How many times do we have to point out to you that this is WRONG. In every single case I've seen people claim that witnesses COULD BE mistaken. I have yet to see anyone claim that they always are 100% wrong all the time. You have a serious reading comprehension problem that you need to fix if you want to be taken seriously here.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
How many times do we have to point out to you that this is WRONG. In every single case I've seen people claim that witnesses COULD BE mistaken. I have yet to see anyone claim that they always are 100% wrong all the time. You have a serious reading comprehension problem that you need to fix if you want to be taken seriously here.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Unlike you Rramjet, I already post lots of stiuff in lots of threads. It's you that needs to get out more.
Now . . .
Why did you lie about the thread being closed, Rramjet?
How was your appeal received?
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,435
At the cruise speed of a K-class blimp 190 miles is a 7 hour round trip. At maximum speed it's about a five and a half hour round trip.
That's not the only reference though, but frankly, I can't be bothered to go look up the other one, this one will suffice. There was a Goodyear blimp in operation in the general area, within a few hours flight on the date in question.
Ergo, the point you were making that there were no blimp operations on the west coast at the time is refuted, by your own source.
Was that another memory lapse, or a lie of omission?
Umm, no, that (very short) page is about special projects that Tillamook was used for, and includes a Goodyear blimp tour in 1947. What it most definitely does not say is that there were no Goodyear blimp operations in 1948 or 1949. It doesn't say if the blimp was housed there, or maybe housed somewhere else. It just lists 1949 as the year that the blimp did a west coast tour.
Another reading comprehension fail, because we know, from your other source, that the Goodyear blimp was still on the west coast in 1949. Which means it had to be housed and maintained somewhere.
The day was bright and clear, no adverse weather conditions, which would have made it ideal for a training flight, testing repairs, or any of maybe a dozen other reasons to fly a blimp for a few hours that wouldn't appear on any historical document.
The fact is that there was at least one blimp within easy flying distance of Rogue River on the date in question. To deny that fact requires either stupidity, insanity or dishonesty.
Why bother, it's been done before, including photos to demonstrate the points. Like how small it would have been, even in binoculars.
And for the record - I am not saying that the Rogue River sighting was definitely a blimp.
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 338
Nah, based on your performance here, more likely you simply plagiarized somebody else’s…
Precisely, you simply dismiss the possibility without basis in ever single case… which is why you will never be a credible UFO researcher and will forever remain in the dark about the true nature of the phenomenon.
Liar.
Excluding delusional people, hoaxers, and charlatans such are yourself, we know 100% of UFO witnesses were unable to identify what they saw.
From there, we have evidence that upwards of 98.5% of those UFOs can be provisionally identified as mundane.
Precisely 0% of UFOs have been identified as alien spaceships.
23_Tauri
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,927
That one went right over your head, didn't it limbo?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Really?
But surely it doesn't matter how large the logo was when the blimp would have looked like this:
From the tidal section of a river estuary whilst in a fishing boat.
Besides, we have already established it could have been a Navy Reserve blimp.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
but but but, thats not binos, thats a telescope
I also found this little device, perhaps someone can tell me what it means and if they do a version for homosexuals
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/579335-REG/Rode_BLIMP_Blimp_Complete_Windshield.html
Last edited:
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
I sorry but you ignored the point made in my post. The subject of the post was a refutation of your assertion that:
The irony of your response has already been noted, but to complete the circle,Originally Posted by Rramjet
The UFO debunker’s beliefs rest wholly on one single premise:
The eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time.
That is, to maintain their position, the UFO debunkers MUST uphold the truth of that statement. That is, in 100% of UFO cases the eyewitnesses have misperceived a mundane object.
Strawman. The rest of the wall of text has been ignored, since the opening statement is totally incorrect.
And yet, without sufficient information, you come to a conclusion... [/quote]A fireball could be a meteor ... and I am sorry again, but "three green lights" does not make a "classic triangle formation". We need more information here.[/quote]I have already given a description of the latter sighting right here in this thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5238289&postcount=1083
The Fireball Incident, has also been discussed on the forum.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3572972&postcount=14
The only conclusion that can be drawn from these sightings is, "unidentified" and probably "unidentifiable" - thus my sightings, to date, are sightings of UFOs. QED.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Since nothing of interest is happening elsewhere on this thread.
