wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,435
That would be great, if I could see the page the video is on!
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Nope, you're incorrect there. You started the thread to prove aliens and UFOs exist, although why you thought you needed to prove UFOs exist nobody but you can think why. You haven't provided sufficient evidence that the debris is alien. Wollery has no burden of proof to prove it isn't alien nor to prove it is anything mundane. Now do you understand the burden of proof concept?
No, you're incorrect. That isn't a claim. What is your actual claim? Do you have anything of substance to claim?
You're incorrect there. That isn't a claim either. You still have the burden of proof according to what you claimed in your OP - to prove aliens and UFOs exist. Why do you think you need to prove UFOs exist?
Nope, you are incorrect there. You have the burden of proof to prove it is alien. You started this thread with an agenda to switch the burden of proof by using weasel words such as "is difficult to reconcile with any mundane object". Either you are claiming it is alien or you aren't. If you are, you have the burden of proof to show that it's alien. If you aren't, why are you bringing it up in this thread at all where you claimed you would prove aliens and UFOs exist. Why do you feel you need to prove something is unidentified?
No, that's incorrect. I've stated that you are attempting to shift the burden of proof but I won't allow you to.
Then why bring it up in a thread where you are claiming to prove aliens exist?
As do we all.
Stating that doesn't make you take it to heart.
Shifting the burden of proof again. Not allowed. You have the burden of proof to prove your OP, is the object alien or is it not?
You haven't made a claim. Try again. Are you claiming it is alien or are you not?
You should start with proving your claim that aliens exist. What is a genuine UFO as opposed to a UFO? Aren't they both simply unidentified? You've been called on this bait and switch with your terms before.
There seems to be a lot of bogus evidence that creduloids will accept. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
No, you are incorrect here. UFOs are unidentified. "Genuine UFO" is a term coined by UFO creduloids.
You didn't outline a theory. Research is NOT throwing a lot of UFO cases up on a forum and asking skeptics to prove them to be mundane. That is simply what you are doing here.
You should restate your OP of claiming that you will prove aliens and UFOs exist then. Why do you feel the need to prove UFOs exist? Everyone in the thread has acknowledged that we see things that we can't immediately identify in the sky.
Hypothesise away. It doesn't address your OP of proving aliens and UFOs exist but feel free. Everyone acknowledges that there are things that we call UFOs.
This is called projecting. You have a belief in aliens. You are unable to prove it. Therefore you say that everyone else has a belief system in not believing in aliens. In the same paragraph, you are attempting to switch the burden of proof. Again.
As far as I have seen, noone has claimed that we're looking at a satellite. It's just one of the things that's been mentioned. A claim would look like this "It is a satellite". "Looks like it could be a satellite" is not a claim ok?
You on the other hand has made a definate claim:
Rramjet said:
I find it rather strange that you can make such a claim when the object is of unknown size and distance, it's trajectory in 3D space is unknown, the camera properties are unknown, the orbital distance and speed of the camera around MIR are unknown, MIR's velocity is unknown...heck...we don't even know which way earth is.
I said it again and I say it again. You're just looking at videos and claim "doesn't look right" but provide no hard data at all to work with. You suffer from confirmation bias my friend.
If you look at how you formulated your initial claim (above), even you should be able to spot the "shifting of goal posts".
Rramjet" said:
First, noone has been talking about ET. It is you who bring it up every time someone says the word alien. Rest assured that we're using the term as per your definition (ie. "alien").
Second, your own definition of UFO excludes mundane objects and thus make all UFO's alien. You even admit that yourself in this same post: in order to advance such research we must first determine for study those cases which represent genuine UFOs and separate them from those which may be explicable in mundane terms
Actually, I think you will find that I explicitly set out to “present the evidence” (note also the title of the thread “UFOs: The Research, the Evidence”). That is not the same as “to prove”.
Because many people don’t believe there are UFOs, only misidentified mundane objects and hoaxes. Are you one of those people?
I repeat, I have never claimed the debri is alien.
Of course he doesn’t. However, as soon as Wollery claimed that the debri was a satellite, then he assumed the burden of proof in respect of that claim.
My understanding is evidenced by my statements in this regard – as is yours.
I claimed the trajectory (of the debri in question) is difficult to reconcile with any mundane object. As you do not recognise this as a claim, then perhaps this is where your misunderstanding of “burden of proof” arises from?
Oh, a strawman combined with a bait and switch? You claimed that I was shifting the burden of proof and now deny that was even a claim on your behalf? Perhaps though you should rely less on your memory of my OP and refer back to it to see what I actually stated...?
In reference to my statement that Wollery has the burden of proof to supply evidence for his satellite hypothesis:
Wollery’s claim, Wollery’s “burden of proof”. That wasn’t so difficult was it? Moreover, it seems you may even be misconstruing what “proof” means. Providing “evidence for” and providing “proof of” are conceptually different terms. One can have evidence without it constituting proof. Circumstantial evidence is a good case in point. Evidence can suggest without necessarily proving.
I never claimed it was alien…
Where in my OP did I state "is difficult to reconcile with any mundane object"?
How does making such a claim “switch the burden of proof”?
I am claiming neither.
I have presented much circumstantial evidence that there exists ostensibly nuts-and-bolts craft that can technologically outperform (even to the extent of seemingly defying physics) anything of human manufacture, that also seem to display intelligent control and that have “beings” associated with them. Can these things be explained by the ETH? Given the evidence is circumstantial, one may be in error in coming to that conclusion.
I never claimed I had “proof”, I merely claimed I would present evidence (oh, and that’s “aliens” in quotation marks because although the evidence suggests associated beings I cannot draw the conclusion that they are necessarily ET…).
I am merely showing that there are things that defy mundane explanation.
RoboTimbo stated:
“Nope, you never shifted the burden of proof.”
I replied:
“You will have to clarify that. First you claim that I am somehow shifting the burden of proof …now you claim the opposite?”
It is then instructive and interesting to note how RoboTimbo responds:
First, your statement here directly denies your own words (“Nope, you never shifted the burden of proof.”) – which is of course why I originally asked for a clarification because that would seem a strange claim to make in the context. Second, your hubris (“I won’t allow you to”) may be a little misplaced?
I stated:
“I have never contended that it was alien.
Do you believe that merely (and repeatedly) stating unfounded and obviously erroneous assertions will make them true? The evidence is circumstantial. While that evidence might be highly suggestive - even compelling, one cannot however categorically conclude ET.
In reference to my claim that the trajectory of the object is difficult to reconcile with a mundane object I stated: “My claim is falsifiable by describing a mundane object whose characteristics could be reconciled with the trajectory we see in the video.”
Another bait and switch with a strawman kicking it off? You excel yourself.
In reference to my theory that UFOs might represent a number of different phenomena…
Again you have employed a classic “bait and switch” technique. Then you accuse me of the very sin you commit?
I have never claimed that UFOs = alien.
You are the one who believes UFOs are actually Unidentified Mundane Objects (UMOs) - hence my use of the distinguishing term “genuine UFO” (or do you deny you believe that UFOs are misidentified mundane objects - or hoaxes?)
UFOs are not “simply unidentified”, they remain unidentified despite rigorous and extensive investigation.
Your “baiting and switching” is excellent work – ever thought of a career in politics?
I agree. There is a lot of “bogus evidence that creduloids will accept” (hoaxed evidence in other words) and that is precisely why I am here – to show that there is a actually substantial body of evidence that is not “bogus”.
Very funny (see this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184657).
So you say.
As you have the burden of proof concerning your unfounded claim here, perhaps you might do a little research in support of that claim and inform us who actually did coin the term?
... yet you actually quoted my theory in preparation for a previous response of yours.
I am simply presenting evidence that I believe shows there are genuine UFO cases that are deserving of further research. What “skeptics” do in relation to that evidence is up to them. I see very little evidence however that you are actually engaging with the evidence I am presenting.
Baiting and switching again? I am merely presenting the evidence. If you consider that proof, good for you, that is your right. If you do not consider that proof, equally that is your right. Besides, I do not “feel the need to prove” anything. What you (or anyone) makes of the evidence I am presenting is up to you and them. I do however reserve the right to argue for or against that evidence as I see fit.
Another bait and switch? I am honoured.
I stated:
“According to your own belief systems you may help in that sorting and collating process, or you may hinder it. That is your right. However, I simply ask that when you do make a claim (or counterclaim) that you actually provide evidence in support of that claim (or at the very least an explanation as to why you believe your claim to be substantive).”
Please tell me how asserting your right to help or hinder according to your own beliefs is “projecting”?
Please tell me how requesting that when you make a claim you actually support that claim with evidence or explanation is “projecting”?
