I stated:
“The problem you (persistently) seem to have is that you seem to believe that the mere statement of unfounded assertion will somehow magically confer veracity on that assertion. I don’t know how to put it so that you (and other posters here) will
get the point. Perhaps if I stated that such a belief is an
irrational belief?”
2034 pages of arguing over the veracity. Backs up my assertions that no one is dismissing out of hand, the cases you have presented and that in each case, big holes in the data and the logic used has been pointed out.
2034 pages of arguing over the veracity. Backs up my assertions that you are dismissing the evidence out of hand in the cases I have presented - and that in each case, big holes in your logic have been pointed out.
Now we are even. Where do you want to go from here? Surely you can see
now that your belief that the mere statement of an unfounded assertion does
not somehow magically confer veracity on that assertion? Unless of course you
prefer to pursue (what to me is a) childish and immature debating style (“he said/she said/no I didn’t/yes you did…” - which invariably ends in a shouting match and tears).
I stated:
“Is it plausible to suppose that highly trained engineers and analysts, employed by the US army to track and record data on secret rocket tests at a nuclear facility, where precision and accuracy are critical, would not account for error margins in their calculations?”
Yes of course it is plausible that they wouldn't.
The US military employs a teams of engineers, researchers and analysts to track the data from rocket and missile tests. “Hey guys, how did that last shot compare with the previous one? Was it faster, higher, what direction, how much fuel, what weight, etc...?” “Gee boss, not so sure, we can make a good
guess, but you see, we don’t account for error margins, so…(shrugs)”. “Sure, don’t sweat it, close enough is good enough. Oh, I know, lets go to the moon! Oh, and about that O-ring …Johnson, you got the measurements for that yet?”
But the contention here isn't if they did or not, but in discovering what those error margins were.
This is a red herring. The analysts put their
name to the reported data. That simply means that they were confident
in the data. We
know from the report written for Dr Mariachi that the analysts would not report data unless they were confident in it.
But answer me this: Do you think it's totally implausible for trained engineers and analysts, employed by the US army to track and record data (in ANY situation) where precision and accuracy are critical, to make errors?
Ah, the old “bait and switch” tactic. We were talking about
measurement error, not human error. Once again though your line of argument represents a direct attack on the professionalism of the US military and its employees. It also represents a “wave of the hand” dismissal of the evidence (“There could have been errors in the data, so it can be dismissed”). It
also represents a “shifting of the burden of proof” (if you claim errors, then it is up to you to show where, how and why). No, given the professional status of the personnel involved and the high stakes attached to errors in such a job, unless you can demonstrate errors, we must assume the data is accurate.
The truth is that there is no real need for anyone to utilise a mechanism to instill a public climate of ridicule. People like Billy Meier, Jim Dilettoso, Steven Greer, Hoagland, Maussan and a host of others do that perfectly well without the help of the underhand gummint misinformation agencies.
Yet such a mechanism exists and has been effectively utilised – go figure (
http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf).
Even your favourite Bruce Maccabee has had his moments in the spotlight that have hardly furthered the cause of UFOlogy.
Funny how you somehow expect Ufologists to be Godlike and never make a mistake – yet according to you, highly trained military scientists can’t
help but make them - and their reports can therefore be ignored as inaccurate…(Dr Maccabee is both a Ufologist and a trained military scientist – perhaps that is where your confusion arises?).
You stated:
” even UFOlogists didn't put it forward for Condon because it wasn't deemed good enough”
I replied:
” This is merely a wild and speculative unfounded assertion”.
You replied:
” The proof of this assertion is that it was not put forward by UFOlogists who were asked to present their best cases. Therefore we must conclude that the UFOlogists didn't consider it to be one of their best cases.”
I then stated:
” It might then surprise you to know that many (if not all) serious Ufologists do not consider Roswell to be one of their “best cases”. Certainly I do not (otherwise I would have presented it long ago).”
The reasons for the inclusion (or not) of a case in Condon is an entirely different matter from what “Ufologists” might consider to be “best” cases (do you even know if Roswell was or was not "put forward"?).
"Crocket started filming", "Grant said", etc. It's obvious that this is a recapitulation from unknown sources. You've been informed before that hearsay is unreliable. There is NO way to be sure from this text that radar picked up the same light as was seen.
Dr Maccabbee flew to New Zealand and interviewed the pilot and co-pilot a few days after the incident. Other participants were interviewed beginning the day after and many times over the coming months for various newspapers and magazines. The news reporter on board also made notes at the time of the incident – and the co-pilot also wrote down his personal recollections less than three days after. There is also the film taken by the cameraman.
As can be seen in this particular case, the level of detail is not enough to draw any conclusions from. For example, how many lights were seen and which one returned an echo on radar?
It becomes quite obvious that you have not bothered to examine the evidence in the case – and of course that does not surprise me in the least – for if you had done so you would know the answers to your own question. Perhaps when you have done so you can get back to me? (A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978 - (
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/A History of NZ Sightings 12 31 78.doc)
Exactly my point and the reason I objected to your claim that we have "multiple witnesses, radar, film and physical trace evidence" (
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6722399#post6722399)
We don't have that.
We
DO have all that evidence and more… sure we don’t have a
conjunction that
includes physical trace evidence in the NZ case… but that does nothing to lessen the
significance of a conjunction of multiple eyewitness, radar and film
in that case. In other cases we have other conjunctions.
