UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Correa Neto]

...snip...

Much of science is based on reasonable causal inference. Without it we would be struggling to explain very much at all about our world. Indeed our very existence is based on a causal inference. I think, therefore I am. But according to you, perhaps I am not (maybe you are brain in a vat being fed your experiences by some mad scientist – the underlying premise of The Matrix – or maybe you are but a figment of someone else’s imagination). But once you start down that path you quickly find there is no end to an infinite progression into oblivion.


...snip...

Rramjet's appeal to "reasonable causal inference" is yet another red flag regarding his claimed qualifications.

Has he ever heard the tale about the Martian scientist ad the two churches? Well, maybe he can not afford buying a book on scientific methods to be aware of it... But can't he/she go to a public library or check non-UFOlogy web sites?

OK, so lets go to a more basic example of the problems of loosingly assume "reasonable causal inference". Think about the following (repeatable) observation:
"Cock sings, Sun rises a few minutes later"... Can anyone draw the "reasonable causal inference" that the Sun rises because the cock sings?

So, "reasonable causal inference"... Can it be drawn from the New Zealand UFO case?
No.

And as extra evidence, he/she later tries to swim in the waters of philosophy, quickly dismissing solipsism and the "brain-in-a-vat" after having stated that there's no proof of anything. Rramjet now provided evidence of not having also some basic knowledge on philosophy.

Rramjet also seems to dismiss Occam's razor when it suits him/her.

To sum, up, the evidence points towards Rramjet being either:
a) A poseur who vainly attempts to lecture people in science and philosophy.
b) Someone with scientific and/or philosophic training but whose bias create a giant blind spot, compromising his/hers critical thinking skills.
c) Any combination of the above.

 

[dafydd]

I get a “heads up” from the radar controller who states, “I have a target: your 2:00 at 5 miles.” I look in that direction and I see a light in that exact position. Just a random coincidence? Yeah right!

Much of science is based on reasonable causal inference. Without it we would be struggling to explain very much at all about our world. Indeed our very existence is based on a causal inference. I think, therefore I am. But according to you, perhaps I am not (maybe you are brain in a vat being fed your experiences by some mad scientist – the underlying premise of The Matrix – or maybe you are but a figment of someone else’s imagination). But once you start down that path you quickly find there is no end to an infinite progression into oblivion.


Ha! Some of your very own UFO debunkers now believe that UFOs ARE “the new gods” (or old ones…who knows…”gods” they say…). Perhaps you better talk to GeeMack. He is one of the strongest proponents of that hypothesis here – and he seems to have attracted quite a few followers to this new cult. But if that is his hypothesis, then let him demonstrate its veracity. The UFO debunkers have often talked about “shifting the burden of evidence”. Here is a prime example. If they truly believed what they say, then they would be able to show me the evidence.

But of course this is absolutely typical of the UFO debunker mindset. They simply cannot tell the difference between UFOs, astrology, homeopaths, Flat Earthers, the “gods” Christianity, and so on… for them it is all the same. For people who pretend to scepticism about all of these subjects, that they can concatenate them in such a manner, merely demonstrates how remarkably little they know about ANY of the subjects they pronounce judgement on!

This may be quite an incredible revelation to many, but to others it merely confirms a long held suspicion about UFO debunkers: “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”!

No-one who would pretend to the title of scholar or scientist, or researcher would concatenate these disparate elements of human belief systems. One might as easily correlate the problem gambler with the astrologer. Both have developed irrational belief systems, but they are of an entirely different character. To understand why each holds the particular belief systems they do, one must look at the historical context of how such beliefs developed. Each takes an entirely different path and the path to one cannot explain the path to the other. This applies to all the belief systems amb listed above. Each has its own set of beliefs and practices, its own rationale, its own raison d’etre. To talk about one is not to talk about the other: It is a nonsense to even suppose this might even be rationally possible. Yet here we have it, the UFO debunker concatenation of these topics.

If knowledge is power then let there be light… unfortunately however, it seems the dim witted rule the world.

In my experience the woos have a monopoly on dimwittery.

 

[carlitos]

Rramjet please ignore this

I promised myself I would quit posting in this thread, but I thought you may find this interesting, regarding estimating distance of a light source in the night sky.

As a teenager, a buddy and I were driving and we saw a "huge fire over in the next subdivision." We were curious, so we drove that way. There was no fire, it appeared to be just a bit further. And again, and again, we drove from the next town to the next town. We ended up driving 30 miles to an oil refinery, where we saw the gas burnoff flame. It was nothing extraordinary, just an oil refinery having a normal night.

We thought it was a house fire a mile away, but it was an oil refinery 30 miles away. And we were on the ground in a car, not floating through the air in a plane.

But anyway, this phenomenon is obvious to most.

ETA - I fly almost every week, and see water droplets on the glass from my window seat quite often. Thanks to those who reminded me why this is physically possible. I hadn't given it much thought.

 

[EHocking]

This is madness...the cameraman filmed the plane before takoff (no rain, no droplets), he filmed through the cockpit window and around the cockpit at various times during the flight (no droplets) AND he filmed through the cockpit window as they were coming in to land (no droplets). So, no droplets on the lens of the camera, no droplets on the inside of the windows and no droplets on the outside of the windows either. Full stop. Hypothesis refuted. Case closed.

Quote from Maccabbee's Word doc, my bolding.

"As before, David Crockett was seated between the pilot and the copilot. He filmed the landing lights and airplane cockpit during the takeoff. Grant and Fogarty were in the cargo hold during takeoff. About 2 minutes later the plane was about 7 miles north of Christchurch it entered a thin layer of cloud. "

Quote from Maccabbee's Word doc, my bolding.

You have no evidence that there were not droplets formed on any of the windows and I've shown that droplets can and do form on airplane windows in flight - something you denied vehemently.

Just because it doesn't fit your world view does not mean that the possibility of water droplets contributing to the image can be dismissed.

Provide evidence, such as a full window shot immediately before, during, after the "sightings" that shows that the window is clear of water droplets.

 

[Paulhoff]

I have a good one about a friend not seeing things correctly. Many years ago a friend and I where outside looking at the stars, it was a nice clear night. And I just said that it was a shame that one can’t really tell the distances to the stars when one looks at them, and you can’t actually tell which ones are farther or closer. Well, my friend chimes in with, “I can tell which are farther and closer”. I said, you can’t, the stars do have different brightness of course, but unless you know which ones are brighter or dimmer, you can’t really tell. So he says, “I can because of depth perception, I have two eyes” and he then points them out to me. Well I didn’t what to go thru that the eyes are really not that far apart, about 2 inches, and one losses depth perception quickly after a 100 feet or more, it when it becomes are experience that helps us with that illusion of depth at distance, and of course this can be wrong. In order to see the closest stars using depth perception, and only the closest stars, our eyes would have to be earth’s orbit apart, about 186 million miles. But why say anything, since he sees it already.

Paul

 

[EHocking]

...
Oh, and the photo you supply - there is absolutely NO “green” or “orange” in squid boat lights – this is a known fact, they are intensely bright white.

Just as it is "a known fact" that water droplets don't form on airplane windows in flight?

So your photo-representation is not a true (faithful) rendering of what a squid boat light really looks like. The colours you see are purely an artefact of having to reduce the exposure level…

I suggest you don't pontificate on subjects, such as photography, that you have demonstrated to have little experience in.

But, back on subject, the point was to show that the "intensely bright white" lights of a squid boat, when photographed or filmed, can show as different colours to only white. As you say, "The colours you see are purely an [photographic] artefact.."

Note also that airplane windows are not glass, but plastic and under stress create polarising artifacts as well. This was acknowledged by Maccabbee when analysing the lines in the white blobs that were filmed.

There's a lot of glass and coatings (lenses) and polarising plexiglass that was filmed through to gather this "evidence".

 

[Astrophotographer]

Actually… Ireland’s article IS contained in one of Dr Maccabees reports – that you did NOT know that shows me that you have not even read Dr Maccabee’s reports! Huh! …and he does NOT make “a good case for it” at all, in the article he merely states that because he assumes there were SBs in the area, then that is what the cause was…

Which report? I keep looking and I do not see the entire article.

 

[Correa Neto]

Every time I see an UFO enthusiast complaining about lack of funds, the need of money to do a propper research, I can't help but considering this individual as being ignorant and/or dishonest.

What these people want?

A program to study decades-old sightings reports?
Laughable from the scientific point of view (unless we're talking about social sciences).

A program to gather new data about UFOs such as images? OK, cool but... Is there any real need for this? Its not the first time I say this, but here it goes again- we have networks of dedicated people and instruments scanning the sky. We have astronomers (amateur and pros), meteorologists (amateur and pros), aviation and satellite tracking enthusiasts... All these folks are looking at the skys with optical devices, radars, cameras, etc. We have civilian and millitary radar networks covering great areas of the sky, we have radar programs aimed to detect and track space junk orbiting Earth and NEOs... Assuming UFO lore is correct, UFO should be detectable by these means. We should have, by now, reliable data supporting UFOs as intelligencies from beyond the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means) - that they are transient phenomena is nothing but a lame excuse. An example is how sprites and elfs were detected.

Now, for the UFO enthusiasts who disagree with me, I say: Then prove me wrong by starting to do things right if you can and actually believe in UFO lore. Lack of funds is not an excuse- it might serve individually bout not as a whole. Ask Friedmann, McAbee, Valèe et alli to donate part of the money they make by selling UFO books and making speeches at UFO confferences to fund such a program. Its easy, its relatively simple, and the equipment required is at hands to the serious enthusiasts. It would not be that different from what amateur astronomers use, for example (Astrophotographer, please correct me if I'm wrong). And that's not cheap but ist not really über-expensive. Tripods, cameras, binoculars, low-magnification / wide field telescopes, IR and low-light cameras, all are widely used by amateurs and at reach of serious dedicated people.

Such a program would be cheap and relatively simple. Just build a network of people with the right equipment, collect the data on the proper way and stop whining against close-minded scientists, skeptics and government cover-ups.

Stop whining, stop babbling, stop with the lame excuses and the pseudoscience and go do something on the right way. Not that I think Rramjet and his UFOlogy heros are actually able or willing to do this.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Now, for the UFO enthusiasts who disagree with me, I say: Then prove me wrong by starting to do things right if you can and actually believe in UFO lore. Lack of funds is not an excuse- it might serve individually bout not as a whole. Ask Friedmann, McAbee, Valèe et alli to donate part of the money they make by selling UFO books and making speeches at UFO confferences to fund such a program. Its easy, its relatively simple, and the equipment required is at hands to the serious enthusiasts. It would not be that different from what amateur astronomers use, for example (Astrophotographer, please correct me if I'm wrong). And that's not cheap but ist not really über-expensive. Tripods, cameras, binoculars, low-magnification / wide field telescopes, IR and low-light cameras, all are widely used by amateurs and at reach of serious dedicated people.

Such a program would be cheap and relatively simple. Just build a network of people with the right equipment, collect the data on the proper way and stop whining against close-minded scientists, skeptics and government cover-ups.

Stop whining, stop babbling, stop with the lame excuses and the pseudoscience and go do something on the right way. Not that I think Rramjet and his UFOlogy heros are actually able or willing to do this.

This has been my point for some time. UFOlogists claim about lack of funds but I could propose a three station sky coverage camera system for about 10-15K. I am not talking about a fish-eye lens but reasonable lens system with multiple low light security cameras (probably the same as the one I use for meteor work) and a recording system to boot. There is no need for image intensification since most UFOs are probably as bright as a first magnitude star (otherwise people would not notice them). So, where do UFOlogists get funds for such a system? Well, the Fund For UFO Research gave Stanton Friedman some ridiculous money to research MJ-12. It was almost like donating him a nice sum of money to confirm what he already believed. Access Denied already has pointed this out.

It is my belief that UFOlogists themselves should spend the money. Ok, 10-15K seems a bit high but amateur astronomers spend about that much on their own equipment and a group of UFOlogists (say 3-5) would cut the individual cost significantly. Remember this is three stations we are talking about here spread out over several miles. The idea would be to set them up and record the sky 24-7. Any UFO reports that come from the local community could then be checked against the system. If it turns out prosaic, well we learn something that we already know. However, imagine the payday if a real UFO were recorded by all three cameras! It would be well worth the effort. IMO, it is about putting their money where their mouth is. I doubt any would dare to do it because, deep down, they probably already know what the results will be.

 

[Correa Neto]

Thanks, the money is roughly what I suspected after a quick search for optical gadgets. Now, let's say it would take U$15K...

What's the price tag of an UFOhunters' episode?
MUFON would have problems getting U$15K from its members and top book-writing UFOlogists?

Is that such an astounding ammount of money? No. So, why can't Rramjet's UFO-studying scientists join forces and get funds for such a cheap program?
Too lazy? Are their efforts being hapered by the MIBs?

Heck, they could set a station at one of those sites where an UFO "flap" is going on or at some place with "vortexes" where UFOs are supposed to be buzzing or humming or flying silently around.

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh, and Rramjet could try to make some money by writing a book on UFOs. Yep, it would be the same crap regurgitated year after year by senior UFOlogists. But so what? Many an UFO buff would still buy it (they always do)... And Rramjet would stop complaining about not having money and perhaps build his own Gay Rodeo sighting project at Brokeback Mountain.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] I can't help but considering this individual as being ignorant and/or dishonest.

I think you can just stop right there, Correa.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Thanks, the money is roughly what I suspected after a quick search for optical gadgets. Now, let's say it would take U$15K...

Just to make it clear, I am a "poor" amateur astronomer who has spent something like 10-15K over the years on my hobby. I know amateurs who don't bat an eye at spending 5 or 10K for a telescope and all the fixings (CCD cameras, computers, etc) or an observatory. They have a passion for their hobby. IMO UFOlogists lack the passion/conviction to solve mysteries. It is far easier to promote a mystery with the implications that it could be explained by 'aliens'/'exotic forces yet undiscovered' instead of looking for an answer.

 

[Rramjet]

Akhenaten
You sound like a heretic king who woke up one morning to find his wife was in reality not as beautiful as he thought she was and that his mud brick folly in the desert was destined to stand for a mere 20 years! Shoulda stuck to pyramids guy.

Light relief aside…

If there are numerous radar echos and numerous light sources. Why not? I'd also like to add that you don't have the "exact position" in 3D-space. You have a general direction and no way of estimating the distance to the light source.

But there were NOT “numerous” radar echoes and “numerous” light sources (at least not as you generally describe).

On the southern leg there were numerous echoes and light sources near the coast (around Kaikoura). But near the plane (within a few miles) there was ONLY one.
On the northern leg, there was ONLY ever one.

Are you stating that radar is incapable of providing distance? I thought that was what radar was FOR! Radar controller states “Target, 2:00, 4 miles”. You look and see a light at 2:00. There are NO other lights visible. A reasonable causal inference is that you have a visual identification of a target at 4 miles. If NOT… then you have just destroyed radar as an effective tool! Perhaps NASA or the USAF would be interested in your hypotheses?

Proving gods did it is trivial. I talked to Him and he told me in a vision that he did it.

Provide evidence that “god” talked to you.

They have one thing in common. They are all based on irrational beliefs for which there is no scientific evidence.

According to you, our whole existence is based on irrational beliefs. You gotta do better than that!

Quite the opposite. Oh please, provide some evidence and stop it with the 3d-hand retellings of supposed witness accounts.

So film of an event is “3rd-hand retelling” now? You gotta do better than that too!

Sorry Rramjet, you haven't conclusively shown how anyone can accurately measure by eye a light source against a black sky and black sea to be able to tell how far away it was to be able to confirm it was the same blip that was on the radar.

Until you can do this, you can not say that there was any radar visual tie up.

And

It is far more likely that Squid Boats were in the area than “alien craft”.

The pilot (copilot, news crew, etc) saw the “light” as being on a level with their airplane. The WATCC informs the plane that they have a target within a few miles of the plane. There were no other lights visible apart from squid boats near the horizon and the coastal lights of New Zealand. To locate Klass, Ireland, etc squid boat, they would have had to look down to see it – not on a level with them. On the northern leg the pilot tried to turn the plane toward the light. After 92 degrees of turn he realised that the light had tracked that turn so that it was still on his right hand side – this would not happen if it were a boat on the sea.

No-one is talking “alien craft” either. All anyone is contending is that there was a real (a radar target light source) unidentified object in the sky, “flying” very close to the airplane. WHAT it was is open to speculation, however, it is demonstrable that it was not a “squid boat” nor was it an AP.

How many contacts were reported? Are you stating all the contacts were alien craft or were a majority due to AP?

There were “numerous” concurrent light sources and radar contacts near the coast (remember the plane was about 25 miles from the coast). That there was no identification of these sources of the kind: THAT radar target = THIS light source, leaves open the possibility that some of these could have been AP. Given also that AP were known to occur near the coast (given the terrain and particular weather conditions) then it IS possible that AP were present. How many, we do not know.

However, there was only one light source identified on radar, by visual and on film near the plane. There was only ever one radar contact that did not have visual identification near the plane. The sequence of events were such that at times the single “target” was not visible as a light source, at other times it was. That is, radar and visual (individually or concurrently) only ever had one target at any particular time near the plane. That would suggest only one object, but there could have been more than one…although Occam would suggest we stick with one.

I see. It must be because you don’t want it to be there. Can you produce the records to prove this?

If you discount what Dr Maccabee has to say about ministry records, then I can discount Dr Ireland on the same principle. Both of us in this situation can go no further with this unless we have the records.

So a squid boat going from say Christchurch to the squid fleet would not cross Pegasus bay? As for the single fishing, why not Pegasus Bay? After all, we apparently have a record of one going to Pegasus bay to fish.

I guess you have not looked at a map of New Zealand recently and noted the locations of the identified squid fleets in relation to it. The easterly fleet was on the EAST side of the South Island EAST of Christchurch! No boat departing from Christchurch would traverse Pegasus Bay to get to it..

Klass alleges a boat going into Pegasus Bay. He does not say where it departed from (Christchurch or Wellington) and he does not KNOW what the purpose of such a journey might have been even IF the allegation were true. Besides, HIS alleged boat was two weeks prior!

Besides, squid are (in the main) ocean-going, deep-water fish. Yes they might come into shallower waters, like Pegasus Bay, to spawn, but while it is possible (in this mad mad world of ours) that the NZ Agriculture Ministry would allow the Japanese to fish the spawning grounds, it hardly seem likely.

Yes, the EAST coast has deep water close to the coast, so squid fishing occurs there – but we are talking about the WEST coast here – and the KNOWN squid fleet was 110 nm WEST of Christchurch (out in the open ocean).

Ireland’s diagram shows a different situation. Why would they arrive at different values? Is it because Maccabee may have a vested interest in the outcome (just like Gulf Breeze)? We are using values based on what the witnesses recall were the bearings and the radar signature. There is no hard data. Maccabee does not state where his data came from other than “interviews with witnesses” but it is my recollection that these were from interviews conducted months later, which would compound inaccuracies.

Ireland and Andrew distorted the flight path of the plane to fit their “squid boat” hypothesis to show a turn of 120 degrees, while the PILOT states his turn was ONLY 92 degrees. Who do we believe? The pilot who conducted the manoeuvre, or the vested interests of Klass and Ireland who HAD to have a greater turn based only on the necessity to fit their hypothesis? Dr Maccabee had already published the pilots statements in this regard before Klass and Ireland came up with their hypothesis – so they just ignored the pilot’s testimony!

They were reported from a previous flight over a week before the event. It was very similar in that AP had a lot to do with those returns as well. That does not verify the events of that night. My question is why weren't any other ships, aircraft, fishermen, whatever reporting all of these exotic phenomena? Why is it only this plane with a TV camera crew aboard?

Previous aircraft (as you note) DID report the phenomenon! You merely speculate that AP were involved in those reports. Who knows why others did not report in the meantime. Who knows if there was even a phenomenon to report in between times. WHAT was the phenomenon reported? THAT is the 64 thousand dollar question!

A note on squid boats: The combined power output of one of those boats can be up to 200000 watts! There is just no mistaking those babies! One might mistake an oil well near the horizon, but NOT a squid boat, especially if it were closer!

In regard to the picture of the squid boat posted by Stray Cat:

In Dr Maccabee’s report (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html) we have this passage:

“A SB does have a green running light. Regulations specify that the running light have a rating of only a hundred watts or so. A photograph a 100 watt bulb at 12 nm under the conditions of this sighting the light would make no more than a faint image on the film, if there were no other lights around. However, the glare of the white lights, totalling several hundred thousand watts of power, would completely cover up the feeble light from the green bulb. Therefore the green "dot" could not be an image of the green running light on the HSB.”

On the other hand, Stray Cat's picture does illustrate one aspect of a SB that is pertinent: the reflection of the lights off the water. Something that the UFO film doesn't have.

Finally In Dr Maccabee’s Applied Optics paper, he notes that the squid fleets were picked up by a satellite, but that there were no lights in Pegasus Bay.

 

[Paulhoff]

So, any proof yet, or should I come back later.

Paul

 

[Correa Neto]

More evidence pointing towards Rramjet being a poseur:

1. Anyone with scientific training would do a bit of research before posting this:

...snip...Are you stating that radar is incapable of providing distance? I thought that was what radar was FOR! Radar controller states “Target, 2:00, 4 miles”. You look and see a light at 2:00. There are NO other lights visible. A reasonable causal inference is that you have a visual identification of a target at 4 miles. If NOT… then you have just destroyed radar as an effective tool! Perhaps NASA or the USAF would be interested in your hypotheses?

A bit of research would have shown that thee are several types of radar and several modes with diferent functions. A very silly statement whose only goal was to attempt a poor attempt to ridicule a poster by lecturing him/her. What a poor excuse for a lecture... If this individual wanted to lecture someone, he/she should do proper research and redaction. Wait, its the same individual who made a number of SNAFUs regarding the radars and radar warning receivers from fighter jets! It seems he/she hasn't learned too much since then...

If you want to lecture someone, first make sure to reseach properly the subject.

2. What sort of scientist would write this:

...snip...Besides, squid are (in the main) ocean-going, deep-water fish. Yes they might come into shallower waters, like Pegasus Bay, to spawn, but while it is possible (in this mad mad world of ours) that the NZ Agriculture Ministry would allow the Japanese to fish the spawning grounds, it hardly seem likely.

Oh, boy, squids are FISHES??? What sort of scientist are you? There are other errors in the sentences above, but that one speaks volumes about your so-called qualifications. Hey, Pharaoh, reminds of Makaya and the bats, eh?

BTW, the plane sent by New Zealand AF to check previous contacts was an Orion- exactly the type of airplane someone would send to look for the illegal presence of fishing boats.

3. And what about this gem of critical thinking?

On the other hand, Stray Cat's picture does illustrate one aspect of a SB that is pertinent: the reflection of the lights off the water. Something that the UFO film doesn't have.

One more tidbit of evidence- Does anyone really thinks someone aboard a plane kilometers away from the boat would be able to film the reflections of the boat's lights in the water?

What a poor excuse for scientific methods... Rramjet, I consider you officially BUSTED as a scientist.

 

[GeeMack]

So, any proof yet, [...]

No...

[...] or should I come back later.

... and no.

 

[GeeMack]

What a poor excuse for scientific methods... Rramjet, I consider you officially BUSTED as a scientist.

Yes, all the evidence shows that he is lying about his qualifications.

And we still have that unrefuted theory that all these unidentified flying things were illusions created by gods to pique the interest of a mentally ill high school kid so he would make an ass of himself on an Internet discussion board. How about it, Rramjet, got anything to refute that?

 

[Stray Cat]

The pilot (copilot, news crew, etc) saw the “light” as being on a level with their airplane. The WATCC informs the plane that they have a target within a few miles of the plane. There were no other lights visible apart from squid boats near the horizon and the coastal lights of New Zealand. To locate Klass, Ireland, etc squid boat, they would have had to look down to see it – not on a level with them. On the northern leg the pilot tried to turn the plane toward the light. After 92 degrees of turn he realised that the light had tracked that turn so that it was still on his right hand side – this would not happen if it were a boat on the sea.

Sorry Rramjet, you haven't conclusively shown how anyone can accurately measure by eye a light source against a black sky and black sea to be able to tell how far away it was to be able to confirm it was the same blip that was on the radar.

Until you can do this, you can not say that there was any radar visual tie up.

In regard to the picture of the squid boat posted by Stray Cat:

In Dr Maccabee’s report (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html) we have this passage:

“A SB does have a green running light. Regulations specify that the running light have a rating of only a hundred watts or so. A photograph a 100 watt bulb at 12 nm under the conditions of this sighting the light would make no more than a faint image on the film, if there were no other lights around. However, the glare of the white lights, totalling several hundred thousand watts of power, would completely cover up the feeble light from the green bulb. Therefore the green "dot" could not be an image of the green running light on the HSB.”

Of course what Maccabee fails to point out is that although a 100watt bulb is adequate for the minimum requirements, the regulations do not list a requirement of a 100watt bulb... they list a minimum requirement that the light be seen from a minimum distance depending upon the size of the boat. Also fishing boats are required to display a green light over a white light to warn other traffic that they are actively trawling. So once again Maccabee is only giving you the bits that fit his required result.
http://www.boatus.org/onlinecourse/reviewpages/boatusf/project/info2c.htm

Do some research of your own Rramjet instead of taking the word of someone who either does not know or does not want to you to know.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=384&pictureid=2335

On the other hand, Stray Cat's picture does illustrate one aspect of a SB that is pertinent: the reflection of the lights off the water. Something that the UFO film doesn't have.

I would also point out that squid boats are not round like the blurred blob in the photo above... that is a consequence of the picture being out of focus and most likely the reflection is blurring into the light source.

Finally In Dr Maccabee’s Applied Optics paper, he notes that the squid fleets were picked up by a satellite, but that there were no lights in Pegasus Bay.

Cool, then you'll be able to show us the satellite picture with validating documents?... no?... didn't think so.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Oh, boy, squids are FISHES??? What sort of scientist are you? There are other errors in the sentences above, but that one speaks volumes about your so-called qualifications. Hey, Pharaoh, reminds of Makaya and the bats, eh?

Reminds me of Chaz Perrone (in the novel Skinny Dip).

Yes, all the evidence shows that he is lying about his qualifications.

And we still have that unrefuted theory that all these unidentified flying things were illusions created by gods to pique the interest of a mentally ill high school kid so he would make an ass of himself on an Internet discussion board. How about it, Rramjet, got anything to refute that?

Evidently not, but consider the following:

Pandora^WP was the first woman on earth. Entrusted with a jar of mixed spirits, she just had to open it, allowing all but one to escape. Thus entered evil into the world.

Elpis^WP (Roman Spes) was the only spirit that remained within the jar. She was the goddess of Hope.

Elpis gave birth to Ossa (or Pheme^WP, Roman Fama), goddess of rumor and gossip as well as fame and reknown. Ossa had the nasty habit of flying around, especially at night, whispering rumors.

Ossa's existence is not controversial. Her known habits fit all facts of the case.