|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 13:38:58 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
I said:| I do wish that some of the fine minds that have come to this conclusion, after seriously studying these events, would more completely detail the logistics and mechanical detail used to create the illusions reported by many hundreds of people. |
Dave commented:| I think it would be more illustrative to examine the reports from hundreds of people for similarities. |
It would certainly be useful to meticulously compare all of the accounts of the events to see if anything emerged suggesting other than the given explanations. But to quote a famous author on the subject of phenomenon examination, "Who should have paid to scour many square miles of desert and/or mountains for debris?" In this case who should have paid to interview and analyze hundreds of observer's accounts?
In any event, I was more interested in the fact that the explanations while being sensible and partially backed by statements and confessions, failed to explain the geometrics of ascending and descending lights forming an illusion of moving in formation for a prolonged period.
The fact that this explanation was not forthcoming obviously presents irrefutable evidence that the events were of extraterrestrial origin.
And that that evidence is being suppressed by a vast government conspiracy! |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 09/29/2009 : 14:35:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
In this case who should have paid to interview and analyze hundreds of observer's accounts? |
Anyone who thinks that there needs to be something other than a mundane explanation. Just like in all of science, the burden of proof is on the claimant.| In any event, I was more interested in the fact that the explanations while being sensible and partially backed by statements and confessions, failed to explain the geometrics of ascending and descending lights forming an illusion of moving in formation for a prolonged period. |
I don't know that anything that needs explaining, there. You claim that it's an illusion, and it very probably was. Lights in the night sky can trick the brain (if you stare at a single star at night, it will often appear to be moving).The fact that this explanation was not forthcoming obviously presents irrefutable evidence that the events were of extraterrestrial origin.
And that that evidence is being suppressed by a vast government conspiracy! |
Hence the important (and still unanswered) question posed to jakesteele. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 15:16:52 [Permalink]
|
Ndoktor Mabuse.....
| Just because there are "hundreds" of events that haven't been satisfactorily explained, doesn't mean that there isn't a mundane or natural explanation for them. It just means that there is an explanation for them, we just haven't found it yet. |
Well, I don't know how I could agree more with that statement, it is almost a truism. Perhaps the only thing that should be added is "....we just haven't found it yet, and coming to any final conclusion is premature."| To leap from there to alien visitation is to skip a lot of natural explanations. |
To even mention "alien visitation" is presumptive in the extreme. Perhaps Jakesteele has commented in other threads about aliens or extraterrestrials, but I do not find it in this thread. I certainly have not mentioned nor implicated extraterrestrial visitation in any way by my commentary.
I will take your statement as a general pronouncement concerning your position on this subject, rather than a comment on the specific posts in this thread.| Your own words above tells us the history of UFO-reports |
Precisely my intention.| In every case where a UFO-event have been identified and explained, it's had a scientific explanation pointing to a natural or man-made cause. That should give you the odds for the last few unexplained ones. |
Wrong. It gives very low odds that the unexplained events will be explained by the same factors revealed in the explained ones. If any of those factors had been found in the examination of the unexplained events, those events would have no longer been unexplained. The fact that by far the majority of cases were satisfactorily explained after thorough investigation says absolutly nothing pro or con about what the explanations might be for the unexplained events, which had the same degree of investigation that the explained ones did. It certainly does not offer any specific explanation for the remaining few. Most certainly not anything having to do with alien visitation or ANYTHING ELSE!| If you flip a coin 900'000 times and get heads every time, a sane man would draw the tentative conclusion that the coin has two "heads" sides. |
If he examined 900,000 babies and found one head on each baby, a sane man would conclude that all babies have one head. Would he then be considered insane if he found that the 100,001st baby he examined suffered from polycephaly?The other reasonable answer should be "Maybe something is interfering with the flipping", not "aliens are interfering with the flipping".
|
Or ghosts, or invisible leprechauns, miniature tornados, or just goddam lousy luck. It could be flipping fraud, if money was moving on the results! God knows I don't think that flipping ALIENS are flipping around with the lights over Phoenix! I just am curious how you drop flares out of planes on parachutes and keep them in formstion for half an hour or more? Suggestions?
Error or artifice in tallying the flipping results could be one of the flipping reasons! Some motherflippers are crooks!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 15:39:38 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Anyone who thinks that there needs to be something other than a mundane explanation. Just like in all of science, the burden of proof is on the claimant. |
Exactly! And there is little vested interest in any of the explainers precisely because they don't believe that anything other than a mundane explanation is possible; OR that it would be beneficial to their interests. Military security being what it is, if the lights were actually from classified military aircraft -- a highly plausible explanation -- the Air Force certainly wouldn't wish to encourage additional investigation into rising and falling balloons and parachutes appearing to float in formation. Even given an entity like MUFON, funding and staffing deficiencies prohibit much in the way of expensive investigation such as has been done in the past in many cases by governmental agencies.
The vested interest may be there (they represent themselves as scientific investigators) as an endeavor of science, but the funding and staffing is not. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 16:23:32 [Permalink]
|
JAKESTEELE....COME BACK--COME BACK, JAKE!
The dudes and the swedes are lining up at the corral, Jake, and the Marshall is rumbling around down at the jail.
The pore 'ol farm boy needs you, Jake! Come galloping back, don't just crap and bail!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 09/29/2009 16:48:49 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 18:16:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Even given an entity like MUFON, funding and staffing deficiencies prohibit much in the way of expensive investigation such as has been done in the past in many cases by governmental agencies.
The vested interest may be there (they represent themselves as scientific investigators) as an endeavor of science, but the funding and staffing is not. |
Actually, as with creationism and "alternative" medicine, there's probably plenty of funding for UFO investigations. The trouble is that the believers don't want their pet hypotheses disproven, and so either refuse to do the science, or else do the science badly, call the results "inconclusive" and whine about needing more money. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 23:03:54 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Oh, Dave, you know "believers" can and do make a similar case about the alleged Government "coverup" of UFO events...| the government and the military have spent enormous sums to prevent the "truth" about UFO activity from becoming known. They need to keep these things secret in order to preserve their power and use of "alien technology" from becoming public property and being appropriated from them to civilian control and use. |
Except that all that is pure bullshit!
The government and the military have done vastly more investigation of UFO/UAP phenomena than all other entities combined -- precisely because for many, many years there was a military belief -- based on military awareness of widespread UAP publicity and also some military experience with UAP -- that some other country(ies) might have exceptional technology of which we needed knowlege to keep our Air Force competitive.
Most of this investigation is public knowledge today (freedom of information) and there have been indeed serious investigations and some incidents of unexplained UAP events. Some of this material is still classified, probably because of parallel technological development of our (US) military technology -- not because it is "alien" technology or any such nonsense.
The demise of the cold war pretty effectively dampened the US concern about other countries' (read Russia's) exotic technology. But there is not and never has been a US coverup of UAP events. They are freely recognized, designated as explained or not (by far, most are reasonably explained) and then largely forgotten. Today there is very little ongoing activity in this area. Lack of interest, lack of funds.
I think the real reason for the lack of interest and funding for UAP investigation is the absence of a potential commercial or military profit in discovering obscure or exotic explanations for the relatively few events that so far have eluded definition.
Even if an investigative agency was to prove conclusively that some UAP were extraterrestrial in origin, what would be the long-term advantage to the investigators other than credit for discovery and the immediate publicity? They would have to capture, control, or enlist the help of the alien entities in order to benefit from finding them. That might prove more difficult than the original discovery was! Anyway, the whole idea is absurd!
If the mysteries of thoroughly investigated but non-resolved UAP events--past, present ongoing, and future--are to be significantly explained, it will be by dispassionate scientific curiosity motivated by a simple desire to know the unknown.
It will very probably be privately funded, UFO's being a hard sell to the Congress. I doubt seriously that it will happen. However, that does not extinguish my and many other's curiosity about such matters.
Nor does the fact that there is a high probability that no spectacular or esoteric astrophysical revelations will be involved. There may very possibly be revelations of human technological development as yet not widely or publically known! That type of resolution would be highly satisfying to my sense of curiosity! I am not going to invest several hundred thousand dollars alone or in concert with other rich busybodies to attempt to achieve that satisfaction, though!
But as to where plenty of money for such investigation is available or might be forthcoming, I have no idea. If there are a bunch of rich nuts devoutly believing that aliens are among us, but frightened that if they were to fund a search for the Greens & Greys that some real scientists would prove that they don't exist, I certainly haven't heard about them! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2009 : 04:00:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I think the real reason for the lack of interest and funding for UAP investigation is the absence of a potential commercial or military profit in discovering obscure or exotic explanations for the relatively few events that so far have eluded definition.
...
But as to where plenty of money for such investigation is available or might be forthcoming, I have no idea. |
The citizens of Roswell, New Mexico, seem to have built a successful industry from one particular event.| If there are a bunch of rich nuts devoutly believing that aliens are among us, but frightened that if they were to fund a search for the Greens & Greys that some real scientists would prove that they don't exist, I certainly haven't heard about them! |
All you need to find is a "rich nut" who is funding UFO-related projects other than searches and investigations. Look at creationist billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who funds a PR firm called the Discovery Institute, and not any creationist science labs or field researchers. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2009 : 08:19:34 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
I do feel the fact that these examples exist is worthy of my and other's interest.
...
Perhaps the only thing that should be added is "....we just haven't found it yet, and coming to any final conclusion is premature."
|
There is the petard, owned by you, upon which you keep hoisting yourself (with ragard to the UFO topic anyway).
You look at a series of similar events, you get a fully normal explanation for 99.9% of them, yet the 0.01% you don't have an explanation for "interest" you.
Uh huh.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2009 : 10:56:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
| Just because there are "hundreds" of events that haven't been satisfactorily explained, doesn't mean that there isn't a mundane or natural explanation for them. It just means that there is an explanation for them, we just haven't found it yet. |
Well, I don't know how I could agree more with that statement, it is almost a truism. Perhaps the only thing that should be added is "....we just haven't found it yet, and coming to any final conclusion is premature." |
I don't agree.
There comes a point, sooner or later, when the chase isn't worth the cost. At some point, it's reasonable to throw our hands in the air and say "enough already, this isn't productive anymore!".
| To leap from there to alien visitation is to skip a lot of natural explanations. |
To even mention "alien visitation" is presumptive in the extreme. |
I was about to write something like "paranormal event of your choice", but alien visitation is catchier and more in line with UFO-hunters.
If we have no better explanation for the weird lights, conjuring up a hypothesis, I'd prefer to go with "space aliens flaunts their ship" rather than "Jesus made'em glow".
Perhaps Jakesteele has commented in other threads about aliens or extraterrestrials, but I do not find it in this thread. I certainly have not mentioned nor implicated extraterrestrial visitation in any way by my commentary. |
It was a generalization based on the preferred paranormal event behind the UFO observation: Whenever someone speculates about a non-natural explanation for a UFO, most people default to space ships. I guess it's a cultural thing.
| In every case where a UFO-event have been identified and explained, it's had a scientific explanation pointing to a natural or man-made cause. That should give you the odds for the last few unexplained ones. |
Wrong. It gives very low odds that the unexplained events will be explained by the same factors revealed in the explained ones. If any of those factors had been found in the examination of the unexplained events, those events would have no longer been unexplained. The fact that by far the majority of cases were satisfactorily explained after thorough investigation says absolutly nothing pro or con about what the explanations might be for the unexplained events, which had the same degree of investigation that the explained ones did. |
It seems to me that such a stance presumes that these unexplained events has the evidence and data to exclude all standard explanations. What if that mysterious event really was a military aircraft, but how much we search we still can't find any flight recorded nor any records of a radar contact?
| It certainly does not offer any specific explanation for the remaining few. Most certainly not anything having to do with alien visitation or ANYTHING ELSE! |
Right, so you agree that we cannot exclude reasonable and/or mundane explanations, though we can't find any evidence they caused the observation?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2009 : 11:42:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jakesteele
I never answered your questions because I never went back to the thread. |
And that's a shame. Thetas I might have appreciated the info you left here, had it been in that other thread in July sometime. Or maybe she would have looked at your non-answer to my third question over there and come to the same conclusion I'm coming to.| 1. I think both the debunkers and the believers should go out and do it on their own time. Neither side cannot arrive at completely definitive conclusion without having all of the evidence available. |
Well, there is always evidence that isn't available, for just about any phenomenon. Since "completely definitive conclusions" are few and far-between in forensics, how much is required before we can arrive at any conclusion? How much do we need before we can arrive at a "most likely" conclusion?| 2. I would expect to find the parachutes that were the newest in the area that would be distinguishable from the older, more weathered ones. |
You would? Not knowing anything about how flare parachutes weather, I wouldn't expect such a thing. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Under what conditions and how long does it take before flare-parachute weathering makes a measurable difference? And would the difference require some sort of measuring device to detect, or would it be obvious to the naked eye?| 3. I didn’t say I doubted the Official Story. I asked a simple question. |
But it's obvious that you do doubt the "Official Story," because a pilot saying "I dropped flares at that time" is a perfectly reasonable explanation, no more evidence necessary. But you think that that's not enough for a "completely definitive conclusion."| I answered your questions, now you answer mine. |
But you didn't answer my third question, not to its point. You deflected.I believe you answered the original question by asking ‘who should be paid…
The next question I have is about the first event – assuming you view them as two -- that occurred in Henderson, Nevada. The only info I could find about an explanation is the two amateur astronomers that anecdotally related their sighting of Cessnas. My question is:
1. Did any debunker and/or believer request the flight plan that the Cessnas would have had to have filed with the local FFA’s standard protocol for all civilian flights? |
You're wrong. VFR doesn't require the filing of a flight plan. And Night VFR is legal in the U.S. So long as the visibility is good, you can hop in your Cessna and fly just about anywhere you want, at any time, without filing squat. So aside from your mistaken premise, do you have any reason to expect a couple of Cessna pilots in that area at that time would have filed flight plans?| To put this in context for you, if you had a loved one murdered and someone said, “who are we going to pay to do a grid search in that field looking for any kind of evidence and what do you expect to find? Would you want them to turn over rock and any pieces of evidence; paper scraps, cig butts, empty soda/beer cans, etc. or would you just blow that part of the investigation off? |
I pay the police to do that work, through my taxes, when a crime has been committed. A military pilot firing military flares at night is not a crime, so you've had a massive analogy failure. Just because you think that there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion doesn't mean that we should spend thousands or millions of dollars on a search. A search which, until you provide more information about the behavior of the flares in question, and the military flights dropping them, you can't actually say would turn up any useful evidence.
More important still is the question you dodged. What sort of evidence would satisfy you? If you're willing to entertain the possibility that a pilot lied about dropping flares (the only reason to actually go hunt for parachutes), then you might be willing to entertain the possibility that relatively unweathered burnt-out flare parachutes were planted as a part of a cover-up. So where would you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable standards of evidence? Can you convince me that spending money and manpower on a search would result in you saying, "okay, they were flares," if the search happened to find the evidence that you say is required?
|
Your 3rd question about kidney problem: “How is one to tell the difference between utter nonsense and good pointers?”
Do research and consult your doctor. The dietary, nutrient and the herbal recommendations are very similar to one another with some variations. I’ve done plenty of research in matters like this and I was able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Now, I have answered you question in the matter, so let’s get back to the matter at hand.
1. “how much is required before we can arrive at any conclusion?”
***As much as is humanly possible before you come to a conclusion.
2. . “Under what conditions and how long does it take before flare-parachute weathering makes a measurable difference?”
*****on another site someone said that the wind would have the effect of scattering them all across Hell’s half acre. To me, that makes a lot of sense and it would make finding them nigh on to impossible unless you could coordinate a grid search that encompassed many, many miles of turf.
For my purposes’ I am satisfied with that explanation.
3. “But it's obvious that you do doubt the "Official Story," because a pilot saying "I dropped flares at that time" is a perfectly reasonable explanation, no more evidence necessary. But you think that that's not enough for a "completely definitive conclusion."
****That’s your perception that I doubt. I would appreciate it if you would not twist and misconstrue what I’m saying and not put words in my mouth.
How about this? I have a few simple questions; that’s it, that’s all there is to it, nothing sinister, here.
4. “You're wrong. VFR doesn't require the filing of a flight plan...”
*****I stand corrected. The reason I assumed that is because my dad was a commercial jet pilot and one of his co-workers had a small plane we flew on fairly often. They always filed with the local towers due to safety reasons so that if we crashed they would have some idea of where we should be to start the search.
1. “More important still is the question you dodged. What sort of evidence would satisfy you? If you're willing to entertain the possibility that a pilot lied about dropping flares…”
******I didn’t say there wasn’t enough evidence to draw a conclusion, you straw manned me.
• What sort of evidence would satisfy me? As much as humanly possible.
• As I stated above, the explanation from another site satisfies me.
You’ve done this three times now. You need to stop it. It’s a straw man or whatever you want to call it
1. But it's obvious that you do doubt the "Official Story
2. If you're willing to entertain the possibility that a pilot lied about dropping flares
2. unweathered burnt-out flare parachutes were planted as a part of a cover-up.
Now, that question was answered in a civil manner and fashion on another site. I am satisfied with the answer. Now I need help on another question. Below is an overview of the events that occurred that night and I have a couple of simple, civil questions that I would appreciate as straight forward of an answer as possible. I might add that I am asking these questions on a skeptic’s site rather than on a UFO site because I know what I’ll get there.
Lights of varying descriptions were seen by thousands of people between 7:30 and 10:30 MST, in a space of about 300 miles,
1. First report came from Henderson, Nevada at 7:30 and Phoenix Lights ended approx. 10;30
2. 3 hr. time span (7:30pm – 10:30pm)
3. 300 miles distance from Henderson, Nevada to Barry Goldwater firing range.
4. astronomer sighting in Phoenix approx. 250 miles away from Henderson at 10:00pm
5. The LUU-2 has a burn time of approximately *5 minutes while suspended from a parachute
6. Flares at Henderson would have to travel hundreds and thousands of mph to get to Phoenix in 5 mins. So obviously, the first event couldn’t be flares unless the N. Guard were dropping them intermittently from Henderson to Phoenix.
*(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/luu2.htm - “LUU-2 has a burn time of approximately 5 minutes while suspended from a parachute.”)
3. Did the N. Guard start at Henderson and drop flares intermittently over the 300 mile stretch?
4. If, so, did they announce it like they announced the Phoenix?
5. If not, what explanation has been given for the first stretch of sightings that traveled approx. 250 miles and took 2 to 2 and a half hrs.?
|
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/30/2009 : 12:01:51 [Permalink]
|
The whole thing, really, is only a laff, innit?
But to get it even funnier and raise the blood pressures of both the UFO aficionados and the police, try this some dark, clear night:
I've done it and it works slicker'n snot on the doorknob, although I didn't do it at night and then only one to see if I could. I recommend that Californians not try it at all. They've had enough fires for one year.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2009 : 14:17:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jakesteele
Your 3rd question about kidney problem: “How is one to tell the difference between utter nonsense and good pointers?”
Do research and consult your doctor. |
But you suggested Googling.| The dietary, nutrient and the herbal recommendations are very similar to one another with some variations. I’ve done plenty of research in matters like this and I was able to separate the wheat from the chaff. |
I don't think you have, but that's not relevant to this thread.Now, I have answered you question in the matter, so let’s get back to the matter at hand.
1. “how much is required before we can arrive at any conclusion?”
***As much as is humanly possible before you come to a conclusion. |
This is an unreasonable standard.
Say you work in an auto-parts store, and you get a crate of 100 Acme camshafts, and you notice that the first five you've uncrated and shelved all had 14-digit serial numbers on them. Your buddy Doug had told you that Acme puts 12-digit serial numbers on its camshafts. So you go to Acme's Web site and find a page on parts counterfeiting that says, "Acme has always used 14-digit serial numbers, and will always continue to use 14-digit serial numbers."
By any reasonable standard of evidence, the question has been asked and answered. Conclusively. By the "as much as humanly possible" standard of evidence, you would have to examine the other 95 camshafts in the crate, call Doug to find out when you can go to his shop to examine his Acme camshafts, drop in on other parts stores around the state, etc., before ever daring to conclude that Acme uses 14-digit serial numbers on its camshafts.2. . “Under what conditions and how long does it take before flare-parachute weathering makes a measurable difference?”
*****on another site someone said that the wind would have the effect of scattering them all across Hell’s half acre. To me, that makes a lot of sense and it would make finding them nigh on to impossible unless you could coordinate a grid search that encompassed many, many miles of turf. |
Yeah, I figured that much, which is why I asked a different question: how much weathering is needed before a difference can be discerned?| For my purposes’ I am satisfied with that explanation. |
But you haven't gathered as much evidence as humanly possible. Nobody has.3. “But it's obvious that you do doubt the "Official Story," because a pilot saying "I dropped flares at that time" is a perfectly reasonable explanation, no more evidence necessary. But you think that that's not enough for a "completely definitive conclusion."
****That’s your perception that I doubt. I would appreciate it if you would not twist and misconstrue what I’m saying and not put words in my mouth.
How about this? I have a few simple questions; that’s it, that’s all there is to it, nothing sinister, here. |
Doubt certainly isn't sinister. Doubt coupled with unreasonable standards of evidence is a different matter.4. “You're wrong. VFR doesn't require the filing of a flight plan...”
*****I stand corrected. The reason I assumed that is because my dad was a commercial jet pilot and one of his co-workers had a small plane we flew on fairly often. They always filed with the local towers due to safety reasons so that if we crashed they would have some idea of where we should be to start the search. |
Yeah, it's like wearing a motorcycle helmet in a state which doesn't require them. It's a good idea, but you don't have to.1. “More important still is the question you dodged. What sort of evidence would satisfy you? If you're willing to entertain the possibility that a pilot lied about dropping flares…”
******I didn’t say there wasn’t enough evidence to draw a conclusion, you straw manned me. |
You said, "I think both the debunkers and the believers should go out and do it on their own time. Neither side cannot arrive at completely definitive conclusion without having all of the evidence available." Should I have read that differently than "there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion?"| • What sort of evidence would satisfy me? As much as humanly possible. |
See above.| • As I stated above, the explanation from another site satisfies me. |
But why?You’ve done this three times now. You need to stop it. It’s a straw man or whatever you want to call it
1. But it's obvious that you do doubt the "Official Story
2. If you're willing to entertain the possibility that a pilot lied about dropping flares
2. unweathered burnt-out flare parachutes were planted as a part of a cover-up. |
Now you're doing it.Now, that question was answered in a civil manner and fashion on another site. I am satisfied with the answer. Now I need help on another question. Below is an overview of the events that occurred that night and I have a couple of simple, civil questions that I would appreciate as straight forward of an answer as possible. I might add that I am asking these questions on a skeptic’s site rather than on a UFO site because I know what I’ll get there.
Lights of varying descriptions were seen by thousands of people between 7:30 and 10:30 MST, in a space of about 300 miles,
1. First report came from Henderson, Nevada at 7:30 and Phoenix Lights ended approx. 10;30
2. 3 hr. time span (7:30pm – 10:30pm)
3. 300 miles distance from Henderson, Nevada to Barry Goldwater firing range.
4. astronomer sighting in Phoenix approx. 250 miles away from Henderson at 10:00pm
5. The LUU-2 has a burn time of approximately *5 minutes while suspended from a parachute
6. Flares at Henderson would have to travel hundreds and thousands of mph to get to Phoenix in 5 mins. So obviously, the first event couldn’t be flares unless the N. Guard were dropping them intermittently from Henderson to Phoenix.
*(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/luu2.htm - “LUU-2 has a burn time of approximately 5 minutes while suspended from a parachute.”)
3. Did the N. Guard start at Henderson and drop flares intermittently over the 300 mile stretch?
4. If, so, did they announce it like they announced the Phoenix?
5. If not, what explanation has been given for the first stretch of sightings that traveled approx. 250 miles and took 2 to 2 and a half hrs.? |
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. What were the headings, azimuths, lat/long and times of the various sightings? We can plot them on a map and perhaps discover something. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2009 : 14:40:18 [Permalink]
|
Dave....
| The citizens of Roswell, New Mexico, seem to have built a successful industry from one particular event. |
Post facto, many folks other than those in Roswell have profited handsomely from the enormous publicity surrounding UAP over many, many years. Books, movies, internet sites, ad nauseum. No problem there. It is a testament to the enormous interest in this phenomenon sustaining over sixty years. But, as you point out, no one from this UFO industry (including Steven Spielberg) would really want to encourage or fund investigation that might demonstrate there has been no extraterrestrial visitation. It is contrary to their interests.
The money shot is the one that highlights an alien UFO, not a secret US or Russian aircraft (or spacecraft). And, as I have said elsewhere, even having achieved that, it would be a difficult task to successfully market the information except as fairly short-lived sensationalist publicity.| All you need to find is a "rich nut" who is funding UFO-related projects other than searches and investigations. Look at creationist billionaire Howard Ahmanson, who funds a PR firm called the Discovery Institute, and not any creationist science labs or field researchers. |
Ahmanson's agenda is obviously religio-political, and his vested interest is a purely political motive of more religion in government. Highly pragmatic. Not nuts. Actually, very few nuts are rich,
Where's the money or power pay back in investigation of hard case UAP which has a considerable potential of uncovering advanced human technology that has been previously secret? Blackmail or extortion, perhaps, but I think that would be pretty difficult to pull off when you're probably trying to sue the US or Russian air force!
Dave, I have read intensively in this field over the past three years; not only the history of these events but also of the contemporary activity ranging from sheer lunacy to serious, objective analysis and, yes, some ongoing objective investigation.
I do not know of a single individual serious or eccentric, group of individuals, organization, or company, public or private, that is well funded and capable of applying significant resources to studying UAP --- and is actually interested in doing so. In your no doubt extensive and wide-ranging surveillance of all things great and small, have you perhaps heard of any individual or organization that might have such interest? I suspect not, and largely for the reasons we both have mentioned in this thread. If Carl Sagan were still alive, he would be a perfect organizer and contributor to such an enterprise:
Sagan and UFOs
Sagan had some interest in UFO reports from at least 1964 when he had several conversations on the subject with Jacques Vallee.[43] Though quite skeptical of any extraordinary answer to the UFO question, Sagan thought scientists should study the phenomenon, at least because there was widespread public interest in UFO reports.
Stuart Appelle notes that Sagan "wrote frequently on what he perceived as the logical and empirical fallacies regarding UFOs and the abduction experience. Sagan rejected an extraterrestrial explanation for the phenomenon but felt there were both empirical and pedagogical benefits for examining UFO reports and that the subject was, therefore, a legitimate topic of study."[44]
In 1966, Sagan was a member of the Ad Hoc Committee to Review Project Blue Book, the U.S. Air Force's UFO investigation project. The committee concluded Blue Book had been lacking as a scientific study, and recommended a university-based project to give the UFO phenomenon closer scientific scrutiny. The result was the Condon Committee (1966–1968), led by physicist Edward Condon, and in their final report they formally concluded that UFOs, regardless of what any of them actually were, did not behave in a manner consistent with a threat to national security.
Ron Westrum writes that "The high point of Sagan's treatment of the UFO question was the AAAS's symposium in 1969. A wide range of educated opinions on the subject were offered by participants, including not only proponents such as James McDonald and J. Allen Hynek but also skeptics like astronomers William Hartmann and Donald Menzel. The roster of speakers was balanced, and it is to Sagan's credit that this event was presented in spite of pressure from Edward Condon".[43] With physicist Thornton Page, Sagan edited the lectures and discussions given at the symposium; these were published in 1972 as UFOs: A Scientific Debate. Some of Sagan's many books examine UFOs (as did one episode of Cosmos) and he claimed a religious undercurrent to the phenomenon.
Sagan again revealed his views on interstellar travel in his 1980 Cosmos series. In one of his last written works, Sagan argued that the chances of extraterrestrial spacecraft visiting Earth are vanishingly small. However, Sagan did think it plausible that Cold War concerns contributed to governments misleading their citizens about UFOs, and that "some UFO reports and analyses, and perhaps voluminous files, have been made inaccessible to the public which pays the bills ... It's time for the files to be declassified and made generally available." He cautioned against jumping to conclusions about suppressed UFO data and stressed that there was no strong evidence that aliens were visiting the Earth either in the past or present.[45] |
It is my belief that a few influential scientists with views similar to Sagan's possibly could obtain either Governmental or private foundation funding to undertake another serious investigation today, if justification for the mission could be established. Without a military or national security rationale it would have to fall to the private sector. Rarely are large projects funded without the probability of significant payback either monetary or humanitarian.
Neither criteria applies to UAP investigation. So I return to my "rich nutcase" scenario. I don't know of any such folk, nor do I think that "all you have to do is find" one. If there are such people, they are damn few and very far between.
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2009 : 15:44:39 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| There is the petard, owned by you, upon which you keep hoisting yourself (with ragard to the UFO topic anyway). |
Me and Carl Sagan (see response to Dave above)You look at a series of similar events, you get a fully normal explanation for 99.9% of them, yet the 0.01% you don't have an explanation for "interest" you.
Uh huh. |
Oh come on, Dude, surely you can do better than that! I come out of SFN retirement, drop all the world-shaking projects that the shaking world is breathlessly waiting for me to complete, primarily just to fuel your insatiable hunger for angerfood, and all you can come up with is a wimpy uh huh!
God, what medications did they put you on at AMS, Dude?
To confess the whole truth, these events fascinate me, along with hundreds of other odd, curious, unexplained, mysterious, and highly suspect phenomena. The chances are high that 90+ percent of all this shit is pure, unadulterated bullshit or else extremely ordinary occurences of one kind or another.
There is a view in Sweden that pursuing answers to puzzles which have no answer or whose answer is very difficult to discover is not worth the time or trouble. Nor is it worth any time or trouble to further question that which has been questioned and, not yielding answers, then abandoned by earlier questioners. My passion is exactly the opposite, but it has nothing to do with an appetite for bullshit. I can recognize woo as well as you, and I delight in people like Randi who make a profession of exposing professed "supernatural" events.
I guess it all depends on your temperament. I happen to be insatiably curious. I also have a surfeit of time and no need to use much of it in the pursuit of wealth, happiness, and tomorrow's beans. So practicality doesn't even count! If it did, I wouldn't spend time writing posts like this! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Phoenix Lights flare debris
