call for debaters

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:13 am

xouper wrote:. If you want a flame war, just keep it up and you'll get one..
I'm not interested in your opinion in the slightest. If I wanted a flame war I'd bring Sweetpea or Norma back.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:27 am



Off topic gripe: That Wiki paje haz the 'unsourced material' warning at the top uv sections showing the math. :roll:

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

1 + 1 = 2
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:38 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:The vehicle doesn't get to the speed of light. I never said it would.
So therefore this has no bearing on Jo 753's claim they were alien spacecraft that could travel faster than the speed of light.

As the false radar signal were able to turn immediately, then that additionally indicates they had no angular momentum and thus no mass. However as reflections can do this, this further suggesting the false readings were mere inversion layer reflections.


Did I miss sumthing? I think youv gotten 2 different subjects confuzed.

My posts about lite speed were to debunk Lansez beleef that there cant be any alienz here kuz the distans between starz iz too great. No relation to any relativistic side effects on radar.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:31 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:. If you want a flame war, just keep it up and you'll get one..
I'm not interested in your opinion in the slightest. If I wanted a flame war I'd bring Sweetpea or Norma back.


Then please stop flaming me. Is that too much to ask?

I just want to have a conversation here, not a confrontation. There is no need to respond to my questions by being confrontational about it.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:34 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote:The vehicle doesn't get to the speed of light. I never said it would.
So therefore this has no bearing on Jo 753's claim they were alien spacecraft that could travel faster than the speed of light.


Correct.

My questions about relativity were not at all related to anyone's comments about going faster than the speed of light.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:40 pm

xouper wrote:
TEnginist wrote:My eBook, The UFO Dialectic, will be free for five days starting tomorrow. It's at goo.gl/ZkUVBU .


Thanks for that. Much appreciated. I look forward to reading it.

For those who don't want to click on a link that you don't know where it's going, you can also go straight to amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0118E1T1A/


I now have a copy of the book. Anyone else?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:17 pm

More gorram rigamarole. Just wasted 5 minits trying to get it. In the end, no.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:49 pm

To Jo

I do not believe I have ever said there can be no aliens here because the distances were too great. In fact, barring disasters, I think it is very likely that humanity will one day travel between the stars. It will be done at slower than light speeds, though.

My view on aliens is that I do not believe they have visited Earth because there is no credible evidence to back up the idea. There are a lot of nut cases and hoaxes on the subject, but that is entirely different.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:25 pm

There are alot uv nut casez & hoaxez on the subject, but there iz no credible evidens agenst it.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:32 pm

Jo

When I was a teenager, many long years ago, I read the George Adamski books, in which he claimed to meet aliens and go for rides on their space ships. As a naive teenager, I did not realise he was a con artist and swindler. I later read an expose of his books and realised I had been conned. I knew then I would not believe in that sort of rubbish again unless the evidence was genuinely credible. To date, I have not seen any credible evidence.

You have much lower standards, and are prepared to accept nonsense on the basis that lots of people claim to have seen stuff. But that means nothing. In Africa today, in more 'primitive ' societies, every year hundreds of people "see " a wide range of demons and monsters. They truly believe they have seen these things, but you and I know it is not so. In the wealthy west, people "see " alien space ships.

In the end, it is all about evidence. Claims of eye witness accounts represent crap evidence, no matter how many such claims are made.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:50 am

JO 753 wrote: Did I miss sumthing? I think youv gotten 2 different subjects confuzed.

Yes Jo 753. You have missed basically everything. On one hand you and Richard Crist are regurgitating that one ground radar person who says the false radio reflections were metal and real, while simultaneously regurgitating impossible angular momentum changes for the same something if it had mass.

That's understandable, considering you two are claiming "aliens" without being able to state one fact from the seven months of false radar readings that suggests this is a potential hypothesis.

You two are on the same level as Gorgeous who simply writes "Seth, the channeled spirit said...." in every thread.
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:21 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: In the end, it is all about evidence. Claims of eye witness accounts represent crap evidence, no matter how many such claims are made.
All true. Additionally, it's all about the media creating "aliens UFOs" to sell more advertisements and how they trick the less intelligent people, like Jo 753 and Richard Crist to follow fake news.

We now are all aware that the same two ground radar stations were picking up the same false temperature inversion readings for several months and it was only when a newspaper said, for two weekends, it was alien UFOs that people like Jo and Richard believed alien UFOs must be there.

