I stated:
” ...Actually I invited you (and others) to examine videos of Chinese lanterns at night and to compare them with the video in question.”
I don't need to look at a video.
Precisely. Your mind is made up and no amount of appeals for you to conduct a rational inquiry, or participate in science or logic will change it. Phooey!
I and 12 others positively identified 5 Chinese lanterns flying above the London Eye on New Years Eve at the time that Susanb-M1's friend reported lights.
This is a mere anecdote. It does not constitute evidence. You (and 12 others) could have been drunk or on drugs. Were there any clear pictures? Where are the independent sightings of the lanterns from another location with associated angles of elevation, azimuth, angular size and speed? Feel free to give us this scientific data that is reliable and can be duplicated by others.
Besides, we were talking about the lights in the
video, not SusanB_M1’s friend… Do you even know where Nottingham is? (more than 170km from London!) And take another look at the date on the video (July 11th!).
Istated:
”Obviously you have not done that or you would have returned with a more considered opinion based on that research rather than attacking the messenger… of course this (again) is a typical UFO debunker “trick” - attack the man rather than deal with the evidence.”
The only evidence you have is an eyewitness that identified 5 Chinese lanterns in the sky where the initial poster's friend saw lights.
Wow, I am talking about examining a video and you keep confusing that with an entirely separate account (of I don’t know what – mere “lights” in the sky”) from an entirely different place and time… how can you be so confused?
I asked you to tell me which "unexplained" cases were compelling in the Condon report. You so far have not listed any.
I am merely stating that 30% of the cases examined in the Condon Report turned out to be UFOs. IF you have evidence against that conclusion in ANY of the cases then you should present it. I am NOT the one arguing that the research conducted in Condon is incompetent, mistaken, etc… YOU are… so it is up to YOU to give us the evidence to support your contentions!
I am not going to reprint Menzels entire chapter. However, just look at case 22, which UFOlogists list as "unidentified". If you feel this is a "good" unidentified, then you will believe just about anything.
Case 22? But the researchers did not conclude “unknown” in this case… so what is your point?
How about Case 2?
“In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high.” (
http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/case02.htm)
The same can be said for several other cases. In case 44, which is also considered unidentified, the psychologist who examined the witness indicated the witness was having some personal problems at the time of the sighting, which may have had an effect on his perception of the event.
So “personal problems” in your mind turn into delusions? From the project’s consulting psychiatrist we have: “Unequivocal statements concerning the emotional state of the witness in this, or any other case, cannot be made in the absence of intensive psychological testing and a psychiatric interview.” (
http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/case44.htm).
Again, you misrepresent what Low stated. His use of the word "trick" had more to do with a knack for accomplishing a task than a trick designed to deceive people. However, that is not what you want to think so go right ahead. BTW, the memo was written before the project started and when Low was not part of the project. Therefore, your claim that he was an "integral part of the project" is just plain UFO gibberish.
I misinterpret? That’s rich!
“Our study would be conducted almost entirely by non-believers who, though they couldn't possibly prove a negative result, could and probably would add an impressive body of thick evidence that there is no reality to the observations.
The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific community, would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.
One way to do this would be to stress investigation, not of the physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the observing – the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFO’s.
If the emphasis were put here, rather than on examination of the old question of the physical reality of the saucer, I think the scientific community would quickly get the message.”
Low was integral because it was he who Condon asked to organise support to persuade the University to take on the research.
It is not the AIAA but the NAS. They are two different bodies. Your reliance on this 30% is just repeating what you have read. Have you read any of the "unexplained cases"? Apparently not. You can see why a majority are "unexplained". Feel free to point out which ones are really compelling. Otherwise, you admit that these "unknowns" are not very good.
Oh, my apologies, the NAS then - but my comments stand regardless. That they did NOT mention the significant number of “unexplained” reports (29%) DOES tell us something about their motivations. A truly objective assessment would have noted such a significant figure.
