catholic God and church and do not believe any of the so-called 'miracles' are evidence of that God but rather hoaxes and misattributed natural phenomena. So that makes me a skeptic in that instance, however, I do believe in poltergeists, hauntings and an 'intelligent other' behind some mystery creature and UfO experiences.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

It's actually taken these past two years, almost to the day, for it to fully sink in that there is only one possible answer to my own Fortean encounter and it's not possible.

Cross-reference:

Post in thread 'Contact From Beyond The Grave? (IHTM)' https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/contact-from-beyond-the-grave-ihtm.63685/post-2147661

 

[Comfortably Numb]

This is perhaps relative to the thread.

Certainly someone who not only reversed his initial stance, he went on to have a major impact.

I have never seen this archive footage before now and it captures a landmark moment in the history of ufolology;

 

[EnolaGaia]

This is perhaps relative to the thread.

Ahem ... "Relative" - well, yes, by definition. "Relevant"? That's another matter. Here's why I say that ...

Certainly someone who not only reversed his initial stance, he went on to have a major impact. ...

As far as I know, Hynek (not 'Heneke') attempted to maintain a neutral position on what UFOs may be, even as he shifted toward attributing greater credence to the reports from people who'd actually seen a UFO.

I don't consider him to have been a dogmatic skeptic to begin with, and I don't consider him to have morphed into a definite "believer" during his years reviewing the reports.

More to the point of relevance in the context of this thread ... As far as I know, Hynek never witnessed a UFO himself.

 

[Kondoru]

He was a Sceptic with a `c` rather than a Skeptic with a `k`.

 

[hunck]

He was a Sceptic with a `c` rather than a Skeptic with a `k`.

What's the difference?

 

[EnolaGaia]

What's the difference?

In most cases it's simply the location / background of the speaker ('k' in North America; 'c' elsewhere).

There's one particular exception that's of recent origin and seems to be spreading. This involves routinely using the 'k' version whenever alluding to formal or doctrinaire (as contrasted with personal / individual) orientation - e.g., "scientific skepticism"; "Randi and the other diehard skeptics".

 

[gerhard1]

In most cases it's simply the location / background of the speaker ('k' in North America; 'c' elsewhere).

There's one particular exception that's of recent origin and seems to be spreading. This involves routinely using the 'k' version whenever alluding to formal or doctrinaire (as contrasted with personal / individual) orientation - e.g., "scientific skepticism"; "Randi and the other diehard skeptics".

Didn't know there was a different meaning that was determined by the spelling.

Be that as it may, I am a skeptic (or sceptic) when it comes to UFOs, and I have seen aerial phenomena that I can't explain, so I am open-minded.

Being cognizant of the fact that there are many things that we don't fully understand, I'm willing to let the evidence be my guide.

 

[SimonBurchell]

In recent times, sceptic has been used to refer to rigorous neutral investigators (e.g. J. Allen Hynek), and skeptic to dogmatic debunkers (e.g. Joe Nickell, James Randi etc).

 

[BS3]

At what point in time did the term "debunker", within the ufologist community, become a slightly derogatory way of indicating a certain type of "UFO sceptic"? Was this usage invented for Phil Klass?

James E McDonald is, I think, someone who experienced a reversal from scepticism to believing there was 'something in it', partly due to a sighting of his own. Although I suppose as someone who studied the atmosphere he was probably looking upward more than most people.

 

[EnolaGaia]

At what point in time did the term "debunker", within the ufologist community, become a slightly derogatory way of indicating a certain type of "UFO sceptic"? Was this usage invented for Phil Klass? ...

That's an interesting question. First, here are some basic facts.

The term "debunk" is American in origin, having been coined in the 1923 novel Bunk by William Woodward. "Bunk", in turn, is a slang American term for "nonsense" (with varying shades of pejorative gloss). This means both terms were part of American vernacular during the last decade of Fort's life. However, I can't locate either in Fort's books from that period. I suppose the first person famed for being a debunker was Houdini, who died circa 3 years after the term "debunk" emerged.

My point here is that the label "debunker" could well have been available prior to the genesis of the modern UFO era in 1947. Still, I don't know whether anyone invoked it as early as the Forties or Fifties.

Klass would be an obvious suspect to be tarred with the label "debunker" in its more derogatory sense(s) - i.e., one who doesn't simply contest or disprove, but one who goes farther to deride, mock, and make a show of cutting down whomever is being debunked. He more or less burst on the ufology scene in 1966. His story and that timeframe would therefore be reasonable starting points for exploring whether the mid-Sixties was where the usage you specified began.

Hynek referred to himself as a "debunker" during certain phases of his association with the USAF investigation programs, and he referred to the USAF administrative attitude as geared to "debunk" UFOs at certain points (e.g., Project Grudge). However, his earliest use of such phrasing I can readily find is in his Seventies era book The Hynek UFO Report.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

At what point in time did the term "debunker", within the ufologist community, become a slightly derogatory way of indicating a certain type of "UFO sceptic"? Was this usage invented for Phil Klass?

Intriguing question and this is the first association with 'debunk' I can find on newspapers.com - surprised it comes up so early.

'The Moline Daily Dispatch' (Illinois)
5 July, 1947

Scientists Debunk Flying Saucers

By PAUL F. ELLIS, United Press Science Writer.

"Reports of "flying saucers" whizzing through the air at rocket speeds poured in again today from many parts of the nation, causing scientists to speculate that many Americans were suffering a bad case of jitters.

One expert in the diagnosis of human behavior flatly said that the so-called "phenomena" was pure imagination, hallucination or delusion on the part of many of those who reported reported seeing "strange objects."

Another scientist, an authority on astronomy, said he be lieved "some persons were seeing spots before their eyes"."

(...)

www.forteanmedia.com/1947_07_05_The_Dispatch.jpg

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The term "debunk" is American in origin, having been coined in the 1923 novel Bunk by William Woodward. "Bunk", in turn, is a slang American term for "nonsense".....

Cross-post there!

This is something I have wondered about - thank you for resolving same.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Intriguing question and this is the first association with 'debunk' I can find on newspapers.com - surprised it comes up so early. ...

Good find! If nothing else it establishes the use of "debunk" in relation to UFO reports after Arnold's story had spread nationwide but before the first news accounts of Roswell.

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Still, I don't know whether anyone invoked it as early as the Forties or Fifties..

First related use of 'debunkers' I can see, is associated with the Air Force and doesn't appear until much later:

'Pittsburgh Press'
22 March, 1950

Saucer Debunkers Now Show Interest

Air Force to Quiz Pilots Who Saw One

MEMPHIS, Tenn. March 22 (UP) The Air Force, official debunker of flying saucer stories, apparently was interested in the newest one today.

Capt. Jack Adams and First Officer G. W. Anderson, airline pilots who saw a strange object flying over Arkansas Monday night, said they had been notified that Air Force Intelligence wanted to talk with them.

Capt. Adams said the report came from Little Rock. Ark. He said he presumed an intelligence officer would talk to them.

They were flying a plane from Memphis, to Shreveport. La., where they spotted the flying dise over Stuttgart, Ark. They gave perhaps the most detailed description yet offered of a mys terious dise in the sky.

Countless persons have told of seeing flying saucers and count less explanations have been of fered, but officially they don't exist.

The aviators believed the one they saw was a secret experi mental type aircraft.

"We are certain this was no meteor," they said. "It was an aireraft in controlled flight, traveling at a terrific speed. It was not a jet plane."

They said the "strangest, strongest blue-white light we've ever seen" blinked very rapidly on top of the object.
(End)

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The aforementioned article is soon followed by one I am familiar with, however, have never considered it in this fascinating context before.

Debunking the official debunker?

'The Rock Island Argus' (Illinois)
31 March, 1950

Major, Debunker of Flying Saucers, Keeps Saying, 'No, No, 1,000 Times, No'

Named by Army To Handle All Inquiries.

BY DOUGLAS LARSEN (Argus Special Writer)

Washington - Armed only with an old, dog-eared press release, Major DeWitt R. Searles is making a heroic stand between the flying saucer threat and the whole rest of the world.

Military unification, operating in its purest, jet-propelled form, has played the cruel trick of assigning Major Searles as Uncle Sam's official debunker of the flying saucer. Hour after hour in his Pentagon office, day after day, on the telephone, in inter views, at home, before breakfast, on Sunday night, Major Searles keeps repeating:

"No, no, a thousand times no. As far as the air force goes there's no such thing as a flying saucer. Further, there are no such things as flying chromium hub caps, flying dimes, flying tear drops, flying gas lights, flying ice cream cones or flying pie plates, thank you and goodby."

All of these items have been reported seen by reliable witnesses. It's Scarles' corollary function to deny their existence. If the saucer thing turns out as something other than liver spots before the blood shot eye, Major Searles will automatically become the reddest faced air force officer in history,

Searles saucerful of trouble goes back to a fateful Tuesday, June 24, 1947. A Boise, Idaho...

(...)

Full article:

www.forteanmedia.com/1950_03_31_Rock_Island_Argus.pdf

Kudos to the editor's 'selective', accompanying, photograph!

 

[Comfortably Numb]

As perhaps verging further off-topic, a final mention which might be of interest?

Philip Klass becomes involved for the first time?

I can't locate anything earlier - statedly using only newspapers.com as a brief search and simply out of historical curiosity.

This article also appears elsewhere:

'The Morning Call' (Pennsylvania)
23 August, 1966

UFOs May Be Ionized Air Balls

By EVERT CLARK (e) N. Y. Times News Service

WASHINGTON - Many "flying saucers" may be balls of ionized air that originate along electric power high-tension electric lines, an authoritative aeronautical journal suggested Monday,

The magazine, Aviation Week & Space Technology, noted that many night-time sightings of un identified flying objects (UFOs) have been along or near power lines. It also noted many similarities between ball lightning and the reported behavior off the UFOS.

If the "corona discharge" of luminous, ionized air that forms along power lines detached itself and danced, hovered and spun as ball lightning does, this might explain the erratic movement often attributed to saucers at night, Philip J. Klass, a senior editor and electronics specialist for the magazine, wrote. Klass emphasized that he does not offer his theory as explanation for all UFO sightings nor even for all night time observations. However, he urged that the Air Force, which has responsibility for investigating UFO reports, and independent scientists look further into the question.

(...)

Full article:

www.forteanmedia.com/1966_08_23_Morning_Call.pdf

 

[Comfortably Numb]

Contemplating if there were any notable skeptics we might have missed, when you add something highlighted on the Kenneth Arnold thread and has literally just come to mind, what about Arnold himself?:

PENDLETON, Ore., July 10. (INS) - The first person to report "flying discs" stood staunchly by his original story today and rejected any suggestion that he might have seen a weather balloon or the exhaust of jet planes.

He also declared that only three other people have seen what he witnessed and implied that other "eyewitnesses" of the mysterious aircraft are reporting something else or nothing at all.
(End)

When you think about it.... didn't Arnold explain that our archetypal 'flying saucers' were not what he had claimed to have seen at all.

 

[BS3]

I was reminded of another of these Damascene conversion sort of things when posting about the 1978 Argosy sighting in New Zealand - allegedly the reporter Fogarty began the flight as a skeptic (to the degree he was about to record a short piece to camera at the start of the flight saying they'd seen nothing) but after half an hour or so was left shaking with fear and excitement at what he was seeing.

Having said that you wonder how many of these 'skeptics turned believers' were actually that convinced in their scepticism to start off with. I note that both the Argosy's crew in later years said stuff to the effect that while what they saw was extremely odd, pilots saw 'odd' things all the time and they were not convinced they were seeing spacecraft.

What I find interesting about Menzel is that his own sighting, while an 'unknown', didn't appear to dent his skepticism.

 

[Paul_Exeter]

I was reminded of another of these Damascene conversion sort of things when posting about the 1978 Argosy sighting in New Zealand - allegedly the reporter Fogarty began the flight as a skeptic (to the degree he was about to record a short piece to camera at the start of the flight saying they'd seen nothing) but after half an hour or so was left shaking with fear and excitement at what he was seeing.

Having said that you wonder how many of these 'skeptics turned believers' were actually that convinced in their scepticism to start off with. I note that both the Argosy's crew in later years said stuff to the effect that while what they saw was extremely odd, pilots saw 'odd' things all the time and they were not convinced they were seeing spacecraft.

What I find interesting about Menzel is that his own sighting, while an 'unknown', didn't appear to dent his skepticism.

The Argosy sightings made global headlines at the time, and there was a decent book about them in our school library the early-80s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaikoura_lights

Personally, I feel that the fact New Zealand is on an active fault line points towards earthlights

 

[BS3]

The Argosy sightings made global headlines at the time, and there was a decent book about them in our school library the early-80s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaikoura_lights

Personally, I feel that the fact New Zealand is on an active fault line points towards earthlights

I remember them being featured in a documentary in the BBC Horizon series that was the talk of my primary school, amongst those whose parents had allowed them to stay up to watch it. I think it also featured Travis Walton (possibly) and a few other classics.

I have to say even at that age I found the film a bit underwhelming - but even so was surprised that the case had fallen off the radar (no pun intended) in the intervening years. I know the squid boat explanation for the radar/visual / film sighting of a very bright object on the first part of the northward leg is quite strong, but even so the whole series of events seems more compelling than a lot of better known sightings