Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

Any object with the Sun behind it will appear dark.

Acky,

I'll give you a chance to retract ( or rephrase ) the above before I post a photo of a bright cloud illuminated by the sun directly behind it ... you should know better than to make absolutist statements that are so easily disputed.

 

[Stray Cat]

Yes I'm sure you really feel that way too ... so since you haven't already ... please let me know after you've concluded the object in question that looked like it could have been some type of an aircraft to more than one witness wasn't actually some sort of giant alien craft ... would you please? In the meantime I'll just keep thinking it probably wasn't because of course my mind is made up already based on all the stuff you think I just "made up". I wonder how much longer this is going to take?

There's only ever you and your UFOlogist friends who want it to be an alien craft and lose interest when you find out it's not... Us sceptics would like to know the truth about what it was regardless of what it was, not what it wasn't. That's why we dig deeper, longer and put in more research and do more calculations than UFOlogists.

Your posts get sillier and sillier.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Conflatin' ? ... Well dag nabit I didn't knw them Vee Dubyas was even conflatable! Now ya went and taught me somethin' I never knew b'fore ... yer so smart.

A red letter day for you! This bring the total number of things you have learned from this thread to a total of one!

Perhaps you could now explain what you understand about the null hypothesis and the burden of proof. Those seem to have totally confounded you and I was despairing of you learning anything at all.

 

[ufology]

There's only ever you and your UFOlogist friends who want it to be an alien craft and lose interest when you find out it's not... Us sceptics would like to know the truth about what it was regardless of what it was, not what it wasn't. That's why we dig deeper, longer and put in more research and do more calculations than UFOlogists.

Your posts get sillier and sillier.

Uh ... reminder here ... I said right at the start I don't think the 1953 flying wing case we're discussing was an alien craft. And what suddenly happened to all the talk about not wanting to bother digging for any more evidence? Does this mean maybe somone will try to acquire some evidence in support of a hoax on the Bob White artifact? By all means let me know when that happens.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Uh ... reminder here ... I said right at the start I don't think the 1953 flying wing case we're discussing was an alien craft. And what suddenly happened to all the talk about not wanting to bother digging for any more evidence? Does this mean maybe somone will try to acquire some evidence in support of a hoax on the Bob White artifact? By all means let me know when that happens.

Why are you so anxious that it be a hoax? It doesn't matter. It was never shown to be an alien artifact so who cares what his motivation was?

This is what I meant by you not comprehending the burden of proof and where it should be. You prove it every time that you don't understand.

 

[GeeMack]

Your posts get sillier and sillier.

Speaking of sillier and sillier...

I'll give you a chance to retract ( or rephrase ) the above before I post a photo of a bright cloud illuminated by the sun directly behind it ... you should know better than to make absolutist statements that are so easily disputed.

Because only in the mind of faithful "ufologists" would the density, reflective and refractive characteristics, and opacity of a cloud have any relevant relationship to those properties of something solid like an alleged flying wing or a puff of black jet exhaust. Of course it might be a fair comparison to an alien craft since nobody on Earth knows what those characteristics are. By the way, part of what makes a lenticular cloud unique is that its light transmission/reflection characteristics are different from most other typical clouds. That's why they are occasionally mistaken for things that aren't clouds.

Hows that probability calculation coming along?

 

[GeeMack]

Uh ... reminder here ... I said right at the start I don't think the 1953 flying wing UFO case we're discussing was an alien craft.

There. I made the dishonest into honest.

 

[ufology]

A red letter day for you! This bring the total number of things you have learned from this thread to a total of one!

Perhaps you could now explain what you understand about the null hypothesis and the burden of proof. Those seem to have totally confounded you and I was despairing of you learning anything at all.

"Conflatin' ... "confounded" ... what other con words do you have up yer sleeve for us today? Maybe with some concerted conation you could conceivably concatenate a few ... but please don't be concessive as it would contradict your con ...

 

[RoboTimbo]

"Conflatin' ... "confounded" ... what other con words do you have up yer sleeve for us today?

UFOlogy is the only other one I can think of.

 

[Stray Cat]

Uh ... reminder here ... I said right at the start I don't think the 1953 flying wing case we're discussing was an alien craft.

Which just goes to show that regardless of what you think the conclusion is, you operate in exactly the same way as a typical ufologist.

It's the way you think that has allowed you to become a ufologist in the first place. You have used exactly the same faulty methods to come to the conclusion you have come to as you do when you conclude alien space ship.

And what suddenly happened to all the talk about not wanting to bother digging for any more evidence? Does this mean maybe somone will try to acquire some evidence in support of a hoax on the Bob White artifact? By all means let me know when that happens.

Watch closely and try to learn. You are seeing real sceptical inquiry in action here. This is different from what you like to call 'debunking' in as much as we are actually trying to confirm what the witnesses said by tallying their statements with evidence. We are not trying to expose them as liars, hoaxers or idiots.

Of course, a by product of real sceptical analysis is that we end up with some bunk that can be removed from the story, but our intention is to find the truth, not prove that it wasn't an alien space ship (that would be starting with our conclusion and working backwards from that, which is your preferred way of doing it and as has been pointed out, totally wrong).

If you simply want support for your conclusion that Bob White's artifact is bunk, just go and cherry pick some bits of the story and then make the rest up as unsupported assumptions like you usually do. Then if you assert it enough apparently it comes true after a while*


*In UFOland

 

[ufology]

There. I made the dishonest into honest.

Don't you have some birds to watch or something more important to do than fabricate excuses to call me dishonest? Or is your real hobby starting flame wars and acting like a cyberbully?

 

[ufology]

Which just goes to show that regardless of what you think the conclusion is, you operate in exactly the same way as a typical ufologist.

Oh ... and here I thought after 49,000 times of watching you post it that you thought ufologists always jump immediately to the conclusion, "OMG Aliens!" ... so maybe some progress has been made here after all.

 

[Garrison]

Uh ... reminder here ... I said right at the start I don't think the 1953 flying wing case we're discussing was an alien craft.

And you insert flying wing as if it were proven and use alien craft where UFO would be more appropriate. This case is a UFO, which is not synonymous with alien craft, despite your attempt to sneak that assumption in.

 

[23_Tauri]

Actually you may recall that I've complimented Astro and suggested the rest of you take a hint from Lance, so really it isn't them I've made any "snide" remarks about ... at least I certainly wouldn't refer to them as "nerf herders" ... and Acky back there was actually quite offended once when I called him a skeptic. So it's really the rest of you class clowns that are the ones who stand to gain by paying some attention ... watch and learn.

How ungrateful are you?

I'm speechless, really I am.

 

[ufology]

UFOlogy is the only other one I can think of.

It's "ufology" not UFOlogy ... and maybe try being more congenial.

 

[Garrison]

Oh ... and here I thought after 49,000 times of watching you post it that you thought ufologists always jump immediately to the conclusion, "OMG Aliens!" ... so maybe some progress has been made here after all.

Not really, you've applied all the same shoddy standards as you do to every other case you bring up or comment on. I think what you are trying to do is establish this sighting was not a UFO and not an alien craft while subtly implying those terms are interchangeable.

 

[Stray Cat]

Oh ... and here I thought after 49,000 times of watching you post it that you thought ufologists always jump immediately to the conclusion, "OMG Aliens!" ... so maybe some progress has been made here after all.

Did you get Brad Sparks to work out how many times I've posted that?

Actually, it's so wildly inaccurate that I suspect you did the sums yourself.
But still, I suppose congratulations are in order on you using some actual numbers, even if they are as exaggerated as the "Best Evidence" UFOlogy ducumentary stating that Johnson watched the object accelerate to 30G at 90 miles altitude.

 

[23_Tauri]

Oh ... and here I thought after 49,000 times of watching you post it that you thought ufologists always jump immediately to the conclusion, "OMG Aliens!" ... so maybe some progress has been made here after all.

So despite reading Stray Cat's posts you've learnt nothing about critical thinking?

The evidence that ufologists have presented here on this thread is that they come up with a pet theory, whether alien space ship or wing aircraft, and then cherry pick and fabricate stuff to fit their a priori conclusion. Anything that doesn't fit is ignored.

Stray Cat has no theory about what the object was in the Lockheed case. He's looked at the evidence, which in this case amounts to some witness statements that aren't consistent in a number ways, and shown how elements don't lead to the conclusion that the object of as close as the observers believed.

There is a world of difference between these two approaches. It doesn't matter whether you think it's its an alien spaceship or whizzy Earthship; the point is that you are so blinkered in your opinions and self-belief that you are blind to the process.

 

[Stray Cat]

It's "ufology" not UFOlogy ... and maybe try being more congenial.

You realise that we use 'UFOlogy' to describe your chosen hobby, so as to distinguish it from when we are referring directly to you (in which case we use 'ufology')?

 

[Stray Cat]

Not really, you've applied all the same shoddy standards as you do to every other case you bring up or comment on. I think what you are trying to do is establish this sighting was not a UFO and not an alien craft while subtly implying those terms are interchangeable.

Yup I think you're right.

Mr Oof can't allow it to be left as an Unidentified Flying Object because he doesn't think it's an Alien Space Ship, so he has to shoe horn a mundane explanation in otherwise there'll be a rogue non alien UFO out there, which in his mind would be a non alien, alien space ship. The paradox of such an object on his mind would cause his brain to explode (which in reality wouldn't even mess his hair up let alone cause any long term damage).