On David Grusch's "whistleblowing" and other apparent (but not quite) nothing burgers

[deirdre]

Because he was 77 years old at the time, and already holding on to this secret for at least 37 years. He probably lost contact with his peers who shared this information. You tend to get an itch to spill the beans in such a situation. But he got more and more evasive later, so he probably regretted it.
He may have become frustrated with it himself. Note how he recommends to leave the subject alone, because nothing can be done about it anyway; "when you find out everything about it, what are you going to do?".

c'mon Habib Azadehdel aka Henry Victorian is a character made up by that guy everyone thinks made "Alien Autopsy" and Robert Irving . The UFO community doesnt even think he's real or they'd all be talking about him.

add: the mythologist is a graduate film "documentary" about Habib's life.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190102194550/http://www.mythologist.co.uk/film.html

 

[Empiricist]

I disagree. For all we know, all of those people may simply have seen the Gimbal video or the Go-Fast video and based their judgement on material that has since been largely explained away. We really need to know exactly what material anyone is referring to when they claim evidence for UFOs, and that people are not simply regurgitating debunked UFOs from the past, batman balloons, and so on.

I preemptively addressed this rebuttal in my original post. It's a strong claim that the list of folks hoodwinked by the Navy videos is so large. Furthermore, the quotes I presented - as I read them - all have a tone not of "what I've seen is unusual" but instead of "there is evidence of something unexplainable". A specific concrete example is Ratcliffe's reference to "satellite imagery" which seems clearly to not refer to "debunked UFOs from the past".

Of course it would be nice to have a quote that refers precisely to the evidence that was used to form the opinion (or even better yet, the evidence itself) but since many of these quotes are from people with clearances, I'm not surprised they aren't saying "oh yes, this particular classified video I saw shows xyz". These quotes in aggregate suggest that credible evidence was presented, without referencing the specific evidence used to develop that opinion. That isn't surprising, it's what I would expect if they are referring to classified information. When the US warned that intelligence suggested that Russia was going to invade Ukraine, they didn't come out and say "and we believe this because our satellite imagery shows us the movement of x from y to z". As expected, you can observe intense skepticism of such claims on Metabunk, but they were broadly correct.

It just strikes me as implausible and a bit self-aggrandizing that all of the people I quoted are hopelessly credulous, and only us true skeptics on Metabunk have the wherewithal to view Gimbal, Go-Fast, and balloon photographs and not immediately start credulously repeating UFO claims.

 

[deirdre]

It just strikes me as implausible and a big self-aggrandizing that all of the people I quoted are hopelessly credulous, and only us true skeptics on Metabunk have the wherewithal to view Gimbal, Go-Fast, and balloon photographs and not immediately start credulously repeating UFO claims.

because the people who read Metabunk have seen the debunk bits and the explanations (and demonstrations) of parallax and camera flare etc. Are the people you quoted reading Metabunk? If not then how would they know the explanation.

Of course Gimbal, Go-Fast etc were UFOs. Technically they are still UFOs as we cant 100% identify the exact object they are. They are still unidentified objects. Most MBers though now understand there is nothing in the clips, photos that suggest they must be extraterrestrial.

p.s Obama is not in any way shape or form referring to ETUFOs. and your quote is from a comedy show.

 

[Scaramanga]

It just strikes me as implausible and a big self-aggrandizing that all of the people I quoted are hopelessly credulous

But maybe they are. Didn't we just have a case where many experts deemed an animal running wild in Berlin was a lion, but it seems far more likely it is a wild hog.

The problem I have is that again and again Nick Pope's infamous 'trained observers' do get things wrong. Top military brass do get things wrong. One has only to look at the number of major airline crashes resulting from trained pilots mis-interpreting things. Pilots taking off from the wrong runway. Pilots landing on the wrong runway. Pilots switching off the wrong engine. These are people with hundreds of hours experience. They are Nick Pope's 'trained observers'. And they consistently make mistakes or misjudge the situation.

 

[Empiricist]

because the people who read Metabunk have seen the debunk bits and the explanations (and demonstrations) of parallax and camera flare etc.

I was skeptical of these videos even before I discovered MB. Had I been shown Go-Fast and Gimbal while in a public position, I would absolutely not make such credulous statements as those quoted about what I had seen.

What I would find compelling is a single example of someone on the congressional or senate intelligence committee making skeptical statements about the evidence they have had presented to them. At the current point in time I am not aware of such evidence, and I hope that someone will surface it if it exists.

p.s Obama is not in any way shape or form referring to ETUFOs. and your quote is from a comedy show.

I'm sorry, but it's hard for me not to read this as being in bad faith. The Obama quote I included in my post starts with the words "What is true, and I'm actually being serious here". Are you honestly arguing that the fact it was said on a comedy show somehow invalidates it?

