PDA

View Full Version : [Don J's UFO thread]



Pages : [1] 2

Don J
2011-Oct-01, 06:22 PM
Have you seen the book "UFO's: Generals, Pilots, and government officials go on the record" ?

Yes. It reports previously told UFO stories, but adds the erroneous premise that the occupations identified in the title are necessarily more accurate observers and witnesses than the general public. If you don't believe that premise, you're left with nothing more than a periodic refreshment of old anecdotes.


But it seem that the US Air Force in the the early days of the modern UFO era was very shocked by the observation(s) reported by their own qualified personnel to the point they openly discussed the possibility of an -interplanetary origin- to explain the observation.

for example....

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/true50mc01.htm

Garrison
2011-Oct-01, 08:22 PM
But it seem that the US Air Force in the the early days of the modern UFO era was very shocked by the observation(s) reported by their own qualified personnel to the point they openly discussed the possibility of an -interplanetary origin- to explain the observation.

for example....

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/true50mc01.htm

And then they learned better, or is there any case where the USAF has said, 'yes that was from another world'?

moog
2011-Oct-01, 10:10 PM
But it seem that the US Air Force in the the early days of the modern UFO era was very shocked by the observation(s) reported by their own qualified personnel to the point they openly discussed the possibility of an -interplanetary origin- to explain the observation.

And?

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-01, 11:29 PM
But it seem that the US Air Force in the the early days of the modern UFO era...

So you talking about, what...60 years ago?

slang
2011-Oct-02, 12:18 AM
So you talking about, what...60 years ago?

It's almost funny, I'm reading the first Perry Rhodan "novels", that were written in those days. They are hilarious in the sense that Venus was considered habitable, and Mars as well. Like the Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom books. They are a bit like a testament of how people thought about the solar system back then. I'm not surprised that even well trained (as far as you even can train someone for observing) personell were often suprised by what they saw.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-02, 12:41 AM
It's almost funny, I'm reading the first Perry Rhodan "novels", that were written in those days. They are hilarious in the sense that Venus was considered habitable, and Mars as well.

I remember the last of "those days"...I was just about 10 years old, and my Dad and I would discuss the idea of life on Mars...then Mariner 4 came along and "ruined" everything. :)

Wow...that was more than 45 years ago.

Swift
2011-Oct-02, 02:23 AM
It's almost funny, I'm reading the first Perry Rhodan "novels", that were written in those days. They are hilarious in the sense that Venus was considered habitable, and Mars as well. Like the Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom books. They are a bit like a testament of how people thought about the solar system back then. I'm not surprised that even well trained (as far as you even can train someone for observing) personell were often suprised by what they saw.
You mean this (http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/temp-2011-03-16/yEjylDkdBpzcuvjCdbznghthmckjDyxdalHAeogdrdFkbnnvcc BveGpcoubw/lf.jpg.scaled1000.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJFZAE65UY RT34AOQ&Expires=1317522453&Signature=Y3MAm1pQpqjhG%2FEVAnQdE6BqwkQ%3D) isn't what the surface of Venus looks like?

Don J
2011-Oct-02, 04:59 AM
And?
Lets resume the case ... to see if a natural or human cause can be associate to the observation.
Source of the resume :
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/arrey49.htm


On April 24, 1949, at 10:20 a.m., a group of five technicians under the general supervision of J. Gordon Vaeth, an aeronautical engineer employed by the Office of Naval Research, were preparing to launch a Skyhook balloon near Arrey, N. Mex. A small balloon was sent up first to check the weather. Charles B. Moore Jr., an aerologist of General Mills Inc. (pioneers in cosmic ray research) was tracking the weather balloon through a theodolite - a 25-power telescopic instrument, which gives degrees of azimuth and elevation (horizontal and vertical position) for any object it is sighted on. At 10:30 a.m. Moore leaned back from the theodolite to glance at the balloon with his naked eye. Suddenly he saw a whitish elliptical object, apparently much higher than the balloon, and moving, in the opposite direction. At once he picked the object up in his theodolite at 45 degrees of elevation and 210 degrees of azimuth, and tracked it east at the phenomenal rate of 5 degrees of azimuth-change per second as it dropped swiftly to an elevation of 25 degrees. The object appeared to be an ellipsoid roughly two and a half times as long as it was wide. Suddenly it swung abruptly upward and rushed out of sight in a few seconds. Moore had tracked it for about 60 seconds altogether. The other members of his crew confirmed his report. No sound was heard, no vapor trail was seen. The object, according to rough estimations by Moore and his colleagues, was about 56 miles above the earth, 100 feet long and was traveling at seven miles per second.
EVALUATION:

No known optical or atmospheric phenomenon fits the facts. A natural object traveling at seven miles per second has never been seen to make a sudden upward turn. There is no known or projected source of silent, vaporless power for such a machine. No human being could have borne the tremendous "G" load brought to bear on the craft during its abrupt vertical veer.

moog
2011-Oct-02, 09:54 AM
Lets resume the case ...

Do you have anything not solely based on an argument from authority?

slang
2011-Oct-02, 10:27 AM
You mean this (http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/temp-2011-03-16/yEjylDkdBpzcuvjCdbznghthmckjDyxdalHAeogdrdFkbnnvcc BveGpcoubw/lf.jpg.scaled1000.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJFZAE65UY RT34AOQ&Expires=1317522453&Signature=Y3MAm1pQpqjhG%2FEVAnQdE6BqwkQ%3D) isn't what the surface of Venus looks like?

Hmm. Yes. I'm pretty sure the surface of Venus doesn't look like an error XML file. If anything it would be flat text. :P


<Error>
<Code>AccessDenied</Code>
<Message>Request has expired</Message>
<RequestId>AEA3BF5581CE47C5</RequestId>
<Expires>2011-10-02T02:27:33Z</Expires>
<ServerTime>2011-10-02T10:25:17Z</ServerTime>
</Error>

Garrison
2011-Oct-02, 11:02 AM
Lets resume the case ... to see if a natural or human cause can be associate to the observation.
Source of the resume :
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/arrey49.htm

So you offer yet another eyewitness account that allegedly doesn't match any known phenomena, from a time before the unreliability of eyewitness testimony was clearly established and without any corroborating evidence, is that an accurate summary? And you think this is going to be more useful than the previous unsupported eyewitness accounts? Oh and to repeat my earlier question:

is there any case where the USAF has said, 'yes that was from another world'?

Don J
2011-Oct-02, 06:00 PM
So you offer yet another eyewitness account that allegedly doesn't match any known phenomena, from a time before the unreliability of eyewitness testimony was clearly established and without any corroborating evidence, is that an accurate summary? And you think this is going to be more useful than the previous unsupported eyewitness accounts? Oh and to repeat my earlier question:

is there any case where the USAF has said, 'yes that was from another world'?

These are all good questions for which i have no affirmative answers.

As for the summary it came from the original transcript of the letters to the Office of Naval Research, CIA archive

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-onr-01.gif

Don J
2011-Oct-02, 06:02 PM
Do you have anything not solely based on an argument from authority?

No ,for now !

Garrison
2011-Oct-02, 09:31 PM
These are all good questions for which i have no affirmative answers.

As for the summary it came from the original transcript of the letters to the Office of Naval Research, CIA archive

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-onr-01.gif

Then why would you post it? You that this sort of unsupported testimony isn't going to be taken seriously, so why put it up in the first place?

Don J
2011-Oct-03, 04:45 AM
Then why would you post it? You that this sort of unsupported testimony isn't going to be taken seriously, so why put it up in the first place?
Wait a second,this report was taken seriously by the Office of Naval Research so on what are you resorting to the claim that it cannot be taken seriously now ?
Have you find a natural or a human cause to explain the observation other than by using the usual mantra that their testimony is not reliable (?) ....



...from a time before the unreliability of eyewitness testimony was clearly established

ETA
Remember that the object was observed with a theodolite -(A theodolite is a triangulation telescope, used to track and measure the angular vertical and horizontal displacement of their target)- and also with the naked eye by five trained observers.

Gillianren
2011-Oct-03, 07:15 AM
Okay, direct question time. What were they trained in observing? Would that make them more or less likely to identify something with which they had no experience?

Strange
2011-Oct-03, 09:51 AM
Lets resume the case ... to see if a natural or human cause can be associate to the observation.
Source of the resume :
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/arrey49.htm

This seems to be one of those cases that falls into the "unidentified" category. And, at this distance with no further information, unidentifiable. There is nothing to confirm its size, speed or distance. There is nothing to suggest it was a "machine" of any sort (the summary seems to rule that out). So...

Well, so what? Another observation of something unidentified. Curious, perhaps. But it doesn't tell us anything. And the trouble is that collecting together all the unidentified cases doesn't seem to to tell us anything either. Pretty much the only thing they have in common is that they are unidentified. (Well, apart from some interpretations created by cultural expectations such as "flying saucers" in the 20th century, angels in the middle ages, etc.)

And on expectations, I think it is interesting that the initial sighting was by someone who was expecting to see planes and would therefore assume the objects were distant - perhaps more distant than they really were. Once you have made that sort of assumption, it can be very hard to shift as it alters your interpretation of what you are seeing (and human vision is not like a video camera; most of what we see is "created" by the mind).

Strange
2011-Oct-03, 09:55 AM
Remember that the object was observed [b]with a theodolite

Well, that does give us a good measure of angular speed. I don't know if it tells us anything else, though.

Abaddon
2011-Oct-03, 10:19 AM
Well, that does give us a good measure of angular speed. I don't know if it tells us anything else, though.

Doesn't a theodolite invert the image?

Wouldn't that make identifying a fast moving object more difficult?

Strange
2011-Oct-03, 11:15 AM
Doesn't a theodolite invert the image?

Wouldn't that make identifying a fast moving object more difficult?

I don't know and I don't know :)

And, apparently, the etymology of the word is unknown (http://www.languagehat.com/archives/001935.php) as well...

captain swoop
2011-Oct-03, 11:24 AM
plus a theodolite won't give range, it's just a telescope

Strange
2011-Oct-03, 11:31 AM
If the theodolite was focussed on the balloon and if the objects were much closer (which could at least partly explain the high apparent velocity) then they may have been out of focus, making them hard to identify. But, who knows...

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-03, 04:38 PM
]As for the summary it came from the original transcript of the letters to the Office of Naval Research, CIA archive

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-onr-01.gif
The summary is only an interpretation of what those letters mean.

Nowhere in those documents is there any kind of speculations on what it can or cannot be. Therefore, a summary can not project any speculation.


Wait a second,this report was taken seriously by the Office of Naval Research...
The report of WHAT in particular was taken seriously? Answer: only an observation, not a speculation.


Have you find a natural or a human cause to explain the observation other than by using the usual mantra that their testimony is not reliable (?) ....
Has anyone found an ET cause that matches up to the observation?

Swift
2011-Oct-03, 04:44 PM
Don J's posts and the responses to them have been moved from this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/112361-Help-debunking-UFOs) to here

JayUtah
2011-Oct-03, 05:14 PM
...

But it seem that the US Air Force in the the early days of the modern UFO era was very shocked...

I read your link. Where's the shock?

...reported by their own qualified personnel to the point they openly discussed the possibility of an -interplanetary origin- to explain the observation.

I see the noted UFO enthusiast Robert McLaughlin, who happened also to be a naval officer, making some very speculative and irresponsible claims to that effect, but I see nothing that tells me such speculation was taken seriously by anyone. You want to characterize his response as representative of the entire military, but in fact the entire military is already on record saying they don't believe unidentified flying objects represent alien intelligence or a threat to national security. There is no need to extrapolate from McLaughlin to some imaginary collective opinion when we can read the documented collective opinion ourselves.

You didn't really address my point. You asked about the latest book of anecdotes from pilots and military officials, and I would like to know if you have any evidence that this book is not just the standard ufologist's argument from authority.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-03, 05:20 PM
plus a theodolite won't give range, it's just a telescope

Restricting the observer's field of view and forcing him to look through artificial optics will deny him some of the cues ordinarily used to identify range and size. The only reliable measurements that can be obtained by observing a UFO through a theodolite are elevation, azimuth, and possible the associated rates.

Garrison
2011-Oct-03, 05:26 PM
Wait a second,this report was taken seriously by the Office of Naval Research so on what are you resorting to the claim that it cannot be taken seriously now ?
Have you find a natural or a human cause to explain the observation other than by using the usual mantra that their testimony is not reliable (?) ....

You seem to have forgotten where the burden of proof lies here. The null hypothesis is that: 'all UFOs have a mundane explanation', it's down you to falsify that with evidence. Saying that the ONR took the report seriously is not the same as saying they concluded it was an alien spacecraft, unless you have evidence to the contrary. And saying that eyewitness testimony is unreliable is not a mantra, its a demonstrated reality; it's entirely subjective and has little evidential value, and since you are clearly aware of how such evidence is likely to be regard here at BAUT I have to ask again why you would post yet more uncorroborated eyewitness testimony? What would make it more successful this time?

Don J
2011-Oct-03, 06:56 PM
You seem to have forgotten where the burden of proof lies here. The null hypothesis is that: 'all UFOs have a mundane explanation',

Which to this day failed to explain the observation even Blue Book project put the report in the -Unable to explain it with a mundane explanation --- category.....along with 700 other cases.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-03, 07:06 PM
Which to this day failed to explain the observation even Blue Book project put the report in the -Unable to explain it with a mundane explanation --- category.....along with 700 other cases.

Which, according to the null hypothesis, are categorized as having an unspecified mundane explanation. That's the intent and meaning of the null hypothesis. Ufologists want the null hypothesis to be whatever formulation of the farfetched extraterrestrial or hyperdimensional explanation they're enamored with at the moment, with the result being that they don't ever have to prove anything specific.

Don J
2011-Oct-03, 07:08 PM
But it seem that the US Air Force in the the early days of the modern UFO era was very shocked...

I read your link. Where's the shock?

...reported by their own qualified personnel to the point they openly discussed the possibility of an -interplanetary origin- to explain the observation.

I see the noted UFO enthusiast Robert McLaughlin, who happened also to be a naval officer, making some very speculative and irresponsible claims to that effect, but I see nothing that tells me such speculation was taken seriously by anyone. (snip)
The point where the report was taken seriously is on the letter ,
To: The Chief of Naval Operations
Attn: Office of Naval Intelligence
Via: The Chief of Naval Research


2. Mr. Moore's statement is forwarded as significant because of the detailed theodolite tracking data it contains and because the object's variation of azimuth and elevation might indicate some degree of controlled flight.

Original letter
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-onr-01.gif

and the report by Moore

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif

JayUtah
2011-Oct-03, 07:24 PM
The point where the report was taken seriously is on the letter...

Neither of those sources even mentions an extraterrestrial theory, much less takes it seriously.

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-03, 07:32 PM
The point where the report was taken seriously is on the letter ,
To: The Chief of Naval Operations
Attn: Office of Naval Intelligence
Via: The Chief of Naval Research ...
This sounds like a case of selective hearing on your part. You responded to Jay's post with this, and skipped over my post as to why that explaination is irrelevent.

Don J
2011-Oct-03, 07:41 PM
Neither of those sources even mentions an extraterrestrial theory, much less takes it seriously.

Right ,the point of interest is - might indicate some degree of controlled flight - .Which indicate that they suspected that the object was under intelligent control.
The question is which Nation on Earth was in possession of such flying capabality in (1949) and take the risk to fly over the US territory ?

Garrison
2011-Oct-03, 07:57 PM
Which to this day failed to explain the observation even Blue Book project put the report in the -Unable to explain it with a mundane explanation --- category.....along with 700 other cases.

The null hypothesis is there to be falsified not proven. It is the default assumption that you as the proponent have to disprove and it is taken to be true until shown otherwise, so please just get on with showing us the evidence that would disprove it.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-03, 07:58 PM
...

Right ,the point of interest is - might indicate some degree of controlled flight

That's speculation on their part.

Which indicate that they suspected that the object was under intelligent control.

No, that's your speculation. Controlled flight is not synonymous with intelligent control.

The question is which Nation on Earth was in possession of such flying capabality in (1949)...

No, that's you tacking on an entirely unwarranted line of reasoning. There's absolutely nothing there to indicate that this is what they were thinking. Just because you consider space aliens a "natural" alternative explanation doesn't mean that (a) it is a reasonable alternative, and (b) that your sources were thinking of it. When you depart from the evidence and start deducing (or, in this case, inducing) then you incur a burden of proof.

Garrison
2011-Oct-03, 08:04 PM
Right ,the point of interest is - might indicate some degree of controlled flight - .Which indicate that they suspected that the object was under intelligent control.
The question is which Nation on Earth was in possession of such flying capabality in (1949) and take the risk to fly over the US territory ?

Taking the question seriously the USSR obviously and yes the US did think they might have exotic aircraft based on captured German technology, so when they say 'might indicate some degree of controlled flight' they more than likely had something like the Ho-229 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229) in mind rather than flying saucers.

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-03, 08:22 PM
Neither of those sources even mentions an extraterrestrial theory, much less takes it seriously.Right ,the point of interest is - might indicate some degree of controlled flight - .Which indicate that they suspected that the object was under intelligent control.
That's not what you said though. You pointed to who the authorities are to explain why it was taken seriously. Not what the interest was (which is not addressd).

Strange
2011-Oct-03, 09:58 PM
Which to this day failed to explain the observation even Blue Book project put the report in the -Unable to explain it with a mundane explanation --- category.....along with 700 other cases.

Yep. Unexplained. End of story.

Gillianren
2011-Oct-04, 01:48 AM
And given how poor the information is for a lot of those unexplained sightings, it's silly to assume they would be anything else but unexplained. People who get days, times, and locations wrong? People who aren't sure about one or two of the three? It would be unscientific to claim any cause for them, and saying, "We don't know what they were" is the only reasonable thing to do.

tnjrp
2011-Oct-04, 07:14 AM
Controlled flight is not synonymous with intelligent controlI must say that I find this borderlines on discussing semantics instead of discussing the actual reported sighting. To me it seems that "control" always implies some sort of intention, hence in a very broad sense intelligence at work, however low on "the Turing scale" that intelligence might be.


