Oh look....a bowl of peanuts.
Big snip of hand waving and effort to turn a blind eye towards the issues with eyewitness perception. As for the reports that were thrown out, Hartmann was trying to demonstrate that, if the stimulus was not known, these reports would be worthless for determing anything. They had little to them other than the witnesses reported they saw something. There was no data to evaluate.
So when we accurately examine the supposed “inaccuracies” in the witness testimony, it turns out that very few witnesses indeed described the event inaccurately. It turns out the overwhelming majority of witnesses who reported the Zond IV “event” actually reported it quite accurately. And THIS is a conclusion opposite to what is contended by Hartmann and Astrophotographer..
So, are you stating that Hartmann was lying or trying to decieve his fellow scientists? If so, it is amazing that a "pretend" scientist is now accusing a real scientist with credentials of lying and falsifying data because it does not support his interpretation of events.
Read Menzel's book "The UFO enigma" or "UFOs: a scientific debate". I think the testimony of the various witnesses listed is enough to show that there was a certain percentage of witnesses who were a inaccurate as they could be. No matter how you "spin" the testimony, these witnesses were inacurate in concluding what they saw.
Does that answer your questions Astrophotographer? Is that enough “research” on the matter for you?
Nope, all you did was repeat what UFOlogists have stated long ago. I recall reading Brad Sparks make the same argument long ago on UFO updates. You completely have misrepresented Hartmann's argument and you have completely failed to comprehend its implications. Of course, a pretend (I use this term since you have not demonstrated any credentials that you are one) scientist does tend to do these things. The fact remains that some witnesses made gross estimates and poorly reported what they actually saw. If this same person saw another event they perceived to be a UFO, they would probably make the same types of exaggerated reports and mistakes. It would remain "unidentified" simply because the witness report was full of inaccurate statements and made identification impossible (possibly like somebody misreporting a blimp as a circular disc).
Are you really contending that there is no research that concludes that estimating distance and size in a clear blue sky is error prone.
Wrong...wrong...wrong... You are the one that contends you know how to compensate for perceptual errors. However, you have yet to show us how it is done and what research backs up your claims.
I answered your question. You have simply refused to acknowledge my answer! Another typical UFO debunker tactic – just carry on as if your opponent had not said anything at all!
No you didn't. Are you refusing to answer the question?
I asked you to outline the circumstances which lead to the misperception in this case. Of course you cannot do it because on the evidence I assume you actually have no idea of what they might be – and thus I assert you cannot assess other cases to see if any similar circumstances might or might not apply.
According to the book, Blue Skies and Blood (a book I thoroughly enjoyed many years ago) there is enough information to answer your question assuming if you are interested in this information.
The planes stayed right outside of anti-aircraft range (the 20mm's used by Neosho had a range of about 2000 meters, Simms did not have AA guns but used their 5-inch guns in that capacity which had a range of about 11,000 meters at max elevation - but they also had a slow rate of fire). The sky was clear enough for the aircraft to be seen by the crew as it was for most of the battle on the US side of the ocean (The Japanese carriers during the day of the battle were in a more cloudy sky). The aircraft was a Kate bomber or Zero fighter (actually these planes were involved in the attack, which also mistook the target as a carrier). Speeds were about 200-250 mph. The length of the Neosho was 550 feet. The pilots had plenty of time to observe the ships and make reports back to the fleet because that is what they were supposed to do. They used binoculars because it was standard to carry a pair for scout planes. The neosho crews could see two aircraft so at least two men were making the identification (if one were a Kate, then there would have been 2-3 crewmen in the plane). The scout also would use a recongition chart with silhouettes for identification. Despite have the training, no interference from enemy fighter craft, a slow and large target, plenty of time and no duress, they STILL misidentified the ship. Why? How was it possible for these men to make such a critical error about identification? Was it possible that they just made a mistake and that the excitement caught up with them? Is it possible that something similar happened at Rogue River?
We CAN learn from previous cases of misperception precisely under what conditions misperceptions occur. We then note them carefully and examine new cases in light of these revelations. CAN YOU do that?
Exactly what cases did you use to evaluate Rogue River? Feel free to list them so we can learn from the master.
Oh but I am “listening” very carefully and I am making a number of considered points. Clearly however it is YOU who ignore and do not answer the points I make.
No you aren't. You keep claiming that we are stating the witnesses are always wrong. We haven't stated that. We have stated that witnesses can be wrong and there is plenty of reason to question witnesses who report exotic things. Your points are just an effort to convince yourself. You haven't convinced anyone else in here that I can identify.
How do you know it was NOT seen by others? Perhaps others DID see it and simply did not report it. Remember, though people of the era considered it a “duty” in the interests of national security to report such things, there was also a climate of public (media) ridicule associated and so people had to weigh up the two factors. As often as not, many would have chosen to “turn a blind eye” to avoid potential public ridicule. The fact that those who DID report the Rogue River UFO ONLY reported it to their own security people, and as far as we know never divulged it to anyone else throughout their entire lives adds weight to that contention.
I see. The papers talk about flying discs and people report them. However, in this case, nobody reports anything because they were afraid of being ridiculed. The thing is that there really wasn't an "air of ridicule" in May 1949. That happened much later. Even then, people STILL reported UFOs. In 1947-48, project Sign was very serious about the UFO question. A series of articles in April-May 1949 by Sydney Shallett for the Saturday Evening post did not "ridicule" witnesses. A public press release by the USAF on April 27th did not ridicule witnesses either. They stated they try and investigate, and that "the saucers are not a joke". Feel free to demonstrate that in May 1949, there was a popular concern by the general public concering "ridicule" for reporting UFOs. This is just an excuse for why nobody else seeing what they reported. Perhaps others did see the UFO but COULD identify it.
Your repeating of the phrase "this is a typical UFO debunker tactic" sounds more like a religious mantra than an argument. This kind of repeating just demonstrates you are interesting in finding a way to demonize the other point of view.
