- Status
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Compare BlackKat's pic in post 164 to the first picture in the Maccabee document. More than a remote resemblance, if you ask me (which you didn't, I know) except that the craft in the sighting didn't have "U.S. Navy" written on the side, at least not that the witnesses could see.
And, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, absence of evidence of blimps is not evidence of absence of blimps.
And, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, absence of evidence of blimps is not evidence of absence of blimps.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Rramjet, you seem to be missing the point of the discussion.
The objects in question were, undoubtedly, UFOs. They were objects, they were flying, and they were unidentified. Because we were not there, because all we have to go in is secondhand information, we can't identify what they were. These are going to remain UFOs.
If you are simply asking for possible explanations, then you have been answered, and the discussion is over. If you are asking for definitive answers, you're going to be disappointed, because there aren't any, but that isn't your fault. If, on the other hand, you are asserting that these UFOs were actually aliens (and let's be honest, we all know you are, then you are going to have a rough time supporting your case. You weren't there. You have no more information than the rest of us to draw conclusions from. You cannot prove that these were aliens because there isn't enough evidence to draw definitive conclusions. All we have been trying to explain to you is that is is far more likely that the UFOs were actually blimps or fighter jets or, yes, hubcaps on strings, rather than interdimensional alien spacecraft.
They may have actually been what you claim that they are, but you can't prove it. They probably were blimps. The odds are staggeringly in favor of them being blimps. But we can't prove that they were blimps.
You are trying to prove beyond all doubt that they were aliens. You can't. We would have no problem with this if you would just accept that your belief is unfounded, even if you continued to hold that belief. But to try and support that belief with a mess of logical fallacies, shoddy evidence, a misunderstanding of the concept of burden of proof and a mask of condescension gets you nowhere.
The objects in question were, undoubtedly, UFOs. They were objects, they were flying, and they were unidentified. Because we were not there, because all we have to go in is secondhand information, we can't identify what they were. These are going to remain UFOs.
If you are simply asking for possible explanations, then you have been answered, and the discussion is over. If you are asking for definitive answers, you're going to be disappointed, because there aren't any, but that isn't your fault. If, on the other hand, you are asserting that these UFOs were actually aliens (and let's be honest, we all know you are, then you are going to have a rough time supporting your case. You weren't there. You have no more information than the rest of us to draw conclusions from. You cannot prove that these were aliens because there isn't enough evidence to draw definitive conclusions. All we have been trying to explain to you is that is is far more likely that the UFOs were actually blimps or fighter jets or, yes, hubcaps on strings, rather than interdimensional alien spacecraft.
They may have actually been what you claim that they are, but you can't prove it. They probably were blimps. The odds are staggeringly in favor of them being blimps. But we can't prove that they were blimps.
You are trying to prove beyond all doubt that they were aliens. You can't. We would have no problem with this if you would just accept that your belief is unfounded, even if you continued to hold that belief. But to try and support that belief with a mess of logical fallacies, shoddy evidence, a misunderstanding of the concept of burden of proof and a mask of condescension gets you nowhere.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
My bright-light-in-the-Arizona-sky experience "disappeared" as well.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Exactly how do you expect anyone to be able to do that?
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
No, Roger. No-one's claiming that. The argument is that a plausible mundane explanation exists which could explain the sighting, and therefore your claim that there is NO plausible mundane explanation is false. That's all. No-one's saying that it's proven to have been a blimp. Only that it's possible that it was a blimp, and that means you're wrong when you say that it can't possibly be anything "normal".
Then I guess you missed the witness testimony stating:
"speed of a jet"
"round in shape" (ie; circular!)
and the size variation between all five witnesses was between 25 and 35 feet!
Also that Agent Brook considered information from an installation that produced "kites' that was 340 miles away yet did not consider a "blimp factory" a mere 200 miles away!
also: "The Battelle and ATIC scientists and engineers who studied this report evidently considered this case to be unexplainable. That is, given the nature of the sighting (five witnesses, a pair of binoculars, a clear day and plenty of time to view the object) the scientists found it difficult to imagine how this sighting could have been a simple misidentification of some manmade (airplane, helicopter, balloon borne device) or natural (bird) object in the sky. They also did not think it was a hoax. Moreover, there were sufficient details in the descriptions of the object so that it could not be categorized as “Insufficient Information for identification”. Although the sighted object bears some resemblance to experimental semi-circular or circular aircraft that had been proposed in the 1940's, no such craft flying were ever “operational” and even if they were, they wouldn't have been flying in an area very far from the support of aircraft research facilities. Hence, the Battelle and ATIC personnel considered this sighting to be unexplainable."
...and "A key characteristic of the object which makes a mundane identification unlikely (or impossible) is the overall shape. Could the shape have been misperceived by all of the witnesses including the two who used binoculars? The answer to this question is based on the angular size of the image in the binoculars. Unfortunately the two witnesses did not provide an estimate of the apparent size in the binoculars, but all the witnesses together, in an indirect way, did provide an estimate of the minimum angular size. This indirect estimate is based on the fact that all the witnesses claimed that the object was circular. Since the object was not directly overhead (where a circular object would appear truly circular) this claim suggests that the bottom of the object, as seen from their location, appeared elliptical (as shown in the illustrations in SR14). The fact that they were able to discern an overall shape other than a “point in the sky” indicates that it had an angular size larger than the minimum angular resolution of the eye in daylight conditions. The minimum angular resolution (the “resolution element”) is on the order of a minute of arc or about 0.0003 radian (0.0174 radians per degree and 60" ...and so on
...and "Although neither the actual size nor the true distance of the object is known, the witnesses did provide estimates of both these quantities, even though it is considered “impossible” to be accurate in estimating these quantities when viewing an unknown object in the clear sky. The witnesses indicated the diameter was in the range of 25 – 35 ft and that the distance was 1 to 4 miles (three estimates were 1 mile, one was 4 miles; see the table above) with an altitude of about 1 mile. A thirty foot diameter object at a distance of 1 mile (measured along the sighting line) would have an angular size of about 0.0057 radians and at 4 miles about 0.0014 radians. Both of these angular sizes are much greater than the eye resolution mentioned above. This tells us two things: (1) if they were anywhere near correct in their size and distance estimates, then the angular size was large enough for the witnesses to clearly see the overall shape and (2) the actual size was probably close to their estimate."
No Astrophotographer, blimp does not cut it, nor does "partially inflated balloon, a trash bag in the wind, a pelican seen through very bad optics, a guy in a parachute, etc. etc."
jer_j
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 108
Okay, so there's something in the sky. And yes, let's acknowledge we can't prove it's a blimp. We're left with an ambiguous situation in which we can theorize one of three things (not an exhaustive list, but some of the most obvious):
1) It's some kind of man-made craft.
2) It's some kind of natural phenomenon.
3) It's a space ship flown here by visitors from another star system.
We can't prove it's a blimp, and you can't prove it's an alien space craft. So why in the world adopt the most bizarre explanation and the one that requires the most assumptions of unobserved, unrecorded phenomenon? It doesn't make sense. That's what everyone here is trying to get you to understand.
And as for the "physics is dead" nonsense, nobody is saying we've discovered everything there is to know about physics and that scientific discovery stops where we are today. A thousand years ago, they didn't know we would be flying in airplanes and using computers. But the road to our current discoveries was blazed by taking what they knew back then and expounding upon that current knowledge in a plausible way. Those who just theorized whatever nonsense came off the top of their heads on the assumption that "we don't yet know everything" weren't likely to discover real science. They made up magic and fairytales - and flying saucer proponents are the inheritors of their intellectual tradition.
The fact that something's wildly different from what we know today does not make it profound or pioneering. It usually just means it's guessing.
Why, oh why am I stepping into this discussion again????
1) It's some kind of man-made craft.
2) It's some kind of natural phenomenon.
3) It's a space ship flown here by visitors from another star system.
We can't prove it's a blimp, and you can't prove it's an alien space craft. So why in the world adopt the most bizarre explanation and the one that requires the most assumptions of unobserved, unrecorded phenomenon? It doesn't make sense. That's what everyone here is trying to get you to understand.
And as for the "physics is dead" nonsense, nobody is saying we've discovered everything there is to know about physics and that scientific discovery stops where we are today. A thousand years ago, they didn't know we would be flying in airplanes and using computers. But the road to our current discoveries was blazed by taking what they knew back then and expounding upon that current knowledge in a plausible way. Those who just theorized whatever nonsense came off the top of their heads on the assumption that "we don't yet know everything" weren't likely to discover real science. They made up magic and fairytales - and flying saucer proponents are the inheritors of their intellectual tradition.
The fact that something's wildly different from what we know today does not make it profound or pioneering. It usually just means it's guessing.
Why, oh why am I stepping into this discussion again????
