tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post7186326146158119030..comments2024-03-18T16:51:50.688-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Morristown UFO HoaxKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90533809169458442382012-10-04T01:26:52.382-07:002012-10-04T01:26:52.382-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.amhashhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252161824493730111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6517057462246005092012-02-22T22:55:42.787-08:002012-02-22T22:55:42.787-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.qwadro_fxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13031331759006785014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22106466454612203292011-12-28T07:43:27.198-08:002011-12-28T07:43:27.198-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.ladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11896802593711926585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65531272818933931282009-07-27T10:48:24.521-07:002009-07-27T10:48:24.521-07:00I don't see how injecting themselves into the ...I don't see how injecting themselves into the story as witnesses compromises the experiment at all. Vice cops pass themselves off as prostitutes. The whole point seems to be to get people to think more critically before simply trusting eyewitness accounts and just trusting people's word in general. There were real "eyewitnesses" too, but whose to say in other reported UFO sightings, there aren't fake witnesses exaggerating the claims and telling investigators to rule out the very tools they used to pull off the hoax?<br /><br />If anything, I think it brings home the point even further: Don't just take people's word for things. Demand real empirical evidence for extraordinary claims. People can be wrong and people can be lying. And to enter an investigation assuming that everyone you talk to must be honest and telling you the truth is foolish.mjr256https://www.blogger.com/profile/18300278269121033329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6631968444663464472009-04-10T09:31:00.000-07:002009-04-10T09:31:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53244467883254670182009-04-10T09:25:00.000-07:002009-04-10T09:25:00.000-07:00Lance -Seems like you and me are on the same page ...Lance -<BR/><BR/>Seems like you and me are on the same page but looking at different paragraphs. I think we agree that the witnesses were fairly accurate in what they described in the sky, though some of the interpretation seems off. Keeping with your numbering system, I would say:<BR/><BR/>1. “Very strange pattern” (it was 3 lights and 2 lights) is subjective opinion and doesn’t alter the fact that he was describing accurately what he saw... and no, I don’t know what he meant by a strange pattern.<BR/><BR/>2. “It took off – it was very strange” might be a perception problem as a flare burned out giving the impression that it took off, but on the whole, “it took off” is not very accurate and “it was very strange” is an interpretation.<BR/><BR/>3. “had a purpose” is sort of a new age interpretation and might have been a comment induced by the reporter who was over the top in her comments and commentary.<BR/><BR/>4. “Streaked down toward New York” might have been a perception based on the angle from which the witness saw the lights but is not an accurate description of the movement. We need additional information from the witness to decide what he meant here.<BR/><BR/>5. “the final one just went blip – disappeared” is an accurate description of the flare burning out. It would have just disappeared.<BR/><BR/>6. “one appeared to take off” clearly is not an accurate description.<BR/><BR/>7. “took off very fast” is not an accurate description.<BR/><BR/>8. “didn’t seem to be moving at all” might have more to do with the viewing angle of the witness and could be accurate given the witness perception at the time he saw the flares.<BR/><BR/>9. “had to be 4 5 6 times the size of a jet plane” of course is not an accurate interpretation of the lights based on the faulty assumption that all the lights were on a single object. It is a perception problem and an interpretation problem.<BR/><BR/>10. “almost as if they were communicating with each other” is a statement I thought had a new age feel to it but again is an interpretation of the event rather than a description.<BR/><BR/>If we take the interpretations out and look at the basic descriptions, then what the witnesses said was accurate... and I’m not sure what might have been induced by the reporters attempting to get a good sound bite for TV. I know that I have had to be very careful answering reporters’ questions because sometimes I know what they want me to say but it doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation. Those dealing with TV reporters for the first time can be lead to a good sound bite by a reporter.<BR/><BR/>All in all, I think we agree that the “experiment” failed to produce what the two clowns wanted because they injected themselves into it and provided inaccurate information about what they had “seen.”<BR/><BR/>Had they just launched the balloons and stood back to watch, that might have told us something... except the police identified what it was immediately and the MUFON investigation results, circulated very early on, suggested either Chinese lanterns or flares, which of course, was the correct answer and proved that not everyone in the UFO field saw an alien spaceship in the lights.