A reply to many posts...
Wollery
You stated:
”So you contend that it's impossible to correctly take a measurement with a large error?”
No, I am saying that any scientist must have a concept of an error margin beyond which citing a figure becomes pointless. This error margin is based on measures of standard deviation.
The fact that the analysts DID cite a figure at all means they calculated that error margin and determined that it was small enough for them to be able to cite a figure.
They did so knowing that their reputations as analysts were on the line. As every figure a scientist cites places his reputation on the line. Scientists and analysts are by nature conservative people. They simply would NOT have cited a figure unless they thought that it was accurate – especially THESE analysts.
It really is as simple as that.
Moreover we have the summary report that the analysts sent to Lt Albert citing the figures in question. As I stated, this was NOT a scientific peer-reviewed submission. It was a mere summary to show their commander WHAT their results were. Citing error margins, and other statistical assumptions would simply have been of no use to Lt Albert and the analysts would have been perfectly aware of that.
Your own statements show that you believe the analysts can not be trusted to do their job. THAT is the whole thrust of your argument. You NEED to make the observers and analysts unreliable, for otherwise you are left with a verified, reliable UFO sighting, caught on film and triangulated with accuracy.
YOU are simply dragging a red herring across the path in order to prevent the examination of the evidence I present. In this you are a philistine.
Jocce:
You keep referring to a post where you claim to have
“dealt with why your attempt to make my assessment look bad was so inaccurate. If there was ever any such post then I expect you to produce a link to it.
You stated:
”Show me that he deliberately covered up valuable information.”
Okay…(
http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)
2. Contractual period - 1 April 1950 to 15 September 1950.
Some photographic activity occurred on 27 April and 24 May, but simultaneous sightings by both cameras were not made, so that no information was gained.
Now we KNOW this to be false. Indeed the sighting of April 27 provided triangulation data.
You stated:
” How handy that you don't have to think for yourself. Then maybe you can tell me which possible explanations apart from aliens the experts you're referring to have considered as a cause for the observations and how they were able to eliminate them as explanations? Be as specific as possible please because I have not seen anything like that before.
Yes, VERY handy that I do not have to conduct the analysis over again because it has been conducted for me! The following is the report we DO have. Perhaps you might care to explain what they saw… I merely contend that they saw what they reported. Nothing more, nothing less.
“ 1. Per request of Dr. A. O. Mirarchi, during a recent visit to this base, the following information is submitted.
2. Sightings were made on 27 April and 24 May 1950 of aerial phenomena during morning daylight hours at this station. The sightings were made by Land-Air, Inc., personnel while engaged in tracking regular projects with Askania Phototheodolites. It has been reported that objects are sighted in some number; as many as eight have been visible at one time. The individuals making these sightings are professional observers. Therefore I would rate their reliability superior. In both cases photos were taken with Askanias.
3. The Holloman AF Base Data Reduction Unit analyzed the 27 April pictures and made a report, a copy of which I am enclosing with the film for your information. It was believed that triangulation could be effected from pictures taken on 24 May because pictures were taken from two stations. The films were rapidly processed and examined by Data Reduction. However, it was determined that sightings were made on two different objects and triangulation could not be effected. A report from Data Reduction and the films from the sighting are enclosed.
4. There is nothing further to report at this time.”
The writer of this cover letter is not known (no signature). It might have been the Lt. Alpert mentioned below. The Data Reduction report attached to the letter reads as follows:
“Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950"
2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50
1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.
2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:
a). The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b). The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c). The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter.
d). The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed
(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit
(
http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
I stated:
”If I claim X – you naturally demand to see evidence of X.
If you claim Y – I naturally demand to see evidence of Y.
THAT is the burden of proof. There is something very peculiar going on here if people cannot understand what common English words and terms of logic mean.”
You replied:
”You claim to be a scientist and yet don't know how the burden of proof works. Pathetic.
I will merely leave it to the readers to judge.
You stated:
”As you are the one with the original claim, you are required to show that other explanations are not possible. It must have been hilarious for those watching you defend your Phd thesis.
Defendant: This is my claim.
Opponent: How did you rule out X?
Defendant: Prove that it could have been X!!”
I claim – as I have indicated above – that the observers saw what they reported. Nothing more, nothing less. I contend, first that this provides verified evidence of UFO activity. And second I inferentially hypothesise that it also suggest “alien” activity.
The evidence I supply for those contentions and hypotheses is:
1. The report of the sighting – which clearly rules out any plausible mundane explanation that I am aware of (meteors, “fireballs”, etc) and clearly has the White Sands commanders puzzled:
”These fireballs were observed repeatedly throughout 1949 and Air Force scientists wanted to know what they were. (Also observed were objects which Dr. La Paz called the "disc variation"...but it almost seems that the Air Force scientists really didn't want to know what THEY were!) Finally, in 1950, they succeeded in setting up an observation program to scientifically record the fireballs. It is at this point that our present story begins, but, before leaving the fireballs behind, let me just point out that they are STILL a mystery!
In the spring of 1950 a $20,000, half-year contract was signed with the Land-Air Corporation which operated the phototheodolites at White Sands. Land-Air was to set up a 24 hour watch at a location in New Mexico to be specified by the Air Force and the phototheodolite operators at White Sands were to film any unusual objects which happened to fly past. The name of this project was Twinkle.”
(
http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
Now they would NOT have been so puzzled had the objects been explicable as any plausible mundane object.
So when you state:
” How is " something flying around up there that "WE" did not put there" suggestive of an "intelligent agency"?
It is for that very reason.
Something non-mundane, resembling a “craft”, flying around that WE did not put there.
Therefore I ask YOU. WHAT plausible explanation can YOU come up with?
tsig
You asked:
”Do these Intelligent agencies have to follow the laws of physics?”
How do I know WHAT “laws” of physics might or might not be involved.
Do you contend that physics is a dead science and that there are no new discoveries that might be made?
AWPrime
I stated:
”So your contention is that we can explain the unknown with reference to the unknown? That's just irrational. "I don't know what it is, but I can explain by stating it might be something that I don't know"!?
You replied:
”That is what you are doing, even worse you select a specific unknown, that has no weight of evidence.”
But at least I AM supplying evidence for my contentions. Whether you agree with me or not does not alter that fact.
I see NO evidence from your side of the argument. NONE at all! And that makes my statement above a perfectly accurate representation of your side of the “argument”.
I stated:
”Yelling? No, just suggesting that perhaps that is where the evidence takes us - because we can find - even after extensive research with the knowledge we have today - no plausible mundane explanation. That's all.”
You replied:
”That is just straight arrogance, only stupid people think that know everything about the mundane world. The more our knowledge increases, the more we understand the limits of our knowledge of the mundane world.
So you contend that something we don’t know about will explain something we don’t know about? That is nonsense. It is antirational, illogical, unscientific… “woo” in other words.
You stated:
ps. By the way, by your 'logic' it might as well been underpants gnomes.
Hugh? I’ll leave it to the readers to judge who is being logical.
(Back to)
Jocce
You stated:
”You mean like when you examine a report that concludes that nothing strange seems to be going on and concludes that this is evidence of a cover up? M'kay...
WHAT report that has not been shown to be in serious error (aka Elterman’s “report”), that I have presented as evidence, concludes that “nothing strange seems to be going on”?
And what is this “M’kay” business… are you losing your grip or something…?
(Finally)
Stray_Cat
You stated:
”The way science works indeed, but what has UFOlogy got do to with science?”
Simply, we can apply the methodology of science to the study of UFOs.
Perhaps you did not think of applying the scientific method yourself?
You contended:
”But you only accept the 'experts' who agree with your blind faith beliefs?
Newton's Law of experts: For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert”
I have asserted a number of hypotheses. I have been placing evidence on the record to support those hypotheses. If you dispute my hypotheses or the evidence I present, then please do so. Making assertions as you have just done advances the debate precisely nowhere.
You stated:
”It's down to the person making the original claim about the evidence and analysis to prove that claim... otherwise, as you have pointed out, we would spend all our time disproving nonsense, leaving us still in the dark ages (or more appropriately, at page 39 of a pointless forum thread).
However, in EVERY SINGLE case you have presented here, the 'experts' have managed to analyse the data and conclude that whatever was seen was UNIDENTIFIED. So let's roll with the 'experts'.
Now where are these other cases where the 'experts' have concluded 'Alien Craft'?.”
Indeed you are right…and I HAVE been submitting evidence for my claims. If you dispute the evidence or claims then you MUST provide your reasoning for such and support any assertions or claims of your own with evidence. It’s as simple as that really.