Last edited:
Actually you seem to seriously misunderstand the logic.
Your contention boiled down to its elements: "An object exists that could explain the sighting, therefore any argument that it is NOT that object is false"
And THAT is just fallacious arthwollipot.
It is precisely an argument of the form: "It could be, therefore it Must be."
And THAT is just fallacious arthwollipot.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Seriously, Rramjet. You are deliberately being stupid here. No one is arguing this. We are saying that before you can say that it is aliens you must first prove that it is nothing mundane! It's not that freaking hard to understand!
StevenCalder
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 207
I'm sorry not to be rude but how you sometimes get from what people write to your 'distilled' version of their logic completely astounds me.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Probably for the same reason I am - we still hold out a vague hope that Rramjet will actually understand. Unfortunately, the evidence is against it.Why, oh why am I stepping into this discussion again????
Someone else said it well earlier on.
One little pile of poo is one little pile of poo. Lots of little piles of poo only makes a really big pile of poo.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Are these angular sizes? When were size estimates in feet and "speed of a jet" accurate angular sizes and speeds? How far was this 25-35 object seen from? How fast was the jet seen moving at from what distance?
A 25-35 foot object seen from 1 mile is about 0.3 degrees. However, if viewed from 100 feet, it is 17 degrees across. So what was the estimate for? A mile, four miles, a half mile?
Then there is the speed of a jet. A jet moving at 500 mph seen from one mile away moves at an angular speed of about 8 degress/second. However, as the distance increases, the angular speed decreases by the same amount. At a half mile, the angular speed is 16 degrees/second and at 8 miles it is about a degree per second.
Therefore, any estimates made using conventional estimates of size in feet and speed in mph are meaningless. This is what makes this report very poor. We have unqualified estimates made of an unknown without any reference point. This is why angular speeds are what should be required. At least then one can determine approximate sizes for various distances as well as approximate speeds for given distance.
And dismissing rival hypothesis with a wave of the hand is not being very scientific. To quote the Sturrock panel:
It may therefore be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science. However, to be credible to the scientific community, such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses
How about answering this question? What is the difference between a UFO and a TRUE UFO?
Last edited:
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
You left out THE MOST obvious - and propose two things that are actually one thing.
The list SHOULD logically be:
1) Known (ie: natural or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information
3) Unknown
Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the Unknown category might look like:
1) ET
2) Interdimesional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian conciousness
4) add as you think of one...
The categorisation is then easier to understand and I hope it makes my contentions easier to place in context. I think that is where people are actually having trouble with my ideas...they have no schema in which to place them. So I refer you to the above.
But the "blimp" is EXACTLY that (!) an "unobserved, unrecorded phenomenon".
I cannot help it if others argue from that premise...I simply point out the illogic of that position.
An unfounded assertion to which I repeat: Just stating it is so, does NOT make it so.
Why, oh why am I stepping into this discussion again????
Because it interests you?
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
What sort of experimental aircraft might have been in the area?
It's the wrong time frame but the Vought V-173 would have looked very strange to most folks. Just an example, of course.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Vought_V-173.jpg
It's the wrong time frame but the Vought V-173 would have looked very strange to most folks. Just an example, of course.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Vought_V-173.jpg
Seriously, Rramjet. You are deliberately being stupid here. No one is arguing this. We are saying that before you can say that it is aliens you must first prove that it is nothing mundane! It's not that freaking hard to understand!
Take a deep breath and chill bro…
I have NEVER argued that it is “aliens”. Repeat: Never.
I have however consistently argued that there are cases that are “Unknown”.
I entered the Rogue River case into the record to supply (one piece of) evidence as to why I reach such a conclusion.
I do however point out that there exist hypotheses for the unknown category…but in the same breath always state that these are unproven – mere speculation on possibilities.
Then how would you describe the logic contained within arthwolipot’s argument?
But again: Merely stating that it IS so, does not MAKE it so...
Evidence. Research. Facts. These are the things I work with. Not unsubstantiated assertions.
StevenCalder
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 207
His list obviously was what the UFO's turn out to be when finally identified. Not what we can identify then to be currently.
You don't believe in Blimps?
(I know you do, but that was the point to which you were incorrectly responding)
They aren't.
The biggest clue was when the person you accused said he wasn't.
StevenCalder
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 207
Your hypothesis requires a lack of mundane explanations...
Arthwollipot was pretty clear. Compare that to your version of his 'logic'.
Last edited:
- Status