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54186964732000541442009-04-09T09:53:00.000-07:002009-04-09T09:53:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Ed Gormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06126267358266480356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19888114086775721952009-04-08T15:41:00.000-07:002009-04-08T15:41:00.000-07:00Hi Kevin, I agree with most everything you say. Ev...Hi Kevin,<BR/><BR/> I agree with most everything you say. Even as a hard core skeptic, I think these guys did a lot wrong. Acting as witnesses themselves is skeptical malpractice. <BR/><BR/>I do think that the real witnesses said some things that were outside the realm of what was actually in the sky:<BR/><BR/>1. “Very strange pattern” (it was 3 lights and 2 lights)<BR/>2. “It took off—it was very strange”<BR/>3. “had a purpose:”<BR/>4. “Streaked down towards New York”<BR/>5. “the final one just went blip—disappeared”<BR/>6. “one appeared to take off”<BR/>7. “took off at a very fast pace”<BR/>8. “didn’t seem to be moving at all”<BR/>9. “had to be 4 5 6 times the size of a jet plane”<BR/>10. “almost as if they were communicating with each other”<BR/><BR/>But now I see that the lousy editors of UFO Hunters may have confabulated statements from other cases.<BR/><BR/>As a long time film editor, I can tell you that the show is horribly put together, very amateurish . Combine that with the poor research and unwarranted leaps of logic of the "hunters" and you get a show that is a guaranteed laugh riot.<BR/><BR/>LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40035299384730356422009-04-08T15:07:00.000-07:002009-04-08T15:07:00.000-07:00Is there anywhere left to make reports or share si...Is there anywhere left to make reports or share sightings and the like? Anywhere that doesn't pillory the reporter?<BR/> This appeared on another site not related to UFO's, and I hesitate to refer them to any site that I know of.<BR/><BR/>http://forum.beemaster.com/index.php/topic,21179.0.htmlSargehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04038947773327250058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82576011822707052862009-04-08T11:25:00.000-07:002009-04-08T11:25:00.000-07:00Lance -I would have been more harsh on Birnes exce...Lance -<BR/><BR/>I would have been more harsh on Birnes except...<BR/><BR/>The two witnesses who talked about the lights zipping over the car were the two who launched the balloons. Chris Russo said that he wished someone would tell him what they were because he didn't know... well he did.<BR/><BR/>On their video rehash, they cut together footage of the Phoenix lisghts with those from NJ but don't really mention that. I believe that one of the police officers talking about the flares was in Airzona based on the background.<BR/><BR/>With their drawing on other sightings, some of what they wanted to prove makes it difficult to determine who said what about the Morristown lights.<BR/><BR/>Had these two clowns not injected themselves into the sighting as witnesses, giving statements that, if true, ruled out flares, then Birnes would be clearly out of line.<BR/><BR/>That said, I will note that at one point, looking at the Morristown video, Birnes said that the two balloons and flares seemed to have a rigid structure and it could be construed that he was leading the witness there.<BR/><BR/>Until I see the whole UFO Hunters episode, which I haven't, I will withhold a complete judgement, bt I will note that Birnes is wrong when he made some of the statements in the video clip.<BR/><BR/>I will also note that the voice over said that UFO Hunters had proven the flare explanation to be implausible... but I don't know if this refers to the Morristown lights or Phoenix... though the impression that he was referring to Morris town.<BR/><BR/>I will also point out that the witness descriptions are fairly accurate... with the exception of what Russo and Rudy say. If those statements are taken at face value, then an incoreection conclusion would be drawn. They screwed the pooch on that one.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-28151239908602090922009-04-07T21:02:00.000-07:002009-04-07T21:02:00.000-07:00Lance -- I refer you to http://www.ufomag.com/fron...Lance -- I refer you to http://www.ufomag.com/front/faq.html<BR/>which the Morristown section will be updated as soon as the network gives the go ahead, but Jeremy has pretty much figured out what went on or at least to my knowledge.LesleyinNMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650512451759278182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58949495698688951492009-04-07T20:20:00.000-07:002009-04-07T20:20:00.000-07:00They clearly show Birnes looking at the video and ...They clearly show Birnes looking at the video and saying how he can see a structure--he makes a fool out of himself. Kevin gives him more or less a pass here which is to be expected but is undeserved.Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52704594486655558462009-04-07T18:21:00.000-07:002009-04-07T18:21:00.000-07:00all you ufo buffs have to just suck it up and admi...all you ufo buffs have to just suck it up and admit you were fooled this time. There has never been any evidence of aliens visiting us. If you're not aware, science is based on evidence, which means you losers believe in what we call pseudoscience.These guys pulled a fast one on you and you're pissed. I would too......if I believed in fairy tales and someone ruined my parade. I don't these two dudes, but I love what they did, and I can assure you they're smarter than anyone on this site.....including myself.orionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08336245086549920824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25381713259370535932009-04-07T15:01:00.000-07:002009-04-07T15:01:00.000-07:00Good Day Kevin, Here! Here!In response to the News...Good Day Kevin, <BR/><BR/>Here! Here!<BR/><BR/>In response to the <I>Newsweek</I> piece I wrote the following:<BR/><BR/><I>Couldn't let this one go without making some observations:<BR/><BR/>First you wrote, "They cooked up a spaceship hoax 'to show everyone how unreliable eyewitness accounts are, along with investigators of UFOs.'"<BR/><BR/>I would argue just the opposite; although I don't condone the experiment, i.e., illegally launching incendiaries into the atmosphere, contrary to the perp's conclusions, in my view "it reinforces how accurate eyewitness declarations can be" in regards to seeing aerial phenomenon.<BR/><BR/>I think that the perps' can rightfully criticize the ignorance of a few, whom assigned an "extraterrestrial presence" to "lights in the sky"; however, this is a matter of an evaluation of what they witnessed, not the "description" of what they witnessed, which if one goes over the eyewitness accounts is fairly accurate of what occurred.<BR/><BR/>Finally, using an "entertainment show" and their respective opinions as a benchmark on an alleged UFO event isn't prudent in my view, and adds no weight to their argument. Most sober investigators would make no conclusions without further evidence, and in my view, that same group would have presumed that they were flares to begin with, as this type of hoaxing is not uncommon.<BR/><BR/>What stands out in my mind is why these guys haven't been arrested, since obviously launching uncontrolled incendiaries is against the law, and they have incriminated themselves, as well as provided evidence of their crimes publicly. One can only wonder if something had gone wrong and someone's house caught on fire, or even worse . . ..</I><BR/><BR/>In a colloquy with a Paracast forum member, I continued:<BR/><BR/><I>. . . however, "most" of the descriptions will be reflective of what they actually saw. Moreover, no sober Ufologist worth their salt would have assigned a label to this without further investigation, and most would have called a "spade a spade" early on.<BR/><BR/>There are many examples of this; the flare hoax has been done on a number of occasions, one of the most notable was in Arizona last year; if you go back and listen to the 911 calls, although some people's "interpretation" was eerie, strange etc., what they described were red lights moving slowly across the sky (an accurate description of flares at a distance attached to balloons); some may have and in fact did comment on the "geometric pattern" which of course occurs randomly, but might seem odd to the observer at first, not knowing what they are witnessing.<BR/><BR/>Another example is the Chinese lanterns over in the UK (which are still occurring); the bulk of the witnesses accurately describe "orange lights floating across the sky," regardless of what they think the origin of the objects were e.g., an inter-dimensional ship from planet Zatar, or Scotty coming home.<BR/><BR/>Yet another example, to which I have dozens of, (if not more) are old newspaper reports of various phenomenon, e.g., meteors, bollides, comets, the northern lights and or the aftermath of major volcanic eruptions; a good majority of witnesses attributed some of the events as "religious experiences," or "acts of god," or some sort of "black magic"; however, if one ignores the exegesis, the "actual descriptions" are, for the most part accurate as to what they saw--this is the historical pattern.</I> <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>FrankFrank Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18211373074817092828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-78038630459562953672009-04-07T14:38:00.000-07:002009-04-07T14:38:00.000-07:00Actually from what I know, the clip they keep show...Actually from what I know, the clip they keep showing of Birnes and saying it is about the Morristown UFO, is actually a clip about the Phoenix Lights or some other case. Bill will be explaining that as soon as he gets a break from filming.LesleyinNMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650512451759278182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89523912364792197382009-04-07T12:54:00.000-07:002009-04-07T12:54:00.000-07:00They did so many things "wrong" in this "experimen...They did so many things "wrong" in this "experiment" that it wasn't funny. But the one thing they did right is pull out UFO Hunters and have them throw around their "science" which is often just as flawed. I often end up screaming at the TV when that show is on, because they either don't do basic science correctly or miss obvious test that could and should be performed. Or worse, edit those tests out because they don't make their case.<BR/> <BR/>I heard the dumnastic duo got charged with a minor crime for their stunt. Good.Michael Malonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12630202161643669834noreply@blogger.com