Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
- Status
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
My money's still on this explanation too. But then I'm also a girl.
My money's still on this explanation too. But then I'm also a girl.
I also think it is entirely possible that Ufology is not deliberately trying to deceive us and I am not now, nor have I ever been a girl.
Exactly. Which is why anecdotes, especially ones recalled over 30-plus years, are of no value as evidence.
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
At the very least, it shows a sloppy attitude to reporting what is apparently a life changing moment for you. Which in turn indicates a possible sloppy attitude to how you organise and recall your memories. Which will come as no surprise to anyone here, we already know and fully acknowledge such fallability, it seems however, you needed specific examples pointing out before admitting that no one's memory is perfect.
The question then becomes; and how do we tell when it is working correctly from when it is not?
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
No one is doing this.
I think people here have been kind to you in light of your errors.
Prior to this you have claimed to "know" things which you don't have the evidence to know, claimed or at least implied your memory and perception are infallible (and I'm betting that you continue to do so after the page is turned) and that you can tell by talking to someone if they are reliable, which is actually true but not in the way you think it is.
If you are talking to someone, you can tell they are unreliable indeed (because people are unreliable).
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Rubbish. You claim on your website that it rose 200m in the air. HERE, you backed up that "estimate" by declaring that it appeared to rise 2/3 up the mountains in the background - which is about 500m.
This is not down to a metric conversion. Your estimate is wildly off despite you claim of it being , "...based on landmarks of discernable distance based on map measurements with a minimal margin of error for all practical purposes. "
Simple trigonometry demonstrates that your 200m estimate is wildly far off the mark when "landmarks of discernable distance based on map measurements" are actaully checked.
I think you're going to need a bigger spoon.
NOW you claim you have these two songs etched in your brain, yet when MG1962 called you on this you slapped him/her down with
All of which is a text book demonstration on how fallible the human memory is.
It is also a text book example of how proponents of one claim or another cling desperately to "I know what I saw" as an irrefutable "truth", despite their stories being ripped to shreds by the conflicting recollections of their own "anecdotal evidence".
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Your analogy with experimental errors is incomplete. Experimental error, at its simplest form, comes from the smallest value a too can measure. Take a rulerl, as example. Its error margin for any given measurement will be + half of the smallest measurement unit (ex. +0.5mm). Now, if you take several data points, the error margin will not be as simple as that, because you must factor the statistics you used to study the data and also the method used to gauge the final error figure. The methods will also attempt to search for anomalous data points (usually the "tails" of the Gaussian curve, values which are too big or too small and deviate too much from the population distribution). Something probably went very wrong in these cases, take your pick- operator error, typos, the wrong tool was used, the measured object was not part of the study subject, you name it. So, you have the tools' error margin and methdological issues within the experiment. You must also add to this cases where there are errors in experiment design and also on the analysis of the data. As you can see its a complex subject; the more complex is the method, the bigger are the odds of errors seeping in.
Consider the case of chemical assays- The assay itself may have say, a detection margin of 5ppb. This means I can take for granted a result like, say, a 300+5ppbAu? No. 5ppb is the detection limit of the machine. Lots of things can go wrong within the proccess. They range from sample contamination to mistaken or changed tags, passing through operator errors at several stages of the proccess. It doesn't matter how skilled are the operators, how sophisticated is the lab, how tight are its QA/QC norms - **** happens. And if these problems are not detected (and sometimes they are not), the next step which is to build conclusions over the assay results may be compromised. And again **** happens. Its an anecdote, so take it as what it is- I've seen my share of stuff built over chemical assays which were later found to be actually explainable by errors (contamination, switch of sample tags, etc). Now, this is not anecdotal- you know how these errors can be easilly detected in complex proceedures? They are usually irreproductible. Single, isolated data points or data sets.
Now, put this within the context of visual observations (actually the recollection of them). Lots of things can go wrong and generate errors. They will range from seeing something from an odd angle to flaws in our memories of the event. The things that may go wrong also include our conclusions built over these observations. Usually we detect these problems, as in the cases where we somehow recognize it was something seen from an odd unexpected angle. Sometimes, however, something goes wrong and we do not. An UFO sighting might then arise. And guess what? It may be irreproductible. The blimp became a flying saucer. The very same quality UFOlogists use while attempting to explain why there are no reliable data is one of the trademarks of experimental/methodological errors.
