Ramjet old pal cool your rockets.
Yeah…perhaps I should take a Bex and a good lie down
– but then it certainly has got the joint “jumping”!
I am not “disinterested” as you put it, I am extremely interested, it is just that I do NOT leap to any unfounded conclusions nor selectively “cherry-pick” evidence to suit my own purposes.
just a few points -- his estimate of size is based on his perception he saw a car. Without any known object of fixed size you cannot size objects beyond a few feet. If you assume that the figures he saw were adult humans (confirmed by their shoe prints) then the object is big enough to be a balloon.
Please Gord, you are being obtuse. “Without any known object of fixed size you cannot size objects beyond a few feet.” Jeez… the officer obviously knew the area well. He would have had a pretty good conception of the size of things in the lay of the land. He was pretty darn close to the thing. If he stated he thought it was about the size of a car (and he knew cars pretty well… he was driving one) then there is NO reason to doubt his testimony on those grounds.
. If you assume that the figures he saw were adult humans (confirmed by their shoe prints) then the object is big enough to be a balloon.
You ASSUME? Gord, please... Zamora stated he thought “possibly they were small adults or large kids”. What earthly legitimate reason have we to doubt his appraisal? …and “confirmed by their shoe size”? Oh come on… They could have been dwarves with very large feet (for example) Gord…
His description of a load roaring sound followed by silence is the exact description of a PROPANE POWERED hot air balloon taking off. He gets a few details wrong but PROPANE POWERED hot air balloons were not common at the time.
(shakes head) Zamora stated “At same time as roar saw flame. Flame was under the object” and “Flame was light blue and at bottom was sort of orange color” (Note: the orientation of the colours) Now WHAT hot air balloon points its flame TOWARD the ground Gord? Please get a grip and just read the report. STOP ignoring the report to spout tired old misconceptions and misrepresentations of the FACTS of the matter. Now I really DO have to take a Bex and a good lie down… your statements are completely exasperating because they misrepresent the evidence as told by Zamora himself.
He says it looked like a balloon. It was a balloon. Why does this disturb you so much?
I have explained the context for his “balloon” statement. Jeez Gord, See that cloud in the sky? It looks like an elephant. Does that mean it IS an elephant. According to you it IS an elephant simply because it LOOKS like one.
James Easton? He follows your brand of logic in his “investigations” Gord?
But most of what you claim above is wrong.
Where Gord? Where? I could be wrong (probably am…but) You have neither tackled nor directly refuted even one of my statements in all my posts. All you spout is fallacious overgeneralisations and misrepresentations of documented fact. You make so many unfounded assumptions it borders on the ludicrous. The most basic is you assume it cannot be, therefore it is not. (AND according to your logic a cloud can be an elephant!).
That would be (in relation to Raven Industries and hot-air balloons in the Socorro region):
“The CIA can neither confirm nor deny the nonexistence of
records responsive to your request. Such information -
unless it has been officially acknowledged - would be
classified for reasons of national security under
Executive Order 12958.”
So how do you then make something out of nothing Gord? You truly amaze me. You are worse than a “true believer” Gord. You see conspiracies at every turn. Even though there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVEDINCE to link Raven to Soccoro, you persist in stating there is. How come?
Stop reading the believer sites and do some real research.
I don’t think I have EVER read a “believer” site Gord. I bypass (what I assume are) such sites and go directly to the original testimony. THAT is what I base my judgements on Gord. Nothing else.
Many many different things. No one explanation can possibly cover all circumstances. Some reports may be delusion. Some may be misidentifications of terrestrial phenomena. Some may be optical illusions. Some may be aircraft. Some may be something else.
To conclude that any given sighting is of an extraterrestrial spaceship, one would have to rule out all other possibilities. Since we can't do that, we can't make that conclusion.
I agree entirely arthwollipot. You are right on the money here.
But Vortigern. Don’t you get it? All that we see COULD be delusion. We COULD be entirely mistaken in our beliefs (ALL of them). The water on the moon… ALL instruments COULD have a fatal flaw – and remember, according to you, the human observers are fatally flawed in ANY observation they make. Their observations cannot be relied on as evidence – even the reading of the data from their instruments is not reliable because their perception is so flawed in so many ways. Just because it is unlikely, does not mean that it is not the case.
1. Vortigern99 asks: "Where is the evidence for alien visitation?"
2. Rramjet responds (a direct quote): "Methinks you don’t look for the evidence - because it DOES exist. Look at the “Unidentified” category of reports in “Blue Book Special Report No. 14."
3. Ergo, Rramjet believes there is evidence of alien visitation.
Would you mind explaining where I've tripped up? Thanks.
First, you have NOT looked at those No. 14 reports! Yet you originally stated that you DID. “I did not follow the link you supplied because I've read #14 before”. I pointed out that the reports I supplied were from the Blue Book Unknowns, NOT the Special report unknowns, many of the Blue Book unknowns were later reclassified as “known” in the Special report.
But there is one point I must give you here. It seems I misspoke when I claimed “because it DOES exist”. I overreached in frustration and my typing did not precisely convey what I really meant. What I meant to convey was that there was evidence for UFOs and that many PRESENT as if they were alien visitations. That is not the same thing as believing that UFOs ARE evidence for alien visitation. I agree with arthwollipot. We cannot conclude that at all.
