Some thoughts on some posts
The Rogue River “blimp” hypothesis was comprehensively “debunked” here.
A question is posed: Could a blimp have been responsible for the Rogue River UFO sighting
The primary hypothesis for Rogue River from the skeptical camp is that “It could have been a blimp that done it". We must therefore closely examine the evidence to see if this hypothesis might be plausible.
(...)
You are hoping to build up a picture of something that is not there by making connections between unrelated event which could have all sorts of mundane causes, from bad evidence gathering, inaccurate reporting, misidentification, dishonesty, hoaxing, poor witness accounts, bias etc. etc. etc.
(...<snip> purported "evidence"... the reader can view the post...)
So now you can see how all this evidence builds up into a picture of Pink Unicorns being real...
I would further contend that there are two distinct species of pink unicorns too. A visible and an invisible kind... the invisible one's a prooving much harder to pin down the evidence though, so there is much doubt as to their true existence.
As for evidence for unicorns, the situation is qualitatively different than the evidence for UFOs. It is quite simple really…
1. There are NO repeated sightings of unicorns, in fact unicorns are NEVER reported. UFOs are reported every day.
2. There are no verified photos of unicorns – yet we have literally thousands of photos and video footage of UFOs.
3. We have no reliable, qualified expert witnesses - with sworn testimony - testifying to the existence of unicorns – yet we have precisely that for UFOs.
4. We have no physical trace evidence for unicorns – yet we have that for UFOs.
So you can easily see that we have a wealth of current, verified, reliable evidence for UFOs, but we have NO such evidence for unicorns. It is that simple really.
Then it's not a duck... simple really.
As to what it is... usually UNIDENTIFIED.
Any further speculation is blind faith belief.
This is an interesting assertion. It flat out denies the scientific method. Imagine if all the great scientists down the ages had said to themselves “Oh, we can’t explain that phenomenon…well, no use speculating… for that would be to commit a “blind faith belief”…so I must only study things that are already known”. A purely irrational anti-science viewpoint.
Rramjet, can you tell me why elves and faeries can not be "intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" but mothmen and those Kelly-Hopkinsville creatures can? Why succubus can not be "intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" while the platinum-blonde with red pubic hair from Villas-Boas case can be one?
Jacques Valée, I guess, probably would think they all can be "intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world"...
At last but not least, can someone please tell me WFT "intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" means? Can someone please tell me how it is supposed to be "scientific" and a better explanation than mundane (but not identified for a number of reasons) objects/phenomena and/or hoaxes?
Rramjet? Jacques Valée?
“Elves and faeries”? I reject the hypothesis simply because we do not have the same level of evidence for their existence as we do for UFOs. However, if you contend Mothman or the Kelly-Hopkinsville creatures are “elves and faeries” then I will listen to the evidence you have to present. If no evidence to support that contention is forthcoming, I would reject your contention. If you contend the “platinum-blonde with red pubic hair from Villas-Boas case” was a succubi, then present your evidence. I am open to any and all plausible evidence. If you can support you contentions with such, then of course we must take note. If not, then I will reject your contentions.
Jacques Valée was proposing hypotheses to explain the evidence. He interpreted what he saw in the evidence as pointing in a certain direction. He supplied evidence to support his contentions. That is his right to do so. You may interpret the evidence in a different way. But if you do, you MUST ALSO supply evidence to support your own interpretations and hypotheses.
The definition "intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we commonly accept to be the limits of the natural world" is just that – a definition.
Anything that fits within that definition
that we have plausible evidence for is then and “alien”.
Exactly. It could be accurate, and it could be inaccurate. Note the first part of that sentence. We'd need to see the original error analysis to know for sure.
Do we have that?
Oh dear.
What we DO have is a group of highly qualified observers and analysts conducting research by applying the specific skills of their training to a problem and then reporting the results.
If you contend those results to be somehow unreliable, then you directly deny the skills of those observers and analysts to do the job they were trained for. I am sure the military would be startled to learn from you that all their expensive training is useless. That the observers and analysts they employ can not be relied upon to do their jobs.
