SUNlite - Skeptical UFO Newsletter

Gilles F. a écrit:Le numéro est bien sympatoche.

The biggest question one can ask is how many more UFO cases can be traced back to space debris re-entries?

nablator a écrit:http://ldln.fr/article/omgd#les_observations_multiples_a_grande_distance

Gilles Fernandez recently posted a link to a video on a blog that was most interesting and can apply to UFOs. It involves a movie scene were Joan of Arc is wrestling with her conscience (played by Dustin Hoffman) about all the possibilities associated with finding a sword in a field. Joan feels that it was left by God. Her conscience then runs off a myriad of possibilities that were far more likely than the one she was convinced had occurred

PhD Smith a écrit:La vache, t'es cité dans une revue ufologique  

Gilles Fernandez recently posted a link to a video on a blog that was most interesting and can apply to UFOs. It involves a movie scene were Joan of Arc is wrestling with her conscience (played by Dustin Hoffman) about all the possibilities associated with finding a sword in a field. Joan feels that it was left by God. Her conscience then runs off a myriad of possibilities that were far more likely than the one she was convinced had occurred

Spoiler:

Gilles F. a écrit:Juste par curiosité : qui lit les SUNlite ici sur le forum ?

Tim Printy a écrit:
Buy it, borrow it, or bin it
Wonders in the sky by Jacques Vallee and Chris Aubeck
I had heard good things about this book and finally decided to purchase a copy. The book is a collection of all unusual aerial phenomena throughout human history up to the year 1879.
The book has three main sections. The first is the chronology of events that the authors found worth listing. The second is a listing of cases that the determined were hoaxes, religious visions, or celes- tial/atmospheric phenomenon. The third section explained the author’s method- ology of determining which cases went into which sections of the book.
I found some of the cases listed in the first section somewhat questionable. I have serious reservations for any case taken from the bible because this source can’t really be considered a reliable historical source. Other cases included were inter- esting but should not be included. As an amateur astronomer, I was familiar with astronomers reporting solar transits of objects/planets other than Venus or Mercury and satellites of Venus. Because we know that these objects do not exist, one has to draw the conclusion as probable observer/instrument error. Despite my criticism of selecting some of these cas- es, others were more interesting and not easy to explain They come from credible historical sources and report something was seen. It is the interpretation of what was seen that is in question.
The second section had the title “Myths, legends, and chariots of the gods”. It exposes quite a few hoaxes that have been repeated over the years. This has a lot to do with various authors never bothering to check their sources. This kind of “research” is not unheard of in UFOlogy. I commend Aubeck and Vallee for their ef- fort in actually looking into these matters and exposing these cases for what they are.
The book is a superb collection of un- usual aerial sightings predating the year 1879 and is a very good resource. I consider it a “buy it” book that belongs in any UFO library..

Reynolds other complaint had to do with Gilles use of the term, “false memory’, to explain some of the confusion in the reports. He stated that these were first hand accounts and implied that memory was not even involved. Reynolds misses the point that the news media was reporting what the witnesses told them based on their memory of what they saw. As Elizabeth Loftus notes, even short term memory can be affected by outside factors resulting in false memories of an event. What appears to be a significant factor is the witness’ prior expectations. If the witnesses wanting to see an “airship” , it is possible they could turn a light in the sky, like Venus, into a false memory out of what they expected.

Some psychologists believe that expectations cause a real change in what a person perceives....other psychologists believe that our expectations do not affect perception itself but rather they affect how we interpret what we have seen, or how we respond to what we have see. Whichever of these theories is correct (and there is some possibility that both may be true in part), one thing is clear and accepted by all. Expectations have an enormous impact on what a person claims to have seen. 15(emphasis mine)

PhD Smith a écrit:Tonton Dom-Tom ne va pas être content avec la rubrique littéraire: 

Tim Printy a écrit:
Buy it, borrow it, or bin it
Wonders in the sky by Jacques Vallee and Chris Aubeck

Juju2 sur FOU a écrit:Le débat sur la validité de la HET ou de la HSP/TRC est un débat dépassé à mon avis. La première n'est pas encore prouvée et la seconde n'explique pas les cas "durs".  Il faut surtout noter que la HSP/TRC n'est pas une théorie ou une hypothèse scientifique. Ce n'est qu'une hypothèse ufologique. Il n'y a absolument aucun travail de recherche ou de publications scientifiques qui se font à ce sujet...

Il y a une HSP que je trouve très intéressante c'est celle de Jung qui accepte l'existence de véritables phénomènes inconnus de la science. La version pseudo-sceptique matérialiste et réductionniste de la HSP (pompeusement appelée HSP/TRC) se fait détruire en quelques secondes.

Il existe aujourd'hui suffisamment d'indices probants et convergents pour permettre la prise en main par la communauté scientifique du phénomène OVNis. C'est là ou des initiatives comme celles de Leslie Kean, Stéphane Allix, Richard Haines, Teodorani et l'équipe scientifique de Hessdalen pour ne citer que quelques uns peuvent aider à la prise de conscience générale. C'est une démarche tellement plus positive que la foutaise pseud-sceptique...

Gilles F. a écrit:Mon Oncle,

J'ai envoyé une remarque en ce sens à la liste Anglophone des "abonnés" de SUNlite, et renvoyé à votre travail. C'est dommage que tout cela ne soit qu'un hobby, traduire en Anglais votre travail serait bien, mais quel boulot cela serait...