Yet the final report concludes that there is no reason to think that this is anything but a natural phenomenon. Are these "well qualified observers" only qualified up to the point where you disagree with them?
- Status
Yet the final report concludes that there is no reason to think that this is anything but a natural phenomenon. Are these "well qualified observers" only qualified up to the point where you disagree with them?
That's a lot clearer then... I've no idea why when I did a search for Elephant Rock it showed a spot about 4 or 5 miles further up the river (coincidentally about 1 and a half miles above the NEXT bridge that crosses the river).
Oooops, my mistake, noted and corrected. Thanks
Edit: The last Google Earth screen grab was using the same position as Rramjet had used. Which seems to be somewhere near correct (though pointing in the wrong direction).
Umm, yes... mine was looking more down river... (but as you say, still "pointing in the wrong direction"). You will note however that your original contention that the hills would have obscured the view is ...let's say... somewhat overstated?
Ugh... The observers and analysts were highly qualified and trained in the jobs that they did. In other words they had precisely the expertise needed to conduct the observations and analysis and report the results as they did.
What others (ie; Elterman) do (by leaving out important information) to try and downplay and dismiss the hard evidence is irrelevant. It is the observations and the resultant "data reduction" assessments we are primarily interested in here. THAT is the evidence and THAT constitutes the proof.
So exactly WHAT "natural phenomenon" do you have evidence for that could have resulted in four (and 8, and numerous other observations over time) 30ft diameter "craft" being spotted and filmed cruising around at high speed at 150,000 feet?
Or are you simply using the fallacious "debunker trick" of trying to explain one "unknown" with another "unknown"?
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Oh please. Are we onto this again?
It doesn't matter precisely WHAT natural phenomenon caused it. All that has to be shown is that any natural phenomenon could have caused it. After all, your argument is that no natural phenomenon could possibly cause what was reported to have been observed. It doesn't matter if we are able to say what actually did cause it, it is sufficient to be able to say that some natural phenomenon could have caused it. Doesn't matter what! If if can have been caused naturally, then there's no reason to conclude that something "unnatural" occurred.
Aagh! I'm dying from an overdose of italics!
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
So how does that make it alien?
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Where is the evidence of aliens, Rramjet?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Really. When are you going to bring in the evidence for the existence of aliens like you said you would, Rramjet? It looks a lot like your claim to have some was another lie.
But it is YOU are "on to this again".
YOU stated "All that has to be shown is that any natural phenomenon could have caused it."
If it is that easy - THEN SHOW IT.
Don't you understand that it is irrational to "explain" something with an appeal to an "unknown" phenomenon" (natural or otherwise). I thought you were more intelligent than that arthwollipot.
It is the equivalent of me stating "There was an object, 30ft in diameter, cruising at high speed at an altitude of 150,000 feet. How do you explain that arthwollipot?"
And you replying "I can explain it by saying it could have been anything."
And me then stating "Well, in THAT case, if you believe that it could have been anything, was it an apple - or a Koala - perhaps it was an elephant?"
And you could not answer me - after all, according to you - it COULD have been anything!
Ridiculous! Irrational even!
RoboTimbo, Maximus...
I have explained my position numerous times as to where I think the evidence points to "aliens" (ie; intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly take to be the limits of the natural world)
I'll then ask a question of you. How do YOU explain the White Sands proof? I merely ask you to assess the evidence. Surely that cannot be too difficult a task?
Or don't you care about "evidence" at all? Or indeed are you like arthwollipot and contend that we can explain something by irrationally stating "I don't know anything about it - it could have been anything."
I have explained my position numerous times as to where I think the evidence points to "aliens" (ie; intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly take to be the limits of the natural world)
I'll then ask a question of you. How do YOU explain the White Sands proof? I merely ask you to assess the evidence. Surely that cannot be too difficult a task?
Or don't you care about "evidence" at all? Or indeed are you like arthwollipot and contend that we can explain something by irrationally stating "I don't know anything about it - it could have been anything."
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You have demonstrated your gullibility in reading "UFO Magazine". Try again. How does anything you've posted point to aliens?
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Rramjet, youre making me laugh now, perhaps theres something youve missed in your solid research about the white sands area
this link may help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_Test_Facility
or this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_Missile_Range
really incredible that people are seeing things that they dont understand there isnt it
what did you expect people to see ?
lol
like really, this is the best research youve ever done, you really finally have found something that cannot be explained by mundane phenomena, youre just missing the reason why that is
this link may help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_Test_Facility
or this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_Missile_Range
really incredible that people are seeing things that they dont understand there isnt it
what did you expect people to see ?
lol
like really, this is the best research youve ever done, you really finally have found something that cannot be explained by mundane phenomena, youre just missing the reason why that is
Rramjet, youre making me laugh now, perhaps theres something youve missed in your solid research about the white sands area
this link may help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_Test_Facility
or this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_Missile_Range
really incredible that people are seeing things that they dont understand there isnt it
what did you expect people to see ?
lol
like really, this is the best research youve ever done, you really finally have found something that cannot be explained by mundane phenomena, youre just missing the reason why that is
Actually, you are right... in light of what the White Sands facility WAS and in light of what the people involved were specifically trained FOR......it IS incredible that such highly trained and eminently qualified people could not identify something - even when they KNEW whatever it was, was not put up there by their own White Sands facility. Even when their own White Sands facility commissioned a study on to find out WHAT was going on because THEY (White Sands command) KNEW that whatever it was, THEY did not put the objects up there....
So then it begs the question. WHAT was up there?
Like to have a go at explaining it? Or are you simply not intellectually curious enough to want to find out what the objects were, or what they might represent?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What do you think it was?
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
its not about being intellectually curious
its about understanding that youre not going to get a straight answer out of a secret test base about what theyre testing, for this to be something you have already created a conspiracy theory to be able to claim that something unusual appears over secret test ranges
no s*** sherlock
laughable
really though, I'd love to know how you found out about an internal report made by a top secret research base, I didnt realise they were releasing those to the public thesedays
wonders will never cease eh
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
No, R. You brought it up. You brought me out of retirement with your "explaining an unknown with another unknown" rhetoric again.
Now I can't help but think you're being deliberately obtuse. Sorry. No, of course an apple couldn't possibly explain a UFO sighting such as the ones you cite. What - do you really think I'm that stupid? Come on, Roger. Exercise just a little of the brain that I know you have!
If the claim is that a red round object flew in a parabolic arc and disappeared behind a tree, then sure - an apple might be an explanation.
If the claim is no natural phenomenon can possibly explain what I saw, then any natural phenomenon that could explain what was seen would disprove that claim.
a: Only an alien could have done that.
b: No, a whether phenomenon could have done that.
a: Okay, prove that it was a weather phenomenon that did that.
b: I don't need to. Your claim was that only an alien could have done it. I showed that things that aren't aliens, things that are well-known, could have done it. Therefore your claim that only an alien could have done it is false.
b: Blaarrghh abbllrblarrgl blarrrgglgel!!! It was aliens!
its not about being intellectually curious
its about understanding that youre not going to get a straight answer out of a secret test base about what theyre testing, for this to be something you have already created a conspiracy theory to be able to claim that something unusual appears over secret test ranges
no s*** sherlock
laughable
really though, I'd love to know how you found out about an internal report made by a top secret research base, I didnt realise they were releasing those to the public thesedays
wonders will never cease eh
Oh, but you COMPLETELY miss the point (well two of them actually).
First, it was the base command themselves who commissioned the research.
If (according to you) they KNEW that "something secret was up", why would they ESPECIALLY and SPECIFICALLY let loose their best and brightest on an (according to you) "secret test" ... No, given that "secret tests" are supposed to be, well... secret(!), your contention is completely illogical. Simply, THEY wanted to find out what was going on. WAS it the Russians for example? They NEEDED that information... pure and simple.
Second - you commit the irrationality of (again) attempting to "explain" an unknown with another unknown. THAT is not science my friend. THAT is not even rational analysis - and it certainly comes nowhere NEAR a rational explanation of what the objects were.... No, you need to address the evidence.
All along you (and others) have been asking..."Where is the hard evidence?" "Where are the verified instrumented sightings?" And when I show it to you, all you can come up with is the ultimate resort of the debunker "It could have been anything"?
You WILL have to do better than that my friend.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
like am I supposed to believe you on this or do you have a link to the base command statement about their secret test range ?
I am quite sure that the idea that they thought it was the russians a decade after the iron curtain came down contains some merit, but just not in this reality
have you been smoking something illegal ?
cool video though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPGXobJ-pYY
I am quite sure that the idea that they thought it was the russians a decade after the iron curtain came down contains some merit, but just not in this reality
have you been smoking something illegal ?
cool video though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPGXobJ-pYY
Last edited:
I stated
And you could not answer me - after all, according to you - it COULD have been anything!
You replied:
Okay. NOW we are getting somewhere! It could NOT have been an apple. We must then test a number of “Comparative Exploratory Hypotheses” to rule out what it could NOT have been.
Ummm… sure… then what IS that natural phenomenon…? That is, point to ANY natural phenomenon that plausibly COULD explain the White sands objects.
Oh… “weather phenomenon”? WHICH weather phenomenon?
Ummm… no, I have NEVER claimed “only” an alien could have done it. This is your strawman argument back to haunt us again…
Really? Point to one plausible explanation for the White Sands objects that “could have done it.” Really, I AM interested in such explanations… but you simply have provided NONE (zero…nada).
Again with your strawman argument. I have NEVER claimed any such thing.
If you say so…
(cheap shot I know… but you left yourself so wide open to it that I couldn’t resist… Where would we be without a sense of humour?)
And you could not answer me - after all, according to you - it COULD have been anything!
You replied:
Okay. NOW we are getting somewhere! It could NOT have been an apple. We must then test a number of “Comparative Exploratory Hypotheses” to rule out what it could NOT have been.
Ummm… sure… then what IS that natural phenomenon…? That is, point to ANY natural phenomenon that plausibly COULD explain the White sands objects.
Oh… “weather phenomenon”? WHICH weather phenomenon?
Ummm… no, I have NEVER claimed “only” an alien could have done it. This is your strawman argument back to haunt us again…
Really? Point to one plausible explanation for the White Sands objects that “could have done it.” Really, I AM interested in such explanations… but you simply have provided NONE (zero…nada).
Again with your strawman argument. I have NEVER claimed any such thing.
If you say so…
(cheap shot I know… but you left yourself so wide open to it that I couldn’t resist…
Where would we be without a sense of humour?)Thanx for seeing that. I put the wrong date. That's what happens when you're going too fast.
Oh, but I do realize that. However, I can also think of a reason why the project director decided that it wasn't good enough. By that I mean another reason than a conspiracy theory. Can you?
Yeah well, the author hasn't mentioned it before in the text where he is only talking about Holloman. I couldn't see why he suddenly was talking about Vaughn. It's a lot clearer after going to the source documents. In the future, it would be helpful if you provide them at the start rather than retellings/summaries.
The project director disagrees with you. I think you can figure out why.
Ugh... The project director was highly qualified and trained in the job he did. In other words he had precisely the expertise needed to evaluate the results and report his conclusions.
Who is jumping conclusions?
ETA: I would also like to add that during this whole project (1 year), only partial data was aquired at only ONE occasion. Just wanted to point that out since it sounds like it was a lot more dramatic when reading your posts.
Last edited:
- Status