No. it is a nonsense argument you propose. Simply, unless we have solid evidence that the observers and analysts can not be relied upon to have done their job - then mere speculation that they might have not done their job is pure irrationality in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Okay, so maybe I haven't said it explicitly several times…
..really!
…but I have stated it explicitly at least once before the post you're responding to above, and have repeated several times that I am not calling their abilities into question.
Oh but you DO! You speculate that the mathematician’s reported statistics cannot be relied upon because we have no accompanying error estimate. But that fact alone does not make the statistics unreliable - because we can think of many legitimate reasons why the mathematicians might not have included such an estimate in their summary report.
Moreover, you directly stated that they might have “unknowingly” supplied an inaccurate figure! But that is mere speculation and in the face of evidence to the contrary (their acknowledged expertise) it is not a speculation that should be given any currency.
I questioned why there was no error quoted, criticised Macabee's analysis, and noted some possible sources of error. See below for details.
But you have not shown Dr. Maccabees calculations to be in error, you have merely cited another figure different to his and have NOT shown how you arrived at that figure. ANY mathematician knows that you have to provide a “proof” of your calculations to show their accuracy. I have no way of knowing whether you or he was accurate. All I know is that Dr. Macabbee has the qualifications, and he is the expert, I would therefore trust his calculations over your unproven ones – UNLESS you can show me he was in error… but of course you have NOT done that.
Liar. You know very well that I have done that, because you responded to it by trying to brush it off.
I would think you might be a little more circumspect given what I have just stated above. That and the fact that abuse is the “lowest” form of argument reserved for bullies.
That's Macabee's bad maths, he rounds off before the end of the calculation, and can't even get the area of a circle correct!
Merely stating that Dr. Maccabee was in error does NOT make him in error. You have to SHOW HOW he was in error. Do you get it yet?
Macabee completely ignores the obvious, that the object wasn't directly above an observing station, so its distance from the camera is more than the altitude of 150,000 ft. That means the angular size would be smaller, making his estimate even less accurate. And it was pretty bloody poor to start with, more than a factor of 2 wrong!
Here is the way I see the mathematician’s working:
Azimuth and elevation angles from one location combined with an azimuth angle from another location are sufficient to accomplish a triangulation. To see this, imagine that the azimuth angles from two locations are measured. Of course the baseline azimuth between cameras and the distance between cameras is known. From each camera location, as plotted on a map, imagine extending a line along the measured azimuth direction. The lines from the two cameras meet at a ground-level intersection point. This point is directly below the objects. Now imagine extending a line upward from the intersection point. One of the cameras also has measured the elevation angle from its location. Imagine drawing a "slanted" line upward from that camera location. Eventually the slanted line from that camera location will intersect the vertical line from the ground-level intersection point thereby forming a right triangle. The altitude of this upper intersection point is the altitude of the objects. Of course, the "mathematical reduction unit" knew this and reported the results of the triangulation (30 ft diameter, 150,000 ft, etc.)
Do you refute that this methodology could have produced an accurate statistic?
Possible errors in timing. Possible. Which they may have been unaware of.
So you are contending that these expertly trained observers, using the equipment they were trained to use, were merely sloppy in their use of that equipment? One of the MOST basic functionality of their equipment (time measurement) they could not get right?
That's not to say that they were sloppy, or bad at their jobs, just that they may have been unaware of a small error in timing…
Oh yes it is! You directly imply that at the very least!
…due to imaging things that they weren't trained to image and weren't experienced at imaging.
But to them it does NOT matter WHAT the “object” is that they are observing, exactly the same procedural protocol is observed in the operation of the equipment. NOTHING changes in that protocol merely because the “object” is different. You obviously have no idea about how technical equipment is actually used in these circumstances.
Given that we are told that these objects were moving at very high speed even a small error in timing could produce a fairly large error in the altitude measurement.
Oh come on…these people were used to tracking rockets into orbit with precision accuracy and you contend that “high speed” is something they could not handle. Really Wollery!
…An error that they would be unaware of. Through no fault of their own.
Back to claiming that the “experts” could not do the job they were trained to do. (shakes head in disbelief).
In reference to The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949):
Could obviously be a private or reserve blimp but remains a UFO.
For a refutation of THAT contention see this post:
A question is posed: Could a blimp have been responsible for the Rogue River UFO sighting
But yes indeed, a UFO!
And NOT merely a UFO as defined by
“unidentified from the perspective of the observer at the time.”
No, it is a UFO as defined by “given all the evidence we have today, and given all the research conducted based on the knowledge we have today”.
See the critical difference?
In reference to The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955):
Could obviously be a hoax or owls but remains unidentified.
For a refutation of that contention see:
Let's then look at this a little more closely shall we...
I reference to Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976):
No first hand sources. Remains a UFO
Some of the comments I have seen about the Iranian UFO case suggest that people think there is only one official document; the NSA evaluation. They also seem to think that all the information on the event was obtained "long" afterward. It is true that the interviews of the air traffic controller were several months later. However, the initial teletype report by Col Olin Mooy of the MAAG (Military Assistance Advisory Group) was written during the day following the early morning events. In other words, the second pilot in particular (Jafari) was interviewed within about 12 hours of the event.
A very good summary of the case at :
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Interview of Parvis Jafari (including German translation) (
http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007 (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
There is an amusing and somewhat enlightening UFO HUNTERS "reconstruction" of portions of the event at (
http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)
In reference to the White Sands investigation:
Scientific investigation showed nothing out of the ordinary. Remains UFO.
Nothing out of the ordinary? That is some ability for understatement you have there.
And again, see my definitions of UFO above for clarification on what you might mean by UFO. Of course YOU mean UFO according to the first definition. I mean UFO according to the second.
By all means, prove that it was a deliberate cover up as you claim.
No, I contended that it was EITHER an error OR a cover-up. EITHER way we cannot then trust Elterman’s conclusions. Proof? Here:
from Elterman’s “report”:
“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.” (
http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)
Now we KNOW this to be false because we have the following:
“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:
Let us make this as clear as possible because it seems people are just not getting it.
1. I make a claim - and people ask that I present the evidence to support that claim.
This is a reasonable thing to ask of me. It is rational and logical.
2. Now the debunkers make a claim - and I ask that they present evidence to support that claim.
This is a reasonable thing to ask of them. It is rational and logical.
Yet what occurs when I ask?
They immediately deny that they have to produce evidence to support their claims.
That is unreasonable. It is irrational and illogical.
I have NO idea why people are not understanding such a basic concept.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no and no. It is YOU who is not getting it. YOU make a claim, WE challenge it because YOU can't prove it despite your contention that you can, and because YOU can't dismiss the possibility of alternative possibilities which ARE NOT CLAIMS.
Yes, I make a claim – and you demand evidence and I DO provide that evidence.
If you
claim there are “alternative possibilities” ( for that is precisely what you are doing) for the same “object” then by the SAME logic YOU MUST provide evidence to support those alternate hypotheses.
I have yet to see you either propose an alternative or provide evidence for an alternative. Merely
“claiming” there IS an alternative does NOT make it true.
It really is that simple.
Not to nit pick but it could be man made. Ya know, top secret stuff...sshhh. The more serious thing is that nothing has been shown that conclusively proves that the above characteristics has been experienced. Frankly speaking, after 60 years I think UFO fans should have been able to piece together more evidence.
…and here we are back to the irrationality of claiming to explain an unknown with another unknown!
Besides, the contention is simply NOT plausible. Witness the Russian/U2 thing. The US, when they DID have a secret operation, tried as far as possible to AVOID drawing attention to that secret. Yet in the Iranian case we have the UFO acting as if it DID want attention and even going so far as chasing the Iranian military jets! “Secret stuff”? Utterly implausible given the EVIDENCE!
)
'