Amazingly, considering hundreds of other, unrelated, ground radar stations were receiving false temperature inversion readings, Jo 753 and Richard Crist did not claim these were also UFOs. That's because newspapers didn't tell them what to think.
:lol:

1952 Washington "Flap" same as 1941 Los Angeles "Flap"
Stephen Spielberg's biggest flop movie was "1941". He made a comedy about the mass hysteria in Los Angeles in 1941 when the city thought it was being bombed by Japanese. There were no Japanese there. The newspaper headlines that sold large numbers of newspapers are similar for both events, as this is what newspapers do.

Here is a mix of Newspapers from the fake "Battle of Los Angeles" (1941) and the "UFO Invasion of Washington" (1952)
Battle of washington.jpg
Battle of Los Angeles.jpg
Battle of Los Angeles 2.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:36 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:one ground radar person who says the false radio reflections were metal and real,

Of course, it wasn’t just one ground radar person who said the targets were solid, it was everyone in the radar room, including, among others, air traffic controller Edward Nugent, senior air traffic controller Harry C. Barnes, radar expert Major Dewey Fournet, and radar expert Lieutenant John Holcomb.

while simultaneously regurgitating impossible angular momentum changes for the same something if it had mass.

A turn perceived as instantaneous might, of course, simply be a turn with a very small turn radius, and, whereas the laws of physics don’t allow instantaneous turns, they do allow small turn radii.

the seven months of false radar readings

I’m not sure where that came from; maybe from this, from the Blue Book report:

“All [ARTC] crew members emphatic that most u/I returns were ‘solid.’ Finally, it was mentioned that u/I returns have been picked up from time to time over the past few months but never before had they appeared in such quantities over such a prolonged period and with such definition as was experienced on the nights of 19/20 and 26/27 July 52”

Of course it was because the unidentified (u/i) returns on the July nights appeared in such quantities over such a prolonged period and with such definition that these events made the newspaper headlines.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: ......the seven months of false radar readings
TEnginist wrote: I’m not sure where that came from; maybe from this, from the Blue Book report:
Why would you know anything? You didn't do any research and simply regurgitated UFO propaganda from UFO fan websites.

Project Blue Book Case 1661
(12W2, 18/5A, Bx 35, RG 341 Records of the USAF (Project Blue Book)
"Washington National Sightings" - July 1952


"Finally, it was mentioned that u/I returns have been picked up from time to time over the past few months but never before had they appeared in such quantities over such a prolonged period and with such definition as was experienced an the nights of 19/20 and 26/27 July 52."

Captain Edward Ruppelt. U.S. Air Force, Project Blue Book,
Report on Unidentified Flying Objects in 1956 concerning the 1952 Washington Flap


""Ruppelt also discovered that UFOs were a common occurrence in Washington, DC that summer.
On May 23, from 8:00 p.m. until midnight, fifty unknown targets had been tracked on radar. There were
several similar incidents throughout the summer, including the night of the press conference.
As a result, to Ruppelt the objects could only be designated as “unknowns.”"


"According to Ruppelt, the actually (sic) investigation ruled out temperature inversions. In fact, he
discovered that every single night of the UFO sightings in Washington, DC, there was indeed
a temperature inversion but none of these had previously been mistaken for UFOs."


I now ask you for the fifth time.
1) Were the earlier fifty false readings "aliens" or were they only "aliens" when the newspapers said they were, for those two weekends? Were the false readings received on the night of the press conference, stating they were receiving false readings, or were they also "aliens"?

2) What fact makes you conclude the false readings were aliens?
:D

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:53 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:As a naive teenager, I did not realise he was a con artist and swindler. I later read an expose of his books and realised I had been conned.


That explainz the obstinans.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:04 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:...impossible angular momentum changes for the same something if it had mass. :lol:


Therez a clue rite there for you! IF!

You hav probably red about sientists seriously considering wether the property uv mass can be modified. In other wordz, that it may not be an inherent property uv structure.

If us monkeyz can imajin it, coud smarter beingz than us, given enuf time, figure out how to 'turn off' mass?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:29 am

Probably an impossibility.
Currently there is no way even imagined. Serious scientists do not propose stuff that is essentially magic.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:29 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:...impossible angular momentum changes for the same something if it had mass. :lol:
JO 753 wrote:Therez a clue rite there for you!
Yes Jo 753. It indicates it is a ground radar inversion layer reflection, which has no mass. :D

Anomalous Propagation (Anaprop) (False Ground Radar readings)
"These parameters can give rise to a wide range of non-standard propagation conditions. One of the most common in Europe is temperature inversion, which occurs when heat radiates from the ground on clear nights."

http://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/wa17.en.html

Did you or Richard Crist consider, for a nanosecond, that the false readings increased, peaked at the two weekends in July and continued, though reducing, after mid summer? Thankfully, Captain Edward Ruppelt of the USAF was experienced and confirmed this was the reason.

I suggest you read this.....
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects: The Original 1956 Edition
By Captain Edward J. Ruppelt

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lG ... 0inversion%

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby TEnginist » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:33 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Why would you know anything? You didn't do any research and simply regurgitated UFO propaganda from UFO fan websites[/color].

You're simply mistaken; I did research and didn't use anything from UFO fan websites.

Captain Edward Ruppelt. U.S. Air Force, Project Blue Book,
Report on Unidentified Flying Objects in 1956 concerning the 1952 Washington Flap


""Ruppelt also discovered that UFOs were a common occurrence in Washington, DC that summer.
On May 23, from 8:00 p.m. until midnight, fifty unknown targets had been tracked on radar. There were
several similar incidents throughout the summer, including the night of the press conference.
As a result, to Ruppelt the objects could only be designated as “unknowns.”"
...

1) Were the earlier fifty false readings "aliens" or were they only "aliens" when the newspapers said they were, for those two weekends? Were the false readings received on the night of the press conference, stating they were receiving false readings, or were they also "aliens"?


I don’t know what to make of the “fifty unknown targets” on May 23, or the similar incidents throughout the summer—there’s not enough detail in the account and no sources given. You don’t give URLs but I found the text at the fan site, http://www.openminds.tv/the-beginning-u ... -d-c/38413, apparently, the author is Alejandro Rojas. Ruppelt was never convinced that there was e.t. visitation, and there’s no telling what targets he would’ve classed as unknown or as similar to the July targets. The May 23 targets, and any other targets that happened a few months before the July events, couldn’t have happened over a prolonged period or with the same definition, or (except for the May 23 targets) appeared in such quantities as the July events—we know this to be true because, as you know, the Blue Book report says:

“All [ARTC] crew members emphatic that most u/I returns were ‘solid.’ Finally, it was mentioned that u/i returns have been picked up from time to time over the past few months but never before had they appeared in such quantities over such a prolonged period and with such definition as was experienced on the nights of 19/20 and 26/27 July 52

2) What fact makes you conclude the false readings were aliens? :D

It's hard to know exactly what you're asking for, but I'll try this:

Harry C. Barnes, senior air traffic controller, said that the targets were solid and that “they performed gyrations which no known aircraft could perform. By this, I mean that our scopes showed that they could make right angle turns and complete reversals of flight.”

A few of the many incidents:

At around midnight on July 27, two F-94 interceptors arrived, and when they appeared on radar, all the unknown targets, on all the radar screens, vanished. At that point, lights appeared in a nearby community. Ruppelt wrote, “people in the area around Langley AFB…began to report that they were looking at weird bright lights that were ‘rotating and giving off alternating colors.’ [Ruppelt, p. 165] After checking the area above Washington, the jets ran low on fuel and left. Chop said, “…the minute they got off the scope, bang! Here’s the UFOs again! You know, I…was scared!” [Randle, Invasion Washington, p. 73; Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Objects, p. 165; Chop, interview by Tulien and Sparks, 1999]

At some time after 3:00 a.m., two more F-94s arrived. This time the targets remained on the scopes. Patterson later said, “I tried to make contact with the bogies below one thousand feet but [the controllers] vectored us around. I saw several bright lights….I ceased chasing them because I saw no chance of overtaking them. I was vectored into new objects.” Chop said that the radar returns matched the attempted intercept as Patterson was describing it.[Randle, pp. 74-5; Ruppelt pp. 165-6]

At one point, the radar operators watched as four targets surrounded Patterson’s plane. Patterson saw the lights closing in on him. Chop said, “Patterson…actually said, ‘They’re closing in on me! What shall I do?’….What was I going to tell him? I’m a civilian. I am not going to tell an Air Force pilot to fire at that damn thing or anything!" The objects then moved away from the fighter and Patterson said, “They’re gone!”[Randle, p. 256; Chop]

So the targets and lights were performing maneuvers that no existing human-made aircraft could have performed. There were numerous radar visual sightings of these objects and the unknowns were clearly under intelligent control, so they could not have been temperature inversions or false images. The prima facie conclusion is that these objects were manifestations of extraterrestrial visitors.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:38 am

JO 753 wrote: You hav probably red about sientists seriously considering wether the property uv mass can be modified.
When I was studying organic chemistry, this was called medieval alchemy.

Uranium does indeed undergo radioactive decay and degrades to lead. This is called it's "half life". It is a one way event that takes millions of years. It's how Rutherford determined the Earth was millions of years old 150 years ago. It's what I had to also learn to study carbon dating in Anthropology.


1) Can you show me one example of scientists doing this quickly, as you claim happens?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:45 am

TEnginist wrote: You're simply mistaken; I did research and didn't use anything from UFO fan websites.
Bull-shit. Offer us the citations for the academic, peer reviewed books you used then? :D

TEnginist wrote: I don’t know what to make of the “fifty unknown targets” on May 23, or the similar incidents throughout the summer—
...when temperature inversions were present.......
"In fact, he discovered that every single night of the UFO sightings in Washington, DC, there was indeed a temperature inversion but none of these had previously been mistaken for UFOs."

These are called false readings on ground radar due to temperature inversion layers. They are common in summer.


TEnginist wrote: and no sources given.
Bull-shit again. I have cited both reports now six times.

1 ) Captain Edward Ruppelt. U.S. Air Force, Project Blue Book,
Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (1956)


2) Project Blue Book Case 1661
(12W2, 18/5A, Bx 35, RG 341 Records of the USAF (Project Blue Book)
"Washington National Sightings" - July 1952
Last edited by Matthew Ellard on Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:46 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:I suggest you read this.....
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects: The Original 1956 Edition
By Captain Edward J. Ruppelt

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lG ... 0inversion%


Is that the same as this one:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004UJ81F8/
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17346

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby TEnginist » Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:32 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
TEnginist wrote: You're simply mistaken; I did research and didn't use anything from UFO fan websites.
[crude expletive deleted]. Offer us the citations for the academic, peer reviewed books you used then? :D

You were talking about academic, peer reviewed books? I don't know of any, I just used authoritative sources (including Ruppelt's book)

...when temperature inversions were present.......
"In fact, he discovered that every single night of the UFO sightings in Washington, DC, there was indeed a temperature inversion but none of these had previously been mistaken for UFOs."

These are called false readings on ground radar due to temperature inversion layers. They are common in summer.

These targets could not have been caused by temperature inversions; inversion-produced targets would not have disappeared at the moment the interceptors arrived and returned the moment they left...twice. Inversion-produced targets would not have clustered around Patterson's F-94 just at the time that he saw lights closing in on him. The indicated positions of false targets would not have coincided with the positions of lights in the sky. The experienced civilian and military radar experts in the room all insisted that the returns were too strong to be false targets. Experts believed that the inversion was too slight to have produced such returns.

TEnginist wrote: and no sources given.
[insulting expletive deleted] again. I have cited both reports now six times.


1 ) Captain Edward Ruppelt. U.S. Air Force, Project Blue Book,
Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (1956)


2) Project Blue Book Case 1661
(12W2, 18/5A, Bx 35, RG 341 Records of the USAF (Project Blue Book)
"Washington National Sightings" - July 1952
[/quote]

But you never give sources that one can use--it's hard to match up your quotes and sources. For instance, it would be helpful if you could give a URL immediately following a quote. I actually found the source of the quote about Ruppelt on my own (in my copy of Ruppelt). The original (followed directly by citation, including page number) is:

"The investigation brought out a few more points on the pro side too. [Note that Ruppelt sees this as a point in favor of the exotic nature of the objects] We found that the UFO's frequently visited Washington. On May 23 fifty targets had been tracked from 8:00 p.m. till midnight....On several occasions military and civilian pilots saw lights exactly where the radar showed the UFO's to be.

"On each night that there was a sighting there was a temperature inversion but it was never strong enough to affect the radar the way inversions normally do." [Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, Doubleday, 1956, p. 170]

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:49 am

TEnginist wrote: You were talking about academic, peer reviewed books? I don't know of any, I just used authoritative sources (including Ruppelt's book)

academic, peer reviewed books = authoritative

NOT academic, peer reviewed books = NOT authoritative.

See how it works?????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby TEnginist » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:07 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:academic, peer reviewed books = authoritative

NOT academic, peer reviewed books = NOT authoritative.

See how it works?????


Oh. I thought it worked like this:
authoritative=defAble to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:16 am

TEnginist wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:academic, peer reviewed books = authoritative

NOT academic, peer reviewed books = NOT authoritative.

See how it works?????


Oh. I thought it worked like this:
authoritative=defAble to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable

Thats exactly correct. Not peer reviewed = Not able to be trusted as being accurate or true.

Read em and weep.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:29 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
TEnginist wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:academic, peer reviewed books = authoritative

NOT academic, peer reviewed books = NOT authoritative.

See how it works?????


Oh. I thought it worked like this:
authoritative=defAble to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable

Thats exactly correct. Not peer reviewed = Not able to be trusted as being accurate or true.

Read em and weep.


Are you saying that neither Project Blue Book nor Ruppelt's book are able to be trusted as being accurate or true?

Perhaps Matthew might have a different opinion, since he has cited both of them as being accurate and true.

Are you also saying that books like this one are not able to be trusted as being accurate or true:

Jeppesen FARs Explained - Part 1, 61, 91, 141 and NTSB 83
by Kent Jackson
https://www.amazon.com/dp/8848763979/

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:32 am

TEnginist wrote: These targets could not have been caused by temperature inversions; inversion-produced targets would not have disappeared at the moment the interceptors arrived
Why not? What does a jet do, flying through an inversion layer causing a reflection to ground based radar? (What happens when a ripple hits the reflection in a pool of water.)

TEnginist wrote: You were talking about academic, peer reviewed books? I don't know of any, I just used authoritative sources (including Ruppelt's book)
So you lied and already knew that the false readings were already happening, and increasing, in summer, before the newspapers said they were UFOs for two weekends, from Captain Reppelt's book?

Why did you withhold this information that didn't support your "alien UFO" claim?


TEnginist wrote:But you never give sources that one can use-
I used the sources and cited them. You didn't bother to look them up or even try to find them.


TEnginist wrote: it would be helpful if you could give a URL immediately following a quote.
You refused to supply your collected evidence from your book for five days and still refuse to post it on the forum. I offered citations the first time I made a quote. Believe it or not many academic books aren't on the internet.

TEnginist wrote: "On each night that there was a sighting there was a temperature inversion but it was never strong enough to affect the radar the way inversions normally do." [Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, Doubleday, 1956, p. 170]
Nice try. Here is the full quote

On each night that there was a sighting there was a temperature inversion but it was never strong enough to affect the radar the way inversions normally do. On each occasion I checked the strength of the inversion according to the methods used by the Air Defense Command Weather Forecast Center.
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17346/pg17346.txt
Thank you for confirming that there was indeed temperature inversions on every night UFOs appeared. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:50 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: See how it works?????
My quotes from the books are accurate. As for peer reviewed science concerning false radar signals , we are going to get to that next. That will be the fun part as Richard Crist and Jo 753 say which historical scenarios indicate "aliens" and which are just normal false returns from inversion layers. :lol:

Gorgeous, Zeuzzz, Placid, the holocaust deniers and most of the "woo spammers" just run away. With Richard Crist , I have a captive target, pushing their book on our forum, like Salomed ( Alan Green's Shakespeare codes). He came here to talk about his book and that's what I'm going to do.
Last edited by Matthew Ellard on Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:53 am

xouper wrote: Are you saying that neither Project Blue Book nor Ruppelt's book are able to be trusted as being accurate or true?

Perhaps Matthew might have a different opinion, since he has cited both of them as being accurate and true.

Are you also saying that books like this one are not able to be trusted as being accurate or true:

Jeppesen FARs Explained - Part 1, 61, 91, 141 and NTSB 83
by Kent Jackson
https://www.amazon.com/dp/8848763979/

I'm saying just what I posted. Its the difference between being "true" and being "authoritative." Two different things. 99% of non peer reviewed sources "per se" with any research at all will prove to have been peer reviewed. Its a flexible concept. Stand Alone resources: always suspect.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:59 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote: Are you saying that neither Project Blue Book nor Ruppelt's book are able to be trusted as being accurate or true?

Perhaps Matthew might have a different opinion, since he has cited both of them as being accurate and true.

Are you also saying that books like this one are not able to be trusted as being accurate or true:

Jeppesen FARs Explained - Part 1, 61, 91, 141 and NTSB 83
by Kent Jackson
https://www.amazon.com/dp/8848763979/

I'm saying just what I posted. Its the difference between being "true" and being "authoritative." Two different things. 99% of non peer reviewed sources "per se" with any research at all will prove to have been peer reviewed. Its a flexible concept. Stand Alone resources: always suspect.


Well, that's certainly clear as mud.

I'm sure Matthew will be pleased to know you think his sources cannot be trusted as accurate and true.

:roll:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:13 am

We are going through the quotes for accuracy. We will then move onto radar and the peer reviewed science claims and apply them to Richard Crist's "aliens" hypothesis. :D

These are the same steps we went through concerning the Jo 753's Phoenix Lights UFO claim. or Le Penseur's alien abduction claim or All of Gorgeous's alien videos or any other "aliens" claim. It isn't a race and what ends up posted here lasts forever on search engines as Salomed and his book found out the hard way. :lol:

TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: Do basic research next time

Postby TEnginist » Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:24 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:So you lied

Why did you withhold this information

You didn't bother to look them up or even try to find them.

Nice try


I don't want to debate you any more. See definition #4: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: call for debaters

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:34 pm

TEnginist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:The issue with your willingness to accept witness testimony as evidence is that, in doing so, you must draw a conclusion on whether the witness is credible and his testimony believable, which is an utterly subjective process, especially if you are emotionally attached to the issue about which he is testifying. Citing witness testimony proves nothing...except it shows the lengths to which you will go to sustain your belief.

I can’t believe that your blanket and extreme condemnation of eyewitness testimony accurately expresses what you really think.
You are correct in that I failed to clarify my statements. I maintain that my first statement is accurate: judging eyewitness testimony is an utterly subjective process. Even courts agree with this, which is why they have the concept of "credible witness," but much prefer valid evidence. For example, a medical doctor testifying as to the conclusions of her autopsy would be considered a credible witness; the eyewitness testimony of a career criminal would not. Even the eyewitness testimony of a regular citizen would be called into question if there were no data to support said testimony.

Given the above paragraph, my second statement requires amending: Citing witness testimony as evidence of extraordinary events proves nothing when there is no data to support said testimony.

TEnginist wrote:Of course, we are often able legitimately to form beliefs on the basis of what people tell us. An uncritical pronouncement against all eyewitness testimony won’t do. You have to say what it is about the UFO testimony that makes it different from all the testimony that you do find credible.
Let me present a different case as an example. When Bill Cosby was first accused of rape by several women who alleged the events happened back in the '60s and '70s, I did not jump on the bandwagon of public condemnation. I read the witness testimony as well as verified accounts of the subsequent behavior of the accusers, that latter which presented reasonable doubt. One of the accusers had subsequently had an affair with Cosby. Several others had continued interacting with him both publicly and privately. It is atypical for a rape victim to voluntarily interact with her rapist, to say the least. Had I been a juror at that point—and quite aside from the fact that there was no physical evidence—I would have had to conclude "not guilty" based on reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the alleged victims' testimony, because their behavior subsequent to the rape they alleged contradicted their words.

What makes UFO testimony not credible? The fact that there isn't a single bit of valid data to support it. That gives me reasonable doubt, especially in light of the clear discrepancies between witness testimony of the exact same event AND the fact that their testimony changed over time. (I'm referencing the case of the woman and three children here.)
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:42 pm

Dont throw in the towel so soon, TEng.

Bajjering iz just Matts style. All you need to do iz expoze the bad lojik, debunk the fake facts, post the missing facts. :)

Matthew Ellard wrote:
JO 753 wrote: You hav probably red about sientists seriously considering wether the property uv mass can be modified.
When I was studying organic chemistry, this was called medieval alchemy.


You havent been keeping up with subatomic reserch & theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijtmp.20140403.08.html

And you havent thot thru the subject at all. If you had, it may hav occured to you that we still hav quite a wayz to go in figuring out the nature uv the universe.

The Wiki article linked to, for example, never mentionz the fact that there must be a level below subatomic particlez. Saying 'no internal structure' iz worthless. How iz wun particle different from another without being compozed uv sumthing smaller in a different order andor number?

Az far az I got iz that there must be a 'dot' - the basic sumthing that the atom wuz supozed to be. the dot arranjed with empty spasez woud be wut makes up the subatomic particlez. The protonz, electronz, quarks etc woud be made uv a particular aranjement uv dots and empty spasez.

. .. . = electron.
.. .. = proton.
.... .... ....... = boson.

So assuming the pilots saw the UFOz that were showing up on the radar bekuz they arent demented idiots, and the craft performed az obzerved by eye and radar, you haf to consider that the alienz hav developed a way to eliminate, temporarily suspend, overpower or otherwize counteract the property uv mass or the effect uv enertia.

Or do you beleev they woud get to our level uv tek sum millenia or eonz ago, then stop and twiddle their thumz, waiting for us to catch up?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: call for debaters

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:55 pm

JO 753 wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:Do I really have to type "factually scientific evidence analyzed by experts in the appropriate field who have confirmed its veracity" every time I request evidence?
No. You just haf to aksept the fact that eyewitness accounts are evidens and often the only thing you hav to base your opinion and desisionz on.
Hence the reason for my conclusions. Eyewitness testimony without supporting physical evidence creates reasonable doubt.

JO 753 wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:you must draw a conclusion on whether the witness is credible and his testimony believable
Sertainly.

The town drunk may hav actually seen an alien, but you cant rely on it. Until you make the effort to verify hiz claim, it iz evidens, however weak.

Wut if its a fine upstanding member uv the community - a person who haz never made any 'wild' claimz?

Wut if its a person uv notable intellijens with solid sientific credentialz?

By your lojik, they are all equal.
They are all equal when there is no physical evidence to support their extraordinary claims. The town drunk, the upstanding citizen, and the scientist are all equally subject to the limitations of the brain, which attempts to fit sensory stimuli into its model of reality...even if it has to delete portions of that stimuli, alter the perception of them, and fill in the blanks via assumption.

JO 753 wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:which is an utterly subjective process
Only if you cant investigate any further.

If you find survailens video uv the drunk sleeping all nite in hiz usual spot in the ally, milez away from the suppozed siting, then you can say hiz claim iz not evidens.
No, because that's backwards. One doesn't presume that eyewitness testimony is factual unless it can be proven not to be. The burden of proof lies on the witness to prove his testimony factual; it's not on me to disprove it. You're making the "you can't prove that god doesn't exist" argument, which is fallacious.

Example: I sat on a jury for the trial of a man accused by his former girlfriend of assault and battery. Two witnesses testified to the alleged crime. Based solely on the content of their testimony, it was clear that both were lying. One witness was 20 meters away and in the process of getting a permanent wave. She was nearsighted and not wearing her glasses when the alleged event occurred. The other witness was standing outside, approximately a meter from the plate glass window of the salon...and the time of day and orientation of the salon proved that she could not have seen anything inside the salon, because the sun would have been reflecting from the glass, presenting her with only a reflection of herself and the environs outside. Interestingly, several others who were present when the alleged event occurred, and who were in a position to accurately testify, were not called by the prosecution.

Both witnesses lied, and it was evident from their own words. Had I accepted their testimony as factual, an innocent man would have been convicted. However, during deliberation, I presented my argument to my fellow jurors, backing it up with the physical evidence the prosecution provided and which I requested, and convinced them the case was fraudulent. All jurors except me were ready to make their decisions the instant we began deliberating, and their decisions were based on the testimony of the two witnesses.

JO 753 wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:especially if you are emotionally attached to the issue about which he is testifying. Citing witness testimony proves nothing...except it shows the lengths to which you will go to sustain your belief.
I beleev Lance haz an emotional motiv to disbeleev alien vizitor claimz, same az hiz beleef that there iz no over population problem. Probably fear for the future for hiz children. Maybe you hav the same underlying fear?
Nope. There absolutely is an issue with overpopulation, which can be factually proven separately from all anecdotal narrative. The possibility of the existence of UFOs does not make me fear for my daughter any more than the idea of god smiting her for her alleged sins makes me fearful. What is there to fear when there's no evidence to support a threat?
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:39 pm

There is not a single research article on this topic in a scientific peer reviewed and reputable journal, anywhere. Aliens would be so vitally important that scientists everywhere would be studying and publishing. But not one exists.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: call for debaters

Postby JO 753 » Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:28 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:Hence the reason for my conclusions. Eyewitness testimony without supporting physical evidence creates reasonable doubt.


So all the MIB need to do iz make sure there they clean up all evidens after an unusual insident in wich fizikl evidens iz created. Duznt matter if it happened in the middle uv the Astrodome during the Super Bowl, just carry away the squashed quarterback and the broken landing pad and erase the raw 7 second delay recording. To hell with the 70,000 attending witnessez. 1/3 uv them were drunk. Another 1/3 werent paying attention. 1/6 were ogling the cheerleaderz. The rest were delusional UFO fanz. case clozed.

The town drunk, the upstanding citizen, and the scientist are all equally subject to the limitations of the brain, which attempts to fit sensory stimuli into its model of reality...even if it has to delete portions of that stimuli, alter the perception of them, and fill in the blanks via assumption.


How often do jiant flying discs land at major airports and disembark weird creaturez? Must happen fairly often and everybody just "deletes, alterz and fillz in the blanks to fit their model uv reality."

Seriously, all uv you gotta stop trotting this out. It duz not support your argument!

One doesn't presume that eyewitness testimony is factual unless it can be proven not to be.


True. But you also do not prezume its false just kuz you dont like it.

The burden of proof lies on the witness to prove his testimony factual; it's not on me to disprove it.


Suppoze he can not. Suppoze its sumthing you really care about.

Example: I sat on a jury for the trial of a man accused by his former girlfriend of assault and battery. Two witnesses testified to the alleged crime. Based solely on the content of their testimony, it was clear that both were lying. One witness was 20 meters away and in the process of getting a permanent wave. She was nearsighted and not wearing her glasses when the alleged event occurred. The other witness was standing outside, approximately a meter from the plate glass window of the salon...and the time of day and orientation of the salon proved that she could not have seen anything inside the salon, because the sun would have been reflecting from the glass, presenting her with only a reflection of herself and the environs outside. Interestingly, several others who were present when the alleged event occurred, and who were in a position to accurately testify, were not called by the prosecution.

Both witnesses lied, and it was evident from their own words. Had I accepted their testimony as factual, an innocent man would have been convicted. However, during deliberation, I presented my argument to my fellow jurors, backing it up with the physical evidence the prosecution provided and which I requested, and convinced them the case was fraudulent. All jurors except me were ready to make their decisions the instant we began deliberating, and their decisions were based on the testimony of the two witnesses.


Good for you! You are a good & honorable sitizen.

But there are a few problemz with this az an example for your pozition on eyewitness testimony.

Az you prezented it here, it wuznt their own wordz that discredited them, it wuz evidens uncovered in an investigation. I never claimed witness testimony outwayed fizikl or sercumstantial evidens or lojik.

Why woud you beleev them without further investigation? Did the defens put them on the witness stand?
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9889
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: call for debaters

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:13 pm

Jo

Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A claim of alien visitors is extraordinary, and requires more than vague eye witness testimony, similar to earlier eye witness testimony of witches and demons. If such evidence was available, scientists would study it, and publish their findings.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26383
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Do basic research next time

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:00 am

JO 753 wrote:All you need to do iz expoze the bad lojik, debunk the fake facts, post the missing facts.


Missing Facts
On one hand, yesterday, Richard Crist stated he specifically used Ruppelt's 1956 UFO book yet simultaneously doesn't mention that the same false radar readings were happening for some months and peaked in summer, as expected,
from that same book.

a) Why do you think he left that fact out Jo 753?
:lol:


Terrible Logic
We have several months of false ground radar readings, whereas the reflections act exactly like reflections as in all other ground radar inversion layer false readings. Their number increases as the temperature increases in July as expected (land heat causing inversion at night) and, indeed they continue on the night of the USAF press conference announcing these were just false readings.

Richard Crist and Jo 753 however claim these are highly intelligent space travelling aliens.


Questions for Jo 753 and Richard Crist
1) Explain why highly intelligent aliens would slowly gather around Washington DC over some months, only during the evenings, and fly their spaceships in a totally random manner, that imitated false readings on a ground radar due to an inversion?

2) What specific communication, or message or activity or purpose did the aliens wish to achieve by imitating normal ground radar false readings for a few months? How did the aliens identify this was a
communication


3) Why did the aliens never come back to Washington DC when the ground radars were later updated?

4) Do you two think that any 1950's ground radar, anywhere in the world, receiving false readings from temperature inversion layers was in fact really picking up highly intelligent aliens in UFOs who imitate false readings to magically communicate with humans.


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest