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.
I specifically took the time explain to you the context of my statements and that I did not, nor have I ever, called you a liar. It is you sir who attempt to insult and denigrate me by your persistent implication that I mean to do so even after my explanations and comments on the matter.
I did however imply that if you persisted in making false statements then the
temptation definitely existed – but that I personally would
not do so (I would resist that temptation) as I believed it would not be constructive in a civil debate.
Furthermore, at the point in discussion it seemed to me that you actually
wanted me to call you a liar - but also I could see that you might have wanted me to do so merely so that you could use it as a weapon against me in future. I am not biting AstroP – go fish somewhere else.
It was your claim that you can determine the reliability of these reports and then you used the film as an example.
First, it was my claim that we can use the well documented principles of perception (including cognitive heuristics and biases) to assess the reliability of UFO reports.
Second I did not “
use the film as an example” at all – I used a UFO debunker
assessment of the film as an example to show how that UFO debunker assessed the reliability of the observations made by the witness in the case – of which the film provided supporting evidence (or not – depending on your perspective).
Third you
specifically requested a case that I had not presented before in order to provide another example of the ability to use the principles of perception (and/or heuristics and biases) to explore UFO reports for reliability. You got your wish. Here (in case you had overlooked it):
Tremonton, Utah, UFO Colour Film (02 July 1952)
(
http://www.nicap.org/utahdir.htm)
Video including the 1950 Montana film
(
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kwsvnmwks&feature=channel_page)
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.
First, you asked for an example of the ability to use principles of perception to assess UFO reports in a case I had not presented before – I gave you that.
Second, don’t you mean the
pseudoscientific papers in Condon?
Third, I could indeed have linked to the Condon Report (as it is, as you point out, the original source for Hartmann’s assessment) but I was merely providing an exemplar of the very thing you asked for – it did not occur to me that you would nitpick about the
source of that assessment (surely you are not contending that the assessment does not exist or is somehow incorrectly cited in the reference I provided?).
Finally, that Hartmann (in Condon) does attempt to quantify the principle of perception he used in his argument actually supports my own original argument - against your implication that such a quantification is unable to be detailed.
I can only assume you did this because it spun the selective story you wanted everyone to read.
Spun the selective story? It is merely an assessment of the film that
in part runs counter to your own beliefs AstroP – you did note that the article I cited (
http://www.nicap.org/utah1.htm) left Hartmann with the last word on the topic did you not? However, if you have any evidence or logical argument for that report being faulty or otherwise erroneous in other respects – then of course you will be able to put those arguments forward.
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.
Once again, it is merely a report on what various people and agencies made of the film. In fact it contains more debunker assessments that anything else – but if you have any evidence or logical argument for that report being faulty or otherwise erroneous – then of course you will be able to put that evidence or those arguments forward. No? I did not think so.
I must state however that your attempts to obfuscate by labelling the article as “UFO proponent spin” is entirely unwarranted in the case – read it through AstroP - you will see it is in no way prejudicial to either side of the debate – it merely reports on the facts of the case..
Finally, Hartmann clearly uses a principle of perception (the effects of the physical resolution of the eye on objects when viewed at a distance) to argue his case (as cited in that article – in which he has the last word).
This is a "classic" case that is tainted by the UFO proponent opinions.
Really AstroP – how can a case be “tainted” in such a manner? Surely you are not implying that you are so swayed by other’s opinions that you cannot assess the case on its own merits – or are you impugning the intelligence of others in their ability to similarly assess the case? Do you think that your side of the argument (whatever that may be) is so fragile that the mere opinions of “UFO proponents” will unduly influence you?
I asked you to pick raw reports that can be analyzed without the influence of outside sources.
Are you really so unable to assess cases on their own merits without being influenced by the opinions of others?
You have still yet to present your methodology for public examination like a scientist would do
I have provided example after example to demonstrate that methodology in action - in practice and on real UFO cases – if you simply choose to ignore those examples, then I really cannot see how I can help you any further.
You keep uttering catch phrases and words without explaining them or providing applicable documentation to support you.
Your mere statement of false and unfounded assertion will not somehow magically make them true AstroP.
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.
I have provided example after example to demonstrate the principles and methodology in action - in practice and on real UFO cases – if you choose to ignore those examples, then I cannot see how I can help you any further.
If you
really believed what you are claiming, then of course you will be able to support your beliefs with evidence or logical argument. The mere statement of unfounded assertions will not somehow magically make them true AsroP.
Moreover – are you
really rejecting Hatrmann’s assessment of the case (in which you actually claimed above that he quantifies the factors involved) as unscientific and subjective?
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.
It may “
sound like” that to you – and you may repeat those unfounded assertions as many times as you think fit - but merely because
you cannot seem to understand the principles or methodologies involved does not mean that they cannot be applied to assess UFO cases…
The bottom line is that UFO reports can be assessed for reliability using a
variety of methodologies – of which the principles of perception and cognitive heuristics and biases form just a part. I have presented examples of such factors and methodology in practice - as applied now to three separate UFO cases. I am sorry that you choose to ignore those examples (and my arguments), but your mere ignorance in that regard will not make them disappear out of this thread.
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).
You are of course referring to this case:
Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(
http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
I have of course addressed your “points” about that case on numerous occasions and in some detail. That you simply choose to ignore my statements on the matter to then merely repeat those false and unfounded assertions simply means that you are not willing to engage in a civil and rational discussion on the topic.
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 have of course provided a number of examples which detail the application of the principles under discussion to specific UFO cases. That you choose to ignore my statements on the matter to merely repeat those false and unfounded assertions simply means that you are not willing to engage in a civil and rational discussion on the topic.
I also attempted at one point to take a "non-tainted" case from the start and have him apply his method to it.
…and here is where I am sorely tempted to use the “L” word – but civility stays my hand.
He asked a few questions, and then started with unfounded personal insults.
LOL. I love the way your mind works. Your intention is of course to denigrate me by claiming that I have resorted to personal insult instead of reasoned argument. I think perhaps you should look to your own statements before throwing any more stones.
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.
Tell me, what is it you do not understand about the following statement? The mere statement of unfounded assertions will not somehow magically make them true.
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).
LOL. Try as you might to get me to use the “L” word – I am going to resist the temptation.
So I wouldn't hold your breath.
Precisely.
I do find it fascinating that the UFO debunkers in this thread seem to think that their case is so weak that they must resort to the ad hominem and unfounded assertion instead of rationally arguing their case.
What makes ET plausible? Nothing in our knowledge of the natural or technological world rules it out. There are the reliable observations of ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings – and there is the is the multiple eyewitness testimony as well as radar, film, photographic and physical trace evidence. So in the absence of plausible mundane explanations, we can legitimately turn to plausible alternate explanations.
The same can be said about blimps, squid boats and oilwell fires.
I said
plausible explanations. At Rogue River the “blimp explanation” is
implausible because the historical evidence suggests no blimp and the five eyewitnesses described a circular object (like a coin or pancake) with no protuberances, making no noise, travelling at the speed of a jet plane. The
evidence (that you choose to ignore) makes the “blimp explanation” implausible. See here for specific detail (
http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).
In the NZ case, the historical evidence, the multiple eyewitnesses, the radar and the film similarly makes the “squid boat” explanation
implausible. It is the
evidence (that you choose to ignore) in the case that makes the “squid boat explanation” implausible. See here for specific detail (
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html).
In the Campeche case however, it
is plausible that the FLIR can be explained by “oil well fires” – however that does not explain the radar contacts. See here for sepcific detail (
http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/).
A full load of circular reasoning. ET is a plausible explanation for UFO's because these UFO's have been observed?
In the absence of plausible mundane explanations it is legitimate to hypothesise alternate explanations – of which ET just happens to be one plausible alternative (for the reasons I have outlined above).
There is no absence of plausible mundane explanations.
Your mere statement of unfounded assertion will not magically make plausible mundane explanations appear Jocce.
Several has been presented but you still think ET visitations are more plausible than any mundane explanation.
I said
plausible mundane explanations. Any joker can propose mundane explanations (eg; it was a telephone booth dropped from a passing aircraft when the cargo door fell off), but to be accepted, those explanations must be
plausible.
I do believe,
in the absence of any plausible mundane explanations, that the ETH is a plausible hypothesis. That does not mean I believe it is the
correct explanation – merely that it is a
plausible explanation in the context.
That's religious belief showing right there.
Religious beliefs are faith-based beliefs, having no sound basis in evidence or logical argument. The only people I can see in this thread proclaiming such beliefs are the UFO debunkers – who seem to believe that the mere statement of unfounded assertions will somehow magically make those statements true. If religion can be defined in terms of such faith-based beliefs, clearly then you and the other debunkers have religious beliefs.
