First, if I believe the case has no plausible mundane explanation I have a right to say so – especially if I explain the reasons for my coming to that belief.
You can say it is implausible all you want but you presented it to this forum to be evaluated.
Right. My conclusion is that the case defies plausible mundane explanation. Perhaps however you (or someone else) can come up with a plausible mundane explanation?
If the forum considers the explanations plausible, then you are going to have to accept it.
I said
plausible in case you missed it. That means it has to fit with and explain the
evidence. It has been demonstrated that your “Geese” hypothesis does not fly (Cape Otway has no geese). And if your “satellite” hypothesis had any veracity – with your expertise and interest in the field - I am almost certain you would have pointed us toward potential candidates by now.
The problem is that you are too close to the sighting. It is your personal sighting and you have convinced yourself that you could not have made a mistake (Remember Feynman's quote about yourself being the easiest person to fool).
I have related the case as it occurred. It is supported by three witnesses (including myself). It is the age old story. The UFO debunker sees such a case, can’t explain it, and therefore immediately “It cannot be, therefore it isn’t”. LOL.
Well, we are going to have take your word for it that they oscillated.
Sure.
However, I have shown that independent satellites can cross the same area of sky appearing to move in formation on a regular basis.
If you have I must have missed it. Perhaps you would care to post that information again? Cape Otway, 11:45 at night, December, 2008.
So it wasn't unique but you got excited about it?
Oh it was unique alright. And yes it did cause a stir in the conversation at that point. Some quickening of the pulses so to speak.
Yet, you wrote it down in your UFO journal but never bothered to check up on it when you got to an internet connection?
Yep.
Is this what you call curiosity?
Nope.
Weren't you interested in checking up on your sighting or weren't you really interested in finding a potential solution?
At the time I had no idea that there
was any method of checking up on the sighting.
BTW, you would not have a scan of that journal/document to present, would you?
No.
Be careful, I wouldn't want you to smudge the ink because it might be considered "evidence".
Once I had transcribed it I threw it away. I did not consider it as “important evidence”. I really did not think that much about it.
Amazing that you referred to it as "JUST ANOTHER UFO SIGHTING".
I have had more than one - and have experienced many “strange” things in my life. This was merely one of the less startling among them.
How many have you had over the years?
Seven of the UFO variety, but only three of those I would consider to positively
defy plausible mundane explanation. The others I can rationalise as “
It simply must have been…(whatever).”
You want me to relate the other two? They are very interesting cases.
How fortunate that you can see so many unidentifieds and I haven't see any after all my years of astronomcial observations.
Yes (and that would be “have seen”). But “fortunate”? …I don’t know about that.
Perhaps I am unlucky or maybe I have learned to turn my UFOs into IFOs by looking up for potential solutions.
Many (if not most) people have never seen a UFO, indeed many UFO proponents have never seen a UFO. So I wouldn’t feel too badly about it.
It is also interesting that you characterise it in terms of “lucky” and “unlucky” – as if it is a fortunate thing to see a UFO. Those who have seen them would beg to differ. I would count yourself lucky
not to have seen a UFO AstroP. Be careful what you wish for! LOL.
Apparently, you aren't interested in researching anything beyond what these UFO websites have told you based on what we have seen here.
Sure, whatever you say…
Well, we finally discovered the date and location after a little bit of teeth pulling.
Yep, and the location falsifies the two principal competing mundane hypotheses (geese and satellites).
We also discovered you don't seem interested in following up your observations.
I wasn’t interested at the time AstroP – indeed was unaware that one could…
It is amazing how some scientists just have no curiousity about these things.
It is, isn’t it. But perhaps it has something to do with protecting their professional careers against the concerted ridicule and abuse dished out by organisations such as the JREF?
For somebody who is interested in these aerial anamolies you seemed to lack knowledge in things like what types of birds are in your area and the satellites that are visible in your skies.
Oh but I do have that knowledge – it is just that
you cannot
acknowledge that I do. I know there are no geese in the area (never have been, never will be) and I know there are no satellites that fit the description. You don’t seem to know that yet – or if you do, simply cannot bring yourself to acknowledge it.
)
