Yes, I believe they have a mundane explanation, with some being more mundane than others.
Please…can SOMEONE here Google
“explain” one unknown with another unknown (using quotation marks around “explain”) and then inform the rest of JREF about the fallacy involved?
Can someone supply a definition of mundane and point out the fallacy behind contending “more (or less) mundane”?
For example, not knowing that Venus is over in that direction is more mundane than glints off satellites in LEO, or even hoaxes. There are millions of possible mundane explanations. But until which mundane explanation is determined, the UFO remains unidentified.
But you are contending that - A UFO is such only because we have yet to discover a MUNDANE solution. THAT is fallacious. A UFO is such because we have yet to discover ANY solution.
You are simply contending that EVERYTHING has a mundane solution. This is fallacious. For example, how is it that we must rotate some quarks through MORE that 360 degrees to return them to their original state? Is THAT mundane?
Besides there are simply not THAT many plausible mundane explanations for Rogue River. We must apply reasonable inference here to an examination of PLAUSIBLE competing explanatory hypotheses. Obviously extra-terrestrial explanations (planets, meteors, bolides, satellites, stars, etc) are implausible explanations. Then there are the terrestrial mundane explanations. Birds… implausible. Planes…implausible (no wings, no sound, circular…)… VERY quickly we run out of plausible mundane hypotheses. What is left… blimp? Well then, if you contend so, then ADDRESS my evidence and arguments against this hypothesis!
As a parallel, if I am camping in the woods, and hear noises, and see an indistinct shape, it's an unidentified thing. It might be a raccoon, or it might be an owl. There are thousands of animals it might be, some more likely than others. It might not be an animal at all, but the wind dislodging a stick from some place it's been stable for years and moving some branches. The fact that I don't know all the species in the world does not mean that it is therefore a Bigfoot or chupacabras. It's unidentified, and it won't be identified until it is determined what it was. I may never have enough information to determine what it was, and so it will remain unidentified. Even if I am able to rule out bear, or raccoon, or marmot, it remains unidentified, and does not turn into a unicorn just because I have no evidence it was a bear or a raccoon.
Of course, but if you were to see a FLYING object that you could not identify, then the range of plausible competing explanatory hypotheses is SEVERELY restricted. So far restricted that IS possible to make an account of them all. THAT is the difference.
The rules don't change if it is giving off light and apparently moving through the air. It's unidentified until it is determined what it is.
Giving off light? Sure, but the Rogue River object was a DAYLIGHT UFO. It could be SEEN CLEARLY. Its shape was identified. Other physical characteristics were identified. Those characteristics rule OUT most (if not all) mundane explanations. Those mundane explanations we have left (and blimp is the ONLY one left) can be shown to be implausible. So UFO.
And yes, it remains a UFO until it is identified. I contend we CAN identify it as “alien” but NOT on the evidence in the case itself. On the evidence in the case itself, it remains a UFO. NOT mundane, NOT alien. We cannot, indeed must not, step outside the bounds of what the evidence can show us.
You have a faith based belief that ALL UFOs can be identified as mundane objects. But critically, that is a FAITH based belief.
I stated:
"On a warm day"? Let me ask you this, have you ever seen heat haze produced over a wide flat river on ANY day, let alone a "warm" day? Heat haze is a "ground" effect phenomenon... but why do I even think you would know something like that? But then also you have not seen the penultimate point in my article”
When looking at something 1 or 2 miles away and 5000 feet up, then yes. Or are you now claiming that the UFO was following the river a few feet above the water 100 feet from the boat?
Your statements don’t quite make sense here Jocce. The UFO was obviously high in the air. “Heat haze” is a localised ground effect phenomenon. It simply does NOT apply when looking UP…only ALONG.
And I'm assuming that the viewing conditions were bad enough to blur out details. I am right, you are wrong. Have you ever used binos under these conditions? You should try it and then come back here.
“I am right and you are wrong”? And there it is folks. The JREF mantra spelled out loud and clear. When JREF has no argument, THIS is what they resort to.
I have used binoculars on boats at sea in VERY rough conditions. I found I could use them to good effect. The conditions did NOT make my using binoculars impossible. That is a FACT. Moreover, why would the Navy even bother to issue sailors with binoculars if merely being on a boat ruled out their effective use? (for the binoculars in question were Navy binoculars) Your argument is unfounded in the face of the evidence.
Istated:
If the object’s distance from the observers was greater (> 5000 feet), then its actual size would have been greater (> 65 feet), and critically its speed would have been greater also (> jet plane speed). Conversely, if the distance from the observers was less (< 5000 feet), the object’s size would have been less (< 65 feet), and then the object’s speed would have been slower (< jet plane speed).
You just proved a point that several people have been trying to explain to you. There are too many unknowns to claim anything for certain in this case. For example to categorically claim that it could not have been a blimp.
There are too many unknowns for YOU, that’s all. We can account for the effect of variations in distance, size and speed and see what would happen when we vary those parameters. When we DO test this, we find that “blimp” becomes implausible. Not categorically, but on any standard of reasonable evidence the blimp hypothesis is implausible as an explanation. It simply does NOT fit the evidence.
Then maybe you should try to not repeat yourself ad nauseam? It's very tedious to plow through the same arguments time and time again to see if there is something new.
If you would simply ADDRESS the evidence and arguments then we
could MOVE on with the debate. JREF’s unwillingness to address the evidence and arguments is what makes it “tedious”. If you want to move on, then address the arguments and evidence!
You believe the binos were good enough. That's not evidence.
There is a difference. I have presented REASONS (arguments and evidence) as to why I believe the binoculars were sufficient to achieve what the witnesses stated they did. YOU on the other hand merely make the unfounded assertion that the binoculars were NOT good enough. YOU present NO evidence to support your assertion.
It is exactly the same as me contending that YOU are barking mad (like your binoculars – not up to the job - of arguing rationally in this forum). But that ALONE does not make the contention correct. I would need to produce evidence. And that I have not done, so my contention is unfounded and entitled to be dismissed.
Have you ever been in a boat? It doesn't matter if there's no wind and no waves. It moves...a lot. And, the more people aboard, the more it moves. I claim that this will make it harder to discern details (and that's pretty bl**dy obvious to anyone). If you claim otherwise, then substantiate that claim.
It might be “obvious” to you… but “folklaw” IS often “obvious” until it has been shown to be a misconception (usually of confusing cause and effect). That is just the nature of human thought.
More, if you contend that my arguments have no veracity, then produce the counterarguments. Merely stating “You are wrong!” does NOT make me so.
You have been shown other sources with counter evidence. Why do you ignore that? What makes your sources better?
IF you have counter-arguments and/or evidence, THEN present them! Merely stating you have “shown other sources with counter evidence” does NOT mean you HAVE.
The scientific thing to do here (the logical and rational thing to do here) is to present my argument, then present you counter-argument (supported by the evidence). Until you do that you are merely making unfounded generalisation and THAT is NOT rational argument. NOR does it address the EVIDENCE.
