Tell me what's in my pocket. If you can't, it must be alien.
- Status
Tell me what's in my pocket. If you can't, it must be alien.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
wich UFO case do you think is most obvious Alien?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Which posts did you not understand where "burden of proof" was explained?
Which posts did you not understand where "null hypothesis" was explained?
You aren't allowed to say "Don't ask me" because we have to gauge the depth of your inability to understand before we can explain it to you more than it has been in the posts in this thread.
If you have a non-mundane explanation, go ahead and give it.
Last edited:
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
If there are personal attacks, you can report them. I don't see any.
Asking you to defend your POV is not an attack.
And as I said earlier, but you ignored it, or refuse to address it:
Unexplained does not mean unexplainable.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
to which case?
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
So you can see an explanation?
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
He used the values obtained by Baker because they were available. However, he arrived at a completely different conclusion because Baker ignored the possibility that birds could produce small points of light on a film if they were at the right distance.
You really are not up to speed on all of this are you? Do you even read anything but what these websites tell you? Baker performed his analysis in 1955 while the Robertson panel met in January 1953! If you ACTUALLY READ the Robertson panel’s report, you will see that the Navy PIL came in and briefed the panel on their methodology and what they determined.
“WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON
The second meeting of the Panel opened at 1400. Lt. {R. S. Neasham}, USN, and Mr. {Harry Woo} of the USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory, Anacostia, presented the results of their analyses of the films mentioned above. This analysis evoked considerable discussion as elaborated upon below.”
And…
“The Panel studied these films, the case history, ATIC's interpretation, and received a briefing by representatives of the USN Photo Interpretation Laboratory on their analysis of the film. This team had expended (at Air Force request) approximately 1000 man hours of professional and sub-professional time in the preparation of graph plots of individual frames of the film, showing apparent and relative motion of objects and variation in their light intensity.”
After reviewing the film and the analysis, they then made their comments regarding problems with that analysis.
“h. Analysis of light intensity of objects made from duplicate rather than original film. The original film was noted to have a much lighter background (affecting relative brightness of object) and the objects appeared much less bright.
i. Method of obtaining data of light intensity appeared faulty because of unsuitability of equipment and questionable assumptions in making averages of readings.
j. No data had been obtained on the sensitivity of Kodachrome film to light of various intensities using the same camera type at the same lens openings.
k. Hand "jitter" frequencies (obtainable from early part of Tremonton film) were not removed from the plots of the "single pass plots" at the end of the film.”
All quotes above come from:
http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/appndx-u.htm
You are failing to read or comprehend my entire statement. My comments were directed at what level of expertise these technicians in the PIL had with these kinds of measurements and analyzing film images showing dots against a clear sky. They were experts at analyzing aerial images of the ground to assess bomb damage, targeting, ship identification, reconnaissance, etc. That is something completely different than what they attempted. For the most part, measuring angular sizes and speeds is not that great an exercise. However, the major reason they appeared to reject the Sea Gull hypothesis was because of the density readings they made on the film. As previously stated they used a copy of the film which was not the same as the original. That introduced the first error. The second error was noticed by the astronomers on the panel. That was the methodology for measuring the density of the images was not correct.
“It was brought out be two astronomers who heard a Navy briefing on the analysis of the movies that the method used to measure brightness of each spot was wrong, therefore, the results of the entire study were wrong.”
http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-381
Now this document does not state it was the Robertson panel (which was classified at the time of this memo) but it seems that this is what they were referring to. I am aware that Dr. Page (an astronomer) was on the panel. The only other astronomer, who was there that I know of, was Dr. Hynek! Either this memorandum was not describing the Robertson panel and two different astronomers agreed with Dr. Page or Hynek had agreed the measurements were wrong. In either case, it demonstrates that there were problems with those measurements, which was what the Navy (and by default…you) had used as a cornerstone to reject the Sea Gull hypothesis.
The panel was briefed on the process by the PIL. They read the methodology used in the report and found it incorrect. The same sort of mistake would have been recognized in a scientific journal’s peer review of such an analysis. Would that be called “speculation” or good scientific procedure? The bottom line on all of this is that they had incorrectly measured points on a duplicate film and came to a series of incorrect conclusions, which experts on the Robertson panel pointed out. Failure to recognize this and mischaracterize what happened is just being dishonest with yourself and everyone in this forum. The same can be said for your response to Woolery’s post on this where you just recited the same line over and over again like a six-year old. Isn’t that the same thing as covering your ears and chanting, “I am not listening….I am not listening….La…La…..La…!”
Really??? Have you not read anything in the bluebook files? They made copies for analysis so they did not damage the originals.
“The film used in Utah is in very poor condition; dry, brittle, with a tendency to break. After initial viewing, duplication of the film was performed in order to preserve the film. In the duplication process some color correction was made to permit better viewing of the objects.”
http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-408
“In addition the film, with which this investigation was conducted, is a duplicate of a copy.”
They do go on to mention they were concerned about the copy introducing errors but felt there were none based on some measurements they made between “clear areas and the objects”. Probably more interesting is the statement that it was not a first generation copy but a second generation copy they used. That means more errors can be introduced in the process.
http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB11-410
Additionally, they TOLD the Robertson panel they used a copy of the film. Are you stating that they lied or the Robertson panel lied about this? You are swinging wildly around in the dark at this point.
No speculation was involved. Speculation implies they were acting without examining the evidence. That is not what transpired. Do you really think that the panel of scientists would simply “speculate” about something without even looking at how the analysis was done? There was no “speculation” about it if you actually read the report, which apparently, you have not..
These experts presented their case to the panel of scientists, who were acting somewhat as a peer-review process. Under critical review, it was determined there were flaws in their methodology making their conclusions inaccurate. Therefore, their analysis was not adequate to draw the conclusions they drew. Isn’t that how the scientific process works or is it different in UFO land?
Can you demonstrate, once again, what their reasons for rejecting the bird hypothesis? Baker did not reject it. He just found it unlikely but gave no good reason other than the angular size (about 5-7 minutes of arc) should have been resolved into birds. As noted by Hartmann, he ignored the possibility that the darker wings would not have registered on the film but the bright bodies could have been. The Navy chose to state they could not be birds because the lights were too bright and they did not blink during their motion. However, it has been pointed out by the Robertson panel and Hartmann that they did blink and that such reflections could occur through the range of motion in the film! I already mentioned the problems with the densitometer readings. Another reason the Navy rejected birds was because they felt the angular speed was too high. Of course, they assumed the objects were at 5 miles when birds at closer range would have the same angular velocities as noted by Hartmann. If I missed anything, feel free to point it out. It seems that all the reasons for rejecting the bird hypothesis are not good enough to falsify that hypothesis. That means the bird explanation is perfectly plausible.
However, you disagree. So once again, I ask you to demonstrate how the objects in the film could not be birds. Rather than using Swords lame excuse of “I trust the experts (but ignore the problems with their analysis)”, why not look at the data from the film(i.e. the evidence)? Otherwise you appear to be just putting your hands over your ears (or is it your eyes) and repeat “it can’t be birds…it can’t be birds…”?
BTW, you never answered my proposal (or I missed it if you did) at post 9596. Just to state it again:
I think I know how we can resolve this constant "rinse, lather, repeat". I propose what should be done from now on is that you present your case in a manner that is not just a bunch of UFO links and, instead, a carefully thought out and well presented argument. Then we can allow a two (or four) week "discussion" period, where you can ridicule all explanations offerred by the various members endlessly. At precisely the end of the two (or four) week period, the entire forum can vote on the offerred explanations as implausible or plausible. They can also declare it as "identified", "probable identification", "insufficient information", or "unknown". This will move this thread along at a better pace and it will not get mired down. You have had two years of this endless nonsense and you have failed to sway anybody's opinion here. Perhaps this approach will get people looking at the evidence.
So far, you have rejected the idea of presenting one “best case”. You have also rejected the idea of taking one month from the NUFORC database to obtain some “reliable” UFO reports that are untainted by the UFO websites. I assume you are going to reject this idea as well because you know that the response would be from the forum. As a result, we are probably in for more of the same old “rinse, lather, repeat”, where you simply copy and paste what the UFO websites tell you to think. Yawn…..
Last edited:
We don´t need semantics here. There are a plenty of cases, which are unexplainable. Case closed.
If you however feel that there is an explanation. You can tell what it is.
Common sense.
Null hypotesis: cases that defy explanation
Burden of proof: I don´t need to prove that cases are not-explainable. You do it yourself.