Now that is “projecting”.
And that is the completion of your “strawman argument” (Assert an illusory false premise in order to refute it in an attempt to discredit your opponent’s position).
(not that I actually ever said any such thing… but) If you do not believe in aliens then there must be a belief system supporting that belief…
You keep making this unfounded assertion, yet when I ask you to point out how, or why, or to generally provide evidence in support of your assertion, you never do. Why is that? Could it be because you cannot support your claim here?
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Yes, I realise it's too late now.
But I thought it would be useful for future reference.
Bearing in mind what you had said about being able to see the video originally. If you had down loaded it at the time, the Government blocking the site wouldn't matter because you'd still have a local copy to work with.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
I'm going to go right to the heart of your problem and skip your handwaving.
It is as transparent as new glass and has been since the beginning.
This is what I'm going to point out to you each time you do it.
Ok, I'll explain it one more time. You make negative claims such as "difficult to reconcile with mundane objects" or "doesn't appear to have a mundane explanation". You give cursory explanations for why you have this belief system. Then you ask others if they can come up with mundane explanations. When they do, you pounce and exclaim that they now have the burden of proof to show it is mundane.
It is as transparent as new glass and has been since the beginning.
This is what I'm going to point out to you each time you do it.
You are simply missing the whole point of this thread.
I observe a locked door open and then close for no apparent reason. Even though I can think of no mundane explanation, am I not entitled to point out that this observed fact defies mundane explanation and flies in the face of the concepts of many people who would deny that such things are possible - and that perhaps therefore they should rethink their belief systems in order to incorporate such facts? Of course I recognise that such belief systems are not so easily reassessed. In fact it will be the evidence that is reassessed (how do I know the door was locked? How do I know the wind did not do it? etc) before any belief system is reconsidered. And that is precisely what is happening in this thread.
I present UFO cases that seem to defy mundane explanation - and in doing so invite the sceptics to rethink their belief systems in order to incorporate such phenomena. Of course they will be unwilling to rethink their belief systems (as is their right) - and as is natural so they will demand a reassessment of the evidence.
However, I have no idea how to explain such cases and neither it seems do the sceptics I present those cases to. That mere fact does not however negate my inalienable right to present those cases for consideration to a sceptical world. It is entirely legitimate for me to say “Look, here is a case that does not fit into your sceptical belief system. How do you reconcile this case with your belief system?”
Nevertheless, whenever, in an effort to reconcile a particular UFO case with their belief system, the sceptics claim that a particular case has a particular mundane explanation, then of course they assume the burden of proof in respect of their claim. That is, whenever they make such a claim, they need to support that claim with evidence.
The difficulty you have is not so much with “burden of proof” (for that is pretty straightforward despite your protestations) as with the fact that often, for the UFO cases I am presenting, the evidence in the cases runs counter to any mundane explanation that anyone can think of. And this upsets your sensibilities – it leaves a doubt, a chink, in the armour of you belief systems - and in order to maintain your own belief system you are then forced to find alternate methods of refuting the cases. Your “burden of proof” attack is one such methodology that you have hit on where you think you can do that.
However, you cannot merely argue the cases out of existence. At some point you will have to return to confront the evidence head on. Unless you are in complete denial (an untenable position for a sceptic), at some point you will have to examine what the cases I am presenting actually mean to your belief systems.
In short I am presenting UFO cases that challenge “conventional” belief systems. I believe these cases represent evidence for UFOs and “aliens”. If you do not believe that UFOs are “alien” - or that UFOs do not represent anything other than misidentified mundane objects or hoaxes – then you need to have evidence that supports that belief system. That is your own personal “burden of proof” – for how can you hold a belief system that is not based on evidence? Such belief systems are faith based belief systems – and as a sceptic I object to such belief systems (and thus I present evidence that challenges those belief systems).
You will of course respond that there does exist evidence that UFOs are misidentified mundane objects and hoaxes (and I would agree) - and that is the evidence on which you base your belief systems. However, I am presenting cases that positively defy that evidence - cases that cannot be assigned a "misidentification" or "hoax" label - and it is these cases that challenge the above assignations. If not "misidentification" or "hoax" (or delusion) ...then what?
