UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Puddle Duck said:
Rramjet, you have been bleating about Mach 2+ and wanting me to prove that the F-4 could not make Mach-2 with drop tanks. I have already put up the proof, but you did not read it, or you rejected it out of hand “because I am not an F-4 pilot”. And, you have continually asked for proof long after it was available.
.

But I’ll go through it again just for you
1.- Open h ttp://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=312&pictureid=1911
Look at the graph. There are altitude labels in the Y axis, and indicated airspeed labels in the X axis. There is also a family of curves going from M-.4 to M-2.58.
(Actually, the airspeed is in calibrated airspeed but as long as the air data computer is working, that is what you are seeing, without it working, the difference is single digits. I put this in because if you found out the difference, you would accuse me of not knowing anything about the F-4. I try to keep all of this as simple as I can, because it can get complicated fast and the more complicated, the more people get confused.)

2. Look at the box in the upper right and note the normal limits are a heave solid line and transient limits are a heave dashed line. Look at the airspeeds and see the heavy dashed line going vertically at the 750 KIAS point. Follow it up to 30k ft. where it jinks left to 700 KIAS, and up again to where it intercepts the M-2.0 curve, where it follows that curve to the top. This is airframe structural limits

3. Now go to
w wwmstewart.net/subob/fighters/f4.pdf
This is the PDF that has some pages from sections 1 & 5 of the dash one. Open it and go down to page 12 where you will see a table labeled external stores limitations.

4.- Under the column labeled “store”, move down 3 rows to the block labeled “Sargeant-Fletcher 370 gal. Wing tank”. Now move 7 & 8 columns right where you will see airspeeds of 750 & 550 KIAS and Mach of 1.6. The tanks are limited to 550 kias with fuel in the tank and 750 when empty. To use these, the lower speed takes precedence, so the “limiting structural airspeed for the wing tanks” are (assuming they are empty) will be 750 knots up to 22k ft and m-1.6 from there on.

5. This is the limiting structural speeds for that configuration. So, Mach 2 – impossible.

Now take a look at this chart. I originally had some problems getting it up, it is here now. This is the “operational limitations” for the eight missiles and various fuel loads. Open this graph

w ww.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/More%20Charts/Level%20Flight%20Performance%20Envelope.gif

Notice the three sets of curves being from left to right; stall speed, mil power max speed, and full burner max speed. Note also that each of the fuel configurations of no-externals, centerline only, wing only, and all three bags of gas, numbered 1-4. The curve for this situation is #3. The sweet spot for this is at 36k ft and you get just shy of M-1.55.

Notice that you can’t bust the Mach using only Mil Power, it takes some burner.

So Ramjet, will you finally admit that the tale of chasing the UFO at Mach-2+ just didn’t happen?


Akhenaten, nice photoshop. The first thing that popped out was the UK civilian registration letters on a bird from a Korean base. That one had me scratching my head for awhile, till I looked at the blimp. Not only did you put the Shrike backwards, but also its pylon.. The centerline tank looked strange. I had to leave the computer till the rear of the brain finally got that it too is backward. It still looks a little odd even after mentally flipping it. Maybe I wasn’t used to seeing it at that particular angle. Was the big jamming pod on the bird or did you put it on too? I never carried that one.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the info although I think we both know that RR will not read it. sad
 
Rramjet, Limbo doesn't actually agree with you. Look at what he's saying. You're arguing aliens, he's arguing fairies. Now don't get me wrong: you're both bat guano insane. But Limbo is a little bit more out there. Or at least that was what I thought until I read through your frankly disturbing little rant above. Enough is enough. Stop babbling on about F4s and seek help. Seriously.
 
Astrophotographer said:
Please give us the sources that explain how to determine what an eyewitness reports is accurate or not. Is this a "gut" feel based on what you desire from the witness or is it something that can be entered into some mathmatical formula that proves a witness was accurate? You have repeatedly made this claim about how research can tell us if a witness is misperceiving or suffering from psychological issues. Yet, I have yet to see you demonstrate how one can perform this or what studies you base this upon.
Click to expand...

That is possibly because you seem to have no idea about how to apply the findings of one scientific discipline to the exploration of another.

There are many resources and basic texts on human perception. For example there are whole journals devoted to it (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/xhp/index.aspx). But as a concrete example you might like to look at (http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd/edc/TOC/EDCTOC.html).

It is a fact that we can use perceptual research to inform us as to where mistakes in eyewitness accounts will possibly occur. The most basic in the Rogue River case is depth perception. We have research on the cues that provide depth information (just Google depth perception) and when we note that the witnesses were viewing an object against a clear blue sky, noting the absence of depth cues (if we leave OUT the information from the surrounding terrain for a moment) we can determine that the distance estimates provided might therefore not be accurate. Size estimates may also be inaccurate (and so on) - so that in any assessment of the witness testimony, we MUST take that possible error into account and USE the limits provided by research (the smallest object able to be seen by the human eye) and the environment (the closest an object could have been to the witnesses) to determine a range of possible distances and sizes that COULD have been possible to observe under the conditions.

That is why for example I have stated that, given the positive chance of mistakes in distance, if the object were closer than estimated, then the size would have been smaller than estimated, and thus not a blimp and if the distance had been further away than estimated then it would have been larger than estimated (possible blimp) BUT then the speed would have been faster than estimated and this again rules out blimp.

I did not mention “psychological issues” oh master of the red herring… but given who the witnesses were and their character assessments, then searching pathology in (for example the DSM) we find that no pathology matches those witness characteristics, thus the likelihood of “psychological issues” is very low.

So you can see haw we can use research to inform us about witness statements.
 
Again:

Belz said:
Which is WRONG, Ramjet. Get that through your thick skull, PLEASE. We ARE NOT CLAIMINg that it's mundane. WE ARE SAYING that until a better explanation is provided, we must ASSUME that it is mundane because mundane explanations are the only ones we KNOW exist.

Sheesh.
Click to expand...
RRamjet, I'd love to hear you address this point. Maybe I can grab your attention?
 
Limbo said:
Yes, they are dangerous. But for now they are necessary evils. We are in the Kali Yuga after all. This is their time...but don't worry their time will end.

"In the three worlds,
there is nothing I must do,
nothing unattained to be attained,
yet I engage in action." -Bhagavad Gita Chapter 3 verse 22

Resist them, try to help them, act, but do it without desire or fear of the fruits of those actions. Easier said than done, I know...especially given how infuriating they are. :)
Click to expand...

So, Roger, since your main support "group" is someone who suggests that "we are in the time of the Kali Yuga", then I assume you support this concept as well. After all you did thank Limbo for his support, you really might want to establish what he is saying on the thread, and whether or not you agree with him. After all, he is on your side of the fence and can therefore do no wrong.

Perhaps you should have gone with my original suggestion, which was to tell Limbo "Don't Help Me"

Norm
 
Last edited:
Actually Rramjet and Limbo may be on the same side (or at least hanging around nearby each other outside the boundaries of what we call nature). Both seek shelter under Valeé's nonsense. Both say UFOs may be not be "alien as we know it Jim".

Critters from other universes using Jungian archetypes to interact with us, tulpas, Jungian archetypes made "real" by our minds, critters from other universes perceived by us as Jungian archetypes... It all may sound cool within new agey circles but it all will start to collapse as soon as one makes some actual research. And no ammount of whining against skeptics can avoid this event. So, what's left?

All woos can do is wait...
Wait for the contact
Wait for the rapture
Wait for a bigfoot body
Wait for the end of Kali Yuga
Wait for doomsday
Wait for Atlantis to rise
They will wait forever...
 
Correa Neto said:
All woos can do is wait...
Wait for the contact
Wait for the rapture
Wait for a bigfoot body
Wait for the end of Kali Yuga
Wait for doomsday
Wait for Atlantis to rise
They will wait forever...
Click to expand...
Only if those woos that claim to have found the secret to immortality are actually telling the truth.
 
