I do NOT have to prove the witnesses are accurate. All I have to do is show that the conditions were such that known sources of inaccuracy are minimised or eliminated. I DO NOT claim witnesses can never make mistakes. For you to keep repeating this assertion is irrational in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
OK, you have now made the claim. Exactly what conditions allow for error-free observations or errors that can be quantified and corrected for?
It seems you keep suggesting it was impossible for these witnesses to make a mistake. This is why I keep stating this.
This is because excitement and “eventfulness” make time “disappear” and most people in such situations believe a shorter time has passed than is actually the case. Thus, given the conditions and knowing the psychology of time perception - it is highly likely that the time interval was actually longer – not shorter – than mentioned. THAT is what I mean by research informing us of what conditions lead to misperceptions AND being able to account for the conditions..
Give us the study that demonstrates this is true. I have cited a source (eyewitness testimony p. 30-31 - Loftus) where studies have shown witnesses tend to overestimate time. Your claim is this is not true based on.......Oh yeah.....Your say so. Another great scientific leap has occurred because Rramjet says so.
I do NOT have to demonstrate that a reflection is impossible…all I have to show is that given the changing viewing angles it would have been impossible for a reflection to have maintained the obscuring of specific features while allowing similar feature to be viewed throughout the entirety of the period involved. I have done that.
So, once again, we are relying on witness testimony based on viewing an object with a pair of binoculars in a rocking boat on a river for a period that was about a minute or so. You stated the reflection was implausible based on this. I suggested to falsify this you can demonstrate a reflection was impossible. Obviously this is beyond your means. BTW, the sun was behind the observers and about 30 degrees in altitude. I think that would mean the object would reflect the sun's light and cause glare. You can tilt it, shape shift it, distort it or whatever you like, but the potential for reflecting the sun is there.
Given the viewing conditions and given the reliability for the witnesses, we have NO reason to suspect that they did not observe and describe the object accurately.
Therefore ignoring any possibility for human error. You have yet to demonstrate how you determine this. How do you quantify the reliability of the witness (a question you keep refusing to answer)? How do you determine they are accurate? As for the conditions at the time, you don't know the exact viewing conditions. Let's try humidity, air transparency, wind speed, direction, cloud cover, wind patterns, etc. How about some real data to present. Then we have the witness use of optics (which Hendry points out can sometimes be a detriment to observation). What was the condition of the optics? Were they collimated properly? Were the lenses cracked or dirty? Were the prism's dislodged? What about the use of those optics? Was the boat rocking? Were the binoculars held steady? Was the sun reflecting off the surface of the object? You have no idea what conditions were. All you have is what you want the conditions to be.
Then you are simply reverting back to stating the eyewitnesses are 100% unreliable. A claim which NO research supports. For example, there was NO sound associated with the Rogue River object. There were no wings… there was NOTHING about the object as described that would lead ANY rational person to conclude “plane”. You are simply repeating your assertion that “film” with its attended artifacts and misleading depth information can lead people into error. The case of Rogue River bears absolutely NO resemblance to your Catalina film …NONE – it is merely a red herring brought in by you as a distraction in lieu of genuine argument.
That is such nonsense. The film was seen by the witness who recorded it. He was a professional photographer and he saw it as a disc. Therefore, it is a good example of how an aircraft could be perceived as a disc. Once again, your resort to dismissing a case with a simple wave of the hand in order to prop up your beliefs.
One important fact to consider in all of this is that not a single other person reported seeing the UFO traveling through the area. Why is this? Is it possible they saw it as something mundane and not something exotic?
It is obvious that you are not interested in examing the case objectively and are not interested in looking further than what Maccabee and others are telling you on their website. You dismiss potential explanations in favor of the more unlikely explanation of an alien spaceship (and cut the nonsense because everyone knows this is what you want to say). You dismiss scientific opinions and studies in favor of your own beliefs. The next thing you will be doing is writing for the MUFON journal or the International UFO reporter. You would be perfect there. Lots of head nodders who will accept anything you write as gospel.