No amount of bolding of statements in posts and no amount of name calling (“woo”, “creduloid”, etc) and no amount of shifting the focus of burden of proof away from your own belief systems (stating unfounded assertions as if the mere statement of them made them true) and no amount of “baiting and switching” and strawman argument (asserting that the case presenter believes in the ETH and cannot prove it) and no amount of fallacious illogical argument (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) and no amount of denial and ridicule will make the cases themselves disappear.
The UFO cases I have been presenting stand as testament to the fact that something is going on that we cannot plausibly explain in mundane terms and that therefore we do not understand. My hope is that sooner or later enough people will realise that fact and then a proper, peer reviewed scientific research program will be instituted in order to discover what is going on.
You may claim that “science” has investigated and found nothing. However, you would be mistaken. Those research projects that have been properly constituted have found many cases within their remit that they could not explain in mundane terms (eg; Blue Book SP14, Condon, Sturrock, COMETA...). That they were at a loss as to how to explain those cases does not mean that we should simply give up trying.
Properly constituted, peer reviewed scientific research is the key, but in order to make that happen, public opinion must be persuaded that there is a body of evidence that deserves research. I am simply going to one of the sources of the denial and ridicule surrounding the subject of UFOs (for one can hardly deny the JREF is such a source) and seeing what I can do to show them that there exists a body of evidence worth researching. It was never going to be an easy task – some would say impossible – but that does not stop me from trying.
On the latest case: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) I believe the following diagram to be particularly useful and instructive (I think you have to be logged in to actually see the diagram).
Figure 1: NASA 1995 STS74 3D trajectory diagram.
In this diagram we can see represented the observed trajectory of the object as well as the hypothesised true trajectory (from a to b) of the object in 3D space. The challenge is then to explain or create a true trajectory (from b to e) in terms of a mundane object (one must also somehow account for the halt in motion for an extended period at point d). The 3D diagram is then particularly useful as an aid to us in visualising any hypothesis for the true trajectory we may come up with.
When coming up with hypotheses, imagine there are “handles” on the vertical edges of the XY plane and tilt the box up (top toward you) to represent the movement of the stars and shift the box down and to the left to account for the movement of MIR.
Figure 1: NASA 1995 STS74 3D trajectory diagram.
In this diagram we can see represented the observed trajectory of the object as well as the hypothesised true trajectory (from a to b) of the object in 3D space. The challenge is then to explain or create a true trajectory (from b to e) in terms of a mundane object (one must also somehow account for the halt in motion for an extended period at point d). The 3D diagram is then particularly useful as an aid to us in visualising any hypothesis for the true trajectory we may come up with.
When coming up with hypotheses, imagine there are “handles” on the vertical edges of the XY plane and tilt the box up (top toward you) to represent the movement of the stars and shift the box down and to the left to account for the movement of MIR.
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,567
Rramjet, can you reconcile your first sentence in the OP -
"I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”
with your rejection of a claim of aliens:
"I never claimed it was alien…"
“I have never contended that it was alien."
?
Is it this: that you are only presenting *some* evidence that is insufficient to conclude that some UFO is alien, yet somehow suggestive that some UFO is alien because it defies mundane explanation?
"I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”
with your rejection of a claim of aliens:
"I never claimed it was alien…"
“I have never contended that it was alien."
?
Is it this: that you are only presenting *some* evidence that is insufficient to conclude that some UFO is alien, yet somehow suggestive that some UFO is alien because it defies mundane explanation?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
I and many others have easily seen what your point is in this thread. Much to your chagrin.
Referring to the sceptical position as a belief system is called projecting. It is also another tool in the creduloid toolkit. Give an anecdote as evidence for aliens and UFAOs and when that doesn't convince anyone except other creduloids, proclaim the sceptics to have a belief system.
This is called projecting. See above.
This is more projecting and an attempt to shift the burden of proof. See above.
This is projecting and an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
This is projecting and two strawmen.
Guess what? Yep, projecting and attempting to switch the burden of proof.
Strawman, projecting, switching the burden of proof.
In order given, strawman, projecting, strawman, strawman, red herring.
Or, someone will make a positive claim that they will provide evidence for aliens and UFAOs and then provide sufficient evidence to support that.
That's because you've gone about it in entirely the wrong way. I've tried to point out to you that you are doing exactly what UFO creduloids do in trying to prove aliens and UFAOs exist. There are scientists on this forum. Throwing anecdotes up on the wall to see which ones stick isn't going to win converts here. Maybe you should listen to the criticisms of your methods and change them.
Great. When do you plan to start?
And the sceptic position on this is that you have not been able to confirm that the door was locked and that the wind didn't do it in any of the cases you present. A huge number of "maybes" in unrelated observations doesn't equal certainty. You put far to much trust in unreliable observational data and that is what's causing you trouble here. Noone else has such low standards.
It's far to early to rethink anything. You need to present validated data to work with before even trying to reach a conclusion. You just look at videos and pictures and say "doesn't look right, please explain it if you can". Haven't you noticed that it is not working? Is it time to change tactics yet?
Exactly, I wholeheartedly agree. The only difference seems to be that I realize that there is not enough reliable data to analyze in your cases
And it is my inalienable right to ask you to provide unambigous data that I can examine to reach the same conclusion as you have. So far you have failed in doing that.
I agree, if I would claim that this latest case we're discusssing IS a satellite in low earth orbit, I would have to present the evidence for that. So far though, noone has presented any such definate claim in any of the cases. A number of mundane explanations has been presented for discussion in all of the cases and none has been completely ruled out which puts the objects in the maybe "boring" unidentified category. That is fine with me.
Not at all. I don't have a vested interest in UFO's. Don't blame it on me when you fail to present unambigous evidence.
Several people, me included, has gone to great lengths in examining the evidence you present and still find them lacking. I realize that your belief system makes it impossible to see that.
Re. bolded part.
How can you present as evidence, a hundred years old newspaper article about an alledged sighting in a djungle somewhere? Do you have no self critisism whatsoever?
I explained in my OP:
… but I will add that many UFOs display what we can only conclude to be intelligent control (For example: Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976) - http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/) and many have associated beings (For example:The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959) - http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html), but does this necessarily mean UFOs can be explained by the ETH (the common meaning of the term alien)? While ever the evidence remains circumstantial I don’t believe we can be so sure.
That is why I can state that I have never claimed that we can conclude that the explanation for UFOs is ET (aliens), but at the same time there is definitely something “alien” about them.
Oh but we have much more than mere anecdote.
We have incidental confirmation:
Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
We have independent witness confirmation:
The Chiles-Whitted Case (24 Jul 1948)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case116.htm)
We have multiple witness confirmation:
The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
We have military confirmation:
White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
We have RADAR confirmation:
(eg; the Tehran case above, and…)
The Lakenheath Military Encounter (13 - 14 Aug 1956)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bentwaters1956.html)
We have film confirmation:
Great Falls, Montana UFO film (15 Aug 1950)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/greatfalls.html)
We have photograph confirmation:
The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)
We have physical trace evidence confirmation:
Val Jonhson - Minnesota Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug. 1979)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
We have abduction case confirmation:
Police Officer Herbert Schirmer Abduction (3 Dec 1967)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case659.htm)
We even have cases that combine various forms of evidence:
The New Zealand (Kaikoura) UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc)
(in this case a conjunction between multiple eyewitness, radar and film evidence)
…and under each of those categories one could list many cases…
So we can see that “anecdotes” are merely the tip of the iceberg and anyone who claims that we only have anecdotal evidence simply has not looked at the evidence available.
Then you should look at the categorisations of UFO cases in the Battelle study - Blue Book Special report no. 14 - (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf). There the investigators were able to differentiate between “insufficient information” cases and “unknowns”. That is, in a properly constituted scientific study of UFOs, the scientists and analysts were able to distinguish those cases where there was enough reliable information to determine that “the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon” (p.12) and those cases where “there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon.” (p.12)
Wollery stated:
(Bolding mine. Rr)
Wollery and I then proceeded to discuss the case in those terms – trying to “fit” his satellite claim to the data.
Now this is a very interesting report (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) because it is not about UFOs.
..and Maracaibo is a “djungle”? It is the second largest city in Venezuala!
..and Scientific American is a “newspaper”? I think the editors and publishers might just take exception to that assignation.
This is what I mean when I contend that there is a climate of denial and ridicule prevalent within the JREF (and similar organisations). Such places are where cities can turn into “jungles” and eminent scientific publications can be described as “newspapers”. It is also a place where the mere age of evidence somehow negates it – as if evidence somehow degrades the older it gets.
It is interesting to note also that the UFO debunkers recently seem to avoid actually discussing the evidence contained within the cases I have been presenting, instead attempting to claim that somehow the process of me merely presenting that evidence is somehow flawed or that I might have somehow misspoken in making some of my claims about that evidence. The current case under discussion is a case in point.
What the UFO debunkers will not admit to is that the cases I have been presenting represent a challenge to their belief system that the UFO phenomenon can be safely dismissed as misidentification, hoax or delusion. The cases I am presenting cannot be so easily dismissed.
It is interesting to note too that “misidentification, hoax or delusion” are claims about the phenomenon – claims that require evidence to support them. However, when the UFO debunkers are asked to assess their claims in light of the case evidence (such as the ones I have posted above) or the research evidence (such as the Battelle study), they cannot seem to mount a coherent argument in support of those claims.
Instead they resort to general charges such as name calling (“creduloid”) and claiming “low standards” of evidence and “strawman, projecting, strawman, strawman, red herring” and “switching the burden of proof” – and yet even while making these claims they never support them with evidence that their claims have any substance. It is as if they somehow believe that merely stating their unfounded assertions confers some sort of veracity on them. For example they never state: “That is a stawman argument because…” or “The evidence you are presenting is not sufficient because…” or “The case you have presented here is a misidentification because…” or “You are shifting the burden of proof here because…” or “The case you have presented here is actually a mundane object because…” No, they merely make the charge and never explain why they believe the charge has any merit. In that respect they are indulging in a mere “mud-slinging” exercise.
All I am asking is that the UFO debunkers support their claims with evidence, just as they ask me to do whenever I make a claim.
Concerning the latest case (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) I then ask people to respond to my previous post here…
…in light of the claim that the object is a satellite – and if a satellite cannot be fitted to the data, then has anyone any other suggestions concerning what it might be?
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
I'll give it a shot:
A small piece of caked ice breaks off of the shuttle near the camera port, and floats away from it. The shuttle, meanwhile, is still maneuvering around MIR; very subtly, because station keeping in orbit is a very subtle activity. At some point, the pilot slightly changes the velocity of the shuttle. The ice particle, which is perhaps now 5 - 10 m away (very much closer to the camera than MIR), seems to change direction. However, as the change in velocity of the shuttle is perhaps a few cm/s, our position relative to MIR does not change perceptibly.
What do I win?
How can you type the first sentence with a straight face and follow up with a link to a hundred years old article in a magazine? It's an anecdote. Someone wrote about what someone else alledgely saw.
The majority of the remaining cases has been discussed alread and the lacking quality of your "evidence" has been pointed out to you. That you fail to acknowledge that is your biggest problem.
Rramjet said:
Then it's off topic for this thread and you should remove it. It's not evidence for anything anyway.
Rramjet said:
Your evidence is underwhelming and does NOT convince me that "alien" objects are seen. Deal with it. Your firm belief in "aliens" leads to a confirmation bias which is obvious to everyone but yourself.
Rramjet said:
A lot of work has been put into this by several members of this forum. So far we have not been able to make you realize that you don't have any unambigous evidence for anything. We are all happy to leave these objects as pure unidentified. You read far too much into whatever small pieces of data we have available. You are not following proper scientific procedure at any time that I have seen. Then you accuse us of being blinded by our belief systems?
Rramjet said:
Start presenting validated data and you might get different responses.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Oops! Didn't you forget to include Campeche in your list? We have FLIR from two different instruments and numerous witnesses (trained military observers).
You win my appreciation and respect for having a go and putting forward an ostensibly rational and plausible account of the object. I actually think this account is more plausible than the satellite account. The trajectory simply changes too much for it to be a satellite.
So let's work with this account and follow the trajectory and see if it can be reconciled.
Referring back to the diagram here:
We must first draw the conclusion that between points a and b, the object is travelling away from us (because it appears to be slowing down when, if it were a piece of ice, then it could not actually be doing so).
Now, what happens between points b and c? According to the hypothesis put forward by H’ethetheth it must mean that the shuttle has manoeuvred (rotated) upward. Given that we know the shuttle is already rotating upward (shown by the movement of the background stars) this would represent an increase in the speed of that motion. The question then becomes: To confirm this, is it reasonable to suppose this motion would be reflected in the motion of the background stars? In other words would that increase in speed of the shuttle’s rotation be reflected in a corresponding increase in the speed of the stars “drifting” down the screen, or is it too small a change to be seen?
Obviously, to answer this question, we will need to measure the rate of drift of the background stars. If we notice an increase in the rate of drift, that would act to confirm the hypothesis to this point (or at the very least it would not negate it).
But before we do that, let’s get a conceptual picture of the rest of the trajectory with respect to the “ice debris” hypothesis.
What then happens between points c and d? That trajectory change must mean that once again the speed of the shuttle’s upward rotation has increased (remember the true trajectory of the object maintains a straight line trajectory at some angle away from us).
The object then halts all observed motion at point d. What does this mean in terms of the shuttle’s motion? First it must mean that the shuttle has begun rotating from right to left and in so doing has perfectly matched the object’s observed right to left momentum (let's leave arguments concerning the plausibility matching of various momentums aside for now). Second, at the same time, the upward rotation has slowed down to return to that speed it was between b and c (when the object was travelling parallel to the bottom of frame).
This would mean that at point d, the background stars must begin moving left to right at a greater rate than they have been doing to this point.
Then what happens between d and e once the object resumes motion? Obviously the upward rotation of the shuttle increases speed again to (approximately) what it was between c and d while the right to left rotation is maintained.
Before we take measurements to see if we can confirm all of that, one other thing is particularly noteworthy. The object is receding from us at a set rate. However, once it reaches point b, it no longer appears to be doing so. That is, the intervals (as measured here [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=574&pictureid=3661[/qimg]) remain pretty much constant – or even in fact increase and then decrease again between c and d. What can this mean in relation to the shuttles motion? That the object is no longer receding? That cannot be it - for example between points d and e the object is obviously still receding – so much so that it actually disappears beyond the limits of camera resolution (somewhere about point e).
Okay, if the object is still receding, then how can we reconcile that with the shuttle’s motion? At point b the shuttle must also then begin to move forward (into the picture).
Good, under the “ice particle broken free from the shuttle” hypothesis, we can then reconcile the trajectory of the object with the motion of the shuttle.
What remains is to take the appropriate measurements to see if we can confirm these motions.
Note: Jocce has previously asked for measurements to be taken, but before we had a hypothesis to work with, we did not know what measurements should be taken or what any measurements that might be taken would be telling us. This is why I persisted in a conceptual framework until we had a plausible hypothesis to work with that we could either confirm or refute by taking specific measurements.
Of course the first hypothesis put forward here was that the object was actually receding from us and measurements of the object’s relative velocity were then taken.
For the satellite hypothesis, no measurements were needed beyond what could be directly observed because the trajectory of the object simply could not be plausibly reconciled with that hypothesis.
Returning now to the “ice crystal” hypothesis and the conceptual understanding of the shuttle’s motion as outlined above, the most relevant measurements to take would obviously be related to the motion of the background stars, for any change in rotation of the shuttle should be reflected in their motion. It only remains to be seen whether the resolution of the film is high enough to allow the measurements required to be taken to the degree of accuracy needed.
Of course someone should check my conceptual formulation of the shuttle’s motion above to see if I have got it right. I could be mistaken…
Nevertheless, when time permits I will undertake as an initial analysis the motion of the background stars and report back as soon as I have completed that task ( I suspect that 5 sec intervals will be too long and perhaps I will drop that to 3 seconds, 2 if the resolution allows).
My methodology will be to take snapshots from the video at the prescribed time intervals, then transfer them to Photoshop, measure the X Y coordinates of some prominent stars (Orion's belt drifting down the left of frame is a good candidate) and then plot those coordinates on a graph that I can post to the thread. This will obviously take some amount of time but I should be able to accomplish the task within a couple of days or so.
If anyone can see any flaws in my methodology or conceptualisations – or has relevant information about the video that I might have missed - I would appreciate their input at this point.
Frying Dutchmen
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 387
I feel RRamjet has a love hate relationship with Campeche, one moment it's solved and clearly not a UFO(his term) Then it's there was a UFO(his term) but it wasn't what they captured on the FLIR
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
Though I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'm not sure what any of this is supposed to achieve. The shuttle can translate in 3 directions and rotate about three axes. It can follow any desired trajectory, meaning that an ice particle may appear to follow any thinkable trajectory in the camera view.
You would need at least two particles in view to be able to see if the changes in motion can possibly be consistent, but even then, it depends on the initial relative velocities of the particles and their size and distance.
So, good luck, I guess.
Are you talking about a rotation around it's own axis to keep the space station in the center of the view or it's rotation around the space station or around the earth or what? Are you defining upward with respect to the FOV or with respect to something else?
- Status