I don’t claim anything “compelling” about the reports. They are merely intriguing. They are just reports of unknown objects for which no mundane explanation could be found.
I stated in regard to the Trent/McMinnville photos:
” Then I suggest you read the more professional, extensive and more detailed analysis of the photos (and the case) by a qualified military optics engineer at (http://www.nicap.org/cufospaper2.htm) for a second opinion.”
Yes. I will rely upon biased UFO papers written in the IUR for my source of information. I think I will take the objective approach by Hartmann instead.
I find it interesting that anyone who has an opinion different that your own (no matter how expert) is immediately labelled as “biased”, yet when they agree with your beliefs, then they are a suddenly “gold” standard source. I think if you read the report reference in my initial statement you will find it of exemplary objectivity. If you do not agree, please tell me where and how the “objectivity” of the report is compromised. You can’t can you… Ha!
Each case stands on its own merit. You can not pile each case upon each other since they represent different events and can not be grouped as observing the same type of thing. Your attempt to do so is not science at all but trying to make a mountain out of nothing.
You and others have contended that historical cases where perceptual misidentifications have occurred have a direct bearing on the cases I present – and yet here you are claiming that because each report represents “different events” they actually cannot be compared “as observing the same type of thing”!! Hypocrisy of the highest order!
What if Father Gill had reported seeing a flying dragon? Would you accept that as evidence for flying dragons or would you reject it as just a fanciful observation?
I think the skeptics in this forum have demonstrated the evidence for all these cases have their flaws and have suggested alternative explanations. Of course, you have simply rejected them with the usual hand waving.
Father Gill did NOT report a “flying dragon”! He reported a (presumably) technological disk-shaped craft, self-illuminated, with humanoid beings who interacted with the observers, and which hovered with no sound, yet was able to moved faster than a passenger plane (again with no sound) to disappear across the bay in a matter of seconds! THAT is not a “flying dragon”!
HOW
do you explain that in mundane terms Astrophotographer?
Because we are not the ones saying it must have been a blimp. We are stating it could be a blimp and it is possible. You are the one stating these are alien spaceships, which means you need to provide evidence to indicate why you think this is so. If you are stating they are just unidentified, then we have to examine what is most likely - fairies, dragons, alien spaceships, blimp/aircraft? IMO, the blimp/aircraft is most likely until you can demonstrate it was something else.
You are incorrigible! I have NEVER claimed “alien spaceships” for Rogue River. I maintain it to merely represent a sighting of a UFO. YOU ARE the ones positively claiming it was a blimp! Yet the historical record and eyewitness testimony positively rules OUT “blimp” as a plausible explanation. I have the evidence on my side and I have presented it numerous times. It is actually YOU who dismiss that
evidence with “the wave of a hand”!
On the evidence “blimp” IS implausible. For you to contend that it is likely just because you DON’T KNOW what the object was is not rational. It is certainly ant-skeptic and anti-science AND illogical…
(In reference to Father Gill)
The object did disappear so it must have had an angular speed. These are measurements that would need to be computed based on the testimony. If they are not available it is hard to determine the physical characteristics of the craft. Who is to say if it was a pinpoint light or the size of the full moon? We don't know and without that information we can not determine if it was possible for him to report the things he stated he saw.
I WISH people would actually READ the report(s). It is obvious you have not done so. Father Gill does estimate the angular size of the object and it is certainly NOT a “pinpoint”. So we DO know… you contentions are just laughable in the face of the
evidence. We also know the estimated time it took to “disappear” and we know approximately how far one can see across open water at sea level so we probably CAN work out the parameters you want. WHEN will you people learn to apply a little sceptical and scientific rigour to your contentions. You ask it of me… apply it to your own position!
I was giving you a chance to rethink your diametrically opposed opinions on this.
Do you contend that each case should stand on its own merits or are you simply lumping them all together to sway skeptics with a load of individually uncompelling cases hoping they will morph into one compelling load? You should make up your mind on this. Thus I gave you an opportunity to rethink. Take advantage of it.