Correa Neto said:
Actually Rramjet and Limbo may be on the same side (or at least hanging around nearby each other outside the boundaries of what we call nature). Both seek shelter under Valeé's nonsense. Both say UFOs may be not be "alien as we know it Jim".

Critters from other universes using Jungian archetypes to interact with us, tulpas, Jungian archetypes made "real" by our minds, critters from other universes perceived by us as Jungian archetypes... It all may sound cool within new agey circles but it all will start to collapse as soon as one makes some actual research. And no ammount of whining against skeptics can avoid this event. So, what's left?

All woos can do is wait...
Wait for the contact
Wait for the rapture
Wait for a bigfoot body
Wait for the end of Kali Yuga
Wait for doomsday
Wait for Atlantis to rise
They will wait forever...
Click to expand...

Another reason to be a skeptic: All that "wait" loss.
 
Correa Neto said:
Actually Rramjet and Limbo may be on the same side (or at least hanging around nearby each other outside the boundaries of what we call nature). Both seek shelter under Valeé's nonsense. Both say UFOs may be not be "alien as we know it Jim".
Click to expand...
I'd forgotten about Rramjet's attempt to redefine the word "alien." Must have gotten buried in my head under the desire to do unpleasant things to someone being willfully ignorant whilst accusing other people of being wrong.
 
I can't help smiling at how Limbo is partially right about how the elves and fairies have adapted to changes in technology and culture and taken up space flight.
 
Rramjet said:
That is possibly because you seem to have no idea about how to apply the findings of one scientific discipline to the exploration of another.
Click to expand...

However, you don't cite any use of these materials so posting a link of some journal on the subject does not tell me you actually read this or any other book on the matter. Exactly what formula are you using to determine that the witness observations are accurate or not? If a witness claims an object was traveling at 600 mph, how do you know that is accurate? If it were estimated 3 miles away, how do you know that was accurate? If it were estimated a mile wide or 50 feet wide, how do you know this is accurate? If the witness states something last 5 mnutes, how do you know this is accurate? Could any of these "estimates" have a range of error? If so, what range of error can that be? The problem continues to be the estimates of distance, size, speed, etc are almost completely worthless when dealing with an unknown object. The only reasonable estimates are angular sizes, speeds, and direction/elevation. Unfortunately, most of this data is completely unavailable because, despite the highly trained nature of the observers, they chose to use estimates that have little value in analyzing the case.

I hate to keep bringing up Hendry but his book is a very good source about how witnesses can misperceive things and make errors. Additionally, he demonstrates that those witnesses classified by occupation who are considered "reliable" are not much better than the standard witness (even Hynek's book demonstrated this). They were also susceptible to misperception and error. Therefore, proclaiming a witness as reliable an accurate based on occupation is a mistake. Nobody is doubting they saw something. However, it is their interpretation of what they saw that is in question.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
So you can see haw we can use research to inform us about witness statements.
Click to expand...
Can you point us to where you took the research cited in the Condon Study into account when, for example evaluating the Tehran Case?

SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
Psychological Aspects of UFO Reports
http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap03.htm

"Pilots, under the influence of rapid acceleration, diving, etc. may incur perceptual problems because of physiological changes which must be taken into account in evaluation of their sightings (Clark, 1957)."

Didn't think so...
 
Limbo, if you're not going to play, don't bother posting. If you think there's a flaw in the shredding analysis of Rramjet's evidence, we'd all love to hear what it is.
 
Limbo said:
Second of all, in a den of pseudo-skepticism I don't expect to be taken seriously anyway.
Click to expand...


Then, it's a win-win situation for you. This is your opportunity to be taken seriously. What are you afraid of?.

I, for one, am genuinely interested in your ideas regarding that claim.
 
I think I know what Limbo is going on about, he mentions the Kali Yuga which is somehow tied in with the 2012 nonsense, so it's no wonder he's hesitant to mention it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom