Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
He's probably still in bed with Bruce
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=35184
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
He's probably still in bed with Bruce
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=35184
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
He's probably still in bed with Bruce
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=35184
Interesting. I wonder why Brumac doesn't want to be directly involved in the convo.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Rramjet said:
Incorrect. For example, the would-be scientist wrote at post 138:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5203413&postcount=138Rramjet said:
See how ridiculous and resting on flawed scientific foundations are are most of them. I fail to see how a real, bona fide scientist would consider them seriously. I can see, however, how an individual which confuses science with science fiction / fantasy and poses as a scientist would.
By now, if Rramjet wants to rescue some of his/hers credibility and do some actual research, he/she must admit that is not a scientist and try to learn from the posters who have real scientific backgrounds. He/she should be glad that these people cared to dialogue with him/her, honoring the "E" from JREF, despite his/hers behavior.
If he/she keeps following the current path, creduloid and charlatan are the only possibilities left.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
I see two options
1. if you were a genuinely scientific UFO investigator would you want to get into a thread with Rramjet
2. if you weren't a genuinely scientific UFO investigator would you want to get into a thread with the rest of us ?
theres nothing for him here that will further his aims whatever they may be, this thread is completely pointless and actually represents one mans struggle with reality rather than anything else
What I would like, specifically, is a hypothesis about ONE CASE. Rramjet's last response was to claim a negative ("not" mundane). Maybe I could try again.
People saw something at Rogue River. I, Rramjet, believe that they saw _________.
Then let's try to prove that.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Hmmm...Fake Rramjet said:
Faking a fake makes it real?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Tune: The cat came back
Rramjet had some anecdotes he thought were very nice
He took them to the JREF to confound them once or twice.
He got an explanation that was mundane as could be.
So he waved it all away with a hand that he had free...
But the blimp came back, it wouldn't stay away
It was flying o'er Rogue River the very next day
The blimp came back, it didn't want to roam
The very next day it was Home, Sweet Home.
Rramjet heard in Mexico the video was great.
UFOs were there on TV if you only stayed up late.
He quoted from an expert, saying "That, you'll have to take!"
Unaware his quoted source was saying it was fake.
So the blimp came back, it wouldn't stay away
It was flashing out Gay Rodeo the very next day
The blimp came back, it didn't want to roam
The very next day it was Home, Sweet Home.
An episode from hist'ry, when the Shah was in Iran
Makes Rramjet certain that there's other folks than man.
An Iranian Air Force F4 flew, that's what an air force does
The constant in the story's that: a Phantom's what it was.
So the blimp came back, it wouldn't stay away
It was equipped with Russian radar by the very next day
The blimp came back, it didn't want to roam
The very next day it was Home, Sweet Home.
A film crew heard a story, and they thought they'd take a chance
In New Zealand, where the atmosphere makes radar duct and dance.
So they chartered up an airplane, and filmed a mighty light.
Not knowing that the squidding fleet was in the sea that night.
So the blimp came back, it wouldn't stay away
It blinked "Cephalopods ain't fish" the very next day
The blimp came back, it didn't want to roam
The very next day it was Home, Sweet Home.
Rramjet got disgusted, and began another thread
Because mods had locked the first one -- at least, that was what he said.
He started with Rogue River, it's irritating, friends.
I guess I'll have to segue to The Song that Never Ends
Because:
The blimp comes back, it ain't gonna go away
The blimp comes back, each and every day
The blimp comes back, it doesn't want to roam
Each and every day it comes home sweet home.
Rramjet had some anecdotes he thought were very nice
He took them to the JREF to confound them once or twice.
He got an explanation that was mundane as could be.
So he waved it all away with a hand that he had free...
But the blimp came back, it wouldn't stay away
It was flying o'er Rogue River the very next day
The blimp came back, it didn't want to roam
The very next day it was Home, Sweet Home.
Rramjet heard in Mexico the video was great.
UFOs were there on TV if you only stayed up late.
He quoted from an expert, saying "That, you'll have to take!"
Unaware his quoted source was saying it was fake.
So the blimp came back, it wouldn't stay away
It was flashing out Gay Rodeo the very next day
The blimp came back, it didn't want to roam
The very next day it was Home, Sweet Home.
An episode from hist'ry, when the Shah was in Iran
Makes Rramjet certain that there's other folks than man.
An Iranian Air Force F4 flew, that's what an air force does
The constant in the story's that: a Phantom's what it was.
So the blimp came back, it wouldn't stay away
It was equipped with Russian radar by the very next day
The blimp came back, it didn't want to roam
The very next day it was Home, Sweet Home.
A film crew heard a story, and they thought they'd take a chance
In New Zealand, where the atmosphere makes radar duct and dance.
So they chartered up an airplane, and filmed a mighty light.
Not knowing that the squidding fleet was in the sea that night.
So the blimp came back, it wouldn't stay away
It blinked "Cephalopods ain't fish" the very next day
The blimp came back, it didn't want to roam
The very next day it was Home, Sweet Home.
Rramjet got disgusted, and began another thread
Because mods had locked the first one -- at least, that was what he said.
He started with Rogue River, it's irritating, friends.
I guess I'll have to segue to The Song that Never Ends
Because:
The blimp comes back, it ain't gonna go away
The blimp comes back, each and every day
The blimp comes back, it doesn't want to roam
Each and every day it comes home sweet home.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,510
Nommificated. And I'm unsurprised to find I'm not the first to do so. Nor yet the second.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Well at least you weren't fourth, like poor old Pharaoh.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
The Blimp
Captain Beefheart
The brothers hid under their hood
From the blimp the blimp
Children stop yer nursin' unless yer renderin' fun
The mother ship the mother ship
The mother ship's the one
The blimp the blimp
The tapes uh trip it's uh trailin' tail
It's traipse'n along behind the blimp the blimp
The nose has uh crimp
The nose is limp the blimp
It blows the air the snoot isn't fair
Look up in the sky there's uh dirigible there
The drazy hoops whir
You can see them just as they were
All the people stir
'n the girls knees trembles
'n run 'n wave their hands
'n run their hands over the blimp the blimp
Daughter don't yuh dare
Oh momma who cares
It's the blimp it's the blimp
Captain Beefheart
The brothers hid under their hood
From the blimp the blimp
Children stop yer nursin' unless yer renderin' fun
The mother ship the mother ship
The mother ship's the one
The blimp the blimp
The tapes uh trip it's uh trailin' tail
It's traipse'n along behind the blimp the blimp
The nose has uh crimp
The nose is limp the blimp
It blows the air the snoot isn't fair
Look up in the sky there's uh dirigible there
The drazy hoops whir
You can see them just as they were
All the people stir
'n the girls knees trembles
'n run 'n wave their hands
'n run their hands over the blimp the blimp
Daughter don't yuh dare
Oh momma who cares
It's the blimp it's the blimp
Czarcasm
Groovy Groovy Guru
A question for the Moderators: Could you please tell me what the topic of this thread is so that I may stay on it when I post?
Thank you.
Thank you.
The UFO debunker’s beliefs rest wholly on one single premise:
The eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time.
That is, to maintain their position, the UFO debunkers MUST uphold the truth of that statement. That is, in 100% of UFO cases the eyewitnesses have misperceived a mundane object.
This, to me, is just pure nonsense. It beggars belief. It defies rationality. For example in the Rogue River case, under near perfect viewing conditions, five witnesses (two using binoculars) observe and describe a circular (analogous to a coin), silent object moving across the sky at the speed of a jet plane. They were able to observe the object for over 1 ½ minutes, so had ample time to “test” their own hypotheses about what it might have been (as in “is it a bird, a plane, a blimp…”) and they arrived at the conclusion that it represented nothing mundane that they knew of.
Two of the witnesses were able to obtain a good enough view of the object to draw fairly detailed pictures of it, showing a finlike structure of top and a “wrinkled” edge around the circle (almost like the knurl on a coin). To contend in such a sighting that all the witnesses - who all described the object in similar terms – were mistaken, just is not a rational contention. Especially when the alternatives are things that would have been instantly recognisable to them for what they were (like plane, blimp, etc).
Simply, the witnesses saw and described, with a fair degree of accuracy, what was there in front of them.
Let me relate a personal story to illustrate further.
One evening I was sitting inside watching TV. It was a warm, still evening. My wife was outside talking to our the next door neighbour. Next thing I hear my name being called with the exhortation to “come out here. Quickly!” I went out. The two girls were pointing at a large white light (the size of a full moon and as bright as a car headlight) sitting very still in the air toward the North. It looked about 100 meters off the ground and about 500 metres away. It was just hanging there, doing nothing in particular. There was no sound at all from it and it was perfectly still.
No details could be seen in or around the light (for example there were none of the usual coloured navigation strobe lights one might expect if it were a helicopter). Together we commented quietly but excitedly on its size, its brightness, its seeming closeness to us, on the lack of sound, the absolute lack of movement (it did not move one millimetre from its position) and the lack of any other lights or distinguishing features. It was, inexplicably, a large, bright, white light just “hanging” in the sky not very far way from us!
Suddenly the light winked out, reappeared some short distance horizontally to the right (probably about four or five diameters distance - the original size was about 2-3 cm at arms length), although now seemingly somewhat smaller in dimension and with what seemed a slight colour change, then it winked out to reappear at the same distance horizontally to the left of its original position, then winked out again and reappeared exactly where it was before. This all happened literally within the blink of an eye. It was so quick that I was unsure if I had seen correctly. Not wanting to prejudice an answer I quietly asked whether anyone else had seen something occur to the light and if so, what did they see. Both girls stated exactly what I saw happen to the light - their statements accorded exactly with what I observed. We marvelled at this for a bit, then the light suddenly began to retreat directly away from us, gathering speed rapidly as it went, until in a very short time indeed it had disappeared completely, directly away from us into the distance. The whole sighting probably lasted two minutes.
The girls did not see how the light got to where it was, they were simply engrossed in conversation when one of them looked up and saw it hanging there. Then shortly thereafter, my wife called me out to look. We all observed the object for a minute or so, saw it “jump” about, then shortly after we all saw it move extraordinarily rapidly away from us to disappear into the distance.
So, what was this thing? There is no doubt that we observed and described (as above) what was there in front of us. There was no moon, it had not risen yet (besides, the moon is immediately recognisable and never bright like a car headlight). It was not an airplane (it did not move for at least a minute or more), it was not a helicopter (there was absolutely no sound and it was a clear, still evening), it moved away from us very rapidly, more rapidly that any jet plane could have (it was gone within a matter of seconds - so also no blimp, balloon, etc). ).
The bottom line is that there was simply no mistake in our ability to describe exactly what we saw – there was no “misidentification” whatsoever - we saw what we saw and we confirmed among ourselves that each of us saw the same thing. So what was it? Yes it was a “light at night in the sky”, but its characteristics positively ruled out ANY mundane explanation that we could (and still can) can think of.
THAT is a UFO. Pure and simple. Our ability to see and describe it was not compromised in any way. We could do it with relative ease. We did not have to strain our perceptive abilities to view the object – we saw what we saw and what we saw was simply NOT a mundane object.
Now translate that kind of experience into daylight on a perfectly clear “blue-sky” day with the sun at your back – Rogue River. This time, instead of three witnesses, there are five. You see an object that is close enough to you for you to describe its shape as circular (like a coin) and when you apply binoculars, the object reveals plenty of detail which you can then describe accurately – and those details positively rule out any known mundane object.
So along come the debunkers and say “Oh but eyewitnesses are 100% fallible, so they simply could NOT have described accurately what they saw.” I simply say to that proposition: Bunk! They (and we) saw and described the object and events accurately - of course they (and we) did! To suppose otherwise is simply to unreasonably deny the evidence.
The eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time.
That is, to maintain their position, the UFO debunkers MUST uphold the truth of that statement. That is, in 100% of UFO cases the eyewitnesses have misperceived a mundane object.
This, to me, is just pure nonsense. It beggars belief. It defies rationality. For example in the Rogue River case, under near perfect viewing conditions, five witnesses (two using binoculars) observe and describe a circular (analogous to a coin), silent object moving across the sky at the speed of a jet plane. They were able to observe the object for over 1 ½ minutes, so had ample time to “test” their own hypotheses about what it might have been (as in “is it a bird, a plane, a blimp…”) and they arrived at the conclusion that it represented nothing mundane that they knew of.
Two of the witnesses were able to obtain a good enough view of the object to draw fairly detailed pictures of it, showing a finlike structure of top and a “wrinkled” edge around the circle (almost like the knurl on a coin). To contend in such a sighting that all the witnesses - who all described the object in similar terms – were mistaken, just is not a rational contention. Especially when the alternatives are things that would have been instantly recognisable to them for what they were (like plane, blimp, etc).
Simply, the witnesses saw and described, with a fair degree of accuracy, what was there in front of them.
Let me relate a personal story to illustrate further.
One evening I was sitting inside watching TV. It was a warm, still evening. My wife was outside talking to our the next door neighbour. Next thing I hear my name being called with the exhortation to “come out here. Quickly!” I went out. The two girls were pointing at a large white light (the size of a full moon and as bright as a car headlight) sitting very still in the air toward the North. It looked about 100 meters off the ground and about 500 metres away. It was just hanging there, doing nothing in particular. There was no sound at all from it and it was perfectly still.
No details could be seen in or around the light (for example there were none of the usual coloured navigation strobe lights one might expect if it were a helicopter). Together we commented quietly but excitedly on its size, its brightness, its seeming closeness to us, on the lack of sound, the absolute lack of movement (it did not move one millimetre from its position) and the lack of any other lights or distinguishing features. It was, inexplicably, a large, bright, white light just “hanging” in the sky not very far way from us!
Suddenly the light winked out, reappeared some short distance horizontally to the right (probably about four or five diameters distance - the original size was about 2-3 cm at arms length), although now seemingly somewhat smaller in dimension and with what seemed a slight colour change, then it winked out to reappear at the same distance horizontally to the left of its original position, then winked out again and reappeared exactly where it was before. This all happened literally within the blink of an eye. It was so quick that I was unsure if I had seen correctly. Not wanting to prejudice an answer I quietly asked whether anyone else had seen something occur to the light and if so, what did they see. Both girls stated exactly what I saw happen to the light - their statements accorded exactly with what I observed. We marvelled at this for a bit, then the light suddenly began to retreat directly away from us, gathering speed rapidly as it went, until in a very short time indeed it had disappeared completely, directly away from us into the distance. The whole sighting probably lasted two minutes.
The girls did not see how the light got to where it was, they were simply engrossed in conversation when one of them looked up and saw it hanging there. Then shortly thereafter, my wife called me out to look. We all observed the object for a minute or so, saw it “jump” about, then shortly after we all saw it move extraordinarily rapidly away from us to disappear into the distance.
So, what was this thing? There is no doubt that we observed and described (as above) what was there in front of us. There was no moon, it had not risen yet (besides, the moon is immediately recognisable and never bright like a car headlight). It was not an airplane (it did not move for at least a minute or more), it was not a helicopter (there was absolutely no sound and it was a clear, still evening), it moved away from us very rapidly, more rapidly that any jet plane could have (it was gone within a matter of seconds - so also no blimp, balloon, etc). ).
The bottom line is that there was simply no mistake in our ability to describe exactly what we saw – there was no “misidentification” whatsoever - we saw what we saw and we confirmed among ourselves that each of us saw the same thing. So what was it? Yes it was a “light at night in the sky”, but its characteristics positively ruled out ANY mundane explanation that we could (and still can) can think of.
THAT is a UFO. Pure and simple. Our ability to see and describe it was not compromised in any way. We could do it with relative ease. We did not have to strain our perceptive abilities to view the object – we saw what we saw and what we saw was simply NOT a mundane object.
Now translate that kind of experience into daylight on a perfectly clear “blue-sky” day with the sun at your back – Rogue River. This time, instead of three witnesses, there are five. You see an object that is close enough to you for you to describe its shape as circular (like a coin) and when you apply binoculars, the object reveals plenty of detail which you can then describe accurately – and those details positively rule out any known mundane object.
So along come the debunkers and say “Oh but eyewitnesses are 100% fallible, so they simply could NOT have described accurately what they saw.” I simply say to that proposition: Bunk! They (and we) saw and described the object and events accurately - of course they (and we) did! To suppose otherwise is simply to unreasonably deny the evidence.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Your posts are nonsense Rramjet. Why bother?
Limbo
Jedi Consular
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- Messages
- 3,077
Yeah. But you and I are UFO eyewitnesses. We have an advantage - we know that at least one eyewitness is right.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
You still need to prove they were 100% accurate in their description in order to bolster your claim that what they saw was something exotic. Otherwise, there is the potential for error (witnesses do make mistakes). As a result, we have to conclude that it is more likely that the witnesses think they were seeing a "disc" when they were actually seeing something else (see Catalina Island case for example). Of course, you could prove they were 100% right by establishing the fact that such a craft existed.
BTW, if witnesses are so reliable, why did highly trained and experienced Japanese pilots during the Battle of Coral Sea confuse an oiler for an aircraft carrier? The oiler had no air cover and the search planes could examine it at their leisure with binoculars. For some reason they still could not figure out that it was not an aircraft carrier. As a result of this error, their inaccurate observations caused their commander to launch an air attack on the wrong target.
BTW, if witnesses are so reliable, why did highly trained and experienced Japanese pilots during the Battle of Coral Sea confuse an oiler for an aircraft carrier? The oiler had no air cover and the search planes could examine it at their leisure with binoculars. For some reason they still could not figure out that it was not an aircraft carrier. As a result of this error, their inaccurate observations caused their commander to launch an air attack on the wrong target.
Last edited:
- Status