 

[deirdre]

I'm sorry, but it's hard for me not to read this as being in bad faith. The Obama quote I included in my post starts with the words "What is true, and I'm actually being serious here". Are you honestly arguing that the fact it was said on a comedy show somehow invalidates it?

what makes you think he's not talking about Chinese or Russian craft, is the point. Then he goes on to joke about the band leader being an alien because it was a comedy show. But you left out the part where he was making fun of aliens, and included him in a list as if he was thinking the ufos were aliens.

 

[Itsme]

I'm not quite 77 years old yet, but I've never gotten "an itch to spill the beans" on the multiple classified programs I worked during my career. I'm willing to talk about those days, but only within the confines of what I know is unclassified. I gave my word. I feel confident in saying my former colleagues would tell you the same thing.

These are no 'ordinary' classified programs. You're comparing apples and oranges here and generalizing your own experience.

These phone interviews give credence to Grush's story and refute claims that 'there is no evidence'. Simply dismissing them based on the argument that Dr Walker would never spill the beans is not very convincing.

 

[Empiricist]

what makes you think he's not talking about Chinese or Russian craft, is the point. Then he goes on to joke about the band leader being an alien because it was a comedy show. But you left out the part where he was making fun of aliens, and included him in a list as if he was thinking the ufos were aliens.

You seem to be attributing a claim to me that I haven't made. In fairness, my original post was long, so let me rephrase my claim succinctly:

OP asked for evidence which contradicts the "periphery hypothesis". The quotes I provided - to me - seem to suggest that the quoted parties have seen some actual evidence versus only "he said/she said" claims which would be expected were the "periphery hypothesis" correct. A specific concrete example is Ratcliffe's use of the phrase "satellite imagery" which clearly isn't referring to Gimbal, Go-Fast, or any of the usual LIZ suspects.

I made no claim about whether or not these quotes support the existence of extraterrestrials.

 

[Amathia]

One other argument is the seeming lack of a skeptical take on this whole situation from anyone with a higher level clearance - especially someone from the Congress or Senate intelligence committees. Why hasn't anyone on such committees said, "I've seen the same evidence as my colleagues, and I don't personally find it to be strong evidence. At the current time the only evidence I've been presented is still weak/anecdotal."

The only things I can think of are comments like the following by Sue Gough:


But this is very clearly lawyer-like speak: "AARO has not discovered"/"verifiable information" versus just saying "no such programs exist" or even "no credible evidence of such programs has been found".

You may find this older thread containing similar discussion to be interesting (and it also has the sources for the quotes here).

This obviously doesn't count if what you're looking for is a statement from the Congress or Senate intelligence committee, but since you also mentioned "seeming lack of a skeptical take on this whole situation from anyone with a higher level clearance", I think Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick meets the criteria for the latter:

"I should also state clearly for the record that in our research AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics," said Kirkpatrick.

"In the event sufficient scientific data were ever obtained that a UAP encountered can only be explained by extraterrestrial origin, we are committed to working with our interagency partners at NASA to appropriately inform the U.S. Government's leadership of its findings," he added.

But what makes this difficult is that no one knows who has seen what, so there's no way to know, for instance, if the things Obama was referring to have been analyzed by AARO and found to not be anomalous, or if he's referring to some piece of evidence no one else has seen. Pretty frustrating.

 

[LilWabbit]

I'm sorry, but it's hard for me not to read this as being in bad faith. The Obama quote I included in my post starts with the words "What is true, and I'm actually being serious here". Are you honestly arguing that the fact it was said on a comedy show somehow invalidates it?

Peppered with Elizondo's outlandish interpretations the same somewhat unimpressive -- and by now largely demystified -- footage would have surely raised hairs pre-2019. I have no doubt even Obama received a briefing featuring, one way or another, Elizondo's explanation of physics-defying flight characteristics as a viable alternative. Remember, Lou was at the helm during Obama's time. And yet, it seems Obama wasn't all that overwhelmed by what he was briefed.

 

[Itsme]

c'mon Habib Azadehdel aka Henry Victorian is a character made up by that guy everyone thinks made "Alien Autopsy" and Robert Irving . The UFO community doesnt even think he's real or they'd all be talking about him.

add: the mythologist is a graduate film "documentary" about Habib's life.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190102194550/http://www.mythologist.co.uk/film.html

I think you're confusing two persons here. Your link refers to 'Armen Victorian', a shop assistant, and you to 'Habib Azadehkal'.
The interview was by Dr. Armen Azadehdel, (using his English name Henry Victorian) a physicist from Nottingham England.

 

[Amathia]

I'm not quite 77 years old yet, but I've never gotten "an itch to spill the beans" on the multiple classified programs I worked during my career. I'm willing to talk about those days, but only within the confines of what I know is unclassified. I gave my word. I feel confident in saying my former colleagues would tell you the same thing.

Serious question here, would you really not feel any itch whatsoever even if the program involved ETs and/or NHI? Not many classified programs would have such a monumental impact on the history of humanity as something like this would. If even working on something like this wouldn't make you have doubts about how appropriate it is to keep it hidden from the rest of humanity then, idk, you're weird?

 

[deirdre]

These phone interviews give credence to Grush's story

They aren't real. they are made up fanfiction type stuff.

 

[deirdre]

You seem to be attributing a claim to me that I haven't made. In fairness, my original post was long, so let me rephrase my claim succinctly:

OP asked for evidence which contradicts the "periphery hypothesis". The quotes I provided - to me - seem to suggest that the quoted parties have seen some actual evidence versus only "he said/she said" claims which would be expected were the "periphery hypothesis" correct. A specific concrete example is Ratcliffe's use of the phrase "satellite imagery" which clearly isn't referring to Gimbal, Go-Fast, or any of the usual LIZ suspects.

I made no claim about whether or not these quotes support the existence of extraterrestrials.

the context of this thread is ETs (Grusch)... so thank you for clarifying your stance.

note: i also dont believe Obama actually spent time looking at videos of alleged weird stuff. I imagine as President he had more important matters to spend his time on.
More probable someone just told him and he believed them, as why wouldnt he.

 

[Duke]

Serious question here, would you really not feel any itch whatsoever even if the program involved ETs and/or NHI? Not many classified programs would have such a monumental impact on the history of humanity as something like this would. If even working on something like this wouldn't make you have doubts about how appropriate it is to keep it hidden from the rest of humanity then, idk, you're weird?

Simple answer, no. When you are read into classified programs, regardless of the level or subject matter, you agree not to reveal what you've learned until such time as the information is declassified. You give your word. Honor and integrity are not weird, or at least they didn't use to be.

 

[deirdre]

I think you're confusing two persons here. Your link refers to 'Armen Victorian', a shop assistant, and you to 'Habib Azadehkal'.
The interview was by Dr. Armen Azadehdel, (using his English name Henry Victorian) a physicist from Nottingham England.

They're all the same person. Read the whole story by Irving.

Feel free to debunk me by finding a physicist in England named Dr. Armen Azadehdel.

Article:

In contrast, Habib Azadehdel arrives wearing a pale reflective raincoat which lights up like a strobe as he makes his dash for the door.
...
Ostensibly, because, as careers go, the route from international diplomat to insurance salesman to notorious smuggler to renowned flying saucer investigator seems as implausible as it was precarious. 'Henry' was the first of several noms de guerre. 'Julian Philips', for instance - doubtless inspired by the arrival of his first son, Julleane Philippe - or 'Mr Scanlon', 'Dr Allan Jones', and 'Cassava N'tumba'. When Henry finally settled for the playful 'Dr Armen Victorian', few of his compatriots seemed to notice

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190103122538/http://www.mythologist.co.uk/henryxfile.html

 

[Itsme]

They're all the same person. Read the whole story by Irving.

Feel free to debunk me by finding a physicist in England named Dr. Armen Azadehdel.

Article:

In contrast, Habib Azadehdel arrives wearing a pale reflective raincoat which lights up like a strobe as he makes his dash for the door.
...
Ostensibly, because, as careers go, the route from international diplomat to insurance salesman to notorious smuggler to renowned flying saucer investigator seems as implausible as it was precarious. 'Henry' was the first of several noms de guerre. 'Julian Philips', for instance - doubtless inspired by the arrival of his first son, Julleane Philippe - or 'Mr Scanlon', 'Dr Allan Jones', and 'Cassava N'tumba'. When Henry finally settled for the playful 'Dr Armen Victorian', few of his compatriots seemed to notice

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190103122538/http://www.mythologist.co.uk/henryxfile.html

That was a colourful person. But I don't see a reason why he wouldn't have had a telephone conversation with Dr Walker. From your source:

Azadehdel's approach, like the Aviary's, was multifaceted. He explained to those listening that the techniques he used were those "usually deployed" by the intelligence services. Using a host of assumed identities, Henry plagued the Armed and Intelligence Services, and assorted scientists with telephone calls, his tape recorder running and well stocked, and flooded the US government with requests for sensitive records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The other phone interview was not even by him.
So anything to back up your claim these phone interviews were 'fan fiction'?

 

[Ann K]

I'm not quite 77 years old yet, but I've never gotten "an itch to spill the beans" on the multiple classified programs I worked during my career. I'm willing to talk about those days, but only within the confines of what I know is unclassified. I gave my word. I feel confident in saying my former colleagues would tell you the same thing.

Physical age is not mental or emotional age, and although I'm reluctant to accuse anyone else of dementia (now where did I leave that ...uh, what was I looking for just now?) we would be remiss not to consider his age as a factor.

 

[Empiricist]

Peppered with Elizondo's outlandish interpretations the same somewhat unimpressive -- and by now largely demystified -- footage would have surely raised hairs pre-2019. I have no doubt even Obama received a briefing featuring, one way or another, Elizondo's explanation of physics-defying flight characteristics as a viable alternative. Remember, Lou was at the helm during Obama's time. And yet, it seems Obama wasn't all that overwhelmed by what he was briefed.

If this is indeed what happened, it's incredibly depressing/terrifying that the Navy videos combined with Elizondo's explanations would make it all the way to the president's intelligence briefing without any skeptic stepping in to say, "hold on now". Unfortunately I do find such a thing plausible.

Yet Obama has not come out since then to say that he's more dubious of such claims now than he was at the time. Not only that, but his production company is filming a documentary on the Betty and Barney Hill abduction story. (Let me be clear - I don't interpret that as Obama supporting the ET hypothesis - but I would expect his production company to stay away from such things if he found them completely ridiculous.)

There has been plenty of time for any of these folks to come out and update us, letting us know that after having seen some of the analyses discussed here (I see Mick West getting more media coverage these days) they are more skeptical or no longer believe there is anything non-prosaic going on. Instead, as far as I can tell, the general level of credulity is only increasing. None of the quoted people has searched out and found the prosaic explanations for Go-Fast and Gimbal proffered here? Being contrary gets you airtime, and UFOs are apparently bipartisan now - so why aren't we seeing more skepticism?

 

[deirdre]

So anything to back up your claim these phone interviews were 'fan fiction'?

its alot to link. that was their whole thing..John Lundberg and Irving...hoaxing stuff.

so let's say Irving (who i think was Armen) called Walker. I'm fine with that. what proof do you have that that is the real conversation? some odd website with an alleged transcript? when you look it up only 3 sites (in ALL the internet) have that transcript.

let alone the phone call conversation doesnt flow like a phone call. If Irving did call walker he edited the bleep out of that transcript. do you have access to the alleged tapes?

edit add: (sorry so late looking up)

Article:

Crain alleges that Walker attended these meetings during his stint as Executive Secretary of Research and Development for the federal government in the 1950s.

Walker, who still lives in Centre County, denied any knowledge or involvement in government UFO investigations.

Source: https://www.psucollegian.com/archives/psu-may-have-investigated-ufos/article_c49c34b8-6eea-51fa-9ff1-f32c7b4529e2.html

 

[LilWabbit]

Physical age is not mental or emotional age, and although I'm reluctant to accuse anyone else of dementia (now where did I leave that ...uh, what was I looking for just now?) we would be remiss not to consider his age as a factor.

I work alongside officers and experts of all ages and ranks advising the supreme command of our military forces.

I can vouch for most of the young ones sharing with us and exhibiting the very same honour and integrity to uphold confidentiality. Sometimes with even that extra youthful vigour.

It's a matter of pride to serve and to protect a nation from armed aggression. But if a person has an even 'higher calling' of alerting the public of immorally withheld secrets on aliens and their tech, then this calling becomes a security risk in and of itself.

 

[deirdre]

There has been plenty of time for any of these folks to come out and update us, letting us know that after having seen some of the analyses discussed here (I see Mick West getting more media coverage these days) they are more skeptical or no longer believe there is anything non-prosaic going on.

Dont forget these are politicians. and/or movie makers (ie. Obama) Turning off 50-60% of your target audience isnt really in anyone's best interest. just saying.

 

[JMartJr]

The problem I have is that again and again Nick Pope's infamous 'trained observers' do get things wrong. Top military brass do get things wrong. One has only to look at the number of major airline crashes resulting from trained pilots mis-interpreting things. Pilots taking off from the wrong runway. Pilots landing on the wrong runway. Pilots switching off the wrong engine. These are people with hundreds of hours experience. They are Nick Pope's 'trained observers'.

OK, I'm with you so far...

And they consistently make mistakes or misjudge the situation.

I'd disagree, in a gentle and friendly way. They RARELY make mistakes, or misjudge situations, at least in situations where that would have major ramifications. If they consistently made such errors, the number of airline crashes would be very much larger. But as you say, look at the number -- it's very small. However, there are a LOT of them, judging uncountable many situations every day -- some very small percentage of the time they make mistakes, which means we get the occasional plane crash and the occasional UFO report. With the large number of pilots (estimated between 1.5 and 2.3 million in the world -- https://www.statista.com/statistics/740147/active-pilots-airline-industry/) interpreting multiple objects and phenomena pretty much every time they fly, being wrong, or uncertain, pretty rarely would adequately account for the number of UFO reports we're aware of.

I'd contend pilots may well be better at identifying things seen in the sky than the rest of us -- they spend more time doing it "on the fly," so to speak! But they are not perfect, and there are a LOT of them.

 

[LilWabbit]

If this is indeed what happened, it's incredibly depressing/terrifying that the Navy videos combined with Elizondo's explanations would make it all the way to the president's intelligence briefing without any skeptic stepping in to say, "hold on now". Unfortunately I do find such a thing plausible.

Yet Obama has not come out since then to say that he's more dubious of such claims now than he was at the time. Not only that, but his production company is filming a documentary on the Betty and Barney Hill abduction story. (Let me be clear - I don't interpret that as Obama supporting the ET hypothesis - but I would expect his production company to stay away from such things if he found them completely ridiculous.)

There has been plenty of time for any of these folks to come out and update us, letting us know that after having seen some of the analyses discussed here (I see Mick West getting more media coverage these days) they are more skeptical or no longer believe there is anything non-prosaic going on. Instead, as far as I can tell, the general level of credulity is only increasing. None of the quoted people has searched out and found the prosaic explanations for Go-Fast and Gimbal proffered here? Being contrary gets you airtime, and UFOs are apparently bipartisan now - so why aren't we seeing more skepticism?

I get your point, but I just think Obama is far too busy with other projects of a higher priority rather than pause and think (or even remember) what he said in half-jest at Fallon and to declare a change of heart. Indeed maybe he hasn't had a change of heart simply because he hasn't followed the UAP flap and regards it a low priority in his preoccupations.

You're assuming an issue to be as important to/actively followed by Obama as it is to all of us 'enthusiasts' here. Such a lack of perspective is our own observer error that necessarily starts to affect us in these fringe forums geeking out on fringe topics.

 

[JMartJr]

Simple answer, no. When you are read into classified programs, regardless of the level or subject matter, you agree not to reveal what you've learned until such time as the information is declassified. You give your word. Honor and integrity are not weird, or at least they didn't use to be.

That is to your credit!

But I'd differentiate between "feeling the itch," wishing one could share information that would change the world, and giving in to the itch and disclosing information you'd sworn not to divulge.

I absolutely believe you when you say you'd never do the latter; I like to think that, were I ever in that situation, I'd emulate your example. But if I knew that the Aliens from Omicron Perseii 8 were flying among us, while being sworn never to spill the beans, I promise you I'd very much wish that I could!

 

[Empiricist]

You're assuming an issue to be as important to/actively followed by Obama as it is to all of us 'enthusiasts' here. Such a lack of perspective is our own observer error that necessarily starts to affect us in these fringe forums geeking out on fringe topics.

There is no question I am experiencing a bit of this, but still - it isn't just Obama that hasn't come out having changed his mind, it's all the people I quoted, and many more.

Martin Heinrich, for example, who had the "I can't imagine that what has been described or shown in some of the videos belongs to any government that I'm aware of" quote is another example of another person who has apparently found the topic more credulous over time and is clearly following it, based on his recent press release:

Following the U.S. forces shooting down three unknown objects that entered U.S. and Canadian airspace over the weekend, Senator Heinrich called for more public transparency, "Americans don't want speculation on UAPs, they want answers. That's why I came together with a bipartisan group of senators to ramp up the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community's ability to provide Americans with the transparency they deserve. The latest unclassified report on UAPs lists over 360 new detections. However, nearly half of the detections remain uncharacterized and unattributed. Whether it's a blip on the radar or, yes, a balloon in our skies, the Defense and Intelligence communities need to deliver, in a timely fashion, solid analysis and public-facing reports about any health or national security implications that may be presented."

This coming from a man who is on the Senate intelligence committee.

Anyways, this is obviously all just speculation, but I do want to emphasize my overall point: if anything, folks seem to be becoming more credulous on these topics, not more skeptical, and there are very few skeptical public statements. The Kirkpatrick one AR318307 posted is the closest I can see to a skeptical comment. My null hypothesis - that there is no strong evidence for any non-prosaic phenomenon - would expect at least a few vocal skeptics mixed in (from the pool of those with classified access, not just us on MB), and the seeming lack of them is suprising.

 

[LilWabbit]

Anyways, this is obviously all just speculation, but I do want to emphasize my overall point: if anything, folks seem to be becoming more credulous on these topics, not more skeptical, and there are very few skeptical public statements. The Kirkpatrick one AR318307 posted is the closest I can see to a skeptical comment. My null hypothesis, assuming there is no strong evidence for any non-prosaic phenomenon, would be at least a few vocal skeptics mixed in the mix (from the pool of those with classified access, not just us on MB), and the seeming lack of them is suprising.

But how much of that 'lack of skeptical voice' is media-generated (including social media) bias of a person (and that means most of us) who follows the 'UFO flap'?

I mean literally Mick is the only semi-frequently interviewed skeptic. But far from the only one.

We mustn't forget that the skeptical 'voices' aren't organized as a lobby, strategizing on media visibility, and sponsored by a billionaire.

 

[Scaramanga]

I'd disagree, in a gentle and friendly way. They RARELY make mistakes, or misjudge situations, at least in situations where that would have major ramifications. If they consistently made such errors, the number of airline crashes would be very much larger. But as you say, look at the number -- it's very small.

Well alas that simply isn't true. One has only to visit an excellent Youtube site such as Mentour Pilot to see that pilot/mechanic error is a lot more common than most people think. They are 'rare' compared with the total number of flights...nevertheless the number of incidents is in the hundreds. And equally alas, some have had fatal consequences.

A common theme, which I think is very relevant with UFOs too, is confirmation bias. Pilots can become utterly convinced that they are in a particular scenario and respond accordingly.....and nothing that happens afterwards will shift their mistaken perspective. There's been pilots who thought they were in a dive and mistakenly pulled up...only to put the aircraft into a stall. And amazingly, incidents such as this where neither pilot actually looked at what the instruments were saying ! There's been incidents where pilots mistook the white top of a building next to the runway for the runway itself, and many more. This is Nick Pope's ' trained observers'.

And the point surely is, if commercial airline pilots with thousands of hours experience can make such blunders, it is almost certain that military pilots can too. Only recently we had the 29 Palms incident in which 'trained observers' who stated they were very familiar with flares clearly did not recognise actual flares when they saw them.

I'm simply expressing my increasing skepticism of the whole 'I know what I saw'...'trained observers'...yada yada....meme.

 

[Itsme]

its alot to link. that was their whole thing..John Lundberg and Irving...hoaxing stuff.

so let's say Irving (who i think was Armen) called Walker. I'm fine with that. what proof do you have that that is the real conversation? some odd website with an alleged transcript? when you look it up only 3 sites (in ALL the internet) have that transcript.

let alone the phone call conversation doesnt flow like a phone call. If Irving did call walker he edited the bleep out of that transcript. do you have access to the alleged tapes?

edit add: (sorry so late looking up)

Article:

Crain alleges that Walker attended these meetings during his stint as Executive Secretary of Research and Development for the federal government in the 1950s.

Walker, who still lives in Centre County, denied any knowledge or involvement in government UFO investigations.

Source: https://www.psucollegian.com/archives/psu-may-have-investigated-ufos/article_c49c34b8-6eea-51fa-9ff1-f32c7b4529e2.html

You seem to think Henry Azadehdel (a.k.a. Armen Victorian) is a fictual character, but he did exist in reality. Irving's movie was based on him.

In this issue, we present Robert Irving's profile of the complex world
of Henry Azadehdel, better known to researchers in the fields of
ufology, mind control and crop circle research as 'Dr. Armen
Victorian'. This is not an attempt to villify or 'expose' him, for
most of the facts are in the public domain and, as Irving himself
declares, the man is both likable and deserving of respect for teasing
out volumes of ex-secrets via the US's Freedom of Information Act.

http://tcoto.klaxo.net/rel/AZADEHDL.HTM
If you google him (under both his names) you'll find his book and his crimes with orchids. I have no reason to suspect the phone interview transcript was faked.

 

[JMartJr]

has only to visit an excellent Youtube site such as Mentour Pilot to see that pilot/mechanic error is a lot more common than most people think. They are 'rare' compared with the total number of flights

So we may be using "rare" in different contexts... something that is rare for individuals may also be common if there are enough individuals.

There's been incidents where pilots mistook the white top of a building next to the runway for the runway itself, and many more.

But of course there are many, many pilots who don't do that. The existence of (comparatively rare) mistakes like this does not mean pilots are error prone, it means there a a LOT of pilots, some of which make mistakes.

I'm simply expressing my increasing skepticism of the whole 'I know what I saw'...'trained observers'...yada yada....meme.

Fair enough. Could we possibly agree that trained observers are probably better than untrained ones, but are still going to make mistakes, and if you have enough of them observing enough stuff you'll get UFO reports without the need for anything mysterious/unknown to actually be flying by?

 

[MonkeeSage]

Can somebody explain what this one means:

C) We are too incompetent to call our own people.

I took that as meaning operating groups are compartmentalized and do not know what each other are doing. For example, during the 2004 Nimitz encounter, Cmdr. Fravor's group appears to have been unaware that the USS Louisville submarine was conducting weapons tests in the same area as they were vectored to, or that NASA was testing the X-43A hypersonic drone in the same area, as discussed in the below article.

https://ndupress.ndu.edu/JFQ/Joint-...ns-of-military-uap-sightings-for-joint-force/

 

[Mendel]

These quotes, at least as I read them, suggest the existence of actual hard evidence for the existence of a (currently) unexplainable phenomena and not just a "credulity cascade". Examples include "footage of", "records of", and "satellite imagery".

The three Navy videos were considered hard evidence; they're not.
Claims of hard evidence are not substitutes for hard evidence.
As @Empiricist you ought to be aware of that?

It just strikes me as implausible and a bit self-aggrandizing that all of the people I quoted are hopelessly credulous, and only us true skeptics on Metabunk have the wherewithal to view Gimbal, Go-Fast, and balloon photographs and not immediately start credulously repeating UFO claims.

No, this isn't about aggrandizement at all. But this community and @Mick West in particular has more experience debunking than most people on the planet–and some exceptions are often quoted here.

And then you have people like Travis "wormhole" Taylor who used to advise the government on these things. It's a bit credulous to assume that everyone who claims "hard evidence" can actually identify what that is—and in fact, the evidence (Navy videos/Skinwalker Ranch) suggests that these claims are often made in error.

Which, in most cases, is fine: people who lack the experience at debunking can't excel at debunking; they excel in their own field. When Grandma says "my computer is broken", that may be wrong, but she's still a great person. Doesn't change the fact that I'm better at computers than she is.

These are no 'ordinary' classified programs. You're comparing apples and oranges here and generalizing your own experience.

These phone interviews give credence to Grush's story and refute claims that 'there is no evidence'. Simply dismissing them based on the argument that Dr Walker would never spill the beans is not very convincing.

These phone interview transcripts would not be admissible in court. Their value as evidence isn't much. We can't even tell if the person on the phone is being serious or not; how the transcript was edited; if it is accurate; and what the things being said are even intended to mean.

 

[NorCal Dave]

You seem to think Henry Azadehdel (a.k.a. Armen Victorian) is a fictual character, but he did exist in reality. Irving's movie was based on him.

In this issue, we present Robert Irving's profile of the complex world
of Henry Azadehdel, better known to researchers in the fields of
ufology, mind control and crop circle research as 'Dr. Armen
Victorian'. This is not an attempt to villify or 'expose' him, for
most of the facts are in the public domain and, as Irving himself
declares, the man is both likable and deserving of respect for teasing
out volumes of ex-secrets via the US's Freedom of Information Act.

http://tcoto.klaxo.net/rel/AZADEHDL.HTM
If you google him (under both his names) you'll find his book and his crimes with orchids. I have no reason to suspect the phone interview transcript was faked.

Sounds like this guy(s) could use his own thread.

 

[JMartJr]

...his (Obama's) production company is filming a documentary on the Betty and Barney Hill abduction story. (Let me be clear - I don't interpret that as Obama supporting the ET hypothesis - but I would expect his production company to stay away from such things if he found them completely ridiculous.)

Dunno -- is it a(nother) credulous recounting of the story? Or possibly a look at how the story impacted their lives (Betty, for one, became a bit of a UFO celebrity and dived pretty firmly into the deep end of UFO credulity and celebrity.) In many ways the Hills' story launched all of the confusion and grief of the recovered memory fad. There's a lot to potentially explore there beyond believing the story they came up with under hypnosis.

 

[deirdre]

Sounds like this guy(s) could use his own thread.

you could just watch the movie, its only like 30 minutes. he's/they're basically an old version of "Q" saga. its 2-3 guys playing games, and they all admit in several articles they are playing games. Not really worth a thread as the UFO community has no interest.

 

[JimJam]

You seem to think Henry Azadehdel (a.k.a. Armen Victorian) is a fictual character, but he did exist in reality. Irving's movie was based on him.

In this issue, we present Robert Irving's profile of the complex world
of Henry Azadehdel, better known to researchers in the fields of
ufology, mind control and crop circle research as 'Dr. Armen
Victorian'. This is not an attempt to villify or 'expose' him, for
most of the facts are in the public domain and, as Irving himself
declares, the man is both likable and deserving of respect for teasing
out volumes of ex-secrets via the US's Freedom of Information Act.

http://tcoto.klaxo.net/rel/AZADEHDL.HTM
If you google him (under both his names) you'll find his book and his crimes with orchids. I have no reason to suspect the phone interview transcript was faked.

Rob Irving
Rob is a writer, veteran crop circle maker and photographer with an interest in artifice, belief and self deception. He's written on the subject of hoaxing and deception on both sides of the fence: the hoaxers and the hoaxed, and the malleable line between the two positions.

http://www.mythologist.co.uk/cast.html

and also

John Lundberg
John is an artist who has been covertly creating crop circles in the fields of England for over a decade. His introduction to documentary was as a contributor to TV programmes that featured his artworks. You can read about his crop circle making exploits in Iain Aitch's book A Fete Worse than Death.

