UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rramjet said:
A school of red herrings!

The binoculars were clearly in good working order. We know that they aided observation of the object – it “resolved” with their aid.

Blimps have no surfaces that could reflect specularly in such a way as to obscure fins, gondola, engines, etc – especially as the object moved substantially both toward and laterally away from the observers. The witness descriptions of the object do NOT match the description of a blimp.

The day was a clear, "blue-sky" day. The witnesses had the sun at their backs. No mist, no dust, no “pollen” (!)
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5283566&postcount=2243
 
Stray Cat said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5283566&postcount=2243
Click to expand...
I am not sure what the point of that post is. It does not seem to address any of the points currently under discussion in any clear, concise or rational way.

Blimps are NOT made of anything that can create specular reflections – especially of the kind that might obscure fins, gondola, engines, etc - and especially when the object was changing aspect continually in relation to the witnesses. The photos you present do NOT show any such “obscuring” reflections – so what’s the point of them.

The eyewitnesses described a CIRCULAR object - like a "coin" or "pancake" (ie; NOT a blimp!).

No-one said that WTC were anything other than planes… what’s the point here?

“Clearly visible” and “able to be seen in great detail” are synonymous – what’s your point here?
 
Rramjet said:
...Snip...And the witnesses described the object as “resolving” itself in to a circular shape (with the “fin” on top) when binoculars were applied. Obviously they could see the object quite clearly.
Click to expand...


What means the object never actually "resolved itself in to a circular shape". The only possible ways for this "resolution in a circular shape" to happen (assuming it had a saucer-like form) would be if the object had its top or base pointing directly at the observers and in these cases the "top fin" would not be seen.

In other words, the observers saw an elliptical shape which they interpreted to be a circular disk-like object. A cigar-shaped ellipsis, by the way. Something which may quite possibly have been a mis identified blimp.

Say goodbye again to yet another best case and to your claimed scientific training.
 
Correa Neto said:
What means the object never actually "resolved itself in to a circular shape". The only possible ways for this "resolution in a circular shape" to happen (assuming it had a saucer-like form) would be if the object had its top or base pointing directly at the observers and in these cases the "top fin" would not be seen.

In other words, the observers saw an elliptical shape which they interpreted to be a circular disk-like object. A cigar-shaped ellipsis, by the way. Something which may quite possibly have been a mis identified blimp.

Say goodbye again to yet another best case and to your claimed scientific training.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. The object "presented" as an ellipse. However, the object presented the same "circular" ASPECT throughout the sighting. Remember the object, when first sighted was travelling toward the observers, and then it turned and travelled at an angle laterally away from the observers. The consistent elliptical (interpreted as circular) ASPECT would have been impossible for a blimp to have maintained throughout such a motion!
 
Rramjet said:
“Clearly visible” and “able to be seen in great detail” are synonymous – what’s your point here?
Click to expand...

No, they are not. I can clearly see an airplane at 35,000 feet, but I cannot see it in great detail. I can see that the object IS an airplane, but whether it's a 757, 777, military aircraft, whatever, I cannot tell.

I don't really know why I'm replying. Rramjet has ignored many posts in the past showing photos of blimps in various orientations which clearly put the lie to his contention that a blimp appears in one, and only one, form.

A cry in the wilderness I guess.
 
jhunter1163 said:
No, they are not. I can clearly see an airplane at 35,000 feet, but I cannot see it in great detail. I can see that the object IS an airplane, but whether it's a 757, 777, military aircraft, whatever, I cannot tell.

I don't really know why I'm replying. Rramjet has ignored many posts in the past showing photos of blimps in various orientations which clearly put the lie to his contention that a blimp appears in one, and only one, form.

A cry in the wilderness I guess.
Click to expand...

CLEARLY the 757 (777, military aircraft, whatever...) was NOT "clearly visible"! It was merely "visible" as an aircraft. If it was "clearly visible" then identification would have been possible. "Clearly visible" and "able to be seen in detail" ARE synonymous.

I don't know why I am replying to you as this threatens to leads us off topic. But I hate to see anyone "crying in the wilderness...":)

Oh...and the fact that you note that a blimp would present different aspects as it travelled has confirmed my refutation of Correa Neto's assertion above.
 
Last edited:
Rramjet said:
CLEARLY the 757 (777, military aircraft, whatever...) was NOT "clearly visible"! It was merely "visible" as an aircraft. If it was "clearly visible" then identification would have been possible. "Clearly visible" and "able to be seen in detail" ARE synonymous.

I don't know why I am replying to you as this threatens to leads us off topic. But I hate to see anyone "crying in the wilderness...":)

Oh...and the fact that you note that a blimp would present different aspects as it travelled has confirmed my refutation of Correa Neto's assertion above.
Click to expand...