Just because you consider space aliens a "natural" alternative explanation doesn't mean that (a) it is a reasonable alternative, and (b) that your sources were thinking of it. When you depart from the evidence and start deducing (or, in this case, inducing) then you incur a burden of proof.I'm thinking Don is going for the "it was technology but not of the sort anyone on Earth was capable of, so that only leaves aliens" angle here. A fairly popular approach as it circumvents the need to actually make any claims about the aliens themselves, but one that still leaves the alien hypothesis proponent with the problem of demonstrating it was in fact caused by technology that couldn't have existed at the time of course.

captain swoop
2011-Oct-04, 08:00 AM
Birds demonstrate controlled flight.

It's no coincidence that the further back these incidents are the easier it is to claim Aliens today.

tnjrp
2011-Oct-04, 08:49 AM
Birds demonstrate controlled flightAnd I would also argue that they demonstrate intelligence, although not of the human type.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-04, 03:34 PM
And I would also argue that they demonstrate intelligence, although not of the human type.

Indeed, and Don J's premise requires intelligence of an order significantly greater than human, since his claim is that ordinary human intelligence would be insufficient to produce the observed results. That's the UFO-believer's premise, though. There's no evidence that it was the premise intended by the observers or the Navy, and no evidence that their notion of "controlled flight" is limited to that desired by Don J.

A Frisbee demonstrates controlled flight too, because it is aerodynamically and gyroscopically stabilized. A maple seed is also aerodynamically metastable in flight. But neither of these is under intelligent control during cruise flight.

Yes, I am arguing semantics because Don J's argument is predicated on reading into the Navy statement the beliefs and prejudices that the UFO-believers bring to the table as an unconscious matter of course. "Controlled flight" is a ufology buzzword. It invokes a line of conjecture common to many UFO claims. Then the "no nation on Earth could have..." line of reasoning is the standard attempt to argue through indirection -- to say that the contemplated reason must be extraterrestrial because it can't possibly be terrestrial. This is how UFO arguments work: by taking incremental baby-steps of conjecture (each of which possibly not unreasonable) until the accumulation of those steps becomes a huge trek of supposition.

Therefore Don J has the burden to prove that by "controlled flight" the reporters intended "a vehicle under the command of an onboard intelligent pilot," which is the idea he's using as his premise. By pointing out that other forms of "controlled flight" exist and may have been intended, I identify that burden of proof to him.

Gillianren
2011-Oct-04, 05:28 PM
Okay, direct question time. What were they trained in observing? Would that make them more or less likely to identify something with which they had no experience?

This got put in the wrong thread initially, and I'd like to repeat it to make sure Don J sees and answers it.

Don J
2011-Oct-04, 07:03 PM
This got put in the wrong thread initially, and I'd like to repeat it to make sure Don J sees and answers it.


Okay, direct question time. What were they trained in observing?

Their speciality is launching and tracking meteorology balloon.


Would that make them more or less likely to identify something with which they had no experience?

The object they have observed and the performance do not correspond to any type of known object or natural phenomena they can account for.

That is why in the report Moore is asking
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif


Information is desired if this was some new or experimental aircraft or for any explanation whatsoever

Garrison
2011-Oct-04, 07:18 PM
The object they have observed and the performance do not correspond to any type of known object or natural phenomena they can account for.


Don J you've been round this block before. You ought to know full well by now that eyewitness testimony is inherently error prone. If the report does not correspond to any known object or natural phenomenon then the most likely explanation is that witnesses perception or recollections are in error, or do you have any evidence to refute that probability that in this case?

Don J
2011-Oct-04, 07:52 PM
Don J you've been round this block before. You ought to know full well by now that eyewitness testimony is inherently error prone. If the report does not correspond to any known object or natural phenomenon then the most likely explanation is that witnesses perception or recollections are in error, or do you have any evidence to refute that probability that in this case?

If you have read the page you will be aware that the team who have made the report was not the only team who have observed uncommun objects while tracking balloons.Are they all in error ?Hallucinating?Under the influnce of illicite substance or medication ?
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/arrey49.htm


The Aeronautical Division of General Mills, Inc., of Wheaties and Betty Crocker fame, had launched and tracked every skyhook balloon that had been launched prior to mid 1952. They knew what their balloons looked like under all lighting conditions and they also knew meteorology, aerodynamics, astronomy, and they knew UFO's. I talked to these people for the better part of a full day, and every time I tried to infer that there might be some natural explanation for the UFO's I just about found myself in a fresh snowdrift.

What made these people so sure that UFO's existed? In the first place, they had seen many of them. One man told me that one tracking crew had seen so many that the sight of a UFO no longer even especially interested them. And the things that they saw couldn't be explained.

For example: On January 16, 1951, two people from General Mills and four people from Artesia, New Mexico, were watching a skyhook balloon from the Artesia airport. They had been watching the balloon off and on for about an hour when one of the group saw two tiny specks on the horizon, off to the northwest. He pointed them out to the others because two airplanes were expected into the airport, and he thought that these might be the airplanes. But as they watched, the two specks began to move in fast, and within a few seconds the observers could see that "the airplanes" were actually two round, dull white objects flying in close formation. The two objects continued to come in and headed straight toward the balloon. When they reached the balloon they circled it once and flew off to the northwest, where they disappeared over the horizon. As the two UFO's circled the balloon, they tipped on edge and the observers saw that they were disk shaped.

When the two UFO's were near the balloon, the observers also had a chance to compare the size of the UFO's with the size of the balloon. If the UFO's were as close to the balloon as they appeared to be they would have been 60 feet in diameter.

After my visit to General Mills, Inc., I couldn't help remembering a magazine article I'd read about a year before. It said that there was not a single reliable UFO report that couldn't be attributed to a skyhook balloon.

Within two weeks after the sighting, AFOSI (the scientific investigation office of the Air Force) investigators had visited and interviewed the witnesses and put their statements on record. Then Moore's report landed on Project Grudge's desk, and a Dr. Fitts for evaluation.

Garrison
2011-Oct-04, 08:21 PM
If you have read the page you will be aware that the team who have made the report was not the only team who have observed uncommun objects while tracking balloons.Are they all in error ?Hallucinating?Under the influnce of illicite substance or medication ?
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/arrey49.htm

Any or all of the above until you provide some supporting evidence, eyewitness accounts are completely subjective, if you want to convince people here you need objective evidence. What someone thinks they saw just isn't very useful as evidence. I'm not going to repeat the links I put in the Paul Logan thread but I would suggest you check them out and get some perspective on the value of unsupported eyewitness testimony.
Also can I ask why all you favourite cases are so old? Is there a reason why people don't have such remarkable sightings in the age of the camera phone?

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-04, 08:25 PM
Are they all in error ?Hallucinating?Under the influnce of illicite substance or medication ?
Why do you assume that we are trying to say that their lack of identification is due to some kind if influence?
It's a simple matter of "I never saw something like that". That doesn't imply anything except thier experience at seeing something they have not learned about (yet) or under possibley unusual conditions. Nothing denigrating about it.

Tensor
2011-Oct-04, 10:09 PM
If you have read the page you will be aware that the team who have made the report was not the only team who have observed uncommun objects while tracking balloons.Are they all in error ?Hallucinating?Under the influnce of illicite substance or medication ?
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/arrey49.htm

The pertinent sentences:When the two UFO's were near the balloon, the observers also had a chance to compare the size of the UFO's with the size of the balloon. If the UFO's were as close to the balloon as they appeared to be they would have been 60 feet in diameter.

How did they determine if the UFOs were as close as they appeared to be? Were they as close? Were they farther away and just appeared to be closer? Were they closer to the observers and just appeared to be close to the balloon? What else do you have to answer these questions Don? A lot of this hinges on "If the UFOs were as close to the balloon as they appeared...." Without a definitive answer to the actual distance of the UFOs compared to the balloon, there really isn't much to discuss except pure speculation.

eburacum45
2011-Oct-04, 10:16 PM
Perhaps someone has some idea as to how Moore made his assessment of the object's size and distance. Even with a theodolite it is impossible to estimate the size of an object without knowing its distance, and vice versa. Could it be that he was guessing that the object was at a similar distance to his habitual target, a balloon? If that guess was incorrect, then his other estimates were wrong too.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-04, 10:47 PM
Are they all in error ?Hallucinating?Under the influnce of illicite substance or medication ?

Or perhaps they were honestly mistaken about what they "think" they saw?

Please consider that a direct question.

Gillianren
2011-Oct-04, 11:37 PM
Their speciality is launching and tracking meteorology balloon.

Okay. What does that training entail?


The object they have observed and the performance do not correspond to any type of known object or natural phenomena they can account for.

That is why in the report Moore is asking
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif

Do you know what objects and natural phenomena they do and don't know? Is it possible that there are objects which would be identifiable to someone else which they wouldn't be able to identify yet are still relatively mundane?

JayUtah
2011-Oct-05, 01:43 AM
...

If you have read the page you will be aware that the team who have made the report was not the only team who have observed uncommun objects while tracking balloons.

Is there a connection? If so, what and why? Do people track balloons without seeing UFOs? Do people see UFOs when they're doing other things besides tracking balloons? How many sightings occur when people are looking at the sky for other reasons? Is it because they're looking at the sky when they ordinarily wouldn't be? Or do you think there's something "magical" about balloons that attracts whatever UFOs are?

The sort of conjectural connections that UFO fanatics draw is part of why people don't take them seriously. You can't really say things are related if you don't know what they are or what causes them. If the phenomenology is too general, you can't then base a line of reasoning on "suspicious" commonality.

Are they all in error?

"All" who? Based on the reports you've provided of two sightings, I would tentatively assert that the parties in both sights have made common errors in judging distance, size, shape, and relative position. These are some of the known ways in which human perception can be fooled. If this had been, say, an NTSB accident investigation, the interviewer would conduct a prescribed dialogue with the witness to determine the reliability of his estimates for things like size, shape, color, brightness, range, angular velocity, duration. That information is not available in these cases. In both these cases, the witnesses were using amplifying optics that restricted their field of view and negated certain cues like focus feedback and parallax. That adds to the normal errors of identification and perception at a distance.

Does that mean that all UFO witnesses commit the same errors, or commit any errors? No. Contrary to the claims of UFO enthusiasts, skeptics do not categorically dismiss eyewitness testimony.

Hallucinating? Under the influnce of illicite substance or medication?

This is uncalled for. When we say that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, we mean it is subject to certain difficulties in perception, interpretation, and recollection that are proper and natural to the human organism. These are normal people exhibiting normal modes of unreliability. Yet UFO enthusiasts assume we're accusing witnesses of some sort of mental deficiency or shortcoming, or of some unacceptable behavior. We're not calling them all drunkards or drug addicts, or mental patients. UFO fanatics are way too eager to make it seem like skeptics are trying to stigmatize witnesses. We're accusing them only of being ordinary humans.

Don J
2011-Oct-05, 03:26 AM
Any or all of the above until you provide some supporting evidence, eyewitness accounts are completely subjective, if you want to convince people here you need objective evidence. What someone thinks they saw just isn't very useful as evidence. I'm not going to repeat the links I put in the Paul Logan thread but I would suggest you check them out and get some perspective on the value of unsupported eyewitness testimony.
Also can I ask why all you favourite cases are so old?

The reason why the people at The Aeronautical Division of General Mills stopped reporting UFO's observations is explained here


Within two weeks after the sighting, AFOSI (the scientific investigation office of the Air Force) investigators had visited and interviewed the witnesses and put their statements on record. Then Moore's report landed on Project Grudge's desk, and a Dr. Fitts for evaluation. But at the time, the Air Force was supposed to discard UFOs as ridiculous and Dr. Fitts did not study the report and just wrote back that the subject was not worthy of any such investigation due to lack of reliable data.

However, although Grudge head Colonel Watson was totally "anti-UFO", he had to admit that Moore's sighting has no commonplace explanation. The sighting was also studied at the AMC (Air Material Command), and the conclusion by their Chief of the Aircraft Projects Section of the Engineering Division, Colonel George F. Smith, was, on July 27, 1949:

"This Office can give no hint of identification or possible origin of these objects as described."

General Mills people were shocked of the casual treatment, since nothing of value was answered to them, and subsequently General Mills officials wrote to the Assistant Secretary of the AF concerning this sighting and other sightings by their scientists and technicians. Simultaneously, Project Grudge had been revamped and named Project Blue Book, headed by Edward Ruppelt. Ruppelt started by reopening Grudge cases and this is why he visited General Mills people. However, he tried to debunk the Moore sighting as a balloon, and this is why the scientists there almost threw him out. Ruppelt failed to request that further sightings are referred to his service, and simply gave some blank CIRVIS reporting forms. As a result, General Mills people were very unhappy and stopped reporting further sightings to the Air Force.



Is there a reason why people don't have such remarkable sightings in the age of the camera phone?

It does not matter because even if someone have something on video it is rejected.

Don J
2011-Oct-05, 03:35 AM
Taking the question seriously the USSR obviously and yes the US did think they might have exotic aircraft based on captured German technology, so when they say 'might indicate some degree of controlled flight' they more than likely had something like the Ho-229 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229) in mind rather than flying saucers.

You mean the whole Nazy UFO story including the Nazy UFO base in Antartica for the origin of the UFO's....

http://www.google.ca/search?q=nazy+ufo+base+in+antartica&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:fr:official

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_UFOs

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-05, 04:02 AM
So Garrison mentions testing captured German airplanes, and that somehow becomes a "Nazi UFO base in Antarctica"??


How did you make that "connection"?

Don J
2011-Oct-05, 05:19 AM
So Garrison mentions testing captured German airplanes, and that somehow becomes a "Nazi UFO base in Antarctica"??


How did you make that "connection"?
That is what come up on Google about German UFO or Nazi UFO technology ...

Gillianren
2011-Oct-05, 06:12 AM
Or "Nazi," even. But there is a large difference between German UFOs and captured German planes, don't you think?

Don J
2011-Oct-05, 06:20 AM
Or "Nazi," even. But there is a large difference between German UFOs and captured German planes, don't you think?

Obviously, as presented in this documentary...

http://www.ufo-blog.com/ufo_video_footage/nazi_ufos/watch_ufo_secrets_of_the_third_reich.htm

PaulLogan
2011-Oct-05, 06:27 AM
Contrary to the claims of UFO enthusiasts, skeptics do not categorically dismiss eyewitness testimony.

contrary to the claims of debunking enthusiasts that is more often than not exactly what happens. read pretty much any of Garrison's post and you'll find it right there.
and it is typical of debunking enthusiasts.

first they come with mundane explanations often discarding their own high-held skepticism in the process.
if that doesn't work or is otherwise rejected the last resort is pretty much always categorical rejection of eye-witnesses.

no court does that and even the military as cited in the documents does not do that:
"This Office can give no hint of identification or possible origin of these objects as described." they simply state that they have no explanation. from what i have seen in the documents cited in this thread they did not dismiss the eye-witness reports.

the only honest response in a case like that is "we don't know".
ufo enthusiasts, more often than not, tend to see etv where there is none.
debunking enthusistasts, more often than not, simply dismiss a report simply on the grounds of unreliable ew reports, no matter what the specific circumstances are or how many confirm the same sighting.

both are typical for a fundamentalist approach. and neither position is helpful. it only leads to hardened fronts and no proper investigation gets done in such an emotionally charged environment.

i rather side with level-headed and open-minded people like edgar mitchell or michio kaku (among others). they have chosen to call for a proper investigation of ufo cases because they clearly consider etv a real possibility or are even convinced they have already happened. they have heard the arguments of the debunking enthusiasts probably more than they care to, are intelligent enough to weigh the implications - if any - and yet they have arrived at a very different conclusion than the debunking enthusiasts.

how can that be?

maybe the arguments of the debunking enthusiasts are false or at least incomplete?
maybe it is not all as clear-cut as the debunking enthusiasts in this thread try to make us believe - in all their enthusiasm?
i sure don't think so.

this phenomenon is more complex than a simple dismissal can do it justice.
when will you be able to admit that simple fact?

Tedward
2011-Oct-05, 06:51 AM
Reading those reports (linked in this thread), it is a long stretch to pin it to anything extraordinary when the human is involved. Without meaning to cast aspersions but there is the simplicity of a mistake being made taking into account human input. I do not know much about theodolites, what can they do? If there is a scope involved then there are optics, they introduce things that can attributed.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-05, 07:25 AM
first they come with mundane explanations often discarding their own high-held skepticism in the process. if that doesn't work or is otherwise rejected the last resort is pretty much always categorical rejection of eye-witnesses.

Eyewitness' testimony simply is not, generally, reliable enough to answer the question, "is alien life here"?

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it now.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-05, 07:29 AM
i rather side with level-headed and open-minded people like edgar mitchell...

Dr. Mitchell admits that he has no direct experience or evidence to "back up" his beliefs.

Tedward
2011-Oct-05, 07:33 AM
no court does that and even the military as cited in the documents does not do that:
"This Office can give no hint of identification or possible origin of these objects as described." they simply state that they have no explanation. from what i have seen in the documents cited in this thread they did not dismiss the eye-witness reports.

Scuse the snip. Missing this in the two linked I have looked at, which one is it in?

From what I have read and how I read these reports, someone filed a bit of paper. Someone replied in official capacity. There is no support and no rejection as I read it?

PaulLogan
2011-Oct-05, 07:34 AM
Dr. Mitchell admits that he has no direct experience or evidence to "back up" his beliefs.

i know. and he has said that he has no smoking gun, as has michio kaku.
that is exactly my point.
and yet they believe some of the eye witnesses they have listened to.
they know it's no scientifically solid evidence but they are convinced nonetheless.
why? because they kept an open mind and listened. critically, i am sure, as their education has taught them.
it depends on the specific case. categorical dismissal does not make any sense whatsoever.

hopefully, that gives you an idea how unconvincing your "arguments" are.

this phenomenon is more complex than a simple dismissal can do it justice.
when will you be able to admit that simple fact?

Tedward
2011-Oct-05, 07:44 AM
Cannot see the link from and "open mind" to certifiable evidence.

pzkpfw
2011-Oct-05, 07:47 AM
...

You were not willing to debate the issue in your own thread. Don't start the same old arguments in another thread.

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-05, 08:03 AM
this phenomenon is more complex than a simple dismissal can do it justice.
when will you be able to admit that simple fact?

About the time you're willing to acknowledge that skeptics are well aware that there are many complex phenomena involved in the subjects of these discussions, and that it is not dismissal to expect solid evidence for extraordinary claims.

Strange
2011-Oct-05, 09:57 AM
the only honest response in a case like that is "we don't know".
ufo enthusiasts, more often than not, tend to see etv where there is none.
debunking enthusistasts, more often than not, simply dismiss a report simply on the grounds of unreliable ew reports, no matter what the specific circumstances are or how many confirm the same sighting.

I really struggle to understand your point. I wonder sometimes if we are reading different threads.

No one is "dismissing" these reports in the sense of "it never happened" - as you seem to suggest. Can you point to a single person who said these witnesses never saw anything? Or that the witnesses don't exist? Or that the whole event is just made up?

Instead people are saying you cannot assume it is ET, or unknown technology, or even any sort of craft at all based on this evidence. The evidence is vague, unrepeatable, unreliable (inevitably, although I know you wish it weren't) and does not form part of a consistent body of evidence for anything in particular (except people seeing things that cannot be identified).

How is the statement "you cannot claim a specific cause" different from your "we don't know"?

If someone (Don J or whoever) says "it is clearly an unknown earthly technology" or "it appears to be another alien craft" should we just say, "yeah, whatever"? Or should we point out why we cannot know that without further (and better) evidence than presented ? You claim to be in favor of the latter approach and yet whenever anyone questions the nature, source, or integrity of the evidence you cry foul. Why?

tnjrp
2011-Oct-05, 10:04 AM
Methinks it is a case of "going theory first" - the theory being "there is no mundane explanation possible (therefore aliens)". A practice UFO proponents tend to accuse skeptics of, obviously just with a different theory. In a pinch a proponent can turn the tables on a skeptic by saying that there is no amount of evidence that would convince them of the alien hypothesis being correct and therefore they just automatically classify everything "inconvenient" as "unknown" so they can dismiss it.

---


A Frisbee demonstrates controlled flight too, because it is aerodynamically and gyroscopically stabilized. A maple seed is also aerodynamically metastable in flight. But neither of these is under intelligent control during cruise flight.My idea of what "controlled" would mean is more at "directed" or "piloted", but I admit this probably just my problem stemming from the fact that I am not a native English speaker. I am also at loss as to what single word I should use for frisbee-style flight (it is certainly controlled in most cases even in the sense I would use the word because the flight is not only directed but also powered by a human) or flying under own power without direction (exhibited by certain simple toy aeroplanes) so perhaps "controlled" is indeed the best option.

Of course DonJ is refering to "piloted" flight subtype of controlled specifically.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-05, 05:05 PM
In a pinch a proponent can turn the tables on a skeptic by saying that there is no amount of evidence that would convince them of the alien hypothesis being correct and therefore they just automatically classify everything "inconvenient" as "unknown" so they can dismiss it.

Which, in my opinion, usually indicates the "Proponent" has run out of arguments...as you mentioned.

Gillianren
2011-Oct-05, 05:45 PM
Obviously, as presented in this documentary...

http://www.ufo-blog.com/ufo_video_footage/nazi_ufos/watch_ufo_secrets_of_the_third_reich.htm

In your own words, please; I won't watch your documentary. And how about my other questions?

Garrison
2011-Oct-05, 06:11 PM
That is what come up on Google about German UFO or Nazi UFO technology ...

So in response to this question:


Right ,the point of interest is - might indicate some degree of controlled flight - .Which indicate that they suspected that the object was under intelligent control.
The question is which Nation on Earth was in possession of such flying capabality in (1949) and take the risk to fly over the US territory ?

I post that the US could have been concerned that the USSR might have advanced aircraft based on WWII German aircraft prototypes and were testing US defences with them, and you somehow choose to interpret that as 'Nazi UFOs'? |To be crystal clear I am talking about the very real US concern that the Soviets were seeking to exploit captured German blueprints and engineers to develop advanced aircraft, just as the US was, and that said aircraft might be able to penetrate US airspace undetected by radar. Now avoiding any more flights of fancy do you accept this is a more plausible explanation of the 'point of interest' as you put it than that they were worried about invaders from Mars?

And since you seem so fond of old UFO stories, here's an article about the Kenneth Arnold sighting (http://www.debunker.com/arnold.html). Compare the image to the Ho-229 and I think you have to conclude that there were indeed rogue German fighters prowling the US in the 40's (No not a serious proposition but still one with far more evidence than alien invaders)

JayUtah
2011-Oct-05, 06:32 PM
It does not matter because even if someone have something on video it is rejected.

You dodged the question. The question was about why there are fewer incredible sightings that have only eyewitness testimony and recollection as their primary evidence, now that it is more appropriate to expect objective recordings of those remarkable traits. Hardly anyone in the civilized world does not have some sort of camera on him at all times. It's harder now to claim that you saw something incredible but didn't get a picture of it.

If this is a genuine phenomenon, then we expect the number of incredible sightings to remain relatively constant. However, if there is a component of deception, we expect to see a decline in the number of that type of sighting as that type of sighting becomes less and less credible. There are those who say that UFO hunting is a cultural phenomenon, not an aerial one. This tends to support their point.

Don J
2011-Oct-05, 07:06 PM
So in response to this question:


I post that the US could have been concerned that the USSR might have advanced aircraft based on WWII German aircraft prototypes and were testing US defences with them, and you somehow choose to interpret that as 'Nazi UFOs'? |To be crystal clear I am talking about the very real US concern that the Soviets were seeking to exploit captured German blueprints and engineers to develop advanced aircraft, just as the US was, and that said aircraft might be able to penetrate US airspace undetected by radar. Now avoiding any more flights of fancy do you accept this is a more plausible explanation of the 'point of interest' as you put it than that they were worried about invaders from Mars?

And since you seem so fond of old UFO stories, here's an article about the Kenneth Arnold sighting (http://www.debunker.com/arnold.html). Compare the image to the Ho-229 and I think you have to conclude that there were indeed rogue German fighters prowling the US in the 40's (No not a serious proposition but still one with far more evidence than alien invaders)

Yep, that is why in my search for human technology explaining some UFO' cases I have included the German flying discs technology.

Here another possibility apparently developped in the 60 s in the USA following the work of Thownsen T Brown.
Note that they have find the way to make a 40 feet flying disc working with an autonomus power supply ....

http://web.archive.org/web/20040607000807/http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-6.html

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-05, 07:22 PM
Here another possibility apparently developped in the 60 s in the USA following the work of Thownsen T Brown. Note that they have "found" the way to make a 40 feet flying disc working with an autonomus power supply ....

A "possibility", and "found a way to make it work", are 2, separate things.

So which is it?

JayUtah
2011-Oct-05, 07:22 PM
...

...that is more often than not exactly what happens.

No. People here are giving you specific reasons having to do with specific traits of human perception, and showing how the eyewitness testimony in question touches on those specific traits. You ignore all of that and continue pounding on your "categorical dismissal" drum. You persist in straw-man claims.

first they come with mundane explanations often discarding their own high-held skepticism in the process.

You were asked to provide examples of this, and you decided you didn't need to. You can't deal with skepticism as it really is, but rather skepticism as you've formulated it for easy rebuttal.

no court does that...

Hogwash. A very large percentage of any court's trial time is taken up in the weighing of eyewitness testimony to ascertain how credible and useful it is. Eyewitness testimony is not simply taken at face value in a court. That's why such things as cross-examination exist.

...they did not dismiss the eye-witness reports.

I struggle to determine what activity on our part you intend by "dismiss." Estimations of size and distance, and therefore of speed, are highly problematic when the identification of the object is uncertain, and especially when viewed through optics that limit the field of view. The Navy didn't "dismiss" the witnesses in the sense of questioning their estimates, but neither did they do anything to determine the accuracy of those estimates. You seem to think that the Navy has done an excellent job of analyzing this sighting, and that we skeptics are going overboard by asking for an error analysis on the quantitative estimates.

In the U.S. the NTSB often interviews witnesses to accidents. When the witness offers an estimate of speed, size, or distance, there is a protocol that the interviewer then applies to determine the reliability of those estimates. Why? Because considerable experience and scientific inquiry has demonstrated that human perception alone is terrible at making those estimates. This helps the interviewer and the witness come to an agreement on how far off the estimates could still reasonably be, yet be faithful to the witness's raw observations.

The Navy's ballistic analysis was done using the estimates provided by the witnesses, and the astounding results were then reported. No exercise was undertaken to see whether the estimates were believable, or whether other values would also apply. It is not "dismissing" the witnesses to suggest that their estimates may be inaccurate, and inaccurate in ways well known to science.

debunking enthusistasts, more often than not, simply dismiss a report simply on the grounds of unreliable ew reports, no matter what the specific circumstances are or how many confirm the same sighting.

No. Critics of UFO fanatics are more likely to try to stick to the "we don't know" explanation in the face of strong efforts by UFO fans to establish the sighting as of something necessarily otherworldly.

The typical argument goes that the thing that was seen "must" be non-human because it exhibited some appearance inconsistent with what the UFO fanatic deems ordinary human or natural phenomena. For example, something is claimed to have "flown away at 10,000 miles an hour." Those numbers in turn are based on estimates of size, distance, and angular velocity. Those estimates are the ones that are notoriously wrong, and the ones UFO fanatics insist we must take without question. If we even raise the notion that the object in question may have been closer, smaller, and moving more slowly, we're immediately accused of "dismissing" or "categorically rejecting" the witness. Yet science shows us that these are exactly the kinds of mistakes eyewitnesses make. Humans are extremely poor at ranging for objects they can't identify.

Since we can't go back and replay the experience, and we generally can't get a better boundary on the witnesses' likely estimation, we conclude that the sighting remains unexplained. The problem is that unexplained is interpreted by UFO fanatics to mean, "The skeptics can't explain it, therefore it must be something extraordinary and otherworldly." No, what it means is that no affirmative identification is supported by evidence. And it doesn't follow that something which is ordinary is necessarily obviously explainable as such.

both are typical for a fundamentalist approach.

What approach consistently puts words in your critics' mouths?

maybe the arguments of the debunking enthusiasts are false or at least incomplete?

Or maybe you're consistently misrepresenting them so that you don't have to deal with the actual intellectual content. And maybe you're intentionally avoiding the hard questions they ask because you'd rather deal with the straw-man version you've concocted.

Garrison
2011-Oct-05, 07:24 PM
Yep, that is why in my search for human technology explaining some UFO' cases I have included the German flying discs technology.



Again please read what I actually wrote. I made no reference to flying discs, just to aircraft technology we know the Germans actually had that actually flew. There is little to no evidence to support the notion that the German's developed disk shaped craft. Also if you had followed the Arnold link you would know the obsession with disks is the result of a misunderstanding of his description, and yet oddly so many UFO reports seemed to conform to that incorrect concept.
And the subject was not whether some UFOs might be aircraft but what the USAF had in mind when they said, 'might indicate some degree of controlled flight'. Do you accept that they were more likely to be referring to aircraft of a foreign nation than alien spacecraft? Or to put it another way it's unlikely they were seriously entertaining the notion, as you implied, that these sightings were extraterrestrial?

Don J
2011-Oct-05, 07:28 PM
A "possibility", and "found a way to make it work", are 2, separate things.

So which is it?

The "other possibility"in that context, mean that I refer to something else than the hypothetical German flying disk tehnology.

Don J
2011-Oct-05, 07:35 PM
And the subject was not whether some UFOs might be aircraft but what the USAF had in mind when they said, 'might indicate some degree of controlled flight'. Do you accept that they were more likely to be referring to aircraft of a foreign nation than alien spacecraft? Or to put it another way it's unlikely they were seriously entertaining the notion, as you implied, that these sightings were extraterrestrial?
Yep,they have surely in mind a secret flying device far in advance to anything developped by the USA in the 40's

Garrison
2011-Oct-05, 07:38 PM
If anyone is interested this page:

Luft '46 (http://www.luft46.com/arado/arado.html)

Details German WWII aircraft proposals that didn't fly, including one disk shaped craft, and that was a German equivalent of the 'Flying Pancake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U)' and exactly one ever flew, and then only precariously. There was a brief flurry of interest in these disk shaped craft in the 40's but they were either poor flyers or superseded by jet technology. In short they never had the chance to play at UFO.

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-05, 07:41 PM
Yep,they have surely in mind a secret flying device far in advance to anything developped by the USA in the 40's
What evidence do you have that they had that in mind rather than any normal but unidentified threat?

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-05, 07:44 PM
Yep,they have surely in mind a secret flying device far in advance to anything developped by the USA in the 40's

Please present evidence that is what they had "in mind", or withdraw that claim.

eta...sorry NEOWatcher, didn't see your post before I posted...oops. :)

Don J
2011-Oct-05, 07:47 PM
If anyone is interested this page:

Luft '46 (http://www.luft46.com/arado/arado.html)

Details German WWII aircraft proposals that didn't fly, including one disk shaped craft, and that was a German equivalent of the 'Flying Pancake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U)' and exactly one ever flew, and then only precariously. There was a brief flurry of interest in these disk shaped craft in the 40's but they were either poor flyers or superseded by jet technology. In short they never had the chance to play at UFO.

in this video there is photo of test flight..... The V-7 was built with 12 BMW engines and rose to 24,000 meters on the first test and 27,000 on the second test. The next type built was the VRIL (Also photographs of the test flights).

-The Foo Fighters observed during the war are also explained ...-

Next was "Project Fireball", commonly called Foo Fighters by the allies. These were radio controlled and unmanned
http://www.ufo-blog.com/ufo_video_footage/nazi_ufos/watch_ufo_secrets_of_the_third_reich.htm

Garrison
2011-Oct-05, 07:48 PM
Yep,they have surely in mind a secret flying device far in advance to anything developped by the USA in the 40's

And again, no. They were concerned about craft that were advanced but within the grasp of both superpowers, the USAF did build a flying wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-49) of its own, indeed Jack Northrop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Northrop) was developing them before WWII independently of the Horten brothers in Germany. Your insistence on invoking some sort of super technology just reveals how little you know about aerospace technology in that era.

And bringing up Jack Northrop I hope I'll be forgiven for this small diversion from the narrative of the thread by quoting from Wiki:


Thirty years later, in April 1980, Jack Northrop, now quite elderly and wheel chair bound, was taken back to the company he founded. There, he was ushered into a classified area and shown a scale model of the Air Force's forthcoming but still highly classified Advanced Technology Bomber, which would eventually become known as the B-2A; it was a sleek, all-black Flying Wing. Looking over its all-wing design, Northrop, unable to speak due to various illnesses, was reported to have written on a pad: "I know why God has kept me alive for the past 25 years." Jack Northrop died 10 months later, in February 1981, eight years before the first B-2A became the Air Force's most advanced bomber aircraft.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-05, 07:55 PM
...

...and he has said that he has no smoking gun

Actually he has no evidence whatsoever.

...and yet they believe some of the eye witnesses they have listened to.

No. In Mitchell's case he supposed something based on what his eyewitness had told him. After several years he discovered that his supposition was not true and that he had misunderstood.

they know it's no scientifically solid evidence but they are convinced nonetheless. why?

Why? Because it's what they want to believe, and it biased their judgment. You can't assume that simply because someone professes to be a scientist, everything he believes must therefore have a scientific basis. The determination of scientific validity is based on whether a scientifically methodical case can be made for it. You can't simultaneously say they cannot make a scientific case, yet their claims have scientific merit because they are scientists.

I had the opportunity to converse extensively with Ed Mitchell about his UFO claims. At the time his source was still anonymous, but he said he trusted him. When I pointed out that private evidence may be convincing to him, but would not naturally convince me because it constituted anonymous authority, he agreed. He concurred that in my position, I was behaving correctly and rationally by not believing his claim that the government was covering up UFOs.

That's the difference between Ed Mitchell and you. Ed respects people who disagree with him because he understands that the disagreement is rational given what the critic knows. You on the other hand don't respect people who disagree with you, and don't believe that there may be valid lines of reasoning that don't support your belief. So it's rather disingenuous of you to say you follow in his footsteps when you're nothing like him. Ed never once accused me of being closed-minded.

because they kept an open mind and listened. critically, i am sure, as their education has taught them.

Do we not also listen? We'll happily listen to any UFO tale, and even ask questions to see if we can elicit more detail about them. By "listen" I tend to think you mean "accept uncritically." You are not the first to confuse open-mindedness with gullibility. Having an open mind doesn't mean you don't evaluate -- and sometimes reject -- claims. It means that you evaluate them dispassionately according to the body of relevant knowledge. You're hardly dispassionate, and you're ignoring the relevant science. How does your approach qualify as open-minded? In fact, you're simply not open to the possibility that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is a poor explanation for UFO sightings.

In Mitchell's case, his source was a person we now know to be Thomas Wilson, formerly with the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (our highest uniformed military authority). Wilson told Mitchell he had been unable to locate military information regarding supposed alien visitation and interaction. Mitchell interpreted that to mean that a diligent search had led nowhere, and that other people in the military were stonewalling Wilson. In fact what Wilson meant was that he simply hadn't looked very hard.

Allegations of coverup were what Mitchell wanted to hear. They fit his preconceived notions. Therefore he didn't ask the obvious followup question, "Well how hard did you look?" The problem is that Mitchell then for years gave interview after interview, citing his "secret source at the Pentagon" who he alleged backed up his beliefs. That's a hard position to back away from.

hopefully, that gives you an idea how unconvincing your "arguments" are.

I should probably remind you that you're arguing the minority view.

I'm sure our arguments are unconvincing to you, but that's largely because you aren't really paying attention to the arguments were actually making. You keep trying to pin some pet claims onto us, and then attack those instead. You steadfastly refuse to reconcile any of your claims with the relevant body of science.

this phenomenon is more complex than a simple dismissal can do it justice.
when will you be able to admit that simple fact?

We don't espouse the beliefs you attribute to us, and we don't undertake the actions of which you accuse us. When will you be able to admit those simple facts?

Garrison
2011-Oct-05, 07:55 PM
in this video there is photo of test flight..... The V-7 was built with 12 BMW engines and rose to 24,000 meters on the first test and 27,000 on the second test. The next type built was the VRIL (Also photographs of the test flights).

-The Foo Fighters observed during the war are also explained ...-

Next was "Project Fireball", commonly called Foo Fighters by the allies. These were radio controlled and unmanned
http://www.ufo-blog.com/ufo_video_footage/nazi_ufos/watch_ufo_secrets_of_the_third_reich.htm

Unfortunately there is no evidence that these projects actually existed, although some sort of remote controlled flying device was well within the known capabilities of the Germans at that time there is nothing in the historical record that matches the characteristics of the foo fighters, and the alleged flying saucers are even less likely, though still considerably more likely than ETV, in the same way that winning the jackpot on the lottery five times in a row is more likely than winning it six times in a row.

Don J
2011-Oct-05, 07:55 PM
And again, no. They were concerned about craft that were advanced but within the grasp of both superpowers, the USAF did build a flying wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-49) of its own, indeed Jack Northrop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Northrop) was developing them before WWII independently of the Horten brothers in Germany. Your insistence on invoking some sort of super technology just reveals how little you know about aerospace technology in that era.


In Moore's report there is no mention of noise or contrail which would have indicate the presence of an airplane.
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif


NOTE:
No clouds in sky, no haze.
No noise, very quite in area
(no cars, planes or other engines running)
No trail, no exhaust visible.
No odor.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-05, 07:56 PM
Yep,they have surely in mind a secret flying device far in advance to anything developped by the USA in the 40's

How do you know this is what they had in mind? Do you pretend to know what they're thinking? Or do you simply suppose?

JayUtah
2011-Oct-05, 07:57 PM
In Moore's report there is no mention of noise or contrail which would have indicate the presence of an airplane.

From what distance can you normally hear an aircraft engine, and are contrails always present?

Garrison
2011-Oct-05, 08:03 PM
In Moore's report there is no mention of noise or contrail which would have indicate the presence of an airplane.
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif

And again we're back to assuming everything in the eyewitness account is 100% accurate. This is the basic problem, you seek to discount mundane possibilities because they aren't a perfect fit to the account, a more reasoned approach will allow for the possibility of errors in perception and memory that could account for the discrepancies, which is why eyewitness testimony on its own doesn't get you anywhere.

Don J
2011-Oct-05, 08:05 PM
How do you know this is what they had in mind? Do you pretend to know what they're thinking? Or do you simply suppose?

You can also ask the same questions to Garrison which have first used that wording... in post 79



And the subject was not whether some UFOs might be aircraft but what the USAF had in mind when they said, 'might indicate some degree of controlled flight'.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-05, 08:07 PM
You can also ask the same questions to Garrison which have first used that wording... in post 79

No, we're both asking you. Please answer the question. How do you know what those men decades ago were thinking?

Don J
2011-Oct-05, 08:12 PM
No, we're both asking you. Please answer the question. How do you know what those men decades ago were thinking?
to answer your question
Here what the office which have investigated Moore's report have to say.
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/arrey49.htm

Excerpts


However, although Grudge(project) head Colonel Watson was totally "anti-UFO", he had to admit that Moore's sighting has no commonplace explanation. The sighting was also studied at the AMC (Air Material Command), and the conclusion by their Chief of the Aircraft Projects Section of the Engineering Division, Colonel George F. Smith, was, on July 27, 1949:

"This Office can give no hint of identification or possible origin of these objects as described."

Swift
2011-Oct-05, 08:13 PM
I would ask JayUtah and anyone else, not to respond any further to any of PaulLogan's posts in this thread. Paul's posts had been moved to their own thread, where he refused to participate, and that thread was closed, with the warning not to further hijack other threads. He then did exactly that in this thread, reposting those arguments here, and was infracted and suspended. If there is going to be any more discussion of Paul's ideas, they will be in his own thread, not this one. This one is for Don J.

Thanks,

NEOWatcher
2011-Oct-05, 08:18 PM
to answer your question
Here what the office which have investigated Moore's report have to say.

Excerpts
That only says they can't explain it. It does not say it's advanced technology.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-05, 08:21 PM
There was a brief flurry of interest in these disk shaped craft in the 40's but they were either poor flyers or superseded by jet technology.

If memory serves, (Jay has posted about this, but I'm too lazy to search), they were extremely poor flyers.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-05, 08:25 PM
The "other possibility"in that context, mean that I refer to something else than the hypothetical German flying disk tehnology.

You posted that they "found a way to make it work". Are you now withdrawing that claim?

If not, evidence please.

Garrison
2011-Oct-05, 08:48 PM
You can also ask the same questions to Garrison which have first used that wording... in post 79

And the subject was not whether some UFOs might be aircraft but what the USAF had in mind when they said, 'might indicate some degree of controlled flight'.



Yes, as in which is a more plausible explanation as to what they had in mind, Soviet incursions or alien spacecraft. Let's be clear you've referenced the fact that at the time these reports were made the USAF took UFOs seriously as possibly being craft of some description, with the implication that they took the ETV hypothesis seriously. I've been pointing there is another another explanation for those comments and the USAF attitude towards these sightings, namely that they feared these were hostile terrestrial aircraft penetrating US airspace. Putting both in the context of known history which should we regard as more plausible?

Don J
2011-Oct-06, 12:58 AM
You posted that they "found a way to make it work". Are you now withdrawing that claim?

If not, evidence please.
To put what i said in context
...this was developped in the 60 s in the USA following the work of Thomas Townsend Brown on his discoidal flying capacitor.
Note that they have find the way to make a 40 feet flying disc working with an autonomus power supply
Here what came up as final result.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040812200607/http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-6.html


If not, evidence please

If i have a video showing it in fly, no !

Don J
2011-Oct-06, 01:14 AM
Yes, as in which is a more plausible explanation as to what they had in mind, Soviet incursions or alien spacecraft. Let's be clear you've referenced the fact that at the time these reports were made the USAF took UFOs seriously as possibly being craft of some description, with the implication that they took the ETV hypothesis seriously. I've been pointing there is another another explanation for those comments and the USAF attitude towards these sightings, namely that they feared these were hostile terrestrial aircraft penetrating US airspace. Putting both in the context of known history which should we regard as more plausible?
However that still don't match the description of the object and performance cited in Moore's report.

Don J
2011-Oct-06, 01:24 AM
Unfortunately there is no evidence that these projects actually existed, although some sort of remote controlled flying device was well within the known capabilities of the Germans at that time there is nothing in the historical record that matches the characteristics of the foo fighters, and the alleged flying saucers are even less likely, though still considerably more likely than ETV, in the same way that winning the jackpot on the lottery five times in a row is more likely than winning it six times in a row.

To resume you say that the hypothetical German technology producing flying discoidal object described in that documentary ,

http://www.ufo-blog.com/ufo_video_footage/nazi_ufos/watch_ufo_secrets_of_the_third_reich.htm

is not to be considered as an explanation about the observation of such objects in the 40's.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-06, 02:26 AM
If i have a video showing it in fly, no !

Please answer the question I asked...I did not ask for a video, I asked for evidence.

Don J
2011-Oct-06, 03:21 AM
Please answer the question I asked...I did not ask for a video, I asked for evidence.

Here some videos about the subject made by Stan Deyo..which may provide the evidence you are looking for..

AntiGravity explained and produced!! pt. 1 of 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP4zQ4R8vJg

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Antigravity_for_Dummies_--_Stan_Deyo_Lecture

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8222679614108378695&hl=en

Gillianren
2011-Oct-06, 03:57 AM
Here some videos about the subject made by Stan Deyo..which may provide the evidence you are looking for..

You have been asked by multiple people now to provide actual evidence, not videos. Please do so.

CJSF
2011-Oct-06, 04:32 AM
I'm a little late to the party, but if I may interject some personal experience regarding size and distance uncertainties in observations. I am a birder (birdwatcher, if you prefer). I have actively been birding since 1990. While my life list isn't particularly large, as birding goes, I like to think I have a better than average aptitude in identifying bird by genus and species. Given that, I can give you examples almost every outing wherein the size and/or distance of a particular bird has fooled me. It is unlikely, I am sure, that the mourning dove I saw flying by the retention pond at work was the size of a crow. But that's what it LOOKED like flying with nothing but a clear blue sky behind it. I have often seen turkey vultures that SEEM to have 15ft. wingspans, because I was uncertain how high and far away they were flying. Wouldn't I be considered a "trained" and "expert" observer when it comes to birds? And yet...

CJSF

pzkpfw
2011-Oct-06, 04:37 AM
Here some videos about the subject made by Stan Deyo..which may provide the evidence you are looking for..

AntiGravity explained and produced!! pt. 1 of 8...

Now you bring anti-gravity into the discussion as "evidence"? No. Keep ATM to the ATM forum. Feel free to go there and create a thread in which to present and defend anti-gravity.

Please also avoid discussion-by-link. This is a forum in which people communicate with each other - by typing and reading words. Links might be used to support an argument or point of view, but should not be the entire argument.

Don J
2011-Oct-06, 04:51 AM
Now you bring anti-gravity into the discussion as "evidence"? No. Keep ATM to the ATM forum. Feel free to go there and create a thread in which to present and defend anti-gravity.

Please also avoid discussion-by-link. This is a forum in which people communicate with each other - by typing and reading words. Links might be used to support an argument or point of view, but should not be the entire argument.
I cannot explain as well as the author himself can do by his video description.
Well in fact the principle described by the author is all about how they were able to make a working model out of Brown's electrical flying capacitor research that is ...The Electro-Dynamic Propulsion.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040812200607/http://au.geocities.com/psyberplasmic/ccX-6.html

The description is here

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Antigravity_for_Dummies_--_Stan_Deyo_Lecture#How_it_Works

source
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Antigravity_for_Dummies_--_Stan_Deyo_Lecture

Gillianren
2011-Oct-06, 05:23 AM
I cannot explain as well as the author himself can do by his video description.

Then I wouldn't bother arguing the point, if I were you. Videos aren't as good for explaining things as words. It's much easier to trick people with them, for one thing.

Don J
2011-Oct-06, 05:27 AM
Then I wouldn't bother arguing the point, if I were you. Videos aren't as good for explaining things as words. It's much easier to trick people with them, for one thing.

But the videos presented also include the words of the author describing what we see !There is sound and images on videos.

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-06, 05:54 AM
I cannot explain as well as the author himself can do by his video description.
Well in fact the principle described by the author is all about how they were able to make a working model out of Brown's electrical flying capacitor research that is ..


The Biefeld-Brown effect isn't anti-gravity. You can move air with it, but propellers and jets are more efficient. That's why they're used instead for practical aircraft.

Stan Deyo has been discussed on BAUT before. Look it up.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-06, 05:55 AM
Well in fact the principle described by the author is all about how they were able to make a working model out of Brown's electrical flying capacitor research that is ...The Electro-Dynamic Propulsion.

OK..lets try this again...other than your belief in these videos, do you have any actual evidence for this "electro-propulsion system"...a simple yes or no, please.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-06, 06:00 AM
But the videos presented also include the words of the author describing what we see !There is sound and images on videos.

But we can't question the author. If you want to advocate his ideas, you must be prepared to defend those ideas, yourself.

If you can't do that, then please withdraw your claim.

tnjrp
2011-Oct-06, 07:46 AM
I don't generally watch UFO proponent videos for technical reasons (no sound at work and no bandwidth at home). If there is something in some video that is actual evidence instead of something presented in lieu of evidence then I can make an exception.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-06, 12:39 PM
In Moore's report there is no mention of noise or contrail which would have indicate the presence of an airplane.
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif
Far enough away and planes can't be heard.
No clouds in the sky is actually a condition where a contrail is less likely to develop because it should there is relatively little water in the air.
Why should there be odor?

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-06, 12:50 PM
I cannot explain as well as the author himself can do by his video description.
Well in fact the principle described by the author is all about how they were able to make a working model out of Brown's electrical flying capacitor research that is ...The Electro-Dynamic Propulsion.
Covered before, it's not anti-gravity but an extremely weak form of reaction drive which uses electrostatic acceleration of air for lift.
It works for craft up to a few grams of weight using large amounts of energy from external power sources, it useless for powering anything practical.

Not evidence for any of the claims you've presented so far.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-06, 12:53 PM
Then I wouldn't bother arguing the point, if I were you. Videos aren't as good for explaining things as words. It's much easier to trick people with them, for one thing.
Like the "anti-gravity" clip which is a cup of molasses suspended upside down from the ceiling and filmed by an upside-down camera which is apparently enough to fool a lot or YouTubers.
I actually expected Don J's link to be to that clip rather than to a guy talking about the Biefeld-Brown effect.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-06, 02:51 PM
If memory serves, (Jay has posted about this, but I'm too lazy to search), they were extremely poor flyers.

Your memory serves. Disc-shaped airfoils and fuselages are unstable.

Gillianren
2011-Oct-06, 04:00 PM
But the videos presented also include the words of the author describing what we see !There is sound and images on videos.

But how do we know you understand the video? How do we know you haven't been misled into thinking something is anti-gravity which isn't? Which it turns out you have? The reason you need to be able to answer questions in your own words instead of "watch this video," aside from the simple fact that there are people who can't or won't watch the videos, is that the issue at hand is your understanding of the evidence. Your presentation of it, not someone else's.

Garrison
2011-Oct-06, 06:11 PM
To resume you say that the hypothetical German technology producing flying discoidal object described in that documentary ,

http://www.ufo-blog.com/ufo_video_footage/nazi_ufos/watch_ufo_secrets_of_the_third_reich.htm

is not to be considered as an explanation about the observation of such objects in the 40's.

Don J as far as I can see you appear to be discussing three separate topics:

1) Why did the USAF take UFOs seriously in the 40's/50's

2) What did witnesses actually see in various reported sightings

3)Nazi flying saucers with exotic proposition systems

I sought to provide a mundane hypothesis for 1) which for no readily apparent reason you sought to conflate with 3). Now you appear to be trying to conflate 3) with 2). You've constantly switched back and forth on these topics avoiding questions as you do so. Perhaps you could choose one to focus on(within the bounds of what the moderators have specified) and then defend your claims and propositions on that topic?

Swift
2011-Oct-06, 06:45 PM
Don J as far as I can see you appear to be discussing three separate topics:

1) Why did the USAF take UFOs seriously in the 40's/50's

2) What did witnesses actually see in various reported sightings

3)Nazi flying saucers with exotic proposition systems

I sought to provide a mundane hypothesis for 1) which for no readily apparent reason you sought to conflate with 3). Now you appear to be trying to conflate 3) with 2). You've constantly switched back and forth on these topics avoiding questions as you do so. Perhaps you could choose one to focus on(within the bounds of what the moderators have specified) and then defend your claims and propositions on that topic?
Let me make that official... Don J please pick one or two of these topics to discuss and stick with them. And I would suggest you stick with # 1 and # 2 in Garrison's list, since those are the closest to the opening topic of this thread; but I'll leave that decision to you. I would ask that in your next post, you clearly state what you are advocating in this thread.

Don J
2011-Oct-06, 06:46 PM
But how do we know you understand the video? How do we know you haven't been misled into thinking something is anti-gravity which isn't? Which it turns out you have? The reason you need to be able to answer questions in your own words instead of "watch this video," aside from the simple fact that there are people who can't or won't watch the videos, is that the issue at hand is your understanding of the evidence. Your presentation of it, not someone else's.

I have made it clear in post 109 that it is called in reality The Electro-Dynamic Propulsion meaning with the reference i made to Thomas Browns research and the reference linked that i know it is not antigravity.But I have received an infraction for that.So i avoided discussing further about it.

The point is that if as the author pretend they were able to make a workable full scale model of his electrical flying capacitor via black project in the miid 60's,that may explain the observations reported since the mid sixties however that cannot account for the other reports before that time.

Don J
2011-Oct-06, 06:55 PM
Let me make that official... Don J please pick one or two of these topics to discuss and stick with them. And I would suggest you stick with # 1 and # 2 in Garrison's list, since those are the closest to the opening topic of this thread; but I'll leave that decision to you. I would ask that in your next post, you clearly state what you are advocating in this thread.

We have already discussed point 1 and point 2 i have now ended with point 3 about black projects..

That is all i quit the thread.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-06, 07:56 PM
That is all i quit the thread.

So you are conceding that you have no evidence to present?

Swift
2011-Oct-06, 08:20 PM
We have already discussed point 1 and point 2 i have now ended with point 3 about black projects..

That is all i quit the thread.
Just so we are clear, a topic isn't done because you decide its done. A topic is done when everyone's questions have been answered or no one wants to talk about the topic any longer.

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-06, 09:01 PM
Like the "anti-gravity" clip which is a cup of molasses suspended upside down from the ceiling and filmed by an upside-down camera which is apparently enough to fool a lot or YouTubers.
I actually expected Don J's link to be to that clip rather than to a guy talking about the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Some time ago I tried to watch one of Stan Deyo's videos, and mananged to watch about five minutes before I gave up. Don't expect a reasonable discussion of the Biefeld-Brown effect. Do expect claims of secret new physics super technology.

Garrison
2011-Oct-06, 09:11 PM
So you are conceding that you have no evidence to present?

The whole thread seems to have been Don J trying to shore up the usual flimsy anecdotes with an appeal to authority, that is because the USAF kept records of these stories and for a time considered the possibility that some UFO sightings were actual craft then they really were alien spaceships.
The more likely explanation is that Cold War paranoia and a naive faith in the value of eyewitness testimony provoked an overreaction and as the years went by and the USAF got wiser about the UFO phenomenon they lost interest.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-07, 12:58 AM
...

...the theory being "there is no mundane explanation possible (therefore aliens)".

Indeed this is what happens. Effectively the UFO fanatics set up their desired conclusion as the null hypothesis, which doesn't ordinarily require proof. Then when some number of affirmative counterclaims fail, they try to assert the null. "It isn't anything ordinary, so it must be something extraordinary." That seems innocent enough under rules of categorical logic. But then that category of "extraordinary" is resolved to the specific affirmative claim of space aliens. This works because a century of thinking about space aliens has normalized us to the likelihood that they exist. So it becomes a "reasonable" embodiment of the extraordinary.

A practice UFO proponents tend to accuse skeptics of, obviously just with a different theory.

Yes, they try. And if the phenomenology and epistemology weren't so radically different, the turnabout would work. Because UFO fanatics have so normalized the concept, it takes great pains to identify the very important difference between a known, testable cause and a plausible but unknown and untestable cause.

The null hypothesis is that almost all occurrences we can observe have mundane causes. That's the definition of mundane. To argue that some observation is caused by space aliens, we need to know the properties of space aliens so that we can construct a meaningful test. Instead the UFO proponents simply define their aliens circularly to exhibit exactly the same properties they observe, with no chance for empirical control or test.

If someone sees a pulsating object transiting the sky at dusk, then suddenly disappearing, we can propose that the cause is a tumbling booster. Tumbling boosters move at orbital speeds. They pulsate because they vary in visible aspect, but are too far away to observe as outlines. They appear only at sunrise and sunset, because their visibility depends on being in sunlight while the observation point below is in shade. They suddenly disappear because they dip into the shadow cone. In short, there are known properties to this sort of cause, and we can use those properties to construct tests.

About how fast did it pulsate?
About what time of day was this?
What path did it take across the sky?
How fast was it moving?

Based on the answers to those questions we can determine how likely it is to be a tumbling booster. We can ask those questions because we know that boosters exist and we know what properties they typically exhibit.

In contrast, while our best science suggests that intelligent life probably exists elsewhere in the universe, we haven't found any. That is, we don't know that any exists. And we certainly don't know what properties they exhibit. Hence we have no way to frame a set of questions to ask to test the hypothesis. And that's where UFO fanatics start the tap dance. They want us to rewrite the rules of hypothesis-testing so that practically anything they can imagine will pass the test. Objects apparently fly away at 10,000 miles per hour, and no human vehicle can do that. Where's the sonic boom? Oh, the aliens can magically take care of that. UFO fanatics want us to consider their suppositions as equivalent to the known, testable properties of mundane causes.

Now the specific accusation is that skeptics ignore their own empirical standards when proposing mundane causes, and that accusation occurs precisely because of the blur between conjecture and fact. About what time of day was this? "Midnight, or maybe 1:00 AM." In other words, far after dusk and far before sunrise. So that would seem to place a tumbling booster squarely within Earth's shadow cone the whole time and rule out the Tumbling Booster theory. Failing that, the UFO fanatics say, "See, it must be some sort of alien spacecraft." Well, no. Because we're still arguing between known potential causes with known and testable properties, and speculative potential causes with no testable properties.

Once you open the door to some particular speculative cause that can't be characterized ahead of time, you have to open the door to all of them. That means angels, ghosts, space aliens, transvestite space cows, and astral projection. You don't get to single out one pet speculation and say you are reasoning rigorously. So it still remains more likely that our sighting is a tumbling booster seen under extraordinary circumstances, than it is to be some unknowable space alien vehicle. Known causes are automatically more credible than unknown causes, even if all the criteria are not met. It is more reasonable to say it is likely to be some sort of mundane cause than to say it must necessarily be some specific speculative cause. Commensurately it's more likely that something estimated to be moving at 10,000 mph but with no sonic boom was actually something moving much slower (and misperceived), or some immaterial object (such as a reflection on glass through which the witness made his observation), than it is some craft of unknown properties that somehow fails to exhibit behavior we know must follow from physics.

...there is no amount of evidence that would convince them [the skeptics] of the alien hypothesis being correct...

This statement usually follows a series of typically weak arguments and their easy refutations. Exasperated, the UFO proponent declares his critics to be hopelessly entrenched. After all, that can be the only reason why his arguments aren't persuasive. A few proponents sadly tip their hands and admit they're specifically asking for scientific standards to be lowered so that their claims can get a foothold. Science, they argue, is too "closed-minded" to accept their progressive ideas. It very quickly converts to a political argument.

The reality is quite simple: their arguments aren't convincing.

...and therefore they just automatically classify everything "inconvenient" as "unknown" so they can dismiss it.

Skeptics define "unknown" as failing to conform conclusively to any known cause. We believe that leaving it "unknown" is fair and accurate. It means we can't conclusively assign any explanation, prosaic or otherwise, to the evidence. No one is dismissing anything, except for the manufactured necessity to point to some extraordinary cause.

UFO proponents define "unknown" as failing to be explained by any ordinary cause. This, they say, compels us to admit that the cause must be something outside the terrestrial experience -- neither natural nor of human manufacture. The reluctance of skeptics to follow them in that leap of supposition is what the fanatics interpret as dismissal. The important premise is the notion that if the true explanation is mundane, it will always be discernible as such. UFO fanatics hold to that proposition, while skeptics do not. Skeptics instead say that an explanation need not be knowable in order to be mundane. In other words, the falsification of mundane explanations in any one case is assumed to be complete by UFO fanatics, but assumed to be incomplete by skeptics.

Skeptics base that assumption on properties of actual investigations, where causes that remain unknown for long periods of time (and thus are widely taken to be extraordinary) suddenly become explained (e.g., the hoax perpetrator comes forward, or some new key evidence is discovered). If a chain of mundane events can remain unsolved for a long period of time, it's not unreasonable to suppose it can remain unsolved indefinitely. This is buttressed by experience from real investigations, in which skeptics are generally better trained, where key evidence is often found accidentally. Those cases would go unsolved but for some fortunate coincidence.

Falsifying mundane explanations often fails because we can generally consider only the canonical manifestations of each explanation. If I say "airplane," then the reader imagines various kinds of airplane under various circumstances. But can he imagine all such experiences? We may correctly identify "airplane" in 99 out of 100 cases, but that hundredth case is what turns into a UFO sighting. UFO cold cases frequently turn into ordinary objects seen under extraordinary circumstances.

In the case of airplanes, a common "uncommon" sighting is when the airplane is flying at low altitudes in a certain direction and the observer is in a car traveling at right angles. Under many velocity conditions, the airplane will appear to move slowly, hover, reverse direction and -- if one or the other vehicle changes direction -- to suddenly accelerate. During the daytime we can often identify the object by its outline. At night there are only airplane lights. The viewer has to attempt an identification based on apparent motion alone, with poor distance cues. Naturally we forgive the viewer. Almost nothing in what he sees resembles his canonical understanding of airplane observation. Hence, "We can rule out airplanes because airplanes don't behave like that."

A common source of UFO reports where I live are California seagulls. Google up a picture, and note that the upper surface of the wing is dark while the lower surface is white. When a flock of them is seen against a mountainside from a distance of a few kilometers, they will alternate between visibility and invisibility. With their backs oriented toward the viewer, they are largely invisible against the mountainside. When the flock wheels in unison and simultaneously expose their bright undersides, they suddenly become visible from a great distance, though not readily identifiable as a flock of birds.

"Pshaw!" say the UFO fanatics. "I know what birds look like, and those weren't birds." Luckily it's not too hard to get close to a flock of these birds and watch their flocking behavior and note the dramatic changes in visibility, all the while confirming that they are birds. The insistence that we will always recognize prosaic causes is a key premise of the UFO rhetoric, and it doesn't hold under empirical conditions.

My idea of what "controlled" would mean is more at "directed" or "piloted"

Of course; that's the most natural understanding. I bring up the Frisbee and the maple seed only to show that the concept is not cut and dried, and to provide a straw man around which to discuss what "control" actually means. The question at hand is what the Navy meant. We don't know for sure, because we're not inside the authors' heads. And we have to contend with the UFO crowd's insistence that it must describe on-site, reactive and adaptive control by some intelligent agent. When that interpretation is connected to the assessments of the vehicle's motion, the conclusion is drawn that the sighting can only have been of a piloted craft outside human experience.

We engineer Frisbees and airplanes to bias their natural physical behavior toward stability. Dihedral and sweep in airplane wings provide roll and yaw stability. Rotation provides gyroscopic stabilization. Departure from straight and level flight incurs a natural response in the form of corrective moments. Showing that control moments can arise from passive effects raises the question whether they can also arise in nature (e.g., the maple seed, the dandelion seed, and so forth).

I am not a native English speaker.

Your English is far more competent than my Finnish. I'm convinced you understand the nuances of the conversation.

I am also at loss as to what single word I should use for frisbee-style flight

"Glide" is a good word. It conveys the notion of largely passive control -- much like a well-trimmed airplane -- but with stable flight characteristics. Aerodynamics dominates, but ballistics is present.

the [Frisbee] flight is not only directed but also powered by a human

Indeed, but only at launch. After it leaves the thrower's hand, its motion is entirely a combination of responses to gravity, gyration, and aerodynamics. It then becomes a purely passive missile, and as such is similar to other passive missiles, possibly of natural or primitive origin. We believe we can largely predict responses to gravity and gyration, but when we play Frisbee outside we observe the disc responds to the movement of the atmospheric medium through which it flies. As does a well-trimmed aircraft; the trim presupposes only small changes in the airstream. The air through which both controlled and uncontrolled objects fly is an invisible, moving field; we cannot predict how it will behave and we infer its effect on the objects only by the behavior of the object. If the Frisbee suddenly veers to one side, and it cannot be attributed to a bank angle (i.e., a roll moment), then we infer that the wind has blown it to one side. We can't see the wind, and we can't verify it in retrospect.

Of course DonJ is refering to "piloted" flight subtype of controlled specifically.

Indeed. "Controlled flight" in reports is interpreted in ufology to mean a specific departure from the behavior expected from natural, passive systems. An well-trimmed airplane from which the pilots have bailed out may be said to be in controlled flight, but what UFO fanatics want to see are arbitrary flight paths that can't be immediately explained in terms of the system or the environment. This is what gets them in trouble. As with all appeals to mundanity, the UFO fanatics consider only the canonical effects. As such their expectations of "natural" flight are simplistic -- probably intended to bring about easy falsification.

Their ability to infer controlled flight depends on their ability to infer or predict natural flight. And immediately we see that they beg the question. Their expectations for unpiloted flight are based simplistically on things such as stability of the missile and quiescence of the medium.

I witnessed the Salt Lake City UFO, which was conclusively identified as an errant model dirigible. It was said to exhibit "intelligent control," when in fact it was determined to be drifting through the turbulent air around the pillars and towers of the downtown courthouse. Ground winds were negligible at the time, but winds 100 feet up were not. The assessment of "controlled" flight and "intelligent" intent were based on simplistic expectations for how an unmanned, undirected flotsam should behave.

In short, that a flying object should suddenly change direction or otherwise alter its dynamics is not proof that it is under intelligent control. That's an indirect conclusion, an inference. To prove that something is under intelligent control requires discovering what control is actually being employed. The indirect argument is rarely convincing.

Don J
2011-Oct-07, 01:37 AM
From what distance can you normally hear an aircraft engine, and are contrails always present?
They would have seen the aircraft with the theodolite (25 x telescope) ,the sky was perfectly clear.They have observed the object with their eyes and with the theodolite and this was not a aircraft or a balloon or a bird.

Don J
2011-Oct-07, 01:44 AM
The whole thread seems to have been Don J trying to shore up the usual flimsy anecdotes with an appeal to authority, that is because the USAF kept records of these stories and for a time considered the possibility that some UFO sightings were actual craft then they really were alien spaceships.

I have not even mentioned the possibility of aliens spaceships.


The more likely explanation is that Cold War paranoia and a naive faith in the value of eyewitness testimony provoked an overreaction and as the years went by and the USAF got wiser about the UFO phenomenon they lost interest.


No, they thinked that Project Blue Book will put and end to the observations of UFO,s, and decided to stop receiving report of UFO's observation.They concluded that the phenomena was not considered a threat for national security.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-07, 02:59 AM
They would have seen the aircraft with the theodolite (25 x telescope) ,the sky was perfectly clear.They have observed the object with their eyes and with the theodolite and this was not a aircraft or a balloon or a bird.

Nowhere in your post do I see an answer to Jay's question...re. From what distance..?

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-07, 03:10 AM
I have not even mentioned the possibility of aliens spaceships.

When you eliminate the possibility of an aircraft, or a balloon, or a bird, well, we begin to wonder what "possibility" you would accept.

Don J
2011-Oct-07, 03:29 AM
Nowhere in your post do I see an answer to Jay's question...re. From what distance..?

300,000 feet.
Because it seem that no one have read the report made by Moore:
Here it is
http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif

OBJECT REPORT

On 24 April 1949, at 3 miles north of Arrey, New Mexico, (107 degrees 19' W 300 deg 52' N) 4 Navy enlisted men from White Sands Proving Ground (Chief Akers, Davidson, Fitzsimmons and Moorman) and I saw a rapidly moving object while making a pibal wind run. We had released a 350 gram balloon at about 1020 MST and were following it with a standard ML-47 (David White) Theodolite. After the 1030 reading, Davidson took over the theodolite, and Akers and I looked up to find the balloon with naked eye. We thought we had the balloon when we saw a whitish spherical object right along the direction the theodolite 45 degree elevation and 210 degree azimuth) was pointing. The object was drifting east rapidly (5 degrees/sec. as estimated by stopwatch and width of fingers) but we had thought to encounter similar winds on the balloon. When the difference in angle between the theodolite and supposed balloon became apparent, I took over the theodolite and found the true balloon still there, whereupon I abandoned it and picked up the object after it came out of the sun. (The computed bearing of sun was 127 degrees azimuth and elevation 60 degrees). The object was moving too fast to crank the theodolite around, therefore one of the men pointed the theodolite and I looked.

The object was an ellipsoid about 2:1 slenderness ratio, length about .02 degrees subtended angle, and white in color, except for a light yellow of one side as though it were in shadow. I could not get a hard focus on the object due to the speed at which the angles changed. Therefore I saw no good detail at all.

The azimuth angle continued to decrease as the object continued on a north heading, growing smaller in size. At around 20 degrees - 25 degrees Azimuth, the Azimuth held constant and the elevation angle began increasing from the 25 degree minimum to about 29 degrees. The object then apparently disappeared due to distance after a total time of observation of about 60 seconds.

The object was not a balloon and was some distance away. Assuming escape velocity, a track was figured which put the elevation about the station of about 300,000 feet over the observed period. If this is true, the flight would have probably gone over the White Sands Proving Ground, Holloman Air Force Base and Los Alamos.

We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet.

Information is desired if this was some new or experimental aircraft or for any explanation whatsoever.

C.B. Moore
General Mills Aeronautical Research
2010 H. Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, 13, Minnesota
Geneva 0371 X 385

NOTE:
No clouds in sky, no haze.
No noise, very quite in area
(no cars, planes or other engines running)
No trail, no exhaust visible.
No odor.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-07, 04:10 AM
300,000 feet.

No, that was the estimated altitude, based on a completely wild guess about velocity. No method is described for how the estimates were made or validated.


Because it seem that no one have read the report made by Moore:

We've all read it many times, and you're not the first one to post it. The report contains no estimate of distance from the observer, and no method of determining distance. Since we now understand that estimates of distance, size, and velocity are inextricably interrelated, this does not constitute a useful eyewitness testimony for determining quantitative values. Ballistics analysis was done using the wild guesses of altitude, distance, and velocity. Analysis that starts from garbage produces only garbage.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-07, 04:16 AM
They would have seen the aircraft with the theodolite (25 x telescope)

That was not my question. My question is how far away can you normally hear an aircraft engine. You suggest that the lack of noise is proof that it cannot have been an airplane. I want to know how close an airplane has to be in order to hear its engine. Please provide an actual distance, not a vague description.

A theodolite is not meant to resolve objects in great detail at that distance. While it may have a 25X magnifying power, its acuity is another matter altogether. You cannot claim it couldn't have been an airplane based on the witnesses' inability to resolve it as such through the instrument.


They have observed the object with their eyes and with the theodolite and this was not a aircraft or a balloon or a bird.

They observed a "spherical" or "ellipsoid" object, which is what anything would appear like through optics not designed for great acuity at distance. The witnesses admit not being able to focus the object, and admit not being able to resolve any detail because of the lack of focus. Based on this, how can you conclude that they were properly able to rule out a natural or man-made object?

Don J
2011-Oct-07, 05:26 AM
That was not my question. My question is how far away can you normally hear an aircraft engine.

2 or 3 miles for a jet engine depending of the regime.


You suggest that the lack of noise is proof that it cannot have been an aircraft.

No ,the absence of sound was not the only reason .The performance of the object is what matter more.And that is not me who have came to the conclusion that it was not an aircraft.
but those who have analysed the data later... Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN was part of them. Here what he say


An accurate plot of the object's course was recorded. Analyzing this data later, I can state definitely that:

The object, viewed in cross section, was elliptical in shape.
It was about 105 feet in diameter.
It was flying at an altitude of approximately 56 miles. (This was determined by a ballistics expert. An object at a lower altitude on this particular bright day could not have fitted the data taken. For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)
Its speed was about 5 miles per second.
At the end of its trajectory, it swerved abruptly upward, altering its angle of elevation by 5 degrees - corresponding to an increase in altitude of about 25 miles - in a period of 10 seconds. Rough calculation indicates that a force of more that 20 G's (20 times the pull of gravity) would be required to produce this elevation in this time.
The object was visible for 60 seconds.
It disappeared at an elevation of 29 degrees.

Close questioning of the observers prior to the official report that went to "Project Saucer" at Wright-Patterson Field in Dayton, Ohio, produced an almost unanimous judgment that the objects was discus shaped and that it was a flat white color. High powered binoculars showed no exhaust trail, no stream of light or other evidence of a propulsions system. And, no sound. What was it?

I think it is safe to say that it wasn't any type of aircraft known on Earth today. Even if, as is likely, there are top secret models which you and I know nothing about, there is no human being in this world who could take a force of 20 G's and live to tell about it.

moog
2011-Oct-07, 07:49 AM
An accurate plot of the object's course was recorded

How did a complete guess of the range of an out of focus object through an instrument incapable of measuring distance by itself suddenly get turned into an 'accurate plot'?

Tedward
2011-Oct-07, 08:30 AM
I would think there are many factors in how well sound is carried not just distance. That includes temperature and the way the wind is blowing and noises in the locality masking it. Then there is the load on the engine, whatever the type is. And not forgetting the ability of the person observing. I get used to them over my house as they circle to land low down. The smaller trainers that come up from the RAF base nearby are tricky to get a bead on and the commercial ones at 33,000 we may not hear and then we may hear them (flight path to Ireland and the colonies), if I really want to find out I can look up at what height the high ones probably are on a free radar site and you get the speed and altitude. One day I can hear them, the next I cannot.

chrlzs
2011-Oct-07, 09:36 AM
We have already discussed point 1 and point 2 i have now ended with point 3 about black projects..

That is all i quit the thread.

Uhuh... righto then...

Anyway, now that you are back - your C B Moore report that plucks the 300,000 figure out of thin air without a shred of supporting evidence ("assuming escape velocity"??? do you not realise how ludicrous an assumption that is?) - demonstrates superbly just how completely ridiculous that 'evidence' is. And there are other gaping holes in that report that have been pointed out above.

And if we accept that this was an 'accepted' report to higher authorities, it also shows just how simplistic, naive and flawed were the systems and supposed 'experts', of the day. Some of that might be explainable by the fact that our professionalism, understanding and experience is, hopefully, much greater now.

But have you ever considered that there might be very good reasons for a deliberate encouragement of these silly reports..back in those days? - with a view perhaps to stirring up the sort of interest that might lead to more funding, more research, extra jobs, job security, etc of those concerned, by increasing public and gov't paranoia? And of course 'encountering a UFO' also gave pilots a chance to 'engage' in non-wartime periods, explain away high-risk maneuvers, or fend off criticisms of 'incidents' or even friendly fire.

"It wasn't me, Sarge, it was alien ufos..."


Don J, I suggest you take a long slow read of Jay's excellent (but long!) post above. Try to take it in.... Please.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-07, 10:58 AM
The object was not a balloon and was some distance away. Assuming escape velocity, a track was figured which put the elevation about the station of about 300,000 feet over the observed period. If this is true, the flight would have probably gone over the White Sands Proving Ground, Holloman Air Force Base and Los Alamos.
That report actually quite clearly states that the distance is calculated from the velocity and velocity is a guess.

Tensor
2011-Oct-07, 03:03 PM
But have you ever considered that there might be very good reasons for a deliberate encouragement of these silly reports..back in those days? - with a view perhaps to stirring up the sort of interest that might lead to more funding, more research, extra jobs, job security, etc of those concerned, by increasing public and gov't paranoia? And of course 'encountering a UFO' also gave pilots a chance to 'engage' in non-wartime periods, explain away high-risk maneuvers, or fend off criticisms of 'incidents' or even friendly fire.

Heheheheh, or even the fact that a large number of the Blue Book Cases were either U2 or Oxcart sightings. Consider that in the first flight of the U2 was in 1955 and that most of the aircraft of the time were limited to ~30,000 ft max. What kind of impact would there be if a pilot saw something flying at twice his altitude and moving quite a bit faster (remembering that in 1955, most planes, even commercial, were props)? Or that it was originally silver and if the sun would reflect off of it, what kind of impression that would give, again, especially if as it move out of the reflection zone, it could literally disappear from sight? The Oxcart (which was a precursor to the SR-71 produced many sighting also. I had an instructor in the Air Force who worked with the SR-71 in test and he used to tell us stories of the comments made by pilots and Air Traffic Controllers who couldn't figure out what the heck they were seeing and also being told to recalibrate their radar altitude equipment as they were not flying as high as the radar told them(wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

Garrison
2011-Oct-07, 05:36 PM
I have not even mentioned the possibility of aliens spaceships.

Yes you've been happy to post eyewitness accounts, and insist in the face of all evidence to the contrary that they be treated as 100% factual accounts of events, which conveniently lets you reject all mundane explanations and yet you've avoided offering up any hypothesis of your own.



No, they thinked that Project Blue Book will put and end to the observations of UFO,s, and decided to stop receiving report of UFO's observation.They concluded that the phenomena was not considered a threat for national security.

In other words they decided that UFOs represented mundane phenomenon misperceived or badly remembered, sprinkled of course with a number of hoaxes.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-07, 06:54 PM
Yes you've been happy to post eyewitness accounts, and insist in the face of all evidence to the contrary that they be treated as 100% factual accounts of events, which conveniently lets you reject all mundane explanations and yet you've avoided offering up any hypothesis of your own.

Actually, it's worse than that. He offers these "reports" as if their validity is not in question...yet when questioned about it, himself, he has nothing to say because he didn't write it.


Talk about infuriating...

Don J
2011-Oct-07, 07:45 PM
That report actually quite clearly states that the distance is calculated from the velocity and velocity is a guess.
Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN mention that a ballistics expert confirm the estimate made by Moore however ... I cite him "(For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)
That is a little frustating isn't it ?
Excerpts


It was flying at an altitude of approximately 56 miles. (This was determined by a ballistics expert. An object at a lower altitude on this particular bright day could not have fitted the data taken. For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)

Don J
2011-Oct-07, 07:48 PM
Actually, it's worse than that. He offers these "reports" as if their validity is not in question...yet when questioned about it, himself, he has nothing to say because he didn't write it.


Talk about infuriating...
That is not me who is the cause of the infuriating situation but ...

Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/true50mc01.htm

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-07, 08:09 PM
Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN mention that a ballistics expert confirm the estimate made by Moore however ... I cite him "(For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)
That is a little frustating isn't it ?

Actually, the word I was thinking of was unbelievable.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-07, 08:24 PM
That is not me who is the cause of the infuriating situation but ...

Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN

You are advocating his ideas as valid, with no evidence whatsoever.

Whoever wrote this...


It was flying at an altitude of approximately 56 miles. This was determined by a ballistics expert.

Does not understand the science of ballistics. It certainly has nothing to do with determination of altitude of an unknown "object"

Garrison
2011-Oct-07, 10:00 PM
That is not me who is the cause of the infuriating situation but ...

Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/htm/true50mc01.htm

Did you actually read the posts R.A.F. and I wrote? You are the one claiming some significance for this report, you are the one asserting this eyewitness account must be treated as if it were hard evidence, and you are the one rejecting mundane explanations while failing to offer any hypothesis of your own. The burden of making a case to treat this sighting as anything more than misperception and misinterpretation is yours Don J, why don't you start making it?

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-07, 10:16 PM
That is not me who is the cause of the infuriating situation but ...

Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN
If you make character references, could you please try to find them from places that are not obviously "UFO's are ET's" biased? It looks like True was as true to its name as Pravda.

"(For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)"
Rather convenient, given that it's based on a report with not enough data to substantiate any of the quantitative statements made. :)

And yes, you're the cause for the situation being infuriating here because you quote him and others, apparently in support of something, but you refuse to argue that something yourself, you refuse to state what it is you're arguing and you refuse to discuss why the quotes are not evidence of anything.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-08, 12:06 AM
That is not me who is the cause of the infuriating situation but ... Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN

Yes, it is he who irresponsibly declares that the sighting in question is of extraterrestrial origin. It is he who misrepresents the rigor of the original witnesses.

The witnesses admit they never focused the theodolite adequately to resolve the object. Their estimates of altitude were based on a bizarre and unsupportable assumption of "escape velocity." Their estimates of distance were pure guesses. In short, this is very poor quality eyewitness evidence.

McLaughlin asserts that the flight path was derived by an unnamed ballistics expert. But ballistics is not a mysterious science. We can easily see from the original report that there is no observational or scientific foothold upon which to base a ballistics analysis. The starting values are guesses. Therefore the results are a guess. McLaughlin hides his anonymous "expert" behind a trumped-up smoke-screen of official secrecy, most likely to conceal that no credible ballistic analysis is possible here.

And this supposedly miraculous flight path is what is supposed to convince us that what these men saw can't possibly have come from Planet Earth. Not its silence, not its lack of contrail -- those are too contextually variant. The lynchpin is this incredible maneuvering by a "controlled" craft. But what most of McLaughlin's readers won't be able to determine is that the lynchpin evidence is completely invented. It's miraculous only because it's been manufactured to be so, by applying false rigor and ignoring the actual limitations of the original observations.

This is the McLaughlin analysis to which you referred us at the very beginning of this thread, and which you expect us to take as completely reliable. Do you intend to stand by McLaughlin's claims? Do you base your beliefs regarding this sighting on McLaughlin's claims? I pointed out that military men are no more reliable observers than anyone else, hence my general criticism of UFO's: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials go on the Record. This thread has shown that military men are in fact not any better observers, and that certain military men such as Robert McLaughlin are extremely poor and dishonest reporters.

We're back to where we were 5 pages ago. Any comment?

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 01:08 AM
If you make character references, could you please try to find them from places that are not obviously "UFO's are ET's" biased? It looks like True was as true to its name as Pravda.

"(For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)"
Rather convenient, given that it's based on a report with not enough data to substantiate any of the quantitative statements made. :)

And yes, you're the cause for the situation being infuriating here because you quote him and others, apparently in support of something, but you refuse to argue that something yourself, you refuse to state what it is you're arguing and you refuse to discuss why the quotes are not evidence of anything.

You got a point here which seem to resume accurately my position.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-08, 01:18 AM
You got a point here which seem to resume accurately my position.

What is your position? Nobody can seem to figure it out.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 01:21 AM
Yes, it is he who irresponsibly declares that the sighting in question is of extraterrestrial origin. It is he who misrepresents the rigor of the original witnesses.

The witnesses admit they never focused the theodolite adequately to resolve the object. Their estimates of altitude were based on a bizarre and unsupportable assumption of "escape velocity." Their estimates of distance were pure guesses. In short, this is very poor quality eyewitness evidence.

McLaughlin asserts that the flight path was derived by an unnamed ballistics expert. But ballistics is not a mysterious science. We can easily see from the original report that there is no observational or scientific foothold upon which to base a ballistics analysis. The starting values are guesses. Therefore the results are a guess. McLaughlin hides his anonymous "expert" behind a trumped-up smoke-screen of official secrecy, most likely to conceal that no credible ballistic analysis is possible here.

And this supposedly miraculous flight path is what is supposed to convince us that what these men saw can't possibly have come from Planet Earth. Not its silence, not its lack of contrail -- those are too contextually variant. The lynchpin is this incredible maneuvering by a "controlled" craft. But what most of McLaughlin's readers won't be able to determine is that the lynchpin evidence is completely invented. It's miraculous only because it's been manufactured to be so, by applying false rigor and ignoring the actual limitations of the original observations.

This is the McLaughlin analysis to which you referred us at the very beginning of this thread, and which you expect us to take as completely reliable. Do you intend to stand by McLaughlin's claims? Do you base your beliefs regarding this sighting on McLaughlin's claims? I pointed out that military men are no more reliable observers than anyone else, hence my general criticism of UFO's: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials go on the Record. This thread has shown that military men are in fact not any better observers, and that certain military men such as Robert McLaughlin are extremely poor and dishonest reporters.

We're back to where we were 5 pages ago. Any comment?
Lets suppose that the altitude of 300,000 feet is not absolutely accurate to 100 percent..
It was determined by Moore that the altitude of the unknown object was obviously much higher than the balloon they have launched.


We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 01:25 AM
What is your position? Nobody can seem to figure it out.

My position is trying to shed some light over all that fuzz caused since that report was made public.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 01:37 AM
My position is trying to shed some light over all that fuzz caused since that report was made public.

For expample:

This is the "explanation" of the sighting by Dr. Menzel in his book "Flying Saucers" on page 31:

"This incident, kept in the classified files for more than two years, presents no serious difficulty to the person who understands the optics of the earth's atmosphere. The air can, under special conditions, produce formations similar to lenses. And, just as a burning glass can project the sun into a point of light, so can these lenses of air, imperfect though they are, form an image. What Moore saw was an out-of-focus and badly astigmatic image of the balloon above. If you happen to wear fairly strong lenses in your glasses, whether you are nearsighted or farsighted, take them off and hold them at arm's length and try to view a distant, luminous object like a candle, electric light, or street lamp. You will see, far beyond the real object and at a considerable angle to it, an apparent image of the candle itself. As you move the lens, the image will appear to maneuver. As mentioned earlier, we here have to defer the discussion of how lenses of air play an important role in the formation of many varieties of flying saucers. We must remember that these lenses are crooked and bent, and often "dirty" as well. The dirt consists of layers of dust or fog between us and the object at which we are looking. No wonder that sometimes we get a distorted view, and imagine that the saucers we see are real!"

Of course the explanation by a "mirage" cause by a "lense" formed by "the air, in special conditions" is not one bit compatible with the observation's data, and other scientists demonstrated in details and in quantitative manner the several reasons why this explanation is nonsensical, but of course, the "debunking hero" status acquired by Dr. Menzel by promoting any nonsensical explanation when anything out of this world may have been a possible cause to a UFO report was never questioned by his "skeptics" admirers, who should have, were they unbiased, denounced the pseudo-science at work here. To them, any pseudo-scientific "explanation" is better than the perspective of facing the supposedly "irrational", intolerable - to them - notion of extraterrestrial visits.

Dr. Menzel did not speak to the witnesses and his working material for the case was only a short article in LIFE Magazine. Much later, Dr. Maccabee, a scientist who has devoted much time in in-depth examination of this case and many others pointed out that Dr. Menzel nevertheless should have understood that the mirage explanation does not hold even based on the data in LIFE Magazine. Maccabee further comments that "it is important to note that an intelligent person, even one with no knowledge of atmospheric physics, could have discovered the error in Menzel's explanation if Menzel had included the factual data from the sighting in his book."

Unlike Dr. Menzel, Dr. Maccabee did contact the main witness Charles B. Moore, and asked him his thoughts on Dr. Menzel's explanation, in 1986. Moore answered:

"Although I had met Donald Menzel during the late 1950's in connection with John Strong's studies of Venus, he never discussed our earlier report of a peculiar flying object over Arrey, New Mexico in 1949. What I saw was not a mirage; it was a craft with highly unusual performance. It was not a balloon; at that time we were the innovators and manufacturers of the new balloons and I certainly would have known about any new developments as I was newly in charge of General Mills' balloon operations. It was not the X-1, which was in its hangar at Muroc that Sunday. It was nothing from White Sands nor from Alamogordo AFB for we were in radio contact with Range Control and were informed that our operation was the only one active on Sunday. For these reasons, I'm cynical about Menzel and his approach to science."

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 01:39 AM
Lets suppose that the altitude of 300,000 feet is not absolutely accurate to 100 percent...

Without any conformational evidence, why would we "suppose" that in the 1st place?


It was determined by Moore that the altitude of the unknown object was obviously much higher than the balloon they have launched.

He didn't know what the object was, nor it's size, yet it's altitude was "obviously" higher than an object of known size?

How was he able to determine that??

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 01:43 AM
Without any conformational evidence, why would we "suppose" that in the 1st place?



He didn't know what the object was, nor it's size, yet it's altitude was "obviously" higher than an object of known size?

How was he able to determine that??

Here what Moore have done to determine that
[/quote]
We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet.
[/quote]

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 01:50 AM
You got a point here which seem to resume accurately my position.
To be more precise,

My position is that i am willing to discuss what it is presented in Moore report that is all.Simple as that.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 01:51 AM
...Dr. Maccabee...

Sorry, but evidence indicates that Macabee is not a credible source.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 01:55 AM
Here what Moore have done to determine that

How is any of that relevant? Please consider the following a direct question...how was he able to determine the size of an unknown object?..specifically, how was he able to determine that it was not a small, but up close object, rather than a large, but far away object without knowing what the object was???

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 02:00 AM
Sorry, but evidence indicates that Macabee is not a credible source.

Macabee is only saying that he have interviewed Moore about Menzel's claims ....


Unlike Dr. Menzel, Dr. Maccabee did contact the main witness Charles B. Moore, and asked him his thoughts on Dr. Menzel's explanation, in 1986. Moore answered:

Moore's reply

"Although I had met Donald Menzel during the late 1950's in connection with John Strong's studies of Venus, he never discussed our earlier report of a peculiar flying object over Arrey, New Mexico in 1949. What I saw was not a mirage; it was a craft with highly unusual performance. It was not a balloon; at that time we were the innovators and manufacturers of the new balloons and I certainly would have known about any new developments as I was newly in charge of General Mills' balloon operations. It was not the X-1, which was in its hangar at Muroc that Sunday. It was nothing from White Sands nor from Alamogordo AFB for we were in radio contact with Range Control and were informed that our operation was the only one active on Sunday. For these reasons, I'm cynical about Menzel and his approach to science."

JayUtah
2011-Oct-08, 02:02 AM
My position is trying to shed some light over all that fuzz caused since that report was made public.

Can we agree at this point that Robert McLaughlin's analysis is entirely non-credible?

JayUtah
2011-Oct-08, 02:06 AM
Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet.

Explain how he was able to determine this without ranging data.

The "fuzz" surrounding this sighting seems to be little more than UFO fanatics desperately trying to throw a bunch of scientific-sounding mumbo jumbo at a set of observations that is impossibly unbounded. The UFO "researchers" are falling all over themselves trying to show that this observation must lie outside the realm of natural or man-made objects. The problems with the original observations are elementary. There isn't any sort of analysis that can follow from it that won't therefore be based on a huge degree of speculation and supposition.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 02:09 AM
How is any of that relevant? Please consider the following a direct question...how was he able to determine the size of an unknown object?..specifically, how was he able to determine that it was not a small, but up close object, rather than a large, but far away object without knowing what the object was???

That is not Moore who have determined the size of the object but a balistics expert which have studied the datas later.



An accurate plot of the object's course was recorded. Analyzing this data later, I can state definitely that:

The object, viewed in cross section, was elliptical in shape.
It was about 105 feet in diameter.
It was flying at an altitude of approximately 56 miles. (This was determined by a ballistics expert. An object at a lower altitude on this particular bright day could not have fitted the data taken. For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)
Its speed was about 5 miles per second.
At the end of its trajectory, it swerved abruptly upward, altering its angle of elevation by 5 degrees - corresponding to an increase in altitude of about 25 miles - in a period of 10 seconds. Rough calculation indicates that a force of more that 20 G's (20 times the pull of gravity) would be required to produce this elevation in this time.
The object was visible for 60 seconds.
It disappeared at an elevation of 29 degrees.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 02:36 AM
That is not Moore who have determined the size of the object but a balistics expert which have studied the datas later.

Again, relevancy???

There is no "secret method" that could determine any such thing, and Ballistics has nothing to do with determining altitude, so please don't post that garbage unless you can back it up with evidence.


...and WHATEVER you do, do not post that it wasn't you making the claim...as long as you advocate their ideas, you are their proxy here, so you ARE making the claim

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 03:41 AM
Explain how he was able to determine this without ranging data.



The ranging data is determined by the ascension rate of the balloon that they have done with another pibal run.
Moore,


We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet.



PILOT BALLOON (PIBAL) WIND OBSERVATIONS
http://www.tpub.com/content/aerographer/14270/css/14270_29.htm

[/quote]
A PIBAL is a balloon that is inflated with helium or hydrogen to provide a fixed free lift, which, in turn produces a predictable ascension rate. It is tracked visually with an optical theodolite (an instrument used for measuring horizontal and vertical angles), with the observed azimuth and elevation angles recorded each minute. The height (AGL) of the balloon at each successive minute is based on a standard ascension rate for the size of the balloon. These ascension rates are listed in the FMH-3. When inflated properly to achieve a set free-lift weight, balloons are assumed to ascend at the standard rate, and true wind speed and direction are computed from the change in the horizontal position of the balloon
[/quote]

http://www.pilotballoon.com/calculat.htm

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 03:41 AM
Macabee is only saying that he have interviewed Moore about Menzel's claims ....

It matters little...when you mentioned the name Macabee, I didn't see any reason to read further.

He could be telling the "god's" honest truth, but it means little if he has no credibility.

Macabee has no credibility.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 03:45 AM
The ranging data is determined by the ascension rate of the balloon that they have done with another pibal run.

For the balloon...NOT for an object of unknown size.

How many times must I repeat this?...


eta...please answer the question in post #161.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 03:46 AM
Again, relevancy???

There is no "secret method" that could determine any such thing, and Ballistics has nothing to do with determining altitude, so please don't post that garbage unless you can back it up with evidence.


The altitude at least for the balloon was determined by the standard pibal run procedure.
explained here
http://www.tpub.com/content/aerographer/14270/css/14270_29.htm

Pilot Balloon - Flight Calculator
http://www.pilotballoon.com/calculat.htm

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 03:49 AM
For the balloon...NOT for an object of unknown size.

How many times must I repeat this?...

I was replying to Jay about Moore's claim bolded


We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 03:59 AM
The altitude at least for the balloon...

I am really tired of posting this, but I can't think of any other way to put it, but relevancy?

How can you tell the altitude of an object, when you don't know it's size? Please answer without posting the word, balloon.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 04:09 AM
I am really tired of posting this, but I can't think of any other way to put it, but relevancy?

How can you tell the altitude of an object, when you don't know it's size? Please answer without posting the word, balloon.

I don't have the answer to that question.Maybe they have based the estimation about the size of the object on this,


The object was an ellipsoid about 2:1 slenderness ratio, length about .02 degrees subtended angle

Strange
2011-Oct-08, 08:17 AM
I don't have the answer to that question.Maybe they have based the estimation about the size of the object on this,

You could only calculate the size from the subtended angle if you knew the distance.

You could only calculate the distance if you knew the size.

Therefore, they knew neither the size nor the distance.

So on what basis do you accept the claims about size, height, speed, etc?

The height of the balloon is irrelevant: it tells you nothing about the height of the "object".

Garrison
2011-Oct-08, 09:55 AM
That is not Moore who have determined the size of the object but a balistics expert which have studied the datas later.

On what basis do you reject JayUtah's explanation as to why such an analysis could not have provided the claimed figures, at least not honestly? You also say that:


My position is trying to shed some light over all that fuzz caused since that report was made public.

This is manifestly untrue, you have simply insisted that the eyewitnesses are credible and that the figures quoted have some basis in fact, every time it is pointed out that eyewitness testimony is innately unreliable you simply ignore it and go back to quoting the data and asserting that a bunch of numbers that might have been plucked out of thin air for all we know, accurately describe the behaviour of the sighting. You admit you don't know the answers to a number of pertinent questions but let me ask one that you should be able to answer:

Given it is just another uncorroborated story why should anyone take this sighting seriously?

JayUtah
2011-Oct-08, 05:44 PM
That is not Moore who have determined the size of the object but a balistics expert which have studied the datas later.

There is no ballistics expert.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-08, 05:49 PM
The altitude at least for the balloon was determined by the standard pibal run procedure.

And how would this work without knowing the object range? We're not talking about the balloon they were tracking, nor the pilot ball balloon they released later. Neither of those was spatially correlated with the unidentified object.

Your problem is that you don't recognize when these things are being mentioned to convey the illusion of rigor without actually providing any. The "fuzz," as you say, around this sighting is precisely that people are mentioning irrelevant but impressive-sounding things to try to improve its credibility.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 07:00 PM
And how would this work without knowing the object range? We're not talking about the balloon they were tracking, nor the pilot ball balloon they released later. Neither of those was spatially correlated with the unidentified object.

Right,the point mentioned by Moore was that the object could not have been a free balloon,

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif

That is right that the altitude of the object was based on an assumption...


-The object was an ellipsoid about 2:1 slenderness ratio, length about .02 degrees subtended angle,-

-The object was not a balloon and was some distance away. Assuming escape velocity, a track was figured which put the elevation about the station of about 300,000 feet over the observed period. If this is true, the flight would have probably gone over the White Sands Proving Ground, Holloman Air Force Base and Los Alamos.


.but the certitude is that the object was much higher than 90,000 feet and that the object could not have been a free balloon,


We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet.



Your problem is that you don't recognize when these things are being mentioned to convey the illusion of rigor without actually providing any. The "fuzz," as you say, around this sighting is precisely that people are mentioning irrelevant but impressive-sounding things to try to improve its credibility.

At least we agree that the object was not a balloon !

Strange
2011-Oct-08, 07:23 PM
but the certitude is that the object was much higher than 90,000 feet and that the object could not have been a free balloon

How do you know that?

Garrison
2011-Oct-08, 07:26 PM
At least we agree that the object was not a balloon !

Don J you have yet to provide evidence beyond mere anecdote that there was an object, a claim that some unnamed ballistics expert came up with some fantastical numbers is still just a story.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 07:33 PM
How do you know that?
Clearly demonstrated by Moore

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif


We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet

Garrison
2011-Oct-08, 07:36 PM
Clearly demonstrated by Moore

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif

No that would be unverifiably claimed by Moore

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 07:42 PM
Don J you have yet to provide evidence beyond mere anecdote that there was an object, a claim that some unnamed ballistics expert came up with some fantastical numbers is still just a story.

Moore was a scientist working for The Aeronautical Division of General Mills, Inc., of Wheaties and Betty Crocker fame,( they )had launched and tracked every skyhook balloon that had been launched prior to mid 1952. They knew what their balloons looked like under all lighting conditions and they also knew meteorology, aerodynamics, astronomy,

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 07:46 PM
No that would be unverifiably claimed by Moore

You mean that the other pibal run he made 15 minutes later was not made for verifying that ?
again


We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet

Strange
2011-Oct-08, 07:48 PM
Clearly demonstrated by Moore

http://wiki.razing.net/ufologie.net/pics/arrey-objreports-moore-01.gif

No. No. No. That is about the height of the balloon. How do you/they know the height of the OBJECT.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 07:52 PM
No. No. No. That is about the height of the balloon. How do you/they know the height of the OBJECT.

Again i have said in post 178 that the height of the object was determined based on an assumption.


-The object was an ellipsoid about 2:1 slenderness ratio, length about .02 degrees subtended angle,-

-The object was not a balloon and was some distance away. Assuming escape velocity, a track was figured which put the elevation about the station of about 300,000 feet over the observed period. If this is true, the flight would have probably gone over the White Sands Proving Ground, Holloman Air Force Base and Los Alamos

Garrison
2011-Oct-08, 07:55 PM
Moore was a scientist working for The Aeronautical Division of General Mills, Inc., of Wheaties and Betty Crocker fame,( they )had launched and tracked every skyhook balloon that had been launched prior to mid 1952. They knew what their balloons looked like under all lighting conditions and they also knew meteorology, aerodynamics, astronomy,

Which in no way makes their estimates about the UFO any more credible.


You mean that the other pibal run he made 15 minutes later was not made for verifying that ?
again

Still just a claim backed up only by this mysterious ballistics expert.

Strange
2011-Oct-08, 07:56 PM
Again i have said in post 179 that the height of the object was determined based on an assumption.

Oh, I see. So I can "assume" the altitude was 100 metres with just as much validity?

Garrison
2011-Oct-08, 07:56 PM
Again i have said in post 178 that the height of the object was determined based on an assumption.

and since there's no evidence to support that assumption what value is it supposed to have? If they made such a wild guess about this number how can you trust the others?

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 08:00 PM
Which in no way makes their estimates about the UFO any more credible.
[
/quote]
He did not even mention the word UFO just that the object was not a balloon

Still just a claim backed up only by this mysterious ballistics expert.


[[QUOTE=Garrison;1943388]/quote]
Where do you find the claim that Moore was the balistic expert ?

Garrison
2011-Oct-08, 08:02 PM
Where do you find the claim that Moore was the balistic expert ?

I said no such thing, Moore's statement is only supported by this absent expert.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 08:06 PM
Oh, I see. So I can "assume" the altitude was 100 metres with just as much validity?

The point was to determining if the object could have been a free balloon flying under 90,000 feet it was determined that it was not the case.



We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet

Garrison
2011-Oct-08, 08:12 PM
The point was to determining if the object could have been a free balloon flying under 90,000 feet it was determined that it was not the case.

Again a claim, not supported by any actual evidence, you can repeat it as often as you like it doesn't gain any additional value.

Strange
2011-Oct-08, 08:12 PM
The point was to determining if the object could have been a free balloon flying under 90,000 feet it was determined that is was not the case.

OK. So at best we can perhaps rule out balloon flying under 90,000 feet. Apart from that, what do we know? Nothing. It could have been anything at any altitude.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 08:14 PM
Again a claim, not supported by any actual evidence, you can repeat it as often as you like it doesn't gain any additional value.
Do you mean that if they would have filmed the whole thing this would have been more credible ?

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 08:20 PM
...if they would have filmed the whole thing...

Irrelevant...they didn't.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 08:34 PM
No. No. No. That is about the height of the balloon. How do you/they know the height of the OBJECT.

This is the 2nd time he has attempted to "pass off' the height of the balloon "as if" it were relevant to the height of the "object".

Why would you do that, Don?

Strange
2011-Oct-08, 08:52 PM
Do you mean that if they would have filmed the whole thing this would have been more credible ?

It still wouldn't tell us anything about the size or altitude of whatever they saw.

eburacum45
2011-Oct-08, 09:22 PM
I do not see how the pilot balloon run rules out the possibility that this object was a much smaller (non-standard) balloon flying at a height of a few hundred meters. Some joker might even have set the balloon off deliberately to confuse the tracking crew.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-08, 09:23 PM
Again i have said in post 178 that the height of the object was determined based on an assumption.

All the relevant values for the unknown object -- height, distance, and size -- are based on nothing but guesswork and assumption. The balloon tests tell us nothing because they are not spatially correlated to the unknown. You don't seem to understand the lack of correlation.

Don J, you are falling for a pseudoscientific Gish Gallop that is intended to fool laymen into thinking there is rigor in these findings. There is none.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-08, 09:51 PM
The point was to determining if the object could have been a free balloon flying under 90,000 feet it was determined that it was not the case.

If you choose, you can waste a lot of time trying to justify ET visitation or Earthbased advanced technology experimentation (or whatever other unspoken motivation you may have for pursuing this) by attempting to eliminate all alternatives but that is an exercise in futility; it's akin to trying to prove a negative. There are just too many possibilities to have to discount.

In this kind of case, it is impossible to eliminate all possible answers except one and then assume that one answer to be fact, especially if that answer is an extremely fanciful conclusion. It would be like Van Rijn seeing a light at night in his back yard, eliminating everything he can think of as an alternative and then assuming it must be his invisible elf smoking a cigarette. :razz:

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 10:02 PM
It would be like Van Rijn seeing a light at night in his back yard, eliminating everything he can think of as an alternative and then assuming it must be his invisible elf smoking a cigarette. :razz:

I like that...sure Van Rijn will, too. :)

Aside...been meaning to mention...love your avatar and sig. I can watch that episode over and over and never get tired of it.

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 10:59 PM
This is the 2nd time he has attempted to "pass off' the height of the balloon "as if" it were relevant to the height of the "object".

Why would you do that, Don?

Tell me if that description made by Moore is not related to the observation of an object at a heighter altitude than the balloon.

"On 24 April 1949, at 3 miles north of Arrey, New Mexico, (107 degrees 19' W 300 deg 52' N) 4 Navy enlisted men from White Sands Proving Ground (Chief Akers, Davidson, Fitzsimmons and Moorman) and I saw a rapidly moving object while making a pibal wind run. We had released a 350 gram balloon at about 1020 MST and were following it with a standard ML-47 (David White) Theodolite. After the 1030 reading, Davidson took over the theodolite, and Akers and I looked up to find the balloon with naked eye. We thought we had the balloon when we saw a whitish spherical object right along the direction the theodolite 45 degree elevation and 210 degree azimuth) was pointing. The object was drifting east rapidly (5 degrees/sec. as estimated by stopwatch and width of fingers) but we had thought to encounter similar winds on the balloon. When the difference in angle between the theodolite and supposed balloon became apparent, I took over the theodolite and found the true balloon still there, whereupon I abandoned it and picked up the object after it came out of the sun. (The computed bearing of sun was 127 degrees azimuth and elevation 60 degrees)."

Don J
2011-Oct-08, 11:07 PM
If you choose, you can waste a lot of time trying to justify ET visitation or Earthbased advanced technology experimentation (or whatever other unspoken motivation you may have for pursuing this) by attempting to eliminate all alternatives but that is an exercise in futility; it's akin to trying to prove a negative. There are just too many possibilities to have to discount.
:razz:
I just want to clarified some point.I have already stated my position about the assumption you are making.


There are just too many possibilities to have to discount.


Not so much based on the meterological condition of the observation.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 11:23 PM
Tell me if that description made by Moore is not related to the observation of an object at a heighter altitude than the balloon.

Why do I have to prove you wrong?

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-08, 11:25 PM
I have already stated my position about the assumption you are making.

What assumption is Luckmeister making?


Not so much based on the meterological condition of the observation.

I have no idea what you mean by this...please clarify.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-09, 12:46 AM
I have already stated my position about the assumption you are making.

I'm only wondering (not assuming) if you have some unspoken motivation for what appears to be a bias in this discussion.

If I had to discount all mundane causes (which I don't) and was forced to form a conclusion (which I'm not), I would have to say my best guess would be advanced technology experimentation, primarily because it is known to have occurred throughout the history of flight.

Of course I am in no way advocating that line of thought but do you agree that it would be a preferred answer over ET visitation?

JayUtah
2011-Oct-09, 01:30 AM
Tell me if that description made by Moore is not related to the observation of an object at a heighter altitude than the balloon.

A larger elevation angle does not mean a higher altitude above the ground. To resolve an elevation angle to an altitude requires ranging information as well. There was no ranging information.

Don J
2011-Oct-09, 06:28 AM
I'm only wondering (not assuming) if you have some unspoken motivation for what appears to be a bias in this discussion.

If I had to discount all mundane causes (which I don't) and was forced to form a conclusion (which I'm not), I would have to say my best guess would be advanced technology experimentation, primarily because it is known to have occurred throughout the history of flight.

Of course I am in no way advocating that line of thought but do you agree that it would be a preferred answer over ET visitation?
I have invoqued the possibilty of advanced technology experimentation but this was rejected.

Don J
2011-Oct-09, 06:49 AM
A larger elevation angle does not mean a higher altitude above the ground. To resolve an elevation angle to an altitude requires ranging information as well. There was no ranging information.
Right, if you need to know precisely the altitude...
But the point i try to make is this, for example :someone is watching an helicopter in the sky at the same time a commercial jet is flying higher in the sky .... no need to determine the precise altitude of the commercial jet to know that he is at a higher altitude than the helicopter.

moog
2011-Oct-09, 08:47 AM
Right, if you need to know precisely the altitude...
But the point i try to make is this, for example :someone is watching an helicopter in the sky at the same time a commercial jet is flying higher in the sky .... no need to determine the precise altitude of the commercial jet to know that he is at a higher altitude than the helicopter.

Because you know the size and general flight abilities of helicopters and commercial jets.

How do you determine the actual size of an unknown out of focus blob at an unknown distance?

Strange
2011-Oct-09, 08:59 AM
Tell me if that description made by Moore is not related to the observation of an object at a heighter altitude than the balloon.

No. That says nothing that allows you to determine the altitude of the object. If you disagree, please explain how you determine the altitude from that information.

Strange
2011-Oct-09, 09:01 AM
Right, if you need to know precisely the altitude...

No. You cannot even tell if the object is higher or lower than the balloon (by a little or a lot) from this information. If you disagree, please explain how you would make such a determination.


But the point i try to make is this, for example :someone is watching an helicopter in the sky at the same time a commercial jet is flying higher in the sky .... no need to determine the precise altitude of the commercial jet to know that he is at a higher altitude than the helicopter.

That is because you know the relative sizes (and behaviors) of those things. How is that relevant?

Tedward
2011-Oct-09, 09:55 AM
I find an interesting bit of info in the run of the known test and the balloon burst a x ft. This sort of limits the unknown, for me anyway. It also introduces a likely contender, a mundane one and a lot closer and lower. Since they cannot pin any real info the unknown then the guessed height would seem inappropriate. It should make you think we have a problem here. Our balloons burst at x ft, nothing we know of travels at the conditions we deduce then there is a big chance we have something wrong or remarkable and reading those transcripts the ordinary springs to mind.

On a side note, I remember driving along a motorway in the UK and glancing up at a cloud I assumed to be very high. That was until a Hercules (C130 for the US?) flew through it, I know how big a Herc is and I was surprised at how easy I had pinned the height incorrectly and it was very low. If I had a theodolite I could have looked at that cloud all day and guessed rightly but probably incorrectly at its place in the world but until the plane flew through it I would have been guessing all the way.

eburacum45
2011-Oct-09, 11:02 AM
One useful way I have developed to estimate the height of clouds is to observe them from high speed trains. (Do you have them in America? I travel on them a lot in Europe, idly looking out of the window when wi-fi is not available). The movement of the train provides a kind of parallax effect, and it is possible to see the relative height of clouds, and even compare them to fixed structures. Once I noticed that a mass of cirrus clouds had an intriguing three-dimensional structure, the fall-streaks consistently curving down towards the ground. This structure was completely invisible when the train was stationary.

I should add that in very windy conditions this parallax effect becomes less useful.



In short, without parallax, it is impossible to estimate the altitude of an unknown object, unless there are other cues. A helicopter and a jet are known objects, so their size and altitude can be estimated; but there is a chance that it may be a model aircraft, much close and smaller than the copter.

Garrison
2011-Oct-09, 11:17 AM
I have invoqued the possibilty of advanced technology experimentation but this was rejected.

No wild speculation about Nazi flying saucers and exotic propulsion was rejected as they have no better evidence than alien spacecraft. Aircraft based on known technology but of unusual/advanced design are not only possible explanations foe UFO sightings but have definitely been the cause of a number of sightings. The U2 and 'Oxcart' have been mentioned in this thread already, and there is also the 'black triangle' sightings related to the F117-A in the 80's to name just one other instance.
But of course in this case there is no need to invoke such an aircraft as the all the extraordinary capabilities ascribed to the 'object' are based on numbers that are simply guesses and can in no way be assumed to be accurate.

Garrison
2011-Oct-09, 11:26 AM
Right, if you need to know precisely the altitude...
But the point i try to make is this, for example :someone is watching an helicopter in the sky at the same time a commercial jet is flying higher in the sky .... no need to determine the precise altitude of the commercial jet to know that he is at a higher altitude than the helicopter.

But would you be able to tell how much higher? Or how fast the jet was going? Or whether it was climbing, descending, or maintaining level flight? In other words this wouldn't provide the basis to extrapolate the sorts of numbers in Moore's report and your example is based on two known objects whose actual size and performance are readily established, so the witnesses didn't even have that to inform their judgement.

Tedward
2011-Oct-09, 11:49 AM
One useful way I have developed to estimate the height of clouds is to observe them from high speed trains. (Do you have them in America? I travel on them a lot in Europe, idly looking out of the window when wi-fi is not available). The movement of the train provides a kind of parallax effect, and it is possible to see the relative height of clouds, and even compare them to fixed structures. Once I noticed that a mass of cirrus clouds had an intriguing three-dimensional structure, the fall-streaks consistently curving down towards the ground. This structure was completely invisible when the train was stationary.

I should add that in very windy conditions this parallax effect becomes less useful.



In short, without parallax, it is impossible to estimate the altitude of an unknown object, unless there are other cues. A helicopter and a jet are known objects, so their size and altitude can be estimated; but there is a chance that it may be a model aircraft, much close and smaller than the copter.

I was on the M4 going past Lynham (lots of Hercules in the sky until recently, RAF transport base). Cloud was dead ahead and in my vision for driving so no real other cues until the known object shot through it, size was also wrong until the plane intersected it. I had the cloud as large, big cloud large. It turned out to be slightly larger than the plane.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-09, 04:23 PM
...no need to determine the precise altitude of the commercial jet to know that he is at a higher altitude than the helicopter.

You are talking of 2 KNOWN objects. Please explain how this, in any way, relates to determining the size/distance of an unknown object.


edit...noticed that practically everyone has the same response...there was really no need to repeat it, myself...DOH!

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-09, 05:18 PM
Lets suppose that the altitude of 300,000 feet is not absolutely accurate to 100 percent..
It was determined by Moore that the altitude of the unknown object was obviously much higher than the balloon they have launched.
Based on the available eye-witness testimony, it's accurate to 0%, it's a number calculated from a number pulled from a dark smelly place and it has even less value than what normally emerges from that place. (Can't even be used as fertilizer.)

Determined how? Without a valid size estimate and no visual queues it's impossible to tell the distance. "Determined" is the wrong word to use here.

We're back to the bit you keep refusing to discuss, the impossibility of making those determinations with the instruments available to the observers.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-09, 05:28 PM
.but the certitude is that the object was much higher than 90,000 feet and that the object could not have been a free balloon,

The point was to determining if the object could have been a free balloon flying under 90,000 feet it was determined that it was not the case.
You're failing elementary logic here.

That they confirmed that what they observed was not a balloon of the type they used, flying under 90,000 feet, means just that and nothing more.

It doesn't mean that it was something flying above 90.000 feet, it means that IF it was a balloon of the type they were flying that day THEN it was above 90,000 feet. Which is something they would have been able to tell because in that case they'd have a priori knowledge about the size of the observed object.

If it wasn't a balloon of the type they were flying that day, then nothing can be said about the height, distance, speed because nothing would be known about the size.


At least we agree that the object was not a balloon !
No, we can agree that it likely wasn't a balloon of the type they flew that day.

That's the most that can be drawn from the followup experiment.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-09, 06:25 PM
Don J, I'm tired of reading repeated corrections of the same flawed analysis you have exhibited and apparently won't acknowledge.

In the opening post to this thread, you state:


But it seem that the US Air Force in the the early days of the modern UFO era was very shocked by the observation(s) reported by their own qualified personnel to the point they openly discussed the possibility of an -interplanetary origin- to explain the observation.

You made that observation even though you have since stated you do not advocate ET visitation.

If you have a conspiracy theory or credible positive evidence for what you think sightings represent, please present it (not just UFO website anecdotes).

Don J
2011-Oct-09, 06:48 PM
Don J, I'm tired of reading repeated corrections of the same flawed analysis you have exhibited and apparently won't acknowledge.

In the opening post to this thread, you state:

But it seem that the US Air Force in the the early days of the modern UFO era was very shocked by the observation(s) reported by their own qualified personnel to the point they openly discussed the possibility of an -interplanetary origin- to explain the observation.

You made that observation even though you have since stated you do not advocate ET visitation.


True ,that is right that I am not advocating that the object observed was of ET origin and I have mentioned that many time.

Don J
2011-Oct-09, 07:01 PM
You're failing elementary logic here.

That they confirmed that what they observed was not a balloon of the type they used, flying under 90,000 feet, means just that and nothing more.

It doesn't mean that it was something flying above 90.000 feet, it means that IF it was a balloon of the type they were flying that day THEN it was above 90,000 feet. Which is something they would have been able to tell because in that case they'd have a priori knowledge about the size of the observed object.

If it wasn't a balloon of the type they were flying that day, then nothing can be said about the height, distance, speed because nothing would be known about the size.


So ,why Moore who is a specialist made that extrapolation about the altitude of the object based on the data presented there must be a reason ?Is it because he was failing elementary logic ?

Here Moore report for those who have just joint us.

OBJECT REPORT

"On 24 April 1949, at 3 miles north of Arrey, New Mexico, (107 degrees 19' W 300 deg 52' N) 4 Navy enlisted men from White Sands Proving Ground (Chief Akers, Davidson, Fitzsimmons and Moorman) and I saw a rapidly moving object while making a pibal wind run. We had released a 350 gram balloon at about 1020 MST and were following it with a standard ML-47 (David White) Theodolite. After the 1030 reading, Davidson took over the theodolite, and Akers and I looked up to find the balloon with naked eye. We thought we had the balloon when we saw a whitish spherical object right along the direction the theodolite 45 degree elevation and 210 degree azimuth) was pointing. The object was drifting east rapidly (5 degrees/sec. as estimated by stopwatch and width of fingers) but we had thought to encounter similar winds on the balloon. When the difference in angle between the theodolite and supposed balloon became apparent, I took over the theodolite and found the true balloon still there, whereupon I abandoned it and picked up the object after it came out of the sun. (The computed bearing of sun was 127 degrees azimuth and elevation 60 degrees). The object was moving too fast to crank the theodolite around, therefore one of the men pointed the theodolite and I looked.

The object was an ellipsoid about 2:1 slenderness ratio, length about .02 degrees subtended angle, and white in color, except for a light yellow of one side as though it were in shadow. I could not get a hard focus on the object due to the speed at which the angles changed. Therefore I saw no good detail at all.

The azimuth angle continued to decrease as the object continued on a north heading, growing smaller in size. At around 20 degrees - 25 degrees Azimuth, the Azimuth held constant and the elevation angle began increasing from the 25 degree minimum to about 29 degrees. The object then apparently disappeared due to distance after a total time of observation of about 60 seconds.

The object was not a balloon and was some distance away. Assuming escape velocity, a track was figured which put the elevation about the station of about 300,000 feet over the observed period. If this is true, the flight would have probably gone over the White Sands Proving Ground, Holloman Air Force Base and Los Alamos.

We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet.

Information is desired if this was some new or experimental aircraft or for any explanation whatsoever.

C.B. Moore
General Mills Aeronautical Research
2010 H. Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, 13, Minnesota
Geneva 0371 X 385

NOTE:
No clouds in sky, no haze.
No noise, very quite in area
(no cars, planes or other engines running)
No trail, no exhaust visible.
No odor

JayUtah
2011-Oct-09, 07:07 PM
True ,that is right that I am not advocating that the object obderved was of ET origin and I have mentioned that many time.

You may not be, but you refer us to authors who do:


But it seem that the US Air Force in the the early days of the modern UFO era was very shocked by the observation(s) reported by their own qualified personnel to the point they openly discussed the possibility of an -interplanetary origin- to explain the observation.

Again, this method of argumentation is tedious and frustrating. You indirectly advocate an ET explanation, but when we ask you to defend it, you say you're just quoting other people's opinions and explanations to that effect. You cite them as experts, but the things they're talking about are well within the expertise of people here. You don't seem to see how we're able to dispute it on a rational basis with expert understanding.

Strange
2011-Oct-09, 07:10 PM
So ,why Moore who is a specialist made that extrapolation about the altitude of the object based on the data presented there must be a reason ?Is it because he was failing elementary logic ?

So you just believe his "extrapolation" (does that mean "guess?) without thinking about how anyone could possibly come up with these numbers? Here is a clue: they couldn't.

JayUtah
2011-Oct-09, 07:14 PM
Right, if you need to know precisely the altitude...

No, even if you need to know approximately the altitude. Elevation angle does not resolve to altitude at all without some ranging information.

Beyond a couple hundred meters, the human eye cannot estimate distances for objects it cannot identify, unless it can place them in some spatial context. Objects seen in the sky are rarely if ever in an appropriate spatial context. The NTSB protocol to which I have repeatedly alluded contains methods to guide the witness toward establishing a spatial context if one can be found. Here there is no basis for it.


But the point i try to make is this, for example :someone is watching an helicopter in the sky at the same time a commercial jet is flying higher in the sky

That's a very poor example because you identify the objects as a helicopter and airliner respectively. Their apparent size is the most effective depth cue. The studies in question show how easily people estimate distances incorrectly when familiar objects that have been scaled up or down are placed a fixed distance away. If you know the object is a helicopter, you stand a good chance of guessing how far away it is based on how large it appears. If you don't know what the object is, the studies show that you are likely to mistake the range by several orders of magnitude.

When I say that there is no usable ranging data in your anecdote, it is because I have done my homework on this topic.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-09, 07:15 PM
You indirectly advocate an ET explanation, but when we ask you to defend it, you say you're just quoting other people's opinions and explanations to that effect.

Gaming the board....been happening a lot around here, lately...

Garrison
2011-Oct-09, 07:21 PM
True ,that is right that I am not advocating that the object observed was of ET origin and I have mentioned that many time.

Great, now tell us what you are proposing and the evidence you have to back it up.

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-09, 07:25 PM
So ,why Moore who is a specialist made that extrapolation about the altitude of the object based on the data presented there must be a reason ?Is it because he was failing elementary logic ?

If that is what he said, then yes...and failing miserably

JayUtah
2011-Oct-09, 07:26 PM
So ,why Moore who is a specialist made that extrapolation about the altitude of the object based on the data presented...

There's nothing special about what he's trying to do. You seem to think that because Moore is characterized as an expert or specialist, that he must be bringing some mysterious ability to bear that few else have. No, in fact what he's attempting to do is elementary trigonometry, and he's doing it wrong. Which is to say, the method would be reasonably correct, but it still requires ranging data. He has no reliable ranging data. You're just waving his credentials and hoping that this will create some sort of rigor in what is entirely unvalidated guesswork.


Is it because he was failing elementary logic ?

Yes.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-09, 07:26 PM
True ,that is right that I am not advocating that the object observed was of ET origin and I have mentioned that many time.

And that is why I wrote the last sentence of my post (which you did not include in your quote):


If you have a conspiracy theory or credible positive evidence for what you think sightings represent, please present it (not just UFO website anecdotes).

Please respond to that. No, I'm not a moderator, so i can't demand that, but I can respectfully request it.

Don J
2011-Oct-09, 07:32 PM
Great, now tell us what you are proposing

I propose that it could have been a turkey vulture flying under the influence of illicite substance.


and the evidence you have to back it up.

Here the evidence

http://kaweahoaks.com/html/vulture01.jpg

Don J
2011-Oct-09, 07:34 PM
And that is why I wrote the last sentence of my post (which you did not include in your quote):



Please respond to that. No, I'm not a moderator, so i can't demand that, but I can respectfully request it.

see post 233

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-09, 07:40 PM
I propose that it could have been a turkey vulture flying under the influence of illicite substance.

Just so ya know...attempting a "joke", instead of answering direct questions will not "work" on this board.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-09, 07:42 PM
I propose that it could have been a turkey vulture flying under the influence of illicite substance.

Here the evidence

http://kaweahoaks.com/html/vulture01.jpg

That looks like an alien turkey vulture to me. :lol:

Don J
2011-Oct-09, 07:42 PM
Just so ya know...attempting a "joke", instead of answering direct questions will not "work" on this board.

But It could be the ultimate mundane explanation .

R.A.F.
2011-Oct-09, 07:45 PM
But It could be the ultimate mundane explanation .

...and still not laughing...although this is great way to "inflate" my post count. At this rate, I'll hit 10,000 by later today. :)

Garrison
2011-Oct-09, 07:48 PM
But It could be the ultimate mundane explanation .

But only if you admit that all the numbers in Moore's report are pure guesswork.

ETA: And now you've had your joke my request still stands:

Please tell us what you are proposing and the evidence you have to back it up?

Strange
2011-Oct-09, 07:52 PM
So ,why Moore who is a specialist made that extrapolation about the altitude of the object based on the data presented there must be a reason ?

1. Do you really not understand why his guesses have no basis ?

2. If you think his numbers valid, please explain why (in your own words - not just copying the same text again).

pzkpfw
2011-Oct-09, 08:08 PM
I propose that it could have been a turkey vulture flying under the influence of illicite substance....

Well, that earns an infraction.

Don J
2011-Oct-09, 08:19 PM
1. Do you really not understand why his guesses have no basis ?


Why are you assuming this ,i only ask why Moore who is a specialist have make that extrapolation....the answer must lie in the general description of the observation and the fact that if the object would have been at a lower altitude than the balloon they would have been able to identified it with their binoculars.

Strange
2011-Oct-09, 08:23 PM
Why are you assuming this

Because you keep uncritically repeating the arguments about the altitude, speed, size, etc.

Do you accept that these numbers have no validity?

If not, why not? (in your own words)


the answer must lie in the general description of the observation

Where exactly does this answer lie? I don't see it. Please explain in your own words.


if the object would have been at a lower altitude than the balloon they would have been able to identified it with their binoculars

Can you prove that claim?

Don J
2011-Oct-09, 08:59 PM
if the object would have been at a lower altitude than the balloon they would have been able to identified it with their binoculars


Can you prove that claim?

They have no difficulty to track a 350 gram balloon with their equipment .Right ?

I will answer the 2 other points later.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-09, 09:04 PM
Tracking a balloon you sent up yourself is a far cry from identifying something you don't know what is and can't focus on properly.

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-09, 10:25 PM
Don J, I will reiterate the point I made in Post #201. Trying to eliminate all possibilities for an amorphous blob seen in the sky in order to arrive at one abstract conclusion is an exercise in futility. It's akin to trying to prove a negative. Since the veracity of that report seems so important to you, I'm assuming you're not defending it so vehemently simply for idle speculation or curiosity's sake. It would be far more productive if you would start with what you think the object was, and attempt to prove that. Let's have something more concrete here we're going after.

Don J
2011-Oct-10, 03:29 AM
Don J, I will reiterate the point I made in Post #201. Trying to eliminate all possibilities for an amorphous blob seen in the sky in order to arrive at one abstract conclusion is an exercise in futility. It's akin to trying to prove a negative. Since the veracity of that report seems so important to you, I'm assuming you're not defending it so vehemently simply for idle speculation or curiosity's sake. It would be far more productive if you would start with what you think the object was, and attempt to prove that. Let's have something more concrete here we're going after.

I cannot speculate about what the object was because even two official commission IE project Saucer and project Blue Book were unable to find a natural or human cause to it.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-10, 03:40 AM
Nope, they were unable to find a single specific, positively identified cause for it.

Again logic fails you, they didn't rule out all possible natural or human causes, they were just unable to identify which it was. They couldn't even tell if it was actually an object.

Don J
2011-Oct-10, 03:47 AM
Nope, they were unable to find a single specific, positively identified cause for it.

Again logic fails you, they didn't rule out all possible natural or human causes, they were just unable to identify which it was.

Based on your "superior logic" can you tell us which of all possible natural or human cause ie (a man made object) do you think may explain the observation ?

JayUtah
2011-Oct-10, 04:13 AM
I cannot speculate about what the object was because even two official commission IE project Saucer and project Blue Book were unable to find a natural or human cause to it.

They were unable to assign any cause of any kind. Why do you phrase that only in terms of "natural or human" causes? Are you indeed attempting some sort of indirect argument wherein the failure to discern some type of cause, among all types, somehow proves the likelihood of a different cause?


Based on your "superior logic" can you tell us which of all possible natural or human cause ie (a man made object) do you think may explain the observation ?

This is needlessly condescending. The entire line of rebuttal here has been that too little data were collected, and therefore too little data are available, to support any identification of any kind. The skeptics are content to leave this as "unknown, for lack of evidence." Is there a problem with that? Do you believe that the dearth of data necessarily suggests that the sighting must have been of something extraterrestrial, as Robert McLaughlin claims?