Here's a tip, Ramjet: you are not the authority, here. As such it is not required for us to convince you; only to show that it could be such an explanation. If you refuse to accept the evidence or the explanations, that seriously isn't our problem. So, if you think you being pig-headed shifts the burden of proof to us, you're in for a dissapointment.
…and you still don’t get it do you… the sheer hypocrisy of your position?
If I claim X… you naturally demand to see evidence of X. And If I don’t provide it you shout loudly to the world “See, he cannot provide evidence for his assertions!”
But if YOU claim Y …and I naturally demand to see evidence for Y… you then say, “Oh I don’t have to provide it… it merely IS because I say it is!”
That is “woo” at the HIGHEST level my friend. In short - hypocrisy. And this coming from a self proclaimed spokesperson for this thread. What a hoot!
Could you please also read (maybe quote) the post(s) where he has defined what he means by 'alien'. Thanks!
Agreed. He's at no point (please correct me if I'm wrong) stated he has any concrete evidence of aliens (parts of ship, ET flesh etc.). It's all only evidence that points towards (that is, indications of) alien presence...see the difference? I think the changed wording hasn't changed his original claim.
My definition of alien (oft now repeated) might help.
An “alien” is “An intelligent agent acting outside the bounds of what we would commonly take to be the limits of the natural world”.
I have not yet presented evidence as to the likely morphology of “aliens”.
I am as yet merely trying to establish that there are things observed that simply cannot be rationally or plausibly explained in mundane or “natural” terms. Rogue River is a good case because there is no known “mundane” explanation the fits the evidence (including blimps – which I think people actually know, but are simply “in denial” over). The second “good” case is the White Sands case. Here we have absolutely unimpeachable evidence by anyone’s standards. But of course “evidence” and logical argument will always be the loser when it comes up against articles of faith.
Perhaps you should read up on Festinger and Cognitive Dissonance Theory.
I guess that by quoting this you mean that part of his job was to draw a thick blanket over any and all evidence that would surface during the investigation?
No, not at all. What I am pointing out is that Elterman either ignored the evidence or he covered it up. Either way, we can no longer trust his conclusions on the matter. It is as simple as that. Simply, his own words show his assessments to be in error. THEN , if we add that to his debunking history, I simply then leave the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.
There is a difference between filming something and gaining information (bolding above mine). He is giving his professional opinion.
So you contend that capturing the objects on film does not constitute information… I am sure your conclusion would startle the White Sands command who relied on the films of their rockets to assess their functionality...
…and “his professional opinion”? Well, if HE is representative of military professionalism – being in obvious error in his summary reporting of the incidents – then I fear for us all!
That is what I am saying. You are confusing observing and filming with aquisition of data. And (partial) data was aquired only once according to the reports available, on april 27, 1950.
Again, the White sands command would be startled to learn that their filming of their rocket and missile test was all for naught because (according to you) a film does not constitute data!
I'm not so sure I'd call Dr. Maccabee's writings a "report" but I definately won't take his arguments from incredulity for fact.
You don’t have to. Go back to basics. The original reports.
You have not answered my question? WHAT do the objects so accurately recorded by eminently reliable observers using precise technical equipment suggest to you?
Forgive me for asking but since you are so interested in these phenomena, why haven't you conducted this research so that you can rule out more mundane explanations? I'm just assuming that you haven't done that research because I figure that you would present it if you had it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
WHAT mundane explanations? Can you provide any plausible mundane explanations? No, I did not think so.
no data could be obtained. I refer you to Wollerys post for a thorough explanation of why that would be the conclusion.
But we KNOW this to be an erroneous statement. Wollery has taken us all for fools. His statement are supported by NO evidence and have been shown by me to be complete nonsense…
in reference to the error margin
It was small enough for professional analysts, whose job depended on accuracy, to quote a figure.
Translation: They didn't get any valuable data on may 24
That’s just a red herring thrown in a vain effort to avoid talking about what they DID get on the 27th
No, he's not saying that. He's saying that WE can't know and if we can't, we can't check it.
So what you are saying is that you don’t trust the trained experts, whose job relies on accuracy at the highest level, to have done the job they were trained to do?
Rramjet, this is all very easy. It now boils down to two differing theories:
1. The project director lied and covered up the data from april 27. Noone noticed.
2. The project director examined the data from april 27 and decided that it was not acurate enough to draw any conclusions from.
It remains a UFO.
Actually, He covered up the data from the 27th. And never mentioned that good data was obtained from that date. So what ARE we supposed to conclude from that?
…actually MORE than one.. up to 8 or more were filmed for starters.
But how large a margin of error? (…)Without that value it's impossible to judge just how reliable the data is. (…)But we aren't told which observation posts they are, so we can't assess how near to the object the posts that took the images were. That means that we can't assess the accuracy of the reported altitude or size that are given. And we also can't confirm the pixel sizes of the images. (…) …but error in timing can occur. These errors can lead to errors in the distance estimate. Without knowing any more about their methods we can't assess how accurate their timing synchronisation was. (…)They offer no error estimate for the one and only data point that they give, which calls into doubt their findings. (…)With no associated error. Hardly conclusive.
So in all that your arguments boil down to – despite admitting to the professionalism of the people involved – is that they COULD have been in error? And you base that judgement on the simple fact that they did not report an error margin? And therefore we must throw the whole thing out?
You forget, this was a summary report of their conclusions to their superiors. It was not meant as a peer-reviewed scientific submission. They simply conveyed their conclusions in the most succinct of terms. I have no doubt if you went back to their calculations you would find factors for the margins of error. To state that highly trained military analysts failed to account for error margins… especially at a test facility … beggars belief. Do you understand the accuracy it takes to successfully launch a rocket… let alone get it to go where you want it to? No, these people were steeped in accuracy of measurement. The military relied on their accuracy.
.
