Robert Sheaffer was the guest
this week, a man known for his skeptical, though quite reasonable stand on the problem
of UFOs. We talked about the nature of evidence, and I asked about the
Levelland UFO case which seemed to have multiple witnesses at multiple
locations for the sightings that met some of the criterion that Robert had set
for a believable case. You can listen to the show here:
I’m not going to say much more
about the program and here’s why. During the conversation, Robert mentioned a
skeptic site that suggested four of those Levelland witnesses might not be as
credible as we thought and in fact, might have been just one or two guys
calling into the sheriff’s office with their tales. Robert sent me the links to
the site and I took a look at the information. I then went back through the Blue
Book file and other information I have to see what I might learn about all
this. I
believe the problem might just be a matter of interpretation, something
we talked about on the show. Since I wanted to get the link to the show posted,
and I wanted to get Robert’s feedback on what I thought about all this, I
decided to post this short explanation as I put together a longer posting. You
might think of that coming post as after the show in which we, Robert and I,
continue the conversation. All this means is that there will be a longer
posting about Levelland and the witnesses in the a few days.
 |
| Robert Sheaffer |
Next week, I will be joined by Don
Schmitt. I had a specific request to do a show about the late Len Stringfield
and his research into UFO crash retrievals. A couple of others had mentioned,
in the past, something similar. They all thought that a discussion between me
and someone else well versed in Len’s research would be interesting. Don seemed
to be the guy to do this because the two of us, Don and I, had met with Len a
number of times and Len had shared some important information with us. Next
week, then, we’ll be talking about Len Stringfield, his research and UFO crash
retrievals. If you have questions, put them in the comments section and I’ll be
sure to get to them.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am eager to hear about stringfield. One man getting thousands of inforamtion about ufo "crashes" . IF this was a betting contest i would get a loan and bet the loan,my house,my car and my two kidneys(semi-used) on him being a liar. Sad but true. Whatever research i did unto him pointed to all these being bollocks or lies. And before anyone starts an internet fight do some reasearch and lets talk. Imo stringfield would make aesop proud
ReplyDeleteMr. Sheaffer seems like a nice guy. Still, I notice the general apparent lack of preparedness of skeptics. Perhaps Kevin needs to let them know ahead of time the topic(s). I know I would have a hard time coming up with data off the top of my head. But it was somewhat amazing that few if any UFO cases impressed him at all. Its easy to not be impressed if you can come up with an explanation (regardless of its unlikelihood) that involves non-ET causes. Is it really possible that out of the huge set of cases there is nothing that baffles him? I guess even multiple witnesses, radar, film are not enough. Maybe he needs a walking talking ET or a working spacecraft.
ReplyDeleteCan Kevin come up with a list of the best cases and can Bob give his opinion of each?
I am sure Levelland is on it.
Maybe the following is a worthy addition.
"DOPLOC Observations of Reflection Cross Sections of Satellites"
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/259123.pdf
It says:
"The flexible schedule by which the field stations operated has provided considerable data from known satellites, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO*s) and meteors. Many satellites and UFO's have been successfully detected and tracked by the DOPLOC technique and their time of crossing, altitude, east-vest position arid effective reflection cross section determined from single pass data from a single receiving station. Crossing time and position data was forwarded to Space Track Control Center for inclusion in their orbital prediction program."
"B. Unidentified Flying Objects
A number of reflections were received and recorded which could not be correlated with the predicted position of any known satellite. These were termed Unidentified Flying Objects and reproductions of 14 of these reflections are shown In Figures 101 to 114, with a detailed listing in Table 3."
Well, Sam -
ReplyDeleteYou'd lost that bet because his mission was to pass along information that he received with the hope that it would trigger other, newer and better information. He was quick to condemn those reports which deserved it, and noted the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in much of the information received.
Having met the man, having interviewed him, and looked into his research, it is clear that you misunderstood his motivations and that you're research was biased. So, listen to the program and Don and I will discuss this allegation.
"it is clear that you misunderstood his motivations"
ReplyDeleteKevin,
I would be curious as to your opinion on this. Vallee and Hynek never trusted Stringfield because he would never share the names of his sources or his notes. I know some people will say, "anonymity, witness protection, etc." but it makes it impossible to verify these accounts. Then, when you look at Stringfield's background, you see that he is yet another ex-intelligence agent who is spreading stories of crashed saucers and dead bodies.
Adam S. -
ReplyDeleteDon and I have recorded the shows, and they will appear here soon. By coincidence, this question (sort of came up) so that program offers an answer. I think it was that Stringfield didn't trust Hynek because of his connections to the Air Force. Don and I do talk about this on the program.