Here's your straw man. You claimed I said: "we CAN explain ALL UFO reports". But that is your wording; I never said that, nor wrote it, and I do not agree with it.
Ughh, you really should have provided the link to the post here because I would like to have seen that in its original context. I cannot accept your “evidence” of a straw man based on evidence that is not supported. I cannot remember posting that statement and if your modus operandi holds true, it will have been cherry picked out of context to support your own biases and will not be a true reflection of the meaning in context. I need that post to be sure…
Moreover, with this statement you acknowledge that there ARE UFO reports for which we have no explanation?
Wow. So, the rigors of the scientific method represent a "REAL danger" and lead to claims that the moon landings were hoaxes. Okay, gotcha. I'll try to keep that in mind.
No you won’t. You don’t even understand my meaning, so how could you “keep that in mind”? I stated that the conditions (of evidence) you apply are too strict and the logic underpinning those conditions then allow (for example) the moon landings to be classified as hoaxes. The conditions you apply are that humans are too fallible in perception and memory and too easily open to delusion, with a definite propensity toward hoaxing, to be believed when they “merely” report observations they have made. Following that line of reasoning I recognise that others could then claim that if this holds true, then how can we trust ANY observation or report about anything at all really, then maybe even the moon landings were hoaxed for nefarious (unknown but not unknowable) reasons. Maybe the scientists have got it wrong (and we know from history that this is a regular occurrence), they are humans too and perhaps they have been just as duped in their observations and taken in by the reports of the moon landing as any of us have been on so many other things. And besides, it is NOT strictly the scientific method we are talking about here Vortigern, it is the logical process itself. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot apply the misperception, misremembering, hoax “explanation” to one side without it equally applying to the other. Many UFO reports are made by expert observers (and scientists to boot) and many reports are (seemingly) confirmed by photos (inc. video) and RADAR… Do you claim that ALL such reports are unreliable?
How do you know they arent all man made?
Thats the most logical conclusion, barring better evidence..
No matter how elaborate a crop circle it is always too easily within the realm
of possibility for man to have created. Have you been Chartres?
Yes, I tend to agree that they are of human origin, BUT that is an opinion and I cannot categorically state that as a “truth”. “How do you know that they ARE all man-made?” is an equally legitimate question.
No, never been to Chartres. Where is it and what’s there?
Umm…even the “old” logo looks nothing like the Zamora description… and was the original logo red in colour? But thanks for posting that. It is an interesting comparison.
Not that it is in any way conclusive but it is providing verification instead of pointing people toward nothing and then claiming because you've shown them nothing that nothing exists.
Huh? What the…? I seem to remember Gord doing just that (see above) but me, Did the links I provided not work or something? I don’t understand your meaning here.
Oh, so close. If only you hadn't insisted on dropping the extraneous "prosaic" and "mundane" you'd have almost had it. The actual point is that some of those reports defy explanation. This is simply because there is not enough information. And in the vast majority it is impossible that there ever will be. The thing is, eyewitness reports and anecdotes are pretty much useless for investigating UFOs. It's just not possible to accurately judge distances, sizes and speeds of some unidentified airborne object, and it's not possible to replicate the observations or perform any measurements because, rather obviously, we don't know what it was or why it was there.
I tend to agree, except for “It's just not possible to accurately judge distances, sizes and speeds of some unidentified airborne object,” That is just a fallacy. You should have prefixed it with “Under certain specific conditions…” (which we know and understand) and there are certainly UFO reports where size and distance judgements ostensibly SHOULD have been able to be made accurately.
….you assume that they are somehow connected, and start coming up with weird and wonderful explanations for what could be causing such a widespread and widely varying phenomenon.
First, people report similar experiences – are they “connected” – the reports in and of themselves might suggest a connection. Second, I have ALWAYS denied that we could conclude anything by way of explanation about UFOs (Unidentified…), it is others in this forum who try to come up with weird and wonderful explanations, not I.
However, you miss out the critical point. The majority of cases do have mundane explanations.
I don’t miss that point at all. I have stated previously MANY TIMES that I believe we cannot explain ALL UFO reports by way of the mundane. My whole contention has revolves around that point.
So the situation is that most UFOs are established to result from a wide variety of completely unrelated, but entirely mundane, phenomena. Your assumptions are therefore completely unsupported and completely unnecessary - all solved cases have mundane explanations so there is no reason to assume differently for unsolved ones
Major Fallacy warning! Logic 101. All the crows I have seen are black, therefore all crows are black. That’s one of the most basic of logical errors you have fallen victim to there Cuddles. Sorry…
Until you realise and accept that your entire argument boils down to simply "Sometimes we don't, therefore something really weird, incredibly unlikely and quite possibly impossible must be going on.", there's really little point in you continuing to argue.
Now you reveal yourself to have not understood my posts at all. I am pointing out the logical fallacies in arguments here. I have NEVER claimed “weird, incredibly unlikely and quite possibly impossible” as you have just done! (you even managed to slip in a tortured tautology there…well done Cuddles…)
UFOs exist. To deny it is to deny the bleeding obvious. But then… there is a whole industry of vested interests built on the “denial” process and its momentum is very hard to sway. All I am asking is that you look with a critical eye and an open mind at the evidence.
