I am flattered that you think that scientists should be “all knowing, all seeing” and that you think my posts demonstrate some scientific mastery of a number of subjects. I can now understand why I seem to attract so much abuse from you and others in this forum. You seem to have placed me on some sort of pedestal as a “scientist” and when I fail to live up to some supposed standard or other of yours, then you are all the more bitterly disappointed and therefore tend to take your frustrations out on me.
If you want to use irony as a weapon, you really need to improve your skills; now if it wasn't an attempt to irony, your observation and conclusion skills are terribly flawed...
For example, I do not see any scientific mastery within your posts (despite your claims of being a scientist). All I see are pseudoscientific discourses and huge flaws on the collection and evaluation of information.
You should also be more carefull when presenting claims. For example, you said I 'think that scientists should be “all knowing, all seeing”'. Now, prove it or retreat it.
Your pedestal is not what you think it is...
You have a particular belief that the subject of UFOs represents a “lore” of some sort. You will of course be able to support that belief with hard evidence that you can show to others (including me). Otherwise you are again simply making generalised, unfounded, belief-based assertions.
Please look in to the definition of lore, folklore and popular culture. To date, you and all other UFOlogists failed to demonstrate UFO evidence is composed by something other than an assemblage of anecdotes and tales. Scientific evidence for aliens from outside the borders of what we call nature (whatever it means) it is not. So we're left with?
That you also believe that UFO related research has been a “failure” means that you consider such things as the Battelle study, the Condon report, the Sturrock Panel, and a host of other research projects, academic studies, PhDs, (by UFO debunkers and UFO proponents and independent scientists alike) etc to have been “failures”. If so then you will of course be able to describe precisely why you think such research efforts (and critically future research) is a failure.
From UFOlogy POV, yes, failure, since none of these studies managed to provide any shred of evidence to bak the presence of aliens from outside the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means).
You seem to get bogged down in the details here (“exact facts”). What is important is the occurrence itself and the way in which it was reported. A UFO coupled with radiation like injuries – in 1886! But the report itself is NOT a “UFO” report. The reporter believes he has an explanation (an electrical/meteorological phenomenon) of the type being discussed in Scientific American. He merely outlines the case for the consideration of what he considers to be more learned minds than his own. It is a matter of fact report that we simply have no reason to doubt the veracity of.
Again- you have nothing but another unconfirmed report. You can not (i) look at the original data (this is quite common in UFOlogy, eh? Like in "The negatives were lost", "The government confiscated the evidence"); (ii) have any reasonable assurance that description of the injuries and the sighting of the lights were exact (you can't even pin down the location); (iii) you can't actually link the alleged sighting of the light with the alleged injuries and at last but not least (iv) you can't actually link it all with any degree of certanity with radiation and/or UFO phenomena. I could go on, but anyone with basic scientific training by now would have realized that even if you could accomplish i to ii you would still be at loss with iii and iv. Not to mention you would also have to look for and exclude other possibilities for the injuries.
…oh I forgot, according to the UFO debunkers, eyewitnesses, etc are always wrong 100% of the time aren’t they? One wonders how anyone can make their way around in this world at all.
Once again you try to divert the readers' attention by twisting skeptics'position. This is not a scientific debate methodology. Note that
your arguments rely on the assumption that the eyewitnesses reports are precise descriptions of the events they claim to have experienced. Can you back this point? Or you deny it?
Again I repeat, a specimen is NOT proof of a species.
Tell this to a biologist.
Perhaps you should do a little background research on this? I think you should also explore the definitions of the terms you use a little more closely (eg; “type” and “proof”). In science precise definitions matter enormously. They make all the difference between a statement being correct and one that is way off the mark.
Oh, now you are asking for precision... So Rramjet, show me precision in the collection and treatment of data. Show me scientific methodology. Show me data researched with care and precision. Something you have not been doing, given the many basic errors you constantly make. Do I need to remind you of them?
I present the pictures. I present the accompanying evidence and research that shows the pictures to be “real”. What more do you want? If you can refute the evidence I present, then please go ahead and we can move on with the debate.
To date you failed to present reliable evidence and research pointing towards a good chance that they are images of real UFOs controlled by aliens from outside the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means).
I want reliable evidence. I want clear pictures not even suspected of being hoaxes or misidentifications. I want images from various sources of the same event. This is the minimal, lowermost level of evidence one would expect to be available if UFO lore can be trusted. Got some?
If you're having trouble with what the points on a compass are called, you could use this handy reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass
