RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Then your anecdote is not falsifiable and therefore useless.
- Status
Then your anecdote is not falsifiable and therefore useless.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
You forgot to preface that with "the way I remember it,..."
Haven't you learned anything about the way memory works?
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
So you say, but your anecdote is worthless. It can't even be accepted as true. We've already agreed that there are at least a handful of common mundane possibilities that would explain every detail of your alleged event, possibilities which you've admitted cannot be ruled out. Unless you can objectively demonstrate that what you claim to have happened wasn't actually a vision implanted in your head by some sort of god, it remains exactly as good an explanation as aliens.
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
So you say, "We've already agreed ..."
Well it's nice to know you have a common consensus. Maybe you guys should take a vote on dismissing everything that can't be explained as natural or manmade. Then you won't have to discuss it at all anymore.
j.r.
This is ludicorous… AstroP, what is it you are actually arguing against?
I asked you a very simple question that so far you have failed to answer:
Is it the case and we can estimate size in a clear blue sky accurately – or are their perceptual factors that would affect the reliability of that estimate - specifically the lack of depth cues?
Can you please just answer that question?
I will now ask you some other simple questions and see how you get on:
Is it the case that there are no factors that provide depth cues in the Rogue River case – or are their factors such as movement of the object (toward, across and then away from their field of vision), the surrounding terrain, and those cues in conjunction with the changing perspective between naked eye and binoculars that would provide at least some depth cues?
Is it or is it not the case that time is dilated during traumatic events (perceived time slows down when compared to real time – people overestimate elapsed time) while being foreshortened during exciting events (perceived time speeds up compared to real time – people underestimate elapsed time)?
Is it or is it not the case that both you and I are using perceptual factors to assess the reliability of observations in the Rogue River case?
(and Stray Cat uses others – his (unfounded) “unstable” boat, his (false contention) “hazy” day… and even cognitive factors - his “from memory”…)
Then is it or is it not that case that when we assess UFO reports we all use perceptual and cognitive factors (whether we are specifically aware of it or not) to assess the report’s reliability?
Please answer those questions – it might just help to clarify (for both myself and you) your position on the matter.
Has any other reader of this thread noticed something else? As soon as I mentioned a new case:
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)
The debunkers immediately hared off in other directions? Here is film evidence of UFOs, yet the debunkers seem to want to completely ignore that evidence… Now I wonder why that could be? LOL.
I asked you a very simple question that so far you have failed to answer:
Is it the case and we can estimate size in a clear blue sky accurately – or are their perceptual factors that would affect the reliability of that estimate - specifically the lack of depth cues?
Can you please just answer that question?
I will now ask you some other simple questions and see how you get on:
Is it the case that there are no factors that provide depth cues in the Rogue River case – or are their factors such as movement of the object (toward, across and then away from their field of vision), the surrounding terrain, and those cues in conjunction with the changing perspective between naked eye and binoculars that would provide at least some depth cues?
Is it or is it not the case that time is dilated during traumatic events (perceived time slows down when compared to real time – people overestimate elapsed time) while being foreshortened during exciting events (perceived time speeds up compared to real time – people underestimate elapsed time)?
Is it or is it not the case that both you and I are using perceptual factors to assess the reliability of observations in the Rogue River case?
(and Stray Cat uses others – his (unfounded) “unstable” boat, his (false contention) “hazy” day… and even cognitive factors - his “from memory”…)
Then is it or is it not that case that when we assess UFO reports we all use perceptual and cognitive factors (whether we are specifically aware of it or not) to assess the report’s reliability?
Please answer those questions – it might just help to clarify (for both myself and you) your position on the matter.
He described (in written testimony) what he observed … He also represented (in highly detailed and sophisticated drawings) what he observed… both represent the object in a different level of detail. Both his written testimony and his visual representation can be used in conjunction to provide a more complete conceptualisation of the observed object.
The official AFOSI report states that he was a draftsman – are you contending that the Air force Special Investigator listed his occupation incorrectly? You are really stretching credulity there Stray Cat…
We are only “discussing” it because the UFO debunkers (including yourself) are intent on denying and disingenuously obfuscating the evidence – for it seems that is the only way they (or you) can maintain their (or your) faith-based belief system.
It is only ambiguous to those who do not understand the three dimensional perspective represented in those drawings. Once that perspective is drawn to the attention of said observers – and they persist in then misrepresenting that perspective – then one can only assume they are doing so deliberately in order to advance an agenda of their own. Now I wonder what that agenda might be...LOL.
The witness descriptions (circular like a coin or pancake) leave us in no doubt as to the shape of the object – and such testimony provides a BIG clue as to the perspective one should take when viewing the drawings. You can only misinterpret that perspective in the drawings if you ignore the eyewitness descriptions – and even then you would have to be ignorant of the techniques used in drawing to represent three dimensions on a two dimensional plane. Are you really contending you are ignorant of those techniques?
Yet you did not represent that detail in your drawings. I asked if you could better represent what was observed – you failed to do so in providing a mere sketch (and an inaccurate one at that – for example the vertical edge on the “fin” in the draftsman’s drawings slopes inward – yours outward. If you cannot even represent such an obvious detail correctly - then how can we rely on you to reproduce any detail accurately?).
Has any other reader of this thread noticed something else? As soon as I mentioned a new case:
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)
The debunkers immediately hared off in other directions? Here is film evidence of UFOs, yet the debunkers seem to want to completely ignore that evidence… Now I wonder why that could be? LOL.
Last edited:
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
My point was about discrepancy of the shape described and the shape drawn.
As you already know this and still insist on flogging this dead horse, perhaps other readers (lurkers) will realise exactly why I didn't go to any more trouble than was necessary to make my point about how a draftsman would draw an unambiguous pancake/coin with a fin on it as opposed to an ambiguous blimp like outline with some rough shading on it.
I wasn't doing a replica of the drawing done by the non drafts person. How could I? it's so geometrically inaccurate and franky I doubt if the artists parents would even stick it on their refrigerator.
My point was about how a draftsman would draw a pancake/coin shape unambiguously. Which I succeeded in doing.
Maybe because it's just you throwing more bovine excrement at the wall to see if any of it sticks.
I'm guessing what I'll see on the video is an ambiguous blob on some grainy film? Am I right?... I'll go watch it and report back, I love those 1950's movies... specially the one's with James Dean in them.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Your inability to explain your methodology properly is the problem. You have made determinations without supporting documentation even though you claim that there is. For instance, what evidence (in the form of documentation or experiments) do you have that supports the idea that estimates will be more accurate because:
"In that case there were multiple eyewitnesses and the object was moving toward, across and away from their fields of vision.”
“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). “
“they also has reference to the terrain surrounding them…”
You provide none so it is your opinion, which will be affected by your personal bias. Instead of recognizing that any estimates/observations made of objects in the clear sky are going to be subject to error that CAN NOT BE QUANTIFIED, you seem to think you can quantify that margin for error.
It is NOT possible to make accurate estimates of size/speed/distance of an UNKNOWN object in a clear blue sky. Backing up this statement are the following quotes from UFOlogists:
John Keel:
Estimates of altitude are much more difficult to make, even for experienced pilots. And at night it is almost impossible to judge the altitude of an object (usually just a light) of unknown size...Therefore, estimates of UFO speeds are usually inaccurate and altitude estimates are questionable unless the object appears near something of a known altitude - such as a mountain or a conventional aircraft. (Spencer and Evans Phenomenon: Forty Years of Flying Saucers Pages 187-188)
Dr. Hynek:
...it is obvious that it would usually be impossible for observers to make reliable estimates of the speed, distance, or size of such stimulus objects. It is not possible to estimate accurately the distance of small bright objects viewed against a clear sky, unless the object is identified first...It must be concluded, therefore, that most of the statements of speed, distance, altitude, and size are entirely unreliable and should be disregarded. This is doubly true of observations made at night. (Steiger Project Bluebook Pages 228)
If you have any documentation that states otherwise. You have yet to present it.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
What is the point? I spent weeks discussing Kecksburg and presenting information that was missing from all your UFO websites and demonstrated your conclusions were wrong. You just ignored it and kept repeating what the UFO websites told you. It is a case of Rinse, Lather, Repeat. The same will occur here. They are most likely birds and nobody has ever presented good evidence to suggest otherwise. Hartmann in the Condon study and the Robertson Panel all concluded they were probably seagulls and saw no reason to conclude otherwise. Now you can go repeat the same tired UFO website arguments. Do you have anything new to offer other than to repeat them? I don't think so.
PS - Let me know when you have your best cases from the NUFORC database for July 2011.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
And when I showed him the evidence that HOAX was the likely explanation for Delphos, he ignored that and just kept repeating his mantra. Lather, rinse, and repeat indeed.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
We've already agreed, even you...
See? We've already agreed that there are at least a handful of common mundane possibilities that would explain every detail of your alleged event, possibilities which you've admitted cannot be ruled out. Your attempt to distance yourself from that is dishonest, of course, but certainly not unexpected.
So your alleged sighting can easily be explained as natural or man made. Any avoidance or denial of that would be an argument from incredulity or ignorance. It appears you didn't go look those up yet. In the spirit of being a cooperative helpful skeptic, do you need help understanding why your arguments fail when you try to get away with using logical fallacies?
I missed that one. Could you link to it? I'm particularly interested in the description of the system of elimination, as well as the exhaustive list of "everything known to man" that was used in the process.
I'm also interested in the justification that "unknown to man" implies aliens.
Last edited:
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
The object did repeated precise manuevers ( several figure 8s ) in the same place on two occasisions and when it departed, it instantly covered over 25 Km from a dead stop in about 1 second. The etreme fast precision maneuvers in the same place on two occasions indicate some kind of flight control system and that implies some kind of intelligence as opposed to a random earthlight or ball lightning phenomenon. Nothing natural or manmade with a flight control system can go from a dead stop to cover over 25 Km in 1 second. So if it wasn't anything manmade or natural that we know of, it had to be alien ( to us ). Where it came from or what it was exactly, I don't know. My best guess is it was some kind of automated probe.
The rest of skeptics here have just resorted to ridicule and/or personal attacks. As irksome as GeeMack may be, technically, you can't rule out that the whole story is fabricated, or that the stimulus was induced by some shared mental and/or perceptual abberation. And if you go with those explanations, you can rule out every unexplained sighting everyone has ever had or will ever have that doesn't include sufficient empirical scientific proof. Exactly what proof they would need has not been made clear.
j.r.
Last edited:
Something better than 40 year old anecdotes would be a start.
Please stop saying "I can't explain it, therefore Aliens". It makes no sense.
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,140
Now you're getting the hang of it!
Something physical and material that could be tested and verified, basically.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Even if we assume that your perceptions at the time and your later memory of those perceptions are both accurate (and that's a hell of an assumption) you still cannot be sure that every observation you made was of the same object. If something else appeared (a firefly for example) in the same direction you'd naturally think it was the same object. That's a very easy mistake to make.
- Status