Even our memory can betray us. I, for example, can not remember any reports of problems in Hubble related to unit conversions. I remember, however, problems in its optics related to manufacturing issues and upgrades at its hardware, corrected after memorable shuttle missions. I also remember reports of issues related to units conversions being related to the crash of a probe in Mars. You claim to have seen reports of problems related to units conversions in Hubble. Someone's memory is malfunctioning. Maybe mine's maybe yours (that's my opinion, BTW). But this is not the real issue, the real issue is that memories may not be as accurate as they might seem, even if certain aspects are faithfull, some others may not be.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, only goes to show that your confidence in the accuracy of your powers of recollection is misplaced...I've seen reports making mention of the Hubble having errors due to Metric conversions ... and you are saying the Mars probe too now. Only goes to show.Originally Posted by MG1962
No you are thinking of the Mars probe
I think Ufology probably saw a person or party of people letting off fireworks. Possibly home-made ones. There is no reason why all of the different light patterns he reports have to be the same object.
The best part of my little hypothesis is that it is testable. You could go back near the same place and get someone else to go down to the other side of the lake and let off various sorts of fireworks and see if it looks anything similar to what you recall.
He might have to find his old buddies, listen to some Zep, and spark up a few doobies though, if he wants to get the authentic 1974 viewing conditions exactly right...
The best part of my little hypothesis is that it is testable. You could go back near the same place and get someone else to go down to the other side of the lake and let off various sorts of fireworks and see if it looks anything similar to what you recall.
He might have to find his old buddies, listen to some Zep, and spark up a few doobies though, if he wants to get the authentic 1974 viewing conditions exactly right...
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
The haircuts and clothes would be a litte hard to cope with though.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I believe that one space probe went astray because of a misplaced decimal point but I can't be bothered to look it up and it has nothing to do with the OP.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
What steps, specifically, have you taken to eliminate reasonable natural or man made explanations like peyote, mental illness, the often evidenced lousy memory, and the one which is heavily supported by your consistently dishonest arguments, compulsive or pathological lying?
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
I dont know where you heard that - Hubble's issue came from the mirror being manufactured incorrectly, compounded by no one actually testing the mirror before launch
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
He didn't hear it anywhere, because no such thing has ever been reported. He misremembered a report about a Mars probe as being a report about the Hubble telescope. Thereby demonstrating that his memory is as fallible as everybody else's.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
There is that "L" word again. It simply amazes me that you like to hang it out there in almost every post you make. If you want to hurl insults, feel free to do so. Otherwise, stick to the topic at hand.
It was your claim that you can determine the reliability of these reports and then you used the film as an example. You stated you linked it to a "debunker" analysis, which is actually Kevin Randle's entry in Ronald Story's UFO encyclopedia. I would hardly call that a "debunker" article. Why didn't you link to the original scientific papers in the Condon study (where he does quantify all these items you state he did not)? They are also available on-line. http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/case49.htm. I can only assume you did this because it spun the selective story you wanted everyone to read. Again, this is a UFO proponent spin on things but it really does not provide an example of how you use your methodology on determining the reliabilty of these reports. This is a "classic" case that is tainted by the UFO proponent opinions. I asked you to pick raw reports that can be analyzed without the influence of outside sources. However, I am wandering off topic.
You have still yet to present your methodology for public examination like a scientist would do. You keep uttering catch phrases and words without explaining them or providing applicable documentation to support you. Your reluctance to do so appears to indicate that you are not as well informed as you want us to believe or there is no actual supporting documetation that says your methodology is scientific and objective. As I have previously stated, your methodology sounds like a subjective measure that is biased by your own personal opinion on the subject. That sounds a lot like a kind of science being discussed in another thread.
Last edited:
Just passing through, RoboT's mention of Venezuela caught my attention and I had to look to see if Rramjet was going back to that case (or even addressing the many points of mine that he ignored).
But while I'm here, I wanted to point out that in addition to your valid point about him not detailing his method or providing any kind of references or specific methodologies for it, I also attempted at one point to take a "non-tainted" case from the start and have him apply his method to it.
He asked a few questions, and then started with unfounded personal insults. He wasn't able to use his method to determine the facts of the case, nor was he able to "eliminate all plausible mundane explanations" as he claims to do with others. It wasn't scientific or systematic in any way, he just suggested a few mundane things that had already been ruled out and then demanded to know what actually happened (which would obviously miss the point).
So I wouldn't hold your breath.
Last edited:
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
They're of value, just not as empirical evidence for scientific proof of alien visitation. Or you could say that because of your personal opinions on what constitutes value, that because empirical scientific proof is the only thing of value to you, that you personally don't assign it any value. But it certainly has value to other people.
p.s.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Last edited:
- Status