Thomas said:
For one thing, ball lightning are known to get attracted by conductors like airplanes. They have invaded airplanes on several occasions. Furthermore, I never said anything other than that it was hard to find any objections against that hypothesis. As soon as the objections came about, I dropped that hypothesis and you didn't even bother to examine it, because you were so busy building your pile of assumptions that you didn't care to look in any other directions, and nothing have changed since then.
We have intense points of infrared which don't appear on radar in the direction of an area covered in oil-rigs at sea and oil-facilities on land. It looks, walks and quacks a lot like a duck... so it's a duck, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not going to chase down theories about balls of lighting, secret stealth aircraft, etc., etc. that anyone can think of.
I've seen ball-lightning and know it exists, but I've also seen oil-facilities with lots of oil-flares and we all know they exist, and these are definitely in the area in question.
Also, this whole incident could be a case like when someone sees a UFO in a a clear sky, but somehow doesn't see Venus, which was in the exact same direction at that exact time....
This aircrew spotted these intense points of heat in a direction of an area covered in oil-facilities, but never saw the points of heat of the oil-facilties. Perhaps they were out of range but, if not, then like Venus, the oil-facilties must have become invisible just for the UFO sighting.... if this person who spotted the UFO is not making a mistake, of course.
And here you put words into the mouth of the pilots, they never claimed this was an UFO, in fact they reported it to be an airplane and the only thing that are stated, is that they couldn't determine if it was an airplane or not, and this is no wonder, because the FLIR and RADAR was looking at two diffrent objects with 12 degrees distance apart.
The aircrew refer to the first object detected in the later interview in the same way as they do the later ones, and never say that this first object "was just another airplane" or "the footage includes an aircraft from about 16:42 to 17:00".
Whether by accident or intention, they include the first object in the UFO sighting.
Counter attack what? I haven't proposed any hypothesis as conclusive, like you have. It's less than 24 hours ago that you just stated that you dont understand why people didn't just accept that the FLIR lights was oilflares as soon as you discovered that there were oil facilities in the area. You have thought this to be the conclusion for weeks now, and yet you haven't been able to back any of your most basic claims up with evidence.
You said that
I consider this case solved, unless new data should appear about the ball-lightning theory in the 4th page of this thread, so you have in fact made a statement about a hypothesis that sounds fairly conclusive.
I'll do the same and say that I consider the case mostly solved, unless new evidence should appear, as the current evidence fits just fine other than some possible oversight due to a lack of clear information released on the last part of the incident.
I'd like to know more about the later radar objects to the east and perhaps west, and the infrared sources to the north and west and see how all this fits together, but since everyone who has access to the full footage and full flight recording is keeping most of it from the public, these individuals seem strangely protective of this "conclusive evidence for aliens" or whatever the hell they think it shows.
How very kind of them to edit and filter what we get to see and hear into little bits, as it makes it harder for any skeptics to put it to a complete analysis, so hard that the last part of the incident is unintelligible from the information released.
I'm not disrespectful, assumptions are an important part of research, but even more important is evidence to support the assumptions. Like feyd ratha said, you're just repeating the same assumptions over-and-over again like a tireless parrot, but that doesn't strengthen your case, it just makes you look absurd, subjective and stubborn.
This needs no further comment, other than to suggest you relax and not take this subject so seriously.
You're gonna show me exactly where I said that word-for-word, no interpretations, or redraw that ludicrous, pathetic statement immediately.
You just had a conversation with Astrophotographer about that.
But here we go again anyway....
I'm avoiding the transcript? Listen, the transcript states altitudes, speeds, distances and directions of the objects which rips your oilflare hypothesis apart, and you're dodging it all with your various assumptions.
Since the infrared camera readings only give direction, you must be referring to the radar here. Therefore you believe the radar goes against the oil-flare theory for the main 11 infrared objects... but the radar operator says these 11 infrared objects were never detected on radar.
Then I suggest you quit making assumptions about my intentions, quit putting words in my mouth and start to collect evidence to support your assertions.
I'm not going to collect any more evidence to support my theory than I have already. I'm not being paid to solve it, I just did it for fun.
I'm not gonna debate your assumptions any further, there's no need to, because your hypothesis is false anyway, until you collect the relevant evidence to support it. That's how science works, like it or not.
No, it's not false or even true, a hypothesis -- or "theory" as the terms are equivalent, despite your earlier claim -- is unproven.
But some theories can obviously be much more likely than others....
It's getting more and more ludicrous by the hour, the assumptions to support the oilflare hypothesis is simply piling up as the data is flowing in. It's out of order, hence a waste of time.
Please release any data you have on the last part of the incident.
