Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
You've been very patient. Rramjet is obviously not going to absorb any information that conflicts with his faith, but the dialog still entertains lurkers like myself.
- Status
chuck, you seem more reasonable than Rramjet. Would you be willing to state a hypothesis that we can discuss? Since you brought up the Sagan quote about hypotheses vs. being open-minded, it would seem helpful to have a hypothesis we could examine.
(In case you don't know what this is, here you go.) hypothesisWP
Rramjet - you too. Example of a hypothesis - "In the (whatever) UFO sighting, aliens were at the helm." Discuss.
(In case you don't know what this is, here you go.) hypothesisWP
Rramjet - you too. Example of a hypothesis - "In the (whatever) UFO sighting, aliens were at the helm." Discuss.
Last edited:
First things first. Where is the evidence for your “scintillation” effect that can make (according to you) stars and planets appear to an observer with the naked eye “jump” locations and “split” apart? You make the claim, yet you have no evidence to support it! An amateur astronomer makes an astronomy related claim, yet cannot support it with evidence? What a gyp.
This was a primary argument of yours against what Pirouzi (the tower controller) and Jafari (the F4 pilot) et al. saw in the Tehran UFO case (http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/). If you pretend toward any sort of rational debate, then you must either provide the evidence or withdraw the claim. The choice is yours.
Hopping around from case to case? That’s rich! I gave you the option of concentrating on the O’Hare case (http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf), yet you have so far refused to discuss it. In fact it is YOU who persist in making comments on other cases – to which I must naturally respond.
I agree, each case should present good evidence for my claims. That is why I present the cases I do. Did you think I would present cases that I consider to present “bad” evidence?
Ah… but now you ask for “proof” of my claims. I have NEVER claimed that any of the cases I present represent “proof” of my claims. In fact there are NO pieces of scientific knowledge that have ever been categorically “proved”. All we as scientists can do is advance an hypothesis and then test it in as many ways as we can. The evidence may show the hypothesis (or its predictions) to be false or impossible, but it can never categorically “prove” it to be true. There will always remain the possibility of an unforseen circumstance that will falsify the hypothesis. That is just the nature of the world and of scientific exploration. The best any scientist can ever do is provide EVIDENCE in SUPPORT of an hypothesis. That is what I have been doing.
If you contend that the evidence in the cases I present is “weak” (as you do), then you should be able to provide the evidence to support your claim. You should be able to point out precisely how and why the evidence in my cases is “weak”.
You know I am really tempted to return to the Tehran case. But I presume that since no-one has so far been able to posit a plausible mundane solution for that case, you will be reticent, so shall we concentrate on the O’Hare case for the moment?
In reference to Betty Cash’s symptoms (http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm):
You argue correctly that Betty Cash’s symptoms do not precisely align with the common symptoms expected from the radiation types I referenced. However, when you compare Cash’s symptoms with those of overexposure to ionizing radiation, then they ARE similar – That is, Betty Cash’s symptoms SUGGEST radiation exposure. The fact that they are NOT precisely aligned with what we expect from the COMMON types (although very similar) merely adds to the mystery of precisely HOW she received her injuries. Her symptoms ARE those of overexposure to ionizing radiation, but they do not align with what we know about the specific effects or each of the types of radiation. This IS puzzling.
Ummm…should have noticed them? I have asked you a question on this point: Do YOU report helicopters to the authorities every time you hear one (or more) fly over? What makes you think anyone else would have done so?
As for radar data, air traffic controllers, etc, - the military specifically denied any of their helicopters were at the place and time, so what makes you think that they would suddenly turn around and provide radar data, tower tapes, etc for something they deny involvement in?
If you believe the investigation was biased (as you obviously do with the statement “"investigation" of the case only went so far as to present one side of the argument”) then you should be able to point out HOW it was biased. That is, WHAT factors in your mind made the investigation so one-sided?
I NEVER accept ANY story “as told”. If you have pertinent facts that DO refute the “story as told” (or “present the other side of the coin”), then please DO present them for our consideration.
Dismiss what precisely? Eyewitnesses reported helicopter activity. The military denied involvement. If you have any evidence that bears on these observations, then please present it. You keep making assertions, but unless you can provide evidential support for them, they will remain unfounded assertions.
If you read my statement for its actual meaning, rather than the meaning YOU want to place on it, then you might have a better chance of speaking rationally about the case. First up I specifically acknowledged that I was in general agreement with your implication that Cash did NOT “die” from her “symptoms”. I then stated that YOU (meaning YOU) do not have any evidence that she did NOT die from her symptoms. Then I stated that it was entirely possible that she COULD have done. YOU made the original categorical statement that Cash did NOT die from her symptoms and I was merely pointing out that given that it was possible for Cash to have died from her “symptoms” - you could not know that she did not.
If I can show any hypothesis of yours to be implausible then that is what I will then claim in relation to that hypothesis. If something is implausible (difficult to believe, not credible, not having the appearance of truth, not likely to be true, etc) then it is entirely legitimate of me to reject that hypothesis. That IS scientific. You would hardly expect me to accept an hypothesis from you that WAS implausible would you? That would not be rational.
Again your abuse reflects more on you than me Astrophotographer.
It is not a matter of whether I “like” or “dislike” anything. I am merely pointing out that it is utterly implausible (difficult to believe, not credible, not having the appearance of truth, not likely to be true, etc) that the military would strap the lunar surveyor to a helicopter, fly it 100 miles and OFF their testing range, and into a small New Mexico town… for what purpose? SO MANY things could have gone wrong in such a risky and reckless adventure that it simply beggars belief. It is utterly implausible. Therefore I reject the hypothesis, as any reasonable, sane person would.
I am not interested in what the helicopter looked like? So you did NOT see my post comparing the Zamora UFO WITH the helicopter in question? I specifically addressed the issue so I find this statement from you utterly implausible also. Here for example:
All I know is that Zamora stated that he had never been told not to relate the actual shape and that he drew the symbol at the time of his sighting. I am not much impressed by anyone’s mere opinion about what might of might not be the actual symbol, I simply refer to the first hand source for the information. Presumably, that information should be the most accurate. Second, third and fourth hand sources for such information do not cut it for me. They may for you, but not me.
A helicopter is very distinctive, “modified” or not. Zamora was VERY clear in what he saw, and what he saw does NOT match a helicopter (with or without the lunar surveyor attached) in any way, shape or form. You are merely grasping at straws on this one Astrophotographer. You even admitted yourself that the “helicopter” hypothesis was not one you favoured, so why do you persist in promulgating it?
Wall of text does not equal a hypothesis. One sentence would do.
Example of a hypothesis:
Aliens from other planets have visited earth.
Aliens were flying a craft that was spotted over AZ on this date.
etc.
Just trying to help. Lotta pages with not much progress here!
Example of a hypothesis:
Aliens from other planets have visited earth.
Aliens were flying a craft that was spotted over AZ on this date.
etc.
Just trying to help. Lotta pages with not much progress here!
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
if we remove all the non CAPITALISED words from Rramjets diatribe, it seems to suddenly make some kind of sense.
Evolved Wookie
A rigidly defined area of doubt and uncertainty
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Messages
- 601
if we remove all the non CAPITALISED words from Rramjets diatribe, it seems to suddenly make some kind of sense.
*wipes coffee off the keyboard*
Damn you!
Newbury's just down the road - you owe me a space-bar!
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,448
Yeah, you did. After a mere one hundred and ten pages of your thread, you made the offer. So is the O'Hare incident "the one"? What were all the previous cases?Comedy gold.
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
if we remove all the non CAPITALISED words from Rramjets diatribe, it seems to suddenly make some kind of sense.
Ever thought of doing stand up comedy?
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
*wipes coffee off the keyboard*
Damn you!
Newbury's just down the road - you owe me a space-bar!
Mos Eisley is not for sale
Shakespeare walks into a pub, the barman says "you get out", shakespeare says "why", the barman says "you're a bard"Ever thought of doing stand up comedy?
Last edited:
I stated:
”There were witnesses to the UFO who did NOT know each other.”
However we DO have a list of their occupations and locations at the time of the incident. According to the report there were eight UAE employee witnesses identified (p.6) and at least one passenger waiting in the terminal building (p.20). Only four of the UAE employees knew each other (A, D, E & F - p. 22) (http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)
I stated:
” I asked if you had evidence that anyone had lost such a significant amount of hearing after being exposed to helicopter noise for a few seconds so as to render them incapable of hearing that same helicopter when it is mere 10s of feet from them (for the erstwhile hovering UFO was silent as it cleared the dynamite shack while accelerating away) – and especially when they seemed to have no trouble using a police radio immediately thereafter!”
Zamora stated that his glasses came off when he bumped into the car when he tried to run after the UFO began to take off. So all the time prior to that, he was able to get a good look at the object from (according to some accounts) as close as 20 feet away. The accounts do however vary somewhat, and that is why I stated “10s” of feet (meaning some multiple of ten) rather than provide an exact figure… but even if he was 100 feet away after running that is still pretty darn close!
From the Blue Book Case File:
Zamora could certainly see well enough without his glasses:
Given photos of the terrain, it was pretty rough ground and yet he had no trouble traversing it and finding his dropped glasses, so his vision was good enough to accomplish that. He was familiar with the area and even if, without his glasses, the UFO and Dynamite shack had shifted out of focus, this does not mean he would not have been able to provide height and distance estimates at such a close range. I must repeat also that his primary observations of the object and beings were made with his glasses on.
As for his hearing, there is no suggestion that it was anything other than normal. He was able to use the police radio with no trouble – both immediately before and after the event.
I stated:
” Zamora had clear impression that the “persons” were smaller than an adult human. Their small stature is not a “possibility” - that is a given in the case. Zamora was merely relating what he knew to be a common reference so that WE could understand the type of size that he was talking about.”
Zamora is stating that their shape was normal, but that he noticed however that they were smaller than normal, and so - “possibly they were small adults or large kids.” It is NOT the small stature that he is trying to come to grips with, it is the explanation for the observed small stature. How does he explain the small stature? “…possibly they were small adults or large kids.”! To put it another way (in case you have not got it yet). The “possibly” does not refer to the stature of the beings, that is taken as a given in his perception of them (as small), it simply refers to the explanation for the small stature – “…possibly they were small adults or large kids.”
The perpetrator of abuse is first explained in psychology as abusing because they feel threatened. Do my comments and statements threaten you Access Denied? Or is it the evidence I am presenting?
”There were witnesses to the UFO who did NOT know each other.”
In the NARCAP report the witness’ names were withheld - as is standard practice of all scientific research reports unless the witnesses agree to their names being made public.
However we DO have a list of their occupations and locations at the time of the incident. According to the report there were eight UAE employee witnesses identified (p.6) and at least one passenger waiting in the terminal building (p.20). Only four of the UAE employees knew each other (A, D, E & F - p. 22) (http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)
Yes, you are right, I was confusing it with another conversation in the tower tapes… sorry about that. Apologies for the confusion.
I stated:
” I asked if you had evidence that anyone had lost such a significant amount of hearing after being exposed to helicopter noise for a few seconds so as to render them incapable of hearing that same helicopter when it is mere 10s of feet from them (for the erstwhile hovering UFO was silent as it cleared the dynamite shack while accelerating away) – and especially when they seemed to have no trouble using a police radio immediately thereafter!”
Zamora stated that his glasses came off when he bumped into the car when he tried to run after the UFO began to take off. So all the time prior to that, he was able to get a good look at the object from (according to some accounts) as close as 20 feet away. The accounts do however vary somewhat, and that is why I stated “10s” of feet (meaning some multiple of ten) rather than provide an exact figure… but even if he was 100 feet away after running that is still pretty darn close!
From the Blue Book Case File:
” Noted object to rise to about level of car, about 20 to 25 feet guess--took I guess about six seconds when object started to rise and I glanced back. I ran I guess about halfway to where I ducked down--about fifty feet from the car is where I ducked down, just over edge of hill. I guess I had run about 25 feet when I glanced back and saw the object level with the car and it appeared about directly over the place where it rose from.
I was still running and I jumped just over the hill--I stopped because I did not hear the roar. I was scared of the roar, and I had planned to continue running down the hill. I turned around toward the object and at same time put my head toward ground, covering my face with my arms. Being that there was no roar, I looked up, and I saw the object going away from me. It did not come any closer to me. It appeared to go in straight line and at same height--possibly 10 to 15 feet from ground, and it cleared the dynamite shack by about three feet. Shack about eight feet high.”
(http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm)I was still running and I jumped just over the hill--I stopped because I did not hear the roar. I was scared of the roar, and I had planned to continue running down the hill. I turned around toward the object and at same time put my head toward ground, covering my face with my arms. Being that there was no roar, I looked up, and I saw the object going away from me. It did not come any closer to me. It appeared to go in straight line and at same height--possibly 10 to 15 feet from ground, and it cleared the dynamite shack by about three feet. Shack about eight feet high.”
Zamora could certainly see well enough without his glasses:
”…I ran back to my car and as I ran back, I kept an eye on the object. I picked up my glasses (I left the sun glasses on ground)…”
(http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm)Given photos of the terrain, it was pretty rough ground and yet he had no trouble traversing it and finding his dropped glasses, so his vision was good enough to accomplish that. He was familiar with the area and even if, without his glasses, the UFO and Dynamite shack had shifted out of focus, this does not mean he would not have been able to provide height and distance estimates at such a close range. I must repeat also that his primary observations of the object and beings were made with his glasses on.
As for his hearing, there is no suggestion that it was anything other than normal. He was able to use the police radio with no trouble – both immediately before and after the event.
Yes, but you do not say HOW the hearing is damaged by such encounters. There is NO research that states that such exposure causes instantaneous and complete deafness that then instantaneously recovers to normality within seconds after with no ill effects! Do you have any idea of HOW hearing is damaged by such encounters? Your claim is simply preposterous! Perhaps you should do a little better quality research next time. LOL.
I think you have no idea what this research is telling you. Again it is NOT telling you that instantaneous and complete deafness occurs only to recover seconds later to complete normality! The research is talking about THRESHOLD shifts, not complete deafness. You really DO need to do some closer research on this. Give a non-carpenter a hammer and he will hit himself on the thumb. Give a non-hunter a gun and he will destroy his own eardrum! Give a non-researcher a quote and he will misconstrue its meaning! LOL.
Being scared actually heightens awareness and perceptual abilities. Any basic psychology textbook will help you out here.
I stated:
” Zamora had clear impression that the “persons” were smaller than an adult human. Their small stature is not a “possibility” - that is a given in the case. Zamora was merely relating what he knew to be a common reference so that WE could understand the type of size that he was talking about.”
I think you need to read Zamora’s statement again for actual meaning this time:
“These persons appeared normal in shape--but possibly they were small adults or large kids.”
(http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm)Zamora is stating that their shape was normal, but that he noticed however that they were smaller than normal, and so - “possibly they were small adults or large kids.” It is NOT the small stature that he is trying to come to grips with, it is the explanation for the observed small stature. How does he explain the small stature? “…possibly they were small adults or large kids.”! To put it another way (in case you have not got it yet). The “possibly” does not refer to the stature of the beings, that is taken as a given in his perception of them (as small), it simply refers to the explanation for the small stature – “…possibly they were small adults or large kids.”
The perpetrator of abuse is first explained in psychology as abusing because they feel threatened. Do my comments and statements threaten you Access Denied? Or is it the evidence I am presenting?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
The consensus is that you aren't presenting evidence to support the claim that aliens exist. At best, it is a disorganized jumble of arguments from incredulity and ignorance. But as much as anything, it's simple dishonest trolling.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,448
Lots of unidentified people walk into bars.
100% of them aren't aliens.
Obviously a joke, right Rr?
100% of them aren't aliens.
Obviously a joke, right Rr?
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Well, if I walk in to a bar located outside Brazil, I will be an alien walking into a bar...
Take me to your beer!
Take me to your beer!
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
According to Rrogictm, you have to prove each and every one of them is not alien.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,448
No need to prove it as, using Rratisticstm, it's completely improbable that all 100% could be human.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
No. I have provided it several times. You just chose not to read it. I asked you long ago to buy a copy of Hendry's book. Apparently, it is beyond your abilities to do so. He lists numerous cases of this and all point towards scintillating stars. You proclaim that such instances are rare but they are not. The stars do not actually split or jump about. It is the observer who puts these characteristics there based on what they think they are seeing.
Again, answer the simple question. Is this your BEST CASE? I am tired of going to each case and point out problems with them. I want a case for you to commit to before going into the particulars on the subject.
So far all I have seen is your repeat what the UFO websites tell you. Not much investigation there and some of it IS 'bad' evidence.
And the only thing you have been able to demonstrate is that people see things in the sky that they can not identify. Plausible alternate hypothesis have been suggested. Again, you simply wave your hand and state implausible without falsifying them. This is where your methodology fails.
So, we now are suggesting that there is a NEW type of radiation that is causing her symptoms instead of suggesting that the source of her symptoms MIGHT be from something else? Perhaps some kind of chemical caused the symptoms? Again, the medical record you think should be protected might resolve it. Perhaps the doctors DID know what cause her symptoms and treated it. Perhaps the Gerstein DID NOT want everyone to know the source. PERHAPS there is a cover-up in the UFO crowd in an effort to perpetuate an ideal case.
Because people always file complaints when the noise of these helicopters disrupt their evening routine. I already pointed out the intense noise the CH-47 puts out. Imagine a large group of such helicopters passing over your neighborhood at treetop level. Imagine the complaints to the local authorities (just like the kind that are made near these bases - they have to take specific routes to avoid these kinds of complaints).
Back to the conspiracy angle. Why wouldn't the ATC's remember this flight?
The lack of any evidence for the helicopters. The lack of any medical records. The lack of any effort to look at potential other sources. That is why this case fails. It is incomplete as are so many UFO cases.
You are blindly accepting the Cash story without any additional evidence. You choose to accept the testimony as 100% factual when we have reasons to doubt it.
How many eyewitnesses and when? We already know that one was several hours later and the helicopter activity could have been anything. The military denied involvement and you have yet to provide evidence that falsifies this.
Gee....you are the one proclaiming UFOs are produced by alien technology/exotic causes without one shred of evidence to support it other than the potentially erroneous eyewitness testimony. If you want to proclaim earthly sources as "implausible", why aren't you doing the same for the ETH?
Obviously, you are not willing to even look at the possibility. Did you know that Opal Grinder mystery witnesses that support Zamora's story mentioned "low flying aircraft" and when Opal mentioned a lot of helicopter activity, the witness stated it must have been a "funny looking helicopter, if that was what it was"? The fact that there was mention of helicopter activity is interesting and that the witness originally referred to the UFO as an "aircraft" indicates there is something to consider. Why would he confuse Zamora's obvious UFO to an aircraft and then comment that it was a "funny looking helicopter" instead of "It wasn't a helicopter"?
Well, apparently, the symbol was deliberately alterred at the time. This is something you did not know about. How odd for a scientist not to try and get all the details of a story before pontificating.
I am only suggesting that you are dismissing it without a thought or any interest in the details. You reject it without a thought, which demonstrates you really are not interested in looking anything up. You are just a parrot for UFO websites, which is where you draw your information from.
Let us know which case is your BEST CASE so we can cut to the chase. This is going absolutely no place and I desire to concentrate on your BEST CASE instead of this scatter gun approach.
Last edited:
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 338
He’s not so why are you continuing to badger him? Skeptics are entitled to have a difference of opinion you know. Some of our fellow skeptics favor the balloon hypothesis, some the hoax hypothesis, while others are simply on the fence awaiting further evidence… so what?
One thing we can all agree on though is it’s not evidence of aliens. The burden of proof is on you to prove it is, not us to prove it isn’t…
Back in a few.
Correa Neto walks into a bar in the U.S. The first thing he sees is a beautiful woman, eight feet tall.
He immediately says "Take me to your ladder!"
She, puzzled: "Don't you mean, take me to your leader?"
He, leering: "No, take me to your ladder, we'll see your leader later!"
- Status