On the contrary - my friend described exactly what she saw(and, as I mentioned, she is a very practical person) and I typed that info. The explanation of Chinese lanterns, including the video, was a sensible, logical one. The only thing she remained slightly puzzled about was that the three which "formed" a triangle remained stationary for about five minutes. But this is easily explained by the fact that when there are no other references, one or two minutes can seem like five or more.
An explanation is neither sensible nor logical if there is NO evidence to support it. First, your “friend” saw some lights in the sky. To make the leap from that to “Chinese Lanterns” is preposterous!
Moreover, Chinese lanterns have a heat source (also emitting light) at their “base”, yet in the video there seems to be an even distribution of light throughout the objects. This tends to rule against them being Chinese lanterns. If you Google Chinese lanterns and compare the videos of the real thing with what was seen in the video you will note the distinction immediately (eg look at the images beginning at about 3:05 in the
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLDXEAt7SeA video. It looks nothing like a “Chinese lantern”).
However, I would be interested to know what you would have offered as an explanation for my friend's question.
The point is that while they COULD have been Chinese lanterns, there are also aspects in the video that seem to make the explanation doubtful. For anyone to therefore categorically claim “Mystery solved”, as you did, is muddleheaded.
I would tell your friend that they
possibly might have been Chinese lanterns, but that is just a speculation because you don’t believe in UFOs.
You also stated:
Your post was very long and I didn't listen to all of every line…
This is SO typical of the UFO debunker attitude. They seem to think that they do not need to pay attention to ALL the evidence… just selectively those bits they think they can use to make a point in support of their own belief system.
Has is it ever occurred to you if everyone got it right 100% of the time there would be no such thing as UFO reports?
Didn’t think so…
This statement is just illogical nonsense. The conclusion does NOT necessarily follow from the premise. In fact if people got it right 100% of the time there would be no
misidentifications of mundane objects. This says NOTHING about whether there would be UFO reports or not. In fact, if people got it right 100% of the time (a ridiculous proposition in itself) it would simply mean that those reports that did come in would represent
genuine unknowns.
I stated:
” according to UFO debunkers, witnesses are wrong 100% of the time – and that is patently absurd proposition. Such a proposition runs counter to all research evidence.”
If you select from all witnesses of a phenomenon only those who interpret it as something which does not exist* then yes, logically 100% of that selected group can be wrong.
First you make an unfounded assumption that UFOs do not exist. Then you use that unfounded assumption to claim that those who interpret their observations as UFOs are 100% wrong. This is illogical nonsense.
What percentage of reports of fairies or unicorns do you estimate are genuine sightings?
Here again is a typical debunker failing. To concatenate fairies and unicorns is muddleheaded and shows up a certain lack of historical knowledge.
Show me the consistent body of evidence that people report unicorns. Of course there is none. Simply people do NOT consistently report unicorns. Fairies on the other hand may be another matter entirely. There is probably a more consistent base of evidence of people reporting fairies. IF that is the case (and I don’t really know because I have not studied cases of reported fairies) then we need to look at each case (just as in UFOs) to determine what explanations might be forthcoming. Only when we have examined the cases can we determine what percentage of sightings might be “genuine” (whatever THAT means in the context…). It is that simple. Based on the EVIDENCE, the percentage of genuine unicorn sightings is probably zero (although we can NEVER be 100% sure about that…) but fairies is another matter – perhaps you have studied some cases and
armed with that knowledge are more able than I to answer your own question?
*I vaguely recall someone saying you intended to provide evidence for the existence of aliens. I do not reject the possibility of aliens arriving on earth, and I would believe good evidence, so I look forward to your presenting it.
I have been presenting evidence. If you choose to dismiss or ignore it without proper examination then that is your prerogative, but you merely stating that I have NOT presented evidence does not make it true.
Perhaps you would like to discuss the Father Gill case? For example here: (
http://www.paranormalinsight.com/rev-william-gills-ufo-encounter/) and here (
http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html).
Nobody is stating that a majority of the population get things wrong. It is only a minority. Look at the numbers. In all the statistics associated with UFO reports, the number usually comes up to about 10% (or less) of the cases are "unknown/unidentified". Are these 10% due to people just being totally inaccurate in reporting what they saw? It is not a poor argument to suggest this and seems far more probable than alien spaceships.
Oh, now you are just wilfully and deceptively misinterpreting the results of the studies that
have been made. The Battelle study came up with a figure of greater than 20% unknowns (
http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) and the Condon report came up with a figure close to 30% unknowns (
http://ncas.org/condon/)!
Then to suggest that these reports result from “inaccuracies” simply denies the competency of the researchers involved (and I thought Condon was a mainstay of your argument against UFOs!).
No, "debunkers" are stating that it is more likely that the witnesses erred (which can and does happen) than something was actually seen that is so exotic as to defy rational explanation (alien spaceships if you so desire).
But this is just a rehash of the old UFO debunker plaintive line of “It cannot be so, therefore it is not so”. Just because YOU
believe it cannot be so does NOT make your conclusions true. Again typical UFO debunker logic. They seem to believe that any statement based on their
belief system must be true. Rubbish.
But you were the one who seemed to state that we know how to account for witness misperception through our understanding of case histories. If this is true, it is most pertinent to examine UFO cases where similar misinterpretations are known to have occurred. If another witness makes a similar observation from another UFO case, then it is important to examine if they made the same error in observation of the same type of source (i.e. stars, planes, meteor, re-entering space debris, flares, balloons, etc.). If you want to ignore case histories in favor of wanting to believe the witnesses were right (without a shred of proof of this being the case), then go right ahead. However, do not call it science.
Of course we must examine each case on its merits AND determine if conditions similar to those that have lead to misinterpretations in the past exist. That is a rational and scientific approach. However, if, when we examine those cases, we find that similar conditions do NOT exist, then we must seek alternative explanations.
However, YOU do NOT present cases outlining HOW the conditions in past cases are similar to conditions in the present cases under examination. ALL you do is cite examples where misinterpretations have occurred with NO context attached that might provide us a note of comparison between present and past. If you we genuine about doing what you claim needs to be done in this respect you would
outline the similarities between cases that may lead to misinterpretations. THIS is exactly where research and past cases can inform us about possible misinterpretations. But you do NOT do that… perhaps you would like to have a go at the Father Gill case (see links above) and put your money where your mouth is?
I stated:
” …no-one knows how often the witnesses got it wrong compared with how often they got it right.”
Including and especially not you. Seems you’ve unwittingly painted yourself into a corner with that last assertion there.
What corner… just because there is no definitive answer to a question does not mean that the answer MUST be 100% one way or the other. Just as some reports will be misinterpretations, equally (given the evidence) there will be some where the witnesses “got it right” in their descriptions of objects that defy mundane explanation.
Also, that’s not entirely true considering research has shown that upwards of 95% of all reported UFO sightings can be explained as mundane. Seems to me the odds are pretty heavily stacked against your chosen interpretation of the remaining “evidence”…
Oh but you have not taken into account the >20% unknowns in the Battelle Study and the nearly 30% unknowns of the Condon Report! These are official studies into the subject. Do you simply dismiss their findings?
*Where unexplained can be defined as unexplained to the satisfaction of those who believe, but can not prove scientifically, their chosen interpretation of ambiguous anecdotal evidence is correct.
So if the reports ARE “ambiguous” then HOW can you pretend to definitively “explain” them as mundane events. Either they are too ambiguous to conclude anything (and therefore like the Battelle Study did, place them into an “Insufficient information” category) OR they contain sufficient clarity to come to a conclusion. You seem to want to have ot both ways and that is irrational. So perhaps your statement…
Congratulations Rramjet, based or your own admission you’ve debunked yourself.
…should more aptly apply to yourself.
I know I've said variations on that a few times, and so have quite a few other people IIRC. Rramjet has never answered any of us when we've asked "Why would bad evidence become good evidence if you piled it together?"
So let us examine a case then. Father Gill (see links above). Precisely HOW does this constitute “bad evidence” then?
Yes! It is *always* more likely that witnesses are wrong than something that is less likely than witnesses being wrong (everything else being equal). Duh!
(If I interpret your statement correctly… and that is by no means certain…) Perhaps then you still believe that the Earth is the centre of the Solar System? At the time, observations to the contrary, were countered with precisely this form of argument. It is again a version of “It cannot be so, therefore it is not so”.