You, or I, don't know how large the error margins were because NOONE REPORTED THEM. My point with this part though, was to point out that you lie when you claimed that groups of 30ft wide objects were repeatedly filmed travelling at 150 000 ft.
I quoted:
”…Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:
a). The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b). The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c). The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d). The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.
(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit”
And stated:
” In 1950, groups of objects of 30ft diameter were repeatedly filmed travelling at high speed at an altitude of 150,000 feet.”
How is that a lie?
Just as you lied when you said that there was no technology to put any kind of object at that height during this time. Nice try to dodge that critique.
So, I am human and make mistakes. You could have simply pointed to a website that indicated my mistake (eg;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17489642/NASA-History-V2-A4-Rocket-Technical-Development-Data-1965). Instead you chose simply to call me a “liar”. To me that indicates a mindset that is more interested in character assassination than in uncovering and disseminating correct information.
I stated:
” Let me ask again: Is it plausible to suppose that highly trained engineers and analysts, employed by the US army to track and record data on secret rocket tests at a nuclear facility, where precision and accuracy are critical, would not account for error margins in their calculations?”
Why do you continue with this strawman? It must be deliberate by now. Noone has claimed that they didn't account for error margins. THEY DID NOT REPORT THEM SO WE CAN'T KNOW HOW LARGE THEY WERE.
Okaaayyy… Let me ask you another question then: Would highly trained engineers and analysts, employed by the US army to track and record data on secret rocket tests at a nuclear facility, where precision and accuracy are critical, report data, without stating any error margins that would make the data reported meaningless in the context (as you imply the data reported is meaningless)?
What do you mean with "groups of these objects"? Why do you assume all objects were the same? Unfounded assertion, confirmation bias...whatever.
You mean a “mothership” and some “scouts” maybe? Or perhaps you mean some were “alien transport ships” and others “alien fighters” maybe? What exactly
do you mean?
We have this from the report to Dr Mirarchi:
” It has been reported that objects are sighted in some number; as many as eight have been visible at one time. The individuals making these sightings are professional observers. Therefore I would rate their reliability superior. In both cases photos were taken with Askanias.”
and we have this from the analyst’s report:
” ”…Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:
a). The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b). The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c). The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d). The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.
(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit”
All that suggests to me that the “grouped” objects were not particularly distinguishable from one another.
Re: Venezuela (
http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG ):
No, it is not my job to do a profile of the victims to show that they are telling the truth. That's your job. Burden of proof remember? Do it or admit you're just guessing.
Yes, and I did that. Your job, if you claim they were lying, is to produce the counter-evidence to that which indicates veracity in the victim’s story.
No problem, I work at one of the worlds top 100 universities, I have access to all necessary literature when I need to. However, burden of proof is on you. You show your work on how you came to the conclusion that the victims are telling the truth.
Again the “bait and switch” tactic. Your contention was that no-one short of a forensic psychologist would be able to “profile” the article to determine clues that indicate veracity. My claim was that there exists a body of academic literature that allows that very thing (not to mention “common sense”, logic, and general experience). According to your statements here you will have no problem in following up the links I provided and researching the topics of human motivation and the impact of cultural diversity on human motivation further.
That's why you need evidence for "aliens" rather than evidence against the mundane. Got any?
You see, this is your major problem. I have never claimed ET was the answer. And I have repeatedly denied that we can draw that conclusion based on the evidence (and, I seem to remember, I have directed those statements to you specifically on numerous occasions). I have consistently maintained that we do not
know the answer. All I can do is direct you to the evidence that shows that in many cases UFOs defy mundane explanation. I am sure you are familiar with the old saw “You can lead a horse to water…”?
wollery, I am not about to embark with you on a RoboT-esque “mindgame” of “Guess what I am thinking of” and then, no matter what I say, you will reply “Nope, try again”. I’ll simply wait until you explicitly name “what you are thinking of” - as you have promised to do - thank you (I have my doubts that you will, RoboT never did).
Moreover, I am sure you are familiar with the child’s game of “Twenty Questions” (sometimes called “Animal, Mineral, Vegetable”)? This game illustrates the process of elimination admirably. In fact you could say the process works so well that even a child can understand and carry it out. It is a rare occurrence indeed if the “thing that is being thought of” has not been identified within twenty questions. It is a simple matter of the direct application of the process of elimination that allows this to happen. Yet here we have a group of self proclaimed academics (wollery, Jocce, Stray cat) who, it seems, claim that they cannot apply the process in the real world. Why is that I wonder? If a child can do it…
I also note that you ignored the rest of my post, which included a challenge to provide evidence for incorrect assertions you made about my statements. Why did you ignore it?
In general I simply considered that the questions you posed were answered in my replies to the others and therefore I did not want to repeat myself unnecessarily. Possibly you might not be reading over those replies? I recommend you do so. If you then have any outstanding questions you might like to ask, put them forward and I will consider my replies (understanding of course that I am in no way obligated to reply…)
As for your “direct challenge”, I presume you mean this little exchange:
I stated:
Your original argument was that we should dismiss these things because we don’t have an explanation for them.”
You replied:
” Please show where I said that or retract it. I never said we should dismiss anything. That's your (incorrect) interpretation of my statements.”
You
originally stated:
You need to provide a positive explanation of what UFOs are, rather than eliminate what they aren't.
I would simply ask you to consider the meaning behind that statement. That is, if I
don’t “explain” UFOs, what are the consequences? - and you did imply a definite consequence with “You need to…” – so what
is that consequence if it is not a
dismissal of the conclusion of “UFO”?