I suppose I should have expected you to not be able to understand. Each case should be
examined (researched, investigated, etc) on its own merits and
after such investigation comparisons may then be made. It is a simple matter of applying the scientific method.
Do you believe that you are asking people to prove a negative or not? You stated it both ways in the same paragraph. This is also your invalid attempt to shift the burden of proof; asking skeptics to disprove your wild assertions. I'm giving you a chance to rethink your opinions and beliefs. Take advantage of it.
I have answered this question from you. I don’t hold out much hope that you will ever understand what I write about it. You completely ignore my statements, never examining them in any rational, scientific, sceptical or logical way. You simply ignore them to repeat you unfounded assertions over and over, like a broken record, as if the real world (and other’s ideas) just does not exist outside your own peculiar faith-based belief system.
I repeat: All I am asking is that you assess the cases I present. If you can come up with any plausible mundane explanation, then well and good. If you cannot, and so far no-one HAS been able to do this for any of the cases I have presented, then I am free to call the objects UFOs and then hypothesise on what that might mean. No “proving of negatives”, no “shifting of the burden of proof”, just the application of plain old, down to earth, rational, sceptical, scientific thinking. But you cannot do that of course because when you try, you discover that the evidence does not support your faith-based beliefs.
This is what I'm talking about. It is not up to us to "disprove" the cases you present, any more than it is up to you to disprove the existence of fairies or elves. You are making the positive claim, that aliens exist, it is up to you to prove it. Disproving that aliens exist is proving a negative.
I make a claim, I present evidence (in the form of UFO reports) to support that claim. [/QUOTE]
You make a claim (the UFO reports are mundane objects) yet you cannot/will not produce evidence to support that claim!
It is hypocritical to require one side of the argument to produce evidence, yet require none from the opposing camp.
I object. I merely took the plain, obvious meaning of your words. If my interpretation wasn't what you intended, perhaps the fault lies in how you expressed what you intended.
I think you might have meant that when I used the term "probably," I meant that it was greater than 50% chance of happening, but "likelihood" can mean greater or lesser than 50%. If that's what you meant, you should have said so. (If not, then never mind.)
You object to me asking how you arrived at your likelihood estimates? Ha!
Rramjet, and I'm getting tired of asking these questions:
1) Do you have a case that proves your hypothesis?
2) If so, what is it and why have you not presented it already?
3) If not, why do you insist that having a lot of cases that don't individually support your hypothesis is somehow support of it?
Then pay very close attention to my answers this time.
1) I have a body of evidence as represented in the cases I am presenting (Rogue River, White Sands, Tehran and now Father Gill)
2) Rogue River, White Sands, Tehran and now Father Gill
3) Each individually supports my contentions (first that UFOs exist and second that “aliens” exist).
SnidelyW puts the case extremely articulately and well.
What is disconcerting about the skeptic attitude seems to be this intractable position that all observers or recorders of UFO/Alien incidents are wrong or mistaken. They have psych problems. They have a standing belief in UFO's...blah blah blah...it goes on and on. Any convenient flaw in personality or character and poof!- claim dismissed! It reminds me of those insurance companies who routinely deny medical benefits for legitimate claims.
I would add that we could include tobacco companies and their historical (hysterical?) denial of harmful effects of smoking and more recently the fossil fuel lobby’s denial of climate change! Just like the UFO debunkers, all have the incontrovertible evidence against their stated positions and all probably understand it well enough, but because they have vested interests, they are simply forced to irrationally deny the evidence.
Learn the rules if you want to play.
Interestingly if I resort to your “rules” of ridicule and abuse my posts are censored by the moderators, yet people like Geemack get away with endless streams of abuse with impunity! So much for the “rules”.
Yes, that's exactly what was done in the exhaustive analysis of every case Rramjet has brought up. Oh, wait. No it isn't. That's what Rramjet resorted to when people refused to accept people seeing something in the sky as proof of aliens. Swing and a miss, Snidely.
Oh? Then point to ANY of your posts where you have conducted an “exhaustive analysis” of the cases I have presented.
Science: Proof is required before a hypothesis can be considered to be true.
Yet you present NO “proof” for your own contentions…
Snidely: Yeah, but if millions of people believe it, there must be something to it.
The key phrase here is
”there must be something to it”. So no matter
what “IT” is, it needs to be researched. At the very least we will determine something about the human condition and that might just be a revelation to us. But you are scared of any such investigation aren’t you? I have no doubt that if properly investigated we will find a mix of UFOs, government disinformation campaigns (aimed at for example the Russians), secret government technology, plain old misidentifications, hoaxes and yes, delusion. They key is to sort the “signal from the noise”. The UFO debunkers seem to want to categorise ALL UFO sighting under the same simplistic banner – yet the situation is actually incredibly complex. Unfortunately there are also those within the UFO “community” who poison the pool for serious researchers. Just as there are implacable beliefs on the debunker side of the equation, there are also similarly held beliefs on the UFO side. This is unfortunate (on both counts) because it does not allow a natural progression of human knowledge. BOTH positions are an anathema to the advancement of science, rational thought and the advancement of knowledge.
Sorry Snidely, but I'm going to stick with the school of thought that's created the technology we enjoy today over an approach that would have us living in caves and sacrificing people.
Funnily enough it is
precisely your position of implacable faith-based belief that WOULD have left us in the caves gazing at our navels!
Again SnidelyW puts the case in exemplary fashion
Here is a quote from The Skeptics Dictionary;
"It is simply faulty logic to assume that because an opponent’s reasons are flawed, one’s own reasons are valid. One’s own reasons may be just as flawed as an opponent’s, or even more flawed."
I think it applies in your situation.
Gee, a great number of people think the moon landing was hoaxed as well. Are you one of these? What about the vast number of people who deny evolution happened and the world is only thousands of years old vice billions? Does their belief make it a fact? Citing poll numbers is a worthless argument. It goes right up there when you say there are thousands of UFO cases to support your argument. Can you list them?
Of course people fall into the “conspiracy theory” trap. And there is good reason for it! Simply, people no longer trust their governments to tell them the truth! This is based on what they KNOW about the misinformation and disinformation campaigns conducted by our governments. Have you ever read a book titled “The Men who Stare at Goats”? (Jon Ronson, Picador) An interesting expose on the government’s “black op” involvement with Psi and the resultant barbarism that led to the development of torture techniques that were later applied in Iraq and Guantanamo… no wonder we don’t trust our governments. They are run by lunatics with very strange beliefs!
Then of course I forgot to include (with the insurance companies, tobacco companies and fossil fuel lobby) the creationists! Forgive my omission!
Citing poll numbers can be VERY illuminating – especially in the present context, those from “UFO” polls. It means the majority people have a belief in UFOs! Now the question comes HOW did that belief develop?
Unlike Creationism there is no “historical” or “cultural” milieu from which naturally arose such a belief. Unlike the professional corporate deniers, there is no vested interest which forces a position. What could have lead to SO many people holding such a belief? Perhaps it has something to do with SO many people having
direct experience of UFOs! So many people
seeing them in our skies! Unlike fairies, elves, Unicorns, etc, there is a continuing, consistent body of evidence that UFO activity persists to this very day! It is that body of evidence which causes the belief to persist. And people are not stupid. They KNOW what they saw… and no amount of hand-waving denial by the debunkers can EVER touch THAT direct experience. Simply people realise that they were NOT “deluded” and that they have NOT “misinterpreted” and that they are NOT lying and that they are not hoaxing. They KNOW what is physically possible and what is not. Their experiences are actually very real, so much so that denial is just no longer an option for them.
PS: Yes I can list them and have been progressively doing so! (Rogue River, White Sands, Tehran, Father Gill…) and I am just getting warmed up!
