Dammit! You proved his case! Nowhere in the specs does 190 miles appear.
- Status
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Rogue River:
Sure, if you say so. I have placed the evidence many times on the record. It is there for all to see. Rather than keep repeating it, I have therefore decided moved on.
Ah, I see, back to that are we? What degree of error makes eyewitness testimony inaccurate? 5%, 10%, 20%?
I stated:
”The descriptions of the eyewitnesses DO rule out a blimp”
You have not directed yourself to my proposition here. That is:
”For a start there is that top “fin”…. The fact is that NO other fins were reported – even by the witnesses with binoculars. Blimps have four “vanes” used for steering in the horizontal and vertical planes. The UFO only possessed one such fin quite unlike ANY known blimp (and that fin beginning “amidship” – again quite unlike ANY known blimp).
So the simple fact is, that the blimp hypothesis falls down at precisely that point and must therefore be ruled OUT as an explanatory hypothesis.”
I ask you then, if the description is accurate enough to discern “blimp” (remember the skeptic bases this proposition SOLELY on just ONE of the two UFO drawings produced) - what would make perception inaccurate enough NOT to discern a bottom fin, yet at the same time discern a top fin?
Iranian UFO
Obviously THIS “alien” object does!
You wanted “first hand” eyewitness accounts – I provided them to you. Now you reject even first hand accounts? Perhaps you are contending that evidence loses its veracity over time? Perhaps you think police should not investigate murders after 30 years have elapsed? Or perhaps the Theory of Evolution should be disregarded because the groundwork was based on observations (eyewitness testimony!) of natural systems in such places as the Galapagos Islands in the early 19th century? According to you, Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species SHOULD be disregarded in entirety because it is based on a single individual’s eyewitness testimony! I am sure the ID people would be pleased to hear that from you.
I stated
“There are two ways in which my hypothesis of “aliens” can be supported.
First we can have “positive” proof. That is UFO capabilities and or characteristics that do not match, or are beyond the limits of, any known human technology.
Second we can have negative proof. That is there are shown to be no “mundane” explanations that describe the UFO in all its capabilities.”
Why am I not surprised that the difference between them is too subtle for you… the first has to do with what the object IS (positive). The second has to do with what it is NOT (negative).
I think you better explain how your “argument from ignorance” applies in this case. Can you?
Back to Rogue River
Have you evidence that the top fin and the bottom fin of the blimps of the time were composed of differently reflective material?
But the top and bottom fin are LINKED and work as a single UNIT, together… so whatever angle the one on top was set at, so too would have been the bottom. That is just the way blimps work.
So what degree of reflectivity would cause your “sphere” of “a sheen of brilliant, reflected sunlight” that would make the top fin visible and the lower invisible? What are the angular dimensions necessary?
You might just have to explain that last comment.
Exactly HOW is my contention an “argument from incredulity”? If I “cannot imagine” then perhaps you can enlighten me as to the physics of such a process?
Besides, the witnesses describe near perfect viewing conditions - Sun low at their backs, clear blue sky, no clouds - and the two witnesses who used binoculars described NO glare or reflected light that might have obstructed their view of the object. The witnesses even stated they could make out the shape without aid of binoculars.
Critically also, the witnesses viewed the object for a period of at least one and a half minutes, while it first approached them “head on”, then turned (about its vertical axis) to fly south diagonally away from them. All this time they viewed it through binoculars.
So, please tell me then how the physics of your “sheen of brilliant, reflected sunlight” works to remain so precisely in position to consistently block the lower fin (and gondola etc) while leaving the top fin always visible even while the object was moving and turning at different angles and while the light source and observers remained stationary.
Can you do that?
Remember known objects must obey the known laws of physics!
Ughh.. I have addressed that issue MANY times. If you choose to ignore the official historical evidence then you will simply ignore ANY evidence.
So now the eyewitness accounts are precise? How precise must the accounts be to observe accurately enough to render an accurate drawing of the object - yet imprecise enough to be unable to misidentify a blimp in the sky? 90%.? 85%?, 70%?
Oh but I HAVE! Posts 2054 and 2059 on p. 52 for example. There were also MANY others prior to that. Just because you ignore the evidence I present does NOT mean I have not presented it!
Oh but this is as FAR from a simple or rational explanation as you are likely to get. Explaining one unknown with another unknown is illogical, irrational. If you contend such things then you NEED to back up your assertions with EVIDENCE. You need to show that your assertions are plausible. Just because you state something does NOT make it true or even possible.
..and back to the Iranian UFO
Then propose a plausible alternate hypothesis that is supported by EVIDENCE that accounts for the characteristics of the UFO.
If you cannot, then “aliens” remains as the ONLY explanatory hypothesis we have left…but you will not see that because that is against your faith.
Sure, if you say so. I have placed the evidence many times on the record. It is there for all to see. Rather than keep repeating it, I have therefore decided moved on.
Ah, I see, back to that are we? What degree of error makes eyewitness testimony inaccurate? 5%, 10%, 20%?
I stated:
”The descriptions of the eyewitnesses DO rule out a blimp”
You have not directed yourself to my proposition here. That is:
”For a start there is that top “fin”…. The fact is that NO other fins were reported – even by the witnesses with binoculars. Blimps have four “vanes” used for steering in the horizontal and vertical planes. The UFO only possessed one such fin quite unlike ANY known blimp (and that fin beginning “amidship” – again quite unlike ANY known blimp).
So the simple fact is, that the blimp hypothesis falls down at precisely that point and must therefore be ruled OUT as an explanatory hypothesis.”
I ask you then, if the description is accurate enough to discern “blimp” (remember the skeptic bases this proposition SOLELY on just ONE of the two UFO drawings produced) - what would make perception inaccurate enough NOT to discern a bottom fin, yet at the same time discern a top fin?
Iranian UFO
Obviously THIS “alien” object does!
You wanted “first hand” eyewitness accounts – I provided them to you. Now you reject even first hand accounts? Perhaps you are contending that evidence loses its veracity over time? Perhaps you think police should not investigate murders after 30 years have elapsed? Or perhaps the Theory of Evolution should be disregarded because the groundwork was based on observations (eyewitness testimony!) of natural systems in such places as the Galapagos Islands in the early 19th century? According to you, Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species SHOULD be disregarded in entirety because it is based on a single individual’s eyewitness testimony! I am sure the ID people would be pleased to hear that from you.
I stated
“There are two ways in which my hypothesis of “aliens” can be supported.
First we can have “positive” proof. That is UFO capabilities and or characteristics that do not match, or are beyond the limits of, any known human technology.
Second we can have negative proof. That is there are shown to be no “mundane” explanations that describe the UFO in all its capabilities.”
Why am I not surprised that the difference between them is too subtle for you… the first has to do with what the object IS (positive). The second has to do with what it is NOT (negative).
I think you better explain how your “argument from ignorance” applies in this case. Can you?
Back to Rogue River
Have you evidence that the top fin and the bottom fin of the blimps of the time were composed of differently reflective material?
But the top and bottom fin are LINKED and work as a single UNIT, together… so whatever angle the one on top was set at, so too would have been the bottom. That is just the way blimps work.
So what degree of reflectivity would cause your “sphere” of “a sheen of brilliant, reflected sunlight” that would make the top fin visible and the lower invisible? What are the angular dimensions necessary?
You might just have to explain that last comment.
Exactly HOW is my contention an “argument from incredulity”? If I “cannot imagine” then perhaps you can enlighten me as to the physics of such a process?
Besides, the witnesses describe near perfect viewing conditions - Sun low at their backs, clear blue sky, no clouds - and the two witnesses who used binoculars described NO glare or reflected light that might have obstructed their view of the object. The witnesses even stated they could make out the shape without aid of binoculars.
Critically also, the witnesses viewed the object for a period of at least one and a half minutes, while it first approached them “head on”, then turned (about its vertical axis) to fly south diagonally away from them. All this time they viewed it through binoculars.
So, please tell me then how the physics of your “sheen of brilliant, reflected sunlight” works to remain so precisely in position to consistently block the lower fin (and gondola etc) while leaving the top fin always visible even while the object was moving and turning at different angles and while the light source and observers remained stationary.
Can you do that?
Remember known objects must obey the known laws of physics!
Ughh.. I have addressed that issue MANY times. If you choose to ignore the official historical evidence then you will simply ignore ANY evidence.
So now the eyewitness accounts are precise? How precise must the accounts be to observe accurately enough to render an accurate drawing of the object - yet imprecise enough to be unable to misidentify a blimp in the sky? 90%.? 85%?, 70%?
Oh but I HAVE! Posts 2054 and 2059 on p. 52 for example. There were also MANY others prior to that. Just because you ignore the evidence I present does NOT mean I have not presented it!
Oh but this is as FAR from a simple or rational explanation as you are likely to get. Explaining one unknown with another unknown is illogical, irrational. If you contend such things then you NEED to back up your assertions with EVIDENCE. You need to show that your assertions are plausible. Just because you state something does NOT make it true or even possible.
..and back to the Iranian UFO
Then propose a plausible alternate hypothesis that is supported by EVIDENCE that accounts for the characteristics of the UFO.
If you cannot, then “aliens” remains as the ONLY explanatory hypothesis we have left…but you will not see that because that is against your faith.
Damn, your good. Now, about the "Blimp Repulser Array" located on the Rogue River....
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
In Stray Cat's post #2091, the picture of the blimps (or UFO's), do you see two alien UFO's chasing six blimps? Why or why not?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I'm currently engaged with another poster who uses this technique. It's going to save me heaps of time only having to type one response to two separate posts.
Thank you.
Photos..and films..
People have pointed to photos of blimps to support their assertions concerning viewing conditions that might make the top fin visible while the bottom is invisible. There are a couple of points to be noted about the fallacy of doing this:
First: Even a lay person unfamiliar with photography can tell you that photographic artifacts appear ...ESPECIALLY in the B&W photos of the era... to make things appear as they would NOT to the naked eye -or through binoculars.
Second: The Rogue River object was viewed over an extended time while it changed aspect and position relative to the observers while the light source and observers remained in the same position. Thus any REAL world light artifact would NOT have consistently obscured the SAME point of view.
Third: The skeptics use only ONE of the two drawings produced (see below for the first drawing produced). THIS drawing does NOT resemble a blimp at all. Neither of course does the drawing the skeptics use - but as they say, when it comes to the skeptical position on seeing what they want to see - faith carries the day over rationality and logic!
Finally, it is the totality of the eyewitness descriptions that must be accounted for. These descriptions simply describe an object that IN NO WAY resembles a blimp. But as the truism goes... UFO skeptics never let the evidence get in the way of a good story.
People have pointed to photos of blimps to support their assertions concerning viewing conditions that might make the top fin visible while the bottom is invisible. There are a couple of points to be noted about the fallacy of doing this:
First: Even a lay person unfamiliar with photography can tell you that photographic artifacts appear ...ESPECIALLY in the B&W photos of the era... to make things appear as they would NOT to the naked eye -or through binoculars.
Second: The Rogue River object was viewed over an extended time while it changed aspect and position relative to the observers while the light source and observers remained in the same position. Thus any REAL world light artifact would NOT have consistently obscured the SAME point of view.
Third: The skeptics use only ONE of the two drawings produced (see below for the first drawing produced). THIS drawing does NOT resemble a blimp at all. Neither of course does the drawing the skeptics use - but as they say, when it comes to the skeptical position on seeing what they want to see - faith carries the day over rationality and logic!
Finally, it is the totality of the eyewitness descriptions that must be accounted for. These descriptions simply describe an object that IN NO WAY resembles a blimp. But as the truism goes... UFO skeptics never let the evidence get in the way of a good story.
Attachments
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How does witness fallability make it alien?
How does this make it alien?
How closely does the drawing resemble an alien vessel?
How does that make it alien?
What I am interested in is the personal eyewitness testimony. Films and photos can be VERY misleading - ESPECIALLY since there is NO accurate depth information in them. Artifacts occur...a whole host of things that can be misleading. So your statement that a film of an object has mislead people into thinking it was one thing when it was not - is not surprising in the least. That is not to say that photos and film are not useful indicators...but they CANNOT stand on their own as evidence ...they MUST be supported by reliable eyewitness testimony if they are to have ANY veracity at all.
In the case of Rogue River we DO have reliable eyewitness testimony - whether you care to admit it or not.
But you forget WHO these people were!
COULD THIS SIGHTING REPORT HAVE BEEN A HOAX?
It is my opinion that this report was not a hoax. When the two men decided to report the UFO, they did not turn to the newspapers or TV or radio to get the maximum publicity for their story. Instead, the two men, who worked in responsible positions within the Ames Research Laboratory, reported it to the security office at their own laboratory. If it was a hoax, by reporting it directly to their workplace security, they were (at the very least) endangering their jobs if exposed.
One might suggest that the time between the sighting and the report lends an air of “hoax” to the situation. It took the witnesses about three weeks to report the sighting. To me however, this suggests an element of caution on their part, in keeping with their reported character assessments. Did they really dare to report such a thing? Certainly they would not have wanted to look foolish. And what about their positions within the Ames laboratory? Yet they probably would also have felt - as confirmed by several of the early witnesses who reported “flying saucers” - that it was their duty as American citizens to report these things so that the government would know about them.
Of course the "dyed in the wool skeptic" (a phrase used by Phil Klass to describe himself during my first phone conversation with him in 1974) or “debunker” might argue that they played for high stakes. If they could get their story past the OSI investigators they could either laugh at the government (they did it for the fun of it) or use the OSI investigation as evidence it was a genuine sighting and make lots of money selling their story to the press, or both.
However, this scenario is unlikely. There is no indication I am aware of that they ever told anyone other than the OSI the details of their sighting. Hence they certainly didn't "do it for the money". Of course, I cannot prove they didn't do it for fun, but it would seem to be a highly risky undertaking for men in responsible positions to put their jobs on the line merely to be able to laugh at the OSI investigators.
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Last edited:
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Yeah, eyewitness testimony is always more trustworthy than objective, unbiased recordings like film & photo.
Wow
I second all of these questions, for the umpteenth time.
Last edited:
Reply to Tapio
Tapio, you should know better! If you have a plausible mundane explanation –then present it.
I have presented the evidence to support my contentions. That is ALL I have been doing (except to blow apart some pretty glaring logical fallacies in the skeptic’s position). If you do NOT accept the evidence as presented then you should explain WHY you do not - and perhaps even propose a plausible alternate plausible hypothesis that could explain that evidence. After all, you have a whole world of them to choose from!
I contend that the evidence supports my hypothesis of “aliens”. I have shown this by pointing out the characteristics of the UFO(s) that simply DEFY mundane explanations (for example the shape shifting, the splitting apart and rejoining, the ability to jam weapons systems and communications (within the closed aircraft systems), intelligent control, speeds in excess of Mach2, and many other characteristics besides).
Now the skeptics can attempt to selectively pick off one or two of these characteristics and explain them individually – but they forget that they have to explain ALL the characteristics TOGETHER. As one package. And they simply CANNOT do it!
That is why the UFO supports my alien hypothesis.
You want me to explain scientific methodology to you? Or perhaps logic? That would take too long, but rest assured, the methodology applied is rigorous (as witnessed for example in the Blue Book studies and the Condon Report and all the other studies of that era and since then into the modern era with The British UAP report and the French COMETA). IF the authorities saw even the remotest possibility that they could get a mundane explanation up –they DID so – often even in the face of contradictory evidence. So you can be assured that if a mundane explanation was even possible – going on known form - they would have suggested it!
The same principles above apply to White Sands…perhaps even more strongly, as this was a sighting actively sought by the military…and they got it!
Hopkinsville is a different matter. Apart from the police investigation at the time - it was largely a “civilian” case. The rigour involved in investigation of that case was not as tight as for Rogue River, the Iranian case or White Sands. It is a case where we must largely judge for ourselves the reliability of the witnesses.
Now you simply ask something that NO scientific endeavour can answer. There is NO scientific discipline that can prove its theories “without reasonable doubt”. NONE at all. Doubt is ALWAYS a factor.
All I can do is show you evidence of UFOs whose characteristics defy mundane explanation. And once mundane explanations have been ruled out, then I suggest we are only left with the “alien” hypothesis. For more you could try the following case: Hint: look at the concluding comments at the end of the document contained in the first link.
Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/brazilianairforceadmits.html)
(http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9299893.php)
(http://www.cohenufo.org/BrazilianUFODocumentsReleased.htm)
(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0909/declassified.php)
Tapio, you should know better! If you have a plausible mundane explanation –then present it.
I have presented the evidence to support my contentions. That is ALL I have been doing (except to blow apart some pretty glaring logical fallacies in the skeptic’s position). If you do NOT accept the evidence as presented then you should explain WHY you do not - and perhaps even propose a plausible alternate plausible hypothesis that could explain that evidence. After all, you have a whole world of them to choose from!
I contend that the evidence supports my hypothesis of “aliens”. I have shown this by pointing out the characteristics of the UFO(s) that simply DEFY mundane explanations (for example the shape shifting, the splitting apart and rejoining, the ability to jam weapons systems and communications (within the closed aircraft systems), intelligent control, speeds in excess of Mach2, and many other characteristics besides).
Now the skeptics can attempt to selectively pick off one or two of these characteristics and explain them individually – but they forget that they have to explain ALL the characteristics TOGETHER. As one package. And they simply CANNOT do it!
That is why the UFO supports my alien hypothesis.
You want me to explain scientific methodology to you? Or perhaps logic? That would take too long, but rest assured, the methodology applied is rigorous (as witnessed for example in the Blue Book studies and the Condon Report and all the other studies of that era and since then into the modern era with The British UAP report and the French COMETA). IF the authorities saw even the remotest possibility that they could get a mundane explanation up –they DID so – often even in the face of contradictory evidence. So you can be assured that if a mundane explanation was even possible – going on known form - they would have suggested it!
The same principles above apply to White Sands…perhaps even more strongly, as this was a sighting actively sought by the military…and they got it!
Hopkinsville is a different matter. Apart from the police investigation at the time - it was largely a “civilian” case. The rigour involved in investigation of that case was not as tight as for Rogue River, the Iranian case or White Sands. It is a case where we must largely judge for ourselves the reliability of the witnesses.
Now you simply ask something that NO scientific endeavour can answer. There is NO scientific discipline that can prove its theories “without reasonable doubt”. NONE at all. Doubt is ALWAYS a factor.
All I can do is show you evidence of UFOs whose characteristics defy mundane explanation. And once mundane explanations have been ruled out, then I suggest we are only left with the “alien” hypothesis. For more you could try the following case: Hint: look at the concluding comments at the end of the document contained in the first link.
Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/brazilianairforceadmits.html)
(http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9299893.php)
(http://www.cohenufo.org/BrazilianUFODocumentsReleased.htm)
(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0909/declassified.php)
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
How does this not resemble a blimp?
Belz...
Fiend God
Argument from ignorance and incredulity again.
Belz...
Fiend God
It doesn't say "Goodyear" on the side.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Again, you missed the part about the witness who filmed the event. He declared it a flying disk and he was a professional photographer. I find it interesting that you now propose that eyewitness accounts are better than film or photographs.
Quantify the eyewitness reliability. How do you determine if an eyewitness is reliable or not? How do you determine the details are 100% accurate? Feel free to elaborate how you can perform this kind of analysis.
Actually, I was trying to demonstrate that people ignored the "sworn" testimonies before to OSI agents without fear of repercussions in other cases. Therefore, your repeated claim that the witnesses were accurate based on the fact they were reporting to OSI is false. My point has always been that the witnesses are not 100% reliable. They make mistakes. They can err.
To quote Carl Sagan:
No witness’s say-so is good enough. People make mistakes. People play practical jokes. People stretch the truth for money or attention or fame. People occasionally misunderstand what they are seeing. People sometimes even see things that aren’t there. (Sagan: The demon haunted world p. 69)
Here are a few other REAL scientists, who have actual credentials to present, commenting on this "sworn" testimony you find to be so accurate that they MUST have seen something extraordinary:
Philip Morrison
we humans do not immediately perceive the world as it is; rather, we are elaborate computers with an enormous preset routine and much programming, both genetic and cultural; and we have to interpret all the data we get. That interpretation, whatever it is, is subject to error (Sagan and Page UFOs: A scientific debate P. 290)
Neil Tyson
"...even if in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is a high form of evidence, in the court of science, it is the lowest form of evidence you could possibly put forth" (UFOs: Seeing is believing)
R. V. Jones
.... witnesses were usually right when they said that something had happened at a particular place, although they could be wildly wrong about what had happened. (The natural philosophy of lying saucers)
Frank Drake
even honest normal people make errors, because the human mind does not always have perfect sensors; it is an imperfect computer in dealing with the stimuli it receives (Sagan and Page UFOs: A scientific debate 257)
Why is it that your scientific credentials find this testimony so reliable that it must be 100% accurate and these gentlemen disagree with that conclusion? Why is it that Allan Hendry discovered that roughly 90% of the UFO reports he received turned out to be mundane events misperceived by the witnesses (which included aircraft being described as flying discs)? Why is it that Peter Davenport of the National UFO reporting center is complaining that he receives far too many reports of mundane objects that the witnesses are considering exotic? Why is it that all occupations (from pilots to housewives) make these same kind of errors (See Hendry's UFO handbook and Hynek's UFO report)?
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
No, you can't.
Mundane explanations haven't been ruled out though. They've simply been rejected by yourself, and only by yourself.
Hint: You are completely wrong. Start again.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Last edited:
- Status