If you however feel that there is an explanation. You can tell what it is.
Common sense.
Null hypotesis: cases that defy explanation
Burden of proof: I don´t need to prove that cases are not-explainable. You do it yourself.
So can you make a prediction using your null hypothesis that we can test? Because if you can't it is worthless as a hypothesis for anything.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
I think you mean "unexplained." Anyway, that's essentially what the "U" in UFO is for - unidentified.
No, the assumption is that perception is accurate unless there is a factor that would cause it not to be.
Now of course your statement there (your “predisposed”) is simply a matter of a cognitive factor of your own “predisposing” you to perceive things in a biased way.
You should have asked “What factors are present that would cause the pilots (for there were two of them – another cognitive bias of yours exposed) to misperceive?
Now of course one of those factors could be that they were looking through the cockpit windows.
Against that we know that there were two pilots and one got put of his seat to follow the objects as they crossed to the other side of the plane – while the other remained seated (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB12-178) Yet both observed the same thing - and this simply could not occur if it were merely reflections in the cockpit window.
Now I suppose you are talking about some sort of refractive effect that would split another “solid aircraft” into six objects that manoeuvred in formation and were incredibly fast moving (and it is “them”, not “him”). The objects in formation were also joined by another two saucers that appeared from another place altogether. Remember that Nash also got out of his seat and crossed the airplane to follow their motion. Given also that aircraft cockpit window glass in of slightly better quality than say 14th century domestic glass, then “refraction” is rather implausible.
So no, there is actually nothing in the environment would cause that to occur.
It is possible that the size estimates are in error. We know that perceptual factors (specifically a dearth of depth cues) can cause such an error. But of course the objects also performed manoeuvres and crossed the path of the plane against the city lights on the ground. There was not a complete lack of depth cues. It is interesting that independently the pilots estimated the “Thickness” of the objects as ten to fifteen feet (Nash) and not enough to accommodate a man standing (Fortenberry). So obviously this factor was present and played a role in the observation. However (presumably) both pilots concurred with a 100 feet diameter. So what we can say is that the objects were “around” that size – but we cannot state that they were that size.
So this is the same concept as the above repeated – it is not a separate factor - and therefore needs no reiteration in reply.
I am not sure how this applies to the case. Perhaps you have some “biological objects” of the size and shape mentioned that would fit the bill?
This is basically the depth cues argument again (and we have dealt with that above). With the added “bonus” of you claiming the lack of depth cues could affect shape perception.
First the lack of depth cues was addressed above. Second, humans have binocular vision and the objects manoeuvred around them. Finally a lack of depth cues does not affect shape (figure against ground) perception. Given that it was dark and the objects were self-illuminated and performed a number of manoeuvres, then shape perception would have been no problem for the pilots (you keep implying there was only one pilot – does this indicate you have not actually read the report?)
They were "looking at"...
Count out five to ten seconds for me…
Besides you have not delineated how a short time interval would affect their perception of the object. What we don’t need is more speculation – what we need are explanations grounded in the science of perception.
Well we know what they did not see…
Interestingly, the less information supplied in the report, they more mundane explanations will become plausible. That we cannot come up with any plausible mundane explanations on the evidence presented is a telling factor in this regard.
Indeed, on the evidence presented we cannot know what the objects were – but we can definitely conclude things about what the objects were not. I mean, what mundane objects are circular, roughly 100 feet in diameter, about ten to fifteen feet high, and can manoeuvre as described?
Sure, but in the absence of plausible mundane explanations, then it becomes legitimate to speculate about alternative explanations.
Now here's an interesting potential source of UFO sightings:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/aug/02/missing-inflatable-island-secret-garden
A good example of a mundane explanation for a UFO sighting that would never occur to anyone who didn't already know about it.
Once again you completely ignore the evidence.
"The Civil Aviation Authority and the local airports were informed, but have not reported any sightings."
Precisely. If they could, they most certainly would.
Lack of an explanation doesn't give you a free pass to insert your pet obsession as an explanation.
You missed the word "potential" in the post, did you? Thin-skinned and humorless is no way to go through life, son.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
So, you don't understand any of them. Good to know. Go back and read the thread. Not much point wasting time on you until you do that.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Let's see what Rramjet has learned in his time here:
Nothing, it would seem. Rramjet, you go back and read the posts which aren't yours also.Rramjet said:
- Status