Excuse me while I take out my scissors to remove the clutter.
What on earth are you talking about? What “selectively apply”? Have you not read any of my detailed explanations or examples in my preceding posts? What is it that you do not understand about those explanations and examples? You never quote them – so have you even read them? What do you want AstroP?
Your examples are simply examples. They are not tested. However, let’s start with your claim that:
“someone reporting size against a background of a clear blue sky – in such a report we could not rely on the size being accurate and could not therefore base any conclusions on (or about) the size.”
However, when it comes to Rogue River, you throw that out because:
“In that case there were multiple eyewitnesses and the object was moving toward, across and away from their fields of vision.”
There is no evidence that a group observing together is going to be any more reliable than a single observer when observing an object against a clear sky. I have provided case histories from Hendry, which state the exact opposite in regards to multiple witnesses. There is also no evidence that such movement guarantee’s accurate estimates and there is no evidence that multiple witnesses together are going to guarantee accurate observations. No citation of papers demonstrating this.
“Two of the witnesses also utilised binoculars. We also know the power of those binoculars and the type of details that were able to be discerned (wrinkled, dirty skin for example). “
You present no evidence that binoculars guarantee accurate estimates since all it does is magnify the image. It gives no range. No citation of papers showing how this helps. I have given examples where Hendry, which state optical aid is not a guarantee of accurate observations and sometimes led to inaccurate observations.
“they also has reference to the terrain surrounding them…”
How can earth terrain help in estimating distances in the sky? No citation of papers showing how this helps.
You then move on to give us a range of possibilities even though we have no real information to work with other than the estimates given by the witnesses, which you admit can not be considered reliable.
I also would like to point out a previous exchange we had regarding time estimates made by witnesses.
Rramjet:
“However, in the context of an event like Rogue River, exactly the opposite occurs. Here the witnesses are not only busy trying to determine what the object might be, they were probably somewhat excited that they could not identify it and would have been pondering what THAT meant. In THAT context, as the research has shown, time “speeds” up. That is the observer believes a shorter interval has passed than reality.THAT is the research. THOSE are the findings.” Post 2275
What Rramjet says here is that if somebody says it took 5 minutes, then it must have been more like 10 minutes. (note the lack of any supporting documentation)
I responded that the research does not show this. I quoted Loftus:
Both males and females overestimated the amount of time they thought they had viewed the target. Females reported that they had viewed him for an average of twenty-five seconds while males claimed it had been seven seconds on the average. Thus we have ample evidence that people overestimate the amount of time that a complex event takes. Furthermore, there is evidence that when a person is feeling stress or anxiety, the tendency to overestimate the passage of time is increased even further (Sarason and Stoops 1978)...... (Loftus Eyewitness testimony 30-31) Post 2277
This means when a witness states it took 5 minutes it was probably less than that. That is the exact opposite of what Rramjet says his unknown research states. However, Rramjet took this to mean:
“And so it is PRECISELY as I contended. In traumatic events, subjective time is dilated (slowed). In exiting or otherwise normal, but busy events, time is compressed.” Post 2282
You selectively read what you wanted to read even though your conclusion is 180 degrees out of phase with what Loftus stated.
Of course, I could also point out your flawed belief that the trajectory of a meteor can be determined by one observation point even though I presented citations stating that it was impossible. Like Loftus, you turned it around in some bizarre selective reading to state I misunderstood what they author stated. In this case, you are ignoring the obvious perception issues associated with your conclusions. I won't even mention how it violates your own present argument that you can't make estimates of distance against a clear sky! Oops....I just did.
All of these demonstrate that you selectively apply these principles you claim to be using.
Either you simply do not understand the perceptual principles involved – and for a self- proclaimed amateur astronomer I find it extremely hard to believe that you would not have at least some conception of what I am talking about – or you are deliberately attempting to obfuscate – and that merely because you have dug yourself into a hole and cannot admit when you are wrong?
I am still waiting for you to provide citations that back up your statements. I have in the past presented case histories and actual research to demonstrate that they are incorrect (See above). If the “principles of perception” are so easy to apply, why don’t you show how you apply them to these statements?
You want me to assess an unknown report from a month’s worth of reports from two databases? No way AstroP – I am not going to spend my time researching and presenting reports from such databases only to have you reject them. YOU pick a report and we’ll go from there. YOU claimed the principles do not (and cannot be) applied. YOU wanted a case for assessment. YOU pick that case.
I hear “clucking”. Why aren’t you interested in doing some research on the subject? Is it because you want some UFOlogists or UFO website to tell you what to think? The purpose of this exercise is for you to demonstrate how good your methodology is at determining what are reliable UFO reports based on the reports themselves. You spend plenty of time arguing endlessly here so time is not that big a concern. BTW, picking one case is not good enough. You need a bigger sample. This is why I picked this database. I also selected this month because everything is still fresh and you can look up things easily. However, I will cut you some slack. Just use the NUFORC database (the MUFON database often is missing good locations/times). There is a few hundred raw reports there you can cull. If your process is good, you can weed through these databases rather quickly and find the “reliable” reports for discussion. I have done it before in regards to going through the database at NUFORC to locate potential fireball reports to match up with the AMS database. All you have to do is go through the reports and weed out the unreliable ones. My guess is you may end up with less than 10 (maybe 20-30 depending on your belief factor). At that point, you can then select the best of these to present (maybe 6 or so). It would be a refreshing approach for this forum. However, I can understand your reluctance to take up such a challenge. You might discover that in some 400 or so reports that there really isn’t much there. It might burst your bubble.
“I am an amateur astronomer and I conduct science” is your claim.
I don’t think I ever made that statement. Maybe you could point me to that quote, so I can see the context. Perhaps you have misunderstood what I stated. I have conducted observations and photographs that have been used by scientific organizations but I have never conducted science in the manner you infer.
I have never claimed to be anything at all (well I did once, in a moment of rashness, claim to be a qualified scientist, which I am – but of course the evidence for that would mean I would have to reveal who I am – and given the level of vitriol and abuse that has been directed toward me in this forum - I am simply not prepared to do that – I have a family to protect and I do not want to expose them to such – even potentially).
You were the one who put it out there as if it meant that your arguments carried greater weight. Are you stating that we skeptics are going to seek you out and attack your family if you presented your credentials? You have to be kidding me. That is just sad….
I simply don’t care what label, in your opinion, your apply to what I am doing. What matters is whether the principles, the evidence and the logic is sound – and you have not demonstrated by evidence or logical argument that they are not sound.
Obviously you do care. You have yet to demonstrate that your methodology is sound. Therefore, it is subjective biased by your personal opinions/beliefs.
I wonder if Squid Fishing Monthly has ever had an article discussing the interplanetary capabilities of the VW Beetle?
