First, the sarcasm is unnecessary. Your accusing "debunkers" of unwarranted derision loses credibility when you respond with scorn to a sincere effort at discussion and debate. I've never insulted you in any way, and I expect the same treatment from you.
Oh…so when a UFO debunker gets a taste of “their” own medicine there is suddenly a complaint? That’s being a little bit hypocritical don’t you think. Where are you while all the other UFO debunkers in this thread are dishing out the ridicule and abuse to me…do you tell them that their approach is “unwarrented”? No, of course not. If you have been paying attention to this thread, it is rare for me to indulge myself in a bit of “tit-for-tat” – mostly I respond seriously and to the point – and yes I get your point about “credibility” but what does THAT say about the credibility of the UFO debunkers posting here? If I lose credibility because of a couple of minor and occasional “digs”, then the credibility of the UFO debunkers should be absolutely shot to pieces by now!
Second, military experimental aircraft are not "unknown". They are in point of fact known and documented to exist. The dozens of X series planes, the Aurora SR-71 replacement, the "Bird of Prey" and other stealth fighters, are all aircraft developed in secret by the US military. They were "unknown" to the general populace at one time, but now their existence has been declassified.
"Alien" aircraft, by whatever definition you choose to apply, are not known or documented to exist.
Explaining UFOs (one unknown) by reference to secret military technology (another unknown) is not an “explanation” at all. Sure there are erstwhile “secret” technologies that have
become known, and you are free to use them as explanations – as long as they
fit the evidence that is.
However,
Unknown “secret” military technology is NOT “known or documented” to exist either!
Speaking in terms of plausibility and probability, as you have often done in this thread, the explanation that the Rogue River object is a classified military experimental aircraft is several orders of magnitude more plausible than that it was an "alien" aircraft.
You simply do not KNOW this statement to be true. It might be
wildly incorrect. We just have no way of quantifying the veracity of this statement. …and sure, the Rogue River object did not actually DO anything startling or unusual (except for “silent running”), but we must remember this was 1949! Do you contend that the military had disc-shaped craft with the ability to run silently at that time? Where has it been hiding all this time? Then when we examine other cases, the “military technology” explanation becomes less and less plausible. Father Gill for example (1959): a silent, hovering craft (humanoid “beings” on top) with the ability of incredible speed… then there are cases like the Travis Walton case, and finally the latest I have presented (1996 Yukon sighting) where the sighted craft was
huge - variously described as “larger than a football stadium”, “half a kilometer long” (or larger!) and so on …WHERE have the “military” been hiding THOSE things?! (
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case96.htm)
Please don't respond with sarcasm or derision. If you're interested in an exchange of facts and opinions, I'm game; but please, approach my effort at discussion with a modicum of respect, and I promise I'll do the same for you. Thank you.
Sure, I respect that.
But perhaps though you can exhort your fellow UFO debunkers to conduct themselves similarly?
I made a serious point. From a slightly moving vehicle, and for no reason whatsoever, I found myself mesmerized, watching a jumbo jet land from the back seat of a taxi, because it literally looked like it was hovering. Do you see why I found this so significant, I actually got the blackberry out and posted it here? Imagine if it was nighttime or hazy or that I was watching it from miles away, or through binoculars or on a boat or something. The point:
THE EYES ARE EASILY FOOLED!!!!!
I thought that I saw something defy the laws of physics. Because it was a jumbo jet and I was near the airport, it was easy for me to accept the mundane explanation, but my eyes still swore that it was hovering. I was picking out landmarks and watching whether it moved across them.
Okay, suddenly everyone is “serious” again. What …don’t you like it when I “respond in kind” to how I have been treated? Huh. Who’d have thought? LOL.
Seriously then, the point is you were NOT “fooled”. You KNEW what you were looking at. The “eye” is NOT that easily fooled. Sure, it
looked somewhat unusual, but you KNEW that! You KNEW what it was.
If it were at night, then there would have been other indicators – like the navigation lights – and ESPECIALLY the passage of time. No-one is denying that the eye CAN be fooled (strictly speaking the brain), however, the point IS that Rogue River was in broad daylight on the clear “blue-sky day” with the sun at the witnesses backs WITH the aid of binoculars, through which the “object resolved”.
This brings me back to the
conditions under which the “eye can be fooled”. They are IMPORTANT in ANY “sighting”. In your case it was your own movement that caused a
momentary (if at all) perceptual illusion. There was NO such condition in the Rogue River case. Simply, we must understand the
context and circumstances of each UFO sighting to determine if there are ANY conditions apparent that are KNOWN to cause perceptual illusion or misinterpretation. If those conditions are NOT manifest, then we are more likely to credit the veracity of the report. We can also USE conditions that ARE present to determine veracity in reports… such as the disparity in distance estimates between the witnesses at rogue River. IF they had ALL estimated the SAME distance, then we might suspect collusion, but because research tells us that such distance estimates ARE prone to error, and we DO note disparities, then this adds credence to the hypothesis that the witnesses did NOT collude and thus adds again to the veracity of the account.
So, what say you after I made this point in good faith, in an attempt to illustrate a concept that you fail to grasp even after dozens of explanations in thousands of posts here? A point which is completely germane to this discussion (which rests entirely on people thinking that they saw something defy the laws of physics e.g., a jumbo jet hovering)???
But we KNOW WHY your “illusion” was created because we understand the
circumstances in which it was manifest. BOTH you and the jet were moving relative to each other to form an illusion that the jet was not moving. Besides it did NOT “fool” you. You KNEW what it was. There is no “defying of physics” here.
You call me a freaking "UFO debunker." What the hell is a UFO debunker? Having seen both 'balls of light' and shooting stars in my lifetime, there is nothing I'd love more than to have these things explained, or to discover alien life forms.
Patently you ARE a UFO debunker because you are trying to debunk UFO sightings (“freaking” is YOUR term – one NEVER used by me!). Plasma balls and shooting stars are KNOWN entities. Why do you “need” them explained?
You, if I recall correctly, were going to provide evidence of aliens? You don't even have the balls to write a hypothesis about aliens. You just make up words that mean different things because you put them in "quotes" or whatever. You are a real piece of work there, Rramjet. I won't be responding further. You deserve the ridicule.
Oh…so suddenly you are no longer “serious”. Huh. You complaint against me becomes hypocritical in the extreme. Take your bat and ball and stalk off in a huff then. I am answering all of your points – seriously – and have always done so. Just because you do not like my answers does not mean that they are not seriously put. I don’t like many of your answers, yet I respond to them, pointing out errors where I see them. That is how a debate works. If you don’t like my answers, debate them!
Just because you don’t
believe I have presented evidence for “aliens” does not mean that I have not presented such evidence. Who (or what) were the “beings” involved in the Travis Walton case? Who (or what) were the beings involved in the Father Gill case. Who (or what) were the beings involved in the Lonnie Zamora case? See,
evidence!
I stated:
“UFOs are “alien” by definition because they defy mundane principles. It is as simple as that.”
No it isn't. They "appear" to defy mundane principles. That's why you have no evidence except eyewitnesses. This entire thread could be about bigfoot and it wouldn't be a bit different.
Perhaps “bigfoot” and “UFOs” are related then!
We have radar evidence. We have photographic and film evidence. We have physical trace evidence AND we have eyewitness evidence.
Yeah, sure, a silent, hovering (for hours) craft only
appears to defy mundane principles (Father Gill). Splitting apart and rejoining while in flight only
appears to defy mundane principles.
Apologies all. I totally understand why you don't take this seriously any longer.
You only don’t want to take it seriously because you have NO serious, rational, plausible argument against my position. Therefore all that is left to you is ridicule, abuse and finally, to pack up your bat and ball and stalk off in a huff!
The colour and style of the logo have clearly changed over the years, so what colour was it in 1949? Do we have a colour photo from that time?
How do YOU
know the colour has changed…? Are you deliberately withholding evidence? And the style is certainly
very similar over time… However, what matters is that it was
designed as an
advertising logo and if you can cite cases where such logos are NOT designed to be clearly visible you might have a case. However, Goodyear wanted to there to be no mistake
whose blimps they were (for example here -
http://www.goodyearblimp.com/archive/). Even if the logo was just “black and white” (because obviously colour had not been invented yet) it is clearly a highly visible logo!
Actually, I was being sarcastic, but given your track record on reading comprehension I'm not surprised that you missed that.
Yeah, right…LOL.
Proof of what? That the Goodyear blimp has "Goodyear" written on the side in big letters? Of course it does. How anyone could deny that is beyond me. However, you have been shown photographs of a Goodyear blimp at a distance of about 1 mile and 5000 feet altitude, and even if the photo had been clear it was obvious from the size that the logo, had it been visible, would not have been recognizable. You were also shown how a blimp would have appeared in the binoculars that were used.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=677
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=765
You failed to show any error in EHocking's maths at the time he posted those images. Any chance you could show us where he went wrong this time round?
Actually, it seems the UFO debunkers are the one’s doing all the
denial around here. LOL.
The “math” is not the issue. It is what is represented that is the issue. It has already been pointed out that the distance estimates were likely to have been in error. Research tells us this is the case. UFO debunkers often cite such research to “debunk” distance estimates in UFO cases – so now you contend the opposite? Besides, Ehocking uses a distance of 4 miles! The extreme estimate to make his calculations! He also does not account for the side view of the blimp (on which the logo is printed). Not only that, he does not account for the evidence that the object “resolved” and details were apparent when the binoculars were used. The distance estimates we simply CANNOT trust as accurate – yet EHocking - and now you - want to use them AS accurate (and then ONLY the extreme outer distance estimate!). Bunk! The eyewitnesses were able to observe plenty of detail on the object, it is the distance estimates that are suspect, not anything else.
I stated:
“Of course not. All I am claiming is that to present blurry photos and to pass them off as what one would “see” with one’s own eyes if one were actually standing where the camera was positioned is erroneous and shows a misunderstanding of the nature of photography and the nature of perceptual acuity.”
In order to make that statement with any degree of certainty requires that you be an expert in such matters. If you aren't, then your statement is merely your opinion, and thus worthless in the court of evidence.
Bunk! You are contending that a blurry photo is an accurate representation of what the eye would see in real life? You don’t have to be an “expert” to realise the fallaciousness of that contention.
The question is, how much did the binoculars increase the visible details, and were there any optical aberrations introduced by the binoculars themselves. You are aware of optical aberrations, aren't you Rramjet?
Quite obviously the use of binoculars increased the visible detail of the object. You simply have not read the witness accounts (thus proving once again the turuism as applied to UFO debunkers
“Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”). Clearly also the binoculars were in good working order. There was no complaint about them from the witnesses, indeed, the application of binoculars enabled details of the object, not apparent with the naked eye, to become visible.
You are simply claiming “optical aberrations”
without evidence (indeed, in direct contradiction to the evidence we DO have) and this IS a confirmation that UFO debunkers will make claims based on NO evidence and IGNORE the evidence there IS, all in order to support their faith-based belief system.