Drivel. Don't embarrass yourself by talking about aeroplanes again. Don't you remember the last drubbing your 'arguments' took when you attempted that?
 
Akhenaten said:
Rubbish, and we all know that you know that it is.

You haven't presented a skerrick of evidence, and 'clearly', you cannot.

Time to drop the pretence, Rramjet. The thread is a stale joke.
Click to expand...
A rational, considered, concise argument…? Oh well, we’re obviously back to the UFO debunker truism: ”Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”.
 
Rramjet said:
I don't know why I am replying to you as this threatens to leads us off topic.
Click to expand...

Serious-Topic.jpg



Rramjet said:
But I hate to see anyone "crying in the wilderness...":)
Click to expand...

Look away now...

zpage114.jpg


Rramjet said:
Oh...and the fact that you note that a blimp would present different aspects as it travelled has confirmed my refutation of Correa Neto's assertion above.
Click to expand...
The witness confirmed it presented different aspects as seen clearly in their drawings of it.

Blimp-Comparison.jpg


Stop me now someone please.
 
Rramjet said:
Eyewitnesses clearly ARE sometimes mistaken.
Click to expand...
So you can see why your cases to date are inadequate. Present us with some evidence that isn't open to interpretation or fading memory.
In your hypothetical murder story there are two groups of witnesses. One group tells you a murder occurred. The other group tells you they saw no victim or perpetrators enter the house. Which group do I believe? I would have to do some basic research before I could answer the question. First I would obtain another opinion – ask the police for example (do they have a victim – is there a missing person report – have they conducted any investigation? etc). I would then look at the details of the case – who was where and when in relation to the time of the murder. I would then do some background on the witnesses themselves (credibility/reliability). If it seems that it was possible (according to all above sources) that a murder could have occurred (and I had the resources) I would then conduct a forensic examination of the area. Yet even after all the above I might not be in a position to positively answer yes or no as to whether a murder occurred or not.
Click to expand...
You didn't read the whole thing, did you? There's no body. No blood. No sign someone, let alone two people, have entered your home. One person says they saw a murder. No one else saw anything. Why would you bother with everything you mention?
 
Akhenaten said:
Like the Sun, you mean? How about Comet Halley?

Why would you make such a ridiculous statement?
Click to expand...

We are talking at cross purposes here. You are using “clearly” to describe a state of mind in the sense that: “It is CLEAR that the sun is visible.” That is, it is obvious that the sun is in the sky. However, I am using “clearly” as descriptor in the sense that: “We can see the sun CLEARLY”. That is, we can describe the detail of the (ostensibly) obvious object. Plainly the two uses have different meaning.

Your opinion or perspective on the world is obviously not the only perspective there is. So perhaps you should think a little more clearly about things before posting again? :)
 
Rramjet once again redefines words to suit his own bizarre claims. You've got to wonder who he thinks will be swayed by this.
 
Stray Cat said:
[qimg]
The witness confirmed it presented different aspects as seen clearly in their drawings of it.
Click to expand...

The witnesses "confirmed" NO such thing!

The drawings you "cite" are the witnesses impressions of what the object looked like. Remember they were draftsmen and so drew "plan" drawings to demonstrate the aspects of a CIRCULAR craft. They intended their drawings to represent a CIRCULAR craft!

...but this is a typical UFO debunker mentality at work here. Here we have a couple of drawings, the meaning of which is clear to everyone - in that they are meant to represent plan drawings of a circular craft (like a "coin" or "pancake") - yet the UFO debunker, rather than try to clarify or explicate or rationally argue, attempts instead to obcsure the intended meaning in order to conform to a preconceived belief. This is about as far from scientific methodology as one can get - in fact IMO - it is more typical of cultist behaviour than anything else.
 
Akhenaten said:
Rramjet said:
"Clearly visible" and "able to be seen in detail" ARE synonymous.
Click to expand...


Like the Sun, you mean? How about Comet Halley?

Why would you make such a ridiculous statement?
Click to expand...


Rramjet said:
We are talking at cross purposes here. You are using “clearly” to describe a state of mind in the sense that: “It is CLEAR that the sun is visible.” That is, it is obvious that the sun is in the sky. However, I am using “clearly” as descriptor in the sense that: “We can see the sun CLEARLY”. That is, we can describe the detail of the (ostensibly) obvious object. Plainly the two uses have different meaning.
Click to expand...


You're gainsaying yourself, Rramjet. How funny is that?

I find it absolutely hilarious.


Rramjet said:
Your opinion or perspective on the world is obviously not the only perspective there is. So perhaps you should think a little more clearly about things before posting again? :)
Click to expand...


Nup.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom