“The 95/5 breakdown is from Kean herself so I guess I agree with you, it's dubious. This was for general cases, I didn't see it applied to pilots as well. Where is it applied to 'pilot cases', or did you just misread or misrepresent it?”
“Sounds like you agree with the original reviewer, then, who pointed out -- and this hasn't been refuted -- that a list of '1300 guaranteed non-explainable pilot UFO cases' upon which the book's thesis was based, actually had even in a cursory review, a lot of plausibly prosaic misidentifications. Why can't the proponents deliver what they claim to have already delivered?”
“Agreed, Frank. Some are accurately reported, which is the first step on attempting to verify any claims. But -- why aren't they ALL accurate? Why are the bogus ones -- the majority of the citations -- tolerated? If there is GOOD evidence, why keep circulating counterfeit evidence too?”
Frank Smith on Sep 8, 2010 at 23:28:41
“Just like in mainstream journalism, standards are generally not high enough. I try to source my articles on UFOs quite thoroughly and always quote in proper context.
“ufohq, you are only justified in saying that this is a list of what UFO nuts CLAIM that astronauts have said about UFOs. Most of the 'quotations' are bogus -- not faked by the astronauts, but by UFO writers making up stuff they know their target audience will swallow gullibly. Don't you ever check on weird claims that strangers give you?”
Frank Smith on Sep 8, 2010 at 17:34:30
“Do you? Some of those quotes are quite accurate because I've personally read the archival documents they are drawn from, not UFO writer sources.”
“"Being able to explain 95% of all pilot sightings makes them better witnesses, not poorer ones. That they can describe an aerial phenomenon unknown to them in enough detail that a researcher can recognize and identify it is an indication of excellent witnessing. "
You do realize this is a classic example of circular reasoning, where you prove something by assuming at the beginning that it is true? Is this what passes for your level of logical thought?”
Frank Smith on Sep 8, 2010 at 17:25:30
“Oberg made the initial argument, all I'm doing is rebutting it. The statistics that x% of UFO sighting are explained/unexplained are dubious to begin with. Oberg took a dubious unsourced statistic and drew a conclusion from it. I took the same statistic and drew an opposite conclusion to make a point. That you didn't understand it is regrettable.”
“The original critique highlighted a number of 'pilot UFO reports' that Kean presented as thoroughly validated as unexplainable -- except that detailed (and persuausive) prosaic explanations were offered, including one over Russia in 1984 that involved multiple air crews and alleged radar confirmation plus physical effects (including crew injuries) that seems to have an entirely terrestrial explanation. I'd be interested in any direct criticisms of such research results instead of manifestly delusional assertions that the critique had NO facts.”
“.. and completely wrong, since the video shows a Russian satellite launch vehicle climbing into orbit and dropping its first stage [on June 30 -- look it up]. Boy, are you guys suckers for techno-gobbledegook!”