John's documentary subjects are drawn from the edges of contemporary culture. Underpinning all of his work is a deep interest in how myth and artifice can shape and alter reality.

http://www.mythologist.co.uk/crew.html

Rob Irving and the Director of the film John Lundberg are both acknowledged to be creating their own crop circles, One of the other Cast members Andy Roberts is described as a UFO Hoaxer. There is a heavy emphasis on perception of reality and myth to the whole website that is sells the entire project as a work of docufiction.
Some of the other works that Henry Azadehdel appears in also seem to be potentially docufiction, although I would guess they weave in just enough reality to keep a reader guessing.

I feel like this is veering off-topic now, but the notes for "The Trickster and The Paranormal" - George P. Hansen, does contain a reference to an article written by Armen Victorian

I found that article here,
https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/article/issue/28/britain-in-the-90s-up-against-the-state/

I'm unfamiliar with Lobster, but a quick wiki and it definitely seems like the kind of thing Rob Irving would be interested in. The character/person of Henry/Armen does manage to pop-up in some curious, but always mysterious places. Based only on the vibe of it, I'd theorise that Rob Irving (or company) has a few psuedonym's that they drop UFO breadcrumbs to compliment their work on hoaxing crop circles.

 

[Mendel]

Dunno -- is it a(nother) credulous recounting of the story? Or possibly a look at how the story impacted their lives (Betty, for one, became a bit of a UFO celebrity and dived pretty firmly into the deep end of UFO credulity and celebrity.) In many ways the Hills' story launched all of the confusion and grief of the recovered memory fad. There's a lot to potentially explore there beyond believing the story they came up with under hypnosis.

"After an interracial couple in the 1960s has a horrifying encounter with a UFO, they set out to discover if it actually happened, or if it is just a case of folie à deux–madness for two."

It's got to be better than Ben Hansen's "ShockDoc" for discovery+.

 

[scombrid]

It just strikes me as implausible and a bit self-aggrandizing that all of the people I quoted are hopelessly credulous, and only us true skeptics on Metabunk have the wherewithal to view Gimbal, Go-Fast, and balloon photographs and not immediately start credulously repeating UFO claims.

Credulous, can't be bothered... I'm not sure why people that should know better are often mistaken. This conversation brought a "mystery" from back in 2010 to mind.

CNN story about FAA and Pentagon being stumped by an airplane contrail that observers insisted was a missile

There was a contrail from a 747 overflying Los Angeles from west to east at dusk. But it caused quite a stir as numerous agencies were at a loss to explain what people had seen. National media had Michio Kaku weigh in. The link posted here goes into the eventual debunk but also quotes how "the pentagon" was stumped.

Col. Dave Lapan, a spokesman for the Pentagon, said later Tuesday that while there is no evidence that the contrail was left by a missile the department is still investigating.

"I don't know specifically what they are all doing. I just know they have been pinged and that we are talking to the FAA, we are talking to other parts of the U.S. government. We are trying to do everything we can to figure out if anybody has any knowledge of what this event may have been,"

There were a lot of news stories and breathless ZOMG Who is firing rockets off our coast reports with "experts" saying they know what a rocket launch looks like and That is a rocket. FAA just said "We didn't see anything like that on our radar" and "No, there were no permitted launches in that area". Of course the Pentagon and FAA were being truthful. They saw nothing unusual. But they also left a hole that people filled in by not specifying that it was US Airways 808... The whole time it was just a sun lit passenger jet contrail but that didn't stop amateurs and experts from speculating about what they were seeing as something fantastic rather than doing the work to see if a flight matched the time and heading of the "object".

 

[Empiricist]

what makes you think he's not talking about Chinese or Russian craft, is the point. Then he goes on to joke about the band leader being an alien because it was a comedy show. But you left out the part where he was making fun of aliens, and included him in a list as if he was thinking the ufos were aliens.

It's extremely unlikely that they are Russian for obvious reasons: Russia's technology has by and large been shown to be far behind that of the United States. It beggars belief that they would have such advanced craft that our government wouldn't be able to correct identify them.

Furthermore, if our intelligence departments found it remotely plausible that Obama's "footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know what they are" were Russian or Chinese, the last thing we would want to do as a nation is publicly admit that we're observing things and don't know what they are. It's revealing weakness.

The explanation that somehow an Elizondo report made it to Obama's desk is at least remotely plausible to me. The idea that a standard intelligence report would mention that we're observing things we can't explain - that "don't have an easily explainable pattern" - and wouldn't mention that this information must remain secret doesn't make sense if it were remotely the case that the observations were considered to potentially be of an adversary.

P.S. - The only part of the Obama quote I included in my post is the part I interpreted as the "being serious now" part - and that part is exclusively talking about observations that we cannot explain. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the linked video includes jokes about aliens (or the mention of aliens at all) is not relevant to any of the arguments I've made.

 

[Ann K]

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the linked video includes jokes about aliens (or the mention of aliens at all) is not relevant to any of the arguments I've made.

The fact that Obama said something during jokes on a comedy show - how on earth can that NOT be relevant?