Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I think the Rogue River case has generated the most interest.
Last edited:
- Status
Whilst this thread is rather large it is still subject to the usual rules, so lets keep to the point and stop all the personal snipping and bickering.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Darat
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
I am finding this thread very useful. Not only it shows proofs of my UFO-summoning skills but also of my prophetic talents, see below.
So, Mr. Randi, could you please give me my U$1000000.00 now?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5244323&postcount=1272Correa Neto said:
So, Mr. Randi, could you please give me my U$1000000.00 now?
Okaaay… huh!
Truth is the first casualty of war I guess…
Let me try again…and again I apologise to the readers in this forum for not being able to directly present to you all the evidence needed to refute Astrophotographer’s unfounded, generalised assertions and Klass and Sheaffer’s “explanations” for the sightings.
First, on Sheaffer:
"During the initial search for known flashing lights this author considered the possibility that an emergency vehicle or police vehicle was filmed. Sheaffer (1981) independently advanced this hypothesis. Sheaffer claimed that "almost any object on the ground such as an emergency vehicle could conceivably be responsible for the UFO that was captured on film but not noticed at the time." (Of course, it was noted at the time!) For example, one might imagine an ambulance with a flashing white light on top and two flashing red tail lights. One might further imagine that the red and white flashes were accidently out of phase and flashing at the rate 1.16 Hz. If such a vehicle were filmed from directly behind, it might make images similar to those on the film. A rather detailed analysis of the consequences of this hypothesis showed that there are several problems related to distance of the vehicle from the plane, the alignment of the vehicle with respect to the flight path of the plane, the probable presence of other lights near the vehicle, etc. However, all of these analyses became moot when pilot Bill Startup contacted Blenheim police. He was told that there were no police or emergency vehicles on the roads around Blenheim during the early morning of the date of the sighting and, furthermore, that emergency and police vehicles in New Zealand have flashing blue lights."
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)Next on Klass:
"In his description of the film images Klass (1983) ignored the problem of explaining how a red beacon could make PY/O images without making red fringes as well. Instead, he concentrated on trying to explain the changes in shape of the images from frame to frame. He argued that the only way to explain the image shape changes was to assume that the light (from the AB) was reflected off a propellor. According to Klass one can "readily" explain how the film images change rapidly from large round or oval blobby shapes to "banana shapes," to thin parallel streaks ("string bean shaped") and back to round blobby shapes in a periodic manner if one assumes that there was a lack of synchronization between the AB flash rate and the propellor rotation rate. In making this argument Klass has ignored the much more likely explanation that the natural tendency of the camera, which was held on Crockett's shoulder, to vibrate randomly would cause image shape changes similar to what he describes. Such changes are evident in all portions of Crockett's film, including portions of the film which show landing field lights. (Should one imagine that Crockett filmed the reflection of landing field lights off the propellor?) Random camera motion combined with the intensity pulsation of the cluster of lights can explain all the image shape changes in the film.
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)Next, on the radar data:
Discussion of the radar analysis is obviously too detailed to handle here without falling foul of the mod's. However, a detailed analysis of the radar data, which DIRECTLY refutes Klass and Sheaffer can be found here (http://brumac.8k.com/index.html) under the heading NEW ZEALAND RADAR SIGHTING and the link “RADARUFOS”
The upshot of the detailed analyses presented in these papers is that Klass and Sheaffer are completely and utterly “debunked” and that the radar data is thoroughly analysed to show that radar picked up what the observers were reporting they were seeing. This is concurrent radar visual data – evidence that people have long been saying does not exist and that if it did, they would want to see it. Well… here’s your chance!
Astrophotographer, with reference to the detailed radar analysis contained in the above document, perhaps you could please explain to us all why the concurrent radar/visual evidence in this case does not constitute good, scientific evidence for the sighting of a UFO.
If you contend, as you no doubt will, that “UFOs exist” and that nobody disputes that, then what mundane “explanation” can you come up with for the sightings? If you cannot come up with a mundane explanation for the sighting, what then do you suggest could be an explanation for this case?
Last edited:
Noone cares about tv.
Yes, there are lights. Looks like light reflecting on droplets on the window.
I've only started reading the Radar sighting document and I find it quite disturbing in these kinds of articles that the author jumps conclusions in a way a real scientist would never do. One example:
Page 16 said:
Now, there is no way of knowing if it is in fact one certain light that dissapears and reappears in another location. It could equally well be different lights being on and off at different times. This kind of "fact" presentation really makes it hard to take the rest of the content as a factual representation of the events.
Another equaly disturbing thing is that the author presents the case as a visual-radar sighting, when only a fraction of the radar echos seems to coincide with a visual contact. One example in the folliwing:
Page 17 said:
I haven't counted them but it would be interesting to see how many radar contacts that actually coincides in time and space with visual contacts in this long report.
And lastly, although the following is written in the document the author never enters into a discussion about it as a possible explanation.
I would also like to point out that the film crew was onboard just because there had been UFO reports some days earlier. Because of that it is more than usually likely that any events would be interpreted in a UFO context and not with a clear, analytical mind. Selective perception and confirmation bias is something one should be aware of imo.
I'm not Astro but:
How many radar echos were seen?
How many lights were seen?
How many of those coincided in time and space?
How many did not coincide in time and space?
Thank you.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Exactly what are you trying to say here Rramjet?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
And that truism applies in what way to this thread?
I think you meant to apologise to the readers for being unable to make your case within the confines of the MA, didn't you?
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
Evil
Rramjet, rather than waffling on about whether blurry photos are genuine, why not explain why you think they are photos of alien craft? And yes, we've all seen your "if it's not mundane, it must be alien" point, but you need to explain that. Why does "not mundane" automatically equal "alien." Why doesn't it equal "god" or "unicorn" or "time sprout travelling via the transperambulation of pseudo-cosmic antimatter"? In short: you DO need to show your working.
Well, while it gets the historical facts a bit wrong it introduces us to a few of the eyewitnesses and records some of their comments about the incident not available elsewhere.
You really need to read the following document:
A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978
Bruce Maccabee(2005)
Found at (http://brumac.8k.com/ ) under the heading NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS
This will give you a precise outline of the incident.
Obviously you have never flown in a plane and observed what you claim. No “droplets” stay on plane windows while flying. NONE at all - ever. The most that happens is that when it is raining, the water streaks and smears across the window – but definitely NO “droplets”! …and it was NOT raining.
Perhaps…but if you notice the context, Dr Maccebee is describing the incident from the pilot’s perspective and that is the impression that the pilot got of what the lights were doing. That’s all. And if that is the ONLY example of Dr Maccabee “jumping to conclusions” I think your reaction (to be “quite” disturbed) indicates an unwarranted sensitivity.
Obviously you SHOULD actually read the whole article before jumping to conclusions…
… jumping to conclusions before you have read the whole article perchance?
Well, of course, the film camera also went into this whole thing with a preconceived notion of what it should be filming too! (as did the ground radar…
.Besides, precisely how does ”selective perception and confirmation bias” come into the viewing of unidentified, oddly behaving lights? You will need to explain this (these) unfounded, generalised assertion(s). Unless you can explain your use of the terms as they apply to the actual sighting, you are merely grasping at straws here I am afraid.
I CAN however see how confirmation bias might have come into the decision to release the footage almost immediately on broadcast TV as “UFOs” without film (or any other scientific) analysis - but the actual viewing of unidentified “lights in the sky” …?
All the information required to satisfactorily answer those questions is contained within the document YOU claimed you were reading above... you have just shown me that you have NOT read the document at all! Another confirmation of the (by now) UFO debunker truism "Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up".
Perhaps a direct link to that document will help:
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,492
Maybe you could demonstrate that you have read it by answering the questions. Just a thought.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,492
Time sprout? Scary. Is that the ghost of christmas dinner past?
The link works fine - but it is a direct download Word document... perhaps if you try opening MS Word before trying it again... Otherwise go to ((http://brumac.8k.com/) and scroll down to the heading "NEW ZEALAND RADAR SIGHTING" and click on the link under that heading titled " RADARUFOS".
It links radar, film and eyewitness testimony together. A very solid case IMO.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Its nothing that can't be solved by some adjusts at the deflector dish.
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
It's a tradition, or an old charter or something.
- Status