What brings you to the conclusion that this is not the view seen through binoculars.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
While on the subject of baseless assertions, still no response to this post, Rramjet?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
And it's a silly question, whch is why I ignored it and answered the question you should have been asking.
From http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/mexico/mexico.dwt
My bolding for her pleasure. Do the bolded parts sound at all familiar to you? It's almost as if you could have written the above paragraph.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Of course, given that Limbo insists that taking hallucinogenic drugs will help you see god, him (her) seeing something fly right over his (her) frakking head and having no supporting evidence, documentation, or anything, we should absolutely take his (her) word for it without question. He (she) couldn't possibly be mistaken, or hallucinating, or anything.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Nonsense. These items have been at stake for quite while.Rramjet said:
Rramjet said:
You started this debate claiming to have scientific training. Thus, I am attacking a claim of yours. Too bad it was a claim you made about yourself while attempting to gain some credibility and appealing to authority. It is simple as that.
A typical UFO charlatan tactics is to lie about his/hers background. Had you not used the same old worn-out discourse used by UFO creduloids and kooks, had you displayed actual skills regarding the use of scientific method, had you not displayed undeniable evidence of being ignorant of many a basic scientific fact, there would be no questioning about the actual existence and the quality of your claimed scientific training.
Now, if you label me an UFOdebunker, I will consider myself free to label you an UFO creduloid or charlatan. I’m not pretty sure yet which of these, however. Maybe a blend.
Rramjet said:
Evasion attempt noticed. Your “skeptics say eyewitnesses are 100% of the times wrong” is not irrelevant. It is an example of misinformation spreading, twisting of an opponent’s position and poor methodology, if not of dishonest behavior. Exactly the things you and other UFOcreduloids and charlatans accuse skeptics of doing. Irrelevant things are and were actually brought by you several times, such as, for example, when presenting an article at Playboy magazine as evidence. This careless attitude regarding evidence quality is not what one would expect from a bona fide person with scientific training asking for a serious scientific study of his/hers pet hypothesis. What brings us back to your claimed scientific background.
Rramjet said:
Another attempt of diversion, this time coupled with false claims. Was it really hard to find a post by its number? Wow, it means you must have serious problems in you alleged scientific work when checking references at journals like Nature…
Now, prove your claims that I am intentionally "making things difficult for anyone" and "clouding, obscuring" by "not providing proper refferences".
And almost everything you wrote from this point crumbles as soon as one questions the precision was the eyewitnesses descriptions of the object’s trajectory. Someone with real scientific training would understand the limitations of his/hers dataset and how far can one make conclusions over it. You crossed this line ages ago.Rramjet said:
Other parts demonstrate clearly your ignorance of geometry, such as for example, this section:
An ellipsoid is a 3d object, Rramjet. I could go on but the other errors were already discussed elsewhere.Rramjet said:
You also misrepresented the very sketches from the eyewitnesses when you wrote:
This is not true. First of all, two sketches posted right here at this thread show different perceived X/Y ratios- thus you claim that the object maintained the perceived ratio is not backed by the evidence. Your second error is that similar differences in perceived ratios can be achieved using either oblate (cigar-like) or prolate (pizza-like) ellipsoids – it all depends on the perspective.Rramjet said:
Distorts the evidence and fails at a simple geometric evaluation… What type of scientist are you exactly?
Thanks for exposing the flawed methods used by many an UFOlogist so clearly.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Why do you keep refilling the bowl of peanuts? I can't help myself!
Probably not. Sparks argument was flawed as well and the approach was trying to find flaws in Hartmann’s research in order to validate the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Your approach was the same. Of course both of you completely missed Hartmann’s point on this and I can equally demonstrate that various scientists agreed with Hartmann’s information (i.e. Menzel, those writing the Condon report, and the National Academy of sciences). I don’t recall Hynek and McDonald arguing about the way Hartmann presented his work either so it pretty much means they could not find fault in it. I suggest that those actual scientists with credentials trump the work of a UFO proponent with (as I recall) a degree in engineering and somebody who claims to be a scientist. If you want to say your work has been validated, I think you are on very weak ground. Additionally, based on your past history of parroting others work, I would not be surprised if you found this and simply paraphrased his work as your own. Of course you could be Brad Sparks but that is doubtful. He would not claim to be a scientist. Some UFO researchers have a line they do not cross (i.e. lying about their credentials).
Yet you provide us with no information on how you performed this on RR. How about giving us the actual case studies that duplicate the events at RR so we can determine the degree of perceptual error and the reports reliability?
First of all, I did list a source but you obviously missed it. Second of all, I would think that a scientist might be interested in checking out the story (i.e. do some homework) but apparently, you are too busy trying to avoid the issue.
I see. Actual moments in history are questioned as anecdotal accounts subject to error but UFO reports are not. We know these events happened at Coral Sea because military historians recorded them from the after action reports and accounts of what transpired. We don’t know exactly what happened at RR simply because there is nothing to confirm what transpired. That is the difference between actual history and UFO reports.
It is relevant because the main points of your argument are that the witnesses were trained observers, saw the object clearly of a significant period of time, and used binoculars. These factors prevented them from misperceiving a blimp or aircraft as a flying disc. In this case, the pilots had a clear view of the ship for a significant period of time, used optical instruments (even examined the ship closely on the first wave of the attack), and were trained observers with recognition charts. These are circumstances similar to that at Rogue River. The only difference is the target (a large ship) and the background (the ocean vs the blue sky). Yet despite having a significant advantage over the RR witnesses (duration of observation and training to recognize these kinds of targets), they failed to properly identify the target and viewed it as something it was not. THAT is why it is relevant. I expect you to dismiss as not being exactly the same but the fact remains that people misidentify things all the time even when they have training. Therefore, you can not make the claim that it is impossible for the RR witnesses to misidentify something mundane (blimp/aircraft) as something exotic (flying disc).
You have not presented this “perceptual literature” to show how you demonstrated this is the case. That is basic science. Since you have not done this, you can not claim that you have been able to rule out perceptual errors or “account” for them (isn’t that the same things as “compensating” for perceptual error, which you deny you are doing?).
Meanwhile, the forum has presented various sources that demonstrate that witnesses can be in error about their observations. You have, as is typical in your unscientific approach, dismissed them with the usual wave of the hand.
My you are a bit on the dense side for a person who claims to have a high degree of education. It is my contention that there is the potential for human error. You have NOT demonstrated how you can compensate for said error and identify when it actually occurs. We are describing the same kind of phenomenon that includes Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, Elvis sightings after his death, fairies, angels, dragons, etc. They are things that nobody has any evidence for existing. Until it can be shown these things actually exist (and I am not talking about UFOs but actual physical craft that are flown by “somebody else”), then the potential for human error or hoax being the source of the report is high.
So you basically are cutting and pasting what NARCAP told you? Do you have the articles and how many people on the west coast had access to the NY times? Of course, this is a document describing newspapers from 1947 and not 1949. I demonstrated that there was no ridicule in 1949 on the subject and the AF had publicly declared that UFO reports were not a joke and were being taken seriously. You will have to do better than that to demonstrate that people were afraid of ridicule. Based on this argument, nobody would have bothered to file any UFO reports after 1947, yet they did. Apparently, not everyone read the NY times. Most of the media headlines did not ridicule witnesses at all.
Probably not. Sparks argument was flawed as well and the approach was trying to find flaws in Hartmann’s research in order to validate the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Your approach was the same. Of course both of you completely missed Hartmann’s point on this and I can equally demonstrate that various scientists agreed with Hartmann’s information (i.e. Menzel, those writing the Condon report, and the National Academy of sciences). I don’t recall Hynek and McDonald arguing about the way Hartmann presented his work either so it pretty much means they could not find fault in it. I suggest that those actual scientists with credentials trump the work of a UFO proponent with (as I recall) a degree in engineering and somebody who claims to be a scientist. If you want to say your work has been validated, I think you are on very weak ground. Additionally, based on your past history of parroting others work, I would not be surprised if you found this and simply paraphrased his work as your own. Of course you could be Brad Sparks but that is doubtful. He would not claim to be a scientist. Some UFO researchers have a line they do not cross (i.e. lying about their credentials).
Yet you provide us with no information on how you performed this on RR. How about giving us the actual case studies that duplicate the events at RR so we can determine the degree of perceptual error and the reports reliability?
First of all, I did list a source but you obviously missed it. Second of all, I would think that a scientist might be interested in checking out the story (i.e. do some homework) but apparently, you are too busy trying to avoid the issue.
I see. Actual moments in history are questioned as anecdotal accounts subject to error but UFO reports are not. We know these events happened at Coral Sea because military historians recorded them from the after action reports and accounts of what transpired. We don’t know exactly what happened at RR simply because there is nothing to confirm what transpired. That is the difference between actual history and UFO reports.
It is relevant because the main points of your argument are that the witnesses were trained observers, saw the object clearly of a significant period of time, and used binoculars. These factors prevented them from misperceiving a blimp or aircraft as a flying disc. In this case, the pilots had a clear view of the ship for a significant period of time, used optical instruments (even examined the ship closely on the first wave of the attack), and were trained observers with recognition charts. These are circumstances similar to that at Rogue River. The only difference is the target (a large ship) and the background (the ocean vs the blue sky). Yet despite having a significant advantage over the RR witnesses (duration of observation and training to recognize these kinds of targets), they failed to properly identify the target and viewed it as something it was not. THAT is why it is relevant. I expect you to dismiss as not being exactly the same but the fact remains that people misidentify things all the time even when they have training. Therefore, you can not make the claim that it is impossible for the RR witnesses to misidentify something mundane (blimp/aircraft) as something exotic (flying disc).
You have not presented this “perceptual literature” to show how you demonstrated this is the case. That is basic science. Since you have not done this, you can not claim that you have been able to rule out perceptual errors or “account” for them (isn’t that the same things as “compensating” for perceptual error, which you deny you are doing?).
Meanwhile, the forum has presented various sources that demonstrate that witnesses can be in error about their observations. You have, as is typical in your unscientific approach, dismissed them with the usual wave of the hand.
My you are a bit on the dense side for a person who claims to have a high degree of education. It is my contention that there is the potential for human error. You have NOT demonstrated how you can compensate for said error and identify when it actually occurs. We are describing the same kind of phenomenon that includes Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, Elvis sightings after his death, fairies, angels, dragons, etc. They are things that nobody has any evidence for existing. Until it can be shown these things actually exist (and I am not talking about UFOs but actual physical craft that are flown by “somebody else”), then the potential for human error or hoax being the source of the report is high.
So you basically are cutting and pasting what NARCAP told you? Do you have the articles and how many people on the west coast had access to the NY times? Of course, this is a document describing newspapers from 1947 and not 1949. I demonstrated that there was no ridicule in 1949 on the subject and the AF had publicly declared that UFO reports were not a joke and were being taken seriously. You will have to do better than that to demonstrate that people were afraid of ridicule. Based on this argument, nobody would have bothered to file any UFO reports after 1947, yet they did. Apparently, not everyone read the NY times. Most of the media headlines did not ridicule witnesses at all.
Last edited:
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Oh yes, forgot about the binoculars that were 'like' those used by the US Navy.
As good as it is, it's a bit static that though Jocce... remember the boat was on the water.
Here you go:
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Post that as footage of an UFO in front of a full Moon and you'll get some followers.
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
Rramjet, why don't you just tell us about your scientific career? Which advanced degrees you hold, the kind of jobs you have held. No locations needed, you will still be anonymous.
Also, I'm still waiting for the quotes of people on this thread who said Unidentified Flying Objects (spelled out as a reminder of what the acronym means) don't exist. I'm not saying that they are not there, I just don't have the patience to follow this thread closely.
Also, I'm still waiting for the quotes of people on this thread who said Unidentified Flying Objects (spelled out as a reminder of what the acronym means) don't exist. I'm not saying that they are not there, I just don't have the patience to follow this thread closely.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Ahh yes the happy halcyon days of page 1
I remember them well
well I was hoping it was humour
hence the
- Status