call for debaters

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
TEnginist
Poster
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:37 am

JO 753 wrote:I'm interested in continuing the discussion about the Washington case.

I alwayz try to avoid hostility, so you dont need to worry about wasting time on unproductiv bickering.

You would argue against the "otherworldly" conclusion?

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:07 am

JO 753 wrote:I'm interested in continuing the discussion about the Washington case.

Your recent posts would lead me to believe that you might want to argue for the "otherworldly" explanation...

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:17 am

TEnginist wrote:
JO 753 wrote:I'm interested in continuing the discussion about the Washington case.

Are you interested in arguing against the "otherworldly/e.t." explanation?


Hang on.... I have asked you twice to set out your logical reasoning, why some false radar readings indicate to you that alien UFOs were present. Did any of your eyewitnesses see big signs, in English, saying "alien spaceship"?

You put forward your claim and logic first, otherwise what can anyone respond to?


"I received my doctorate in philosophy from the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center in 2001. I have taught philosophy and logic in New York City-"
http://www.truthenginebook.com/company.htm

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 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:18 am

Herez the Wikipedia article.

Looks like this wuz a pivitol case in UFO history. It revealz the preexisting cover-up attitude uv the military and perhaps the beginningz uv the sientific community'z partisipation in the cover-up conspirasy.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:21 am

JO 753 wrote:It revealz the preexisting cover-up attitude uv the military and perhaps the beginningz uv the sientific community'z partisipation in the cover-up conspirasy.
Jo? How does the military cover it up by publishing the explanation and facts in a book?

Isn't it actually Richard Crist who is refusing to post his evidence for his alien UFO claim?
: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 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:34 am

Obviously by providing their prefered story, Matt. Obviously they coudnt simply ignore public demand for ansrz. They had to do the press conferens to get everybody off the subject.

Did you read the article? Are you disputing anything in it?

You can see how the top brass were treating the Project Blue Book guy rite from the start.

TEnginist wrote:Your recent posts would lead me to believe that you might want to argue for the "otherworldly" explanation...


It iz the least fantastic explanation.

I no that sientists hav offered up alternativez, such az us from the future and vizitorz from alternate universez, but theze are based entirely on their faith in the speed uv lite limitation.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:52 am

JO 753 wrote:Obviously by providing their prefered story, Matt.
Do you mean they supplied their hypothesis and their supporting facts for their hypothesis, whereas you and Richard Crist don't have any facts, at all that alien UFOs were present.

What facts indicate to you there were alien UFOs present Jo?


JO 753 wrote:They had to do the press conferens to get everybody off the subject.
....by explaining the facts why there were false radar reading due to atmospheric conditions. What is your problem with that?

JO 753 wrote:You can see how the top brass were treating the Project Blue Book guy rite from the start.
The bloke from the USAF (Blue Book) wrote the official report using information supplied by these same people. I think you need to read the article to the end.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:58 am

JO 753 wrote:
TEnginist wrote:Your recent posts would lead me to believe that you might want to argue for the "otherworldly" explanation...


It iz the least fantastic explanation.

I no that sientists hav offered up alternativez, such az us from the future and vizitorz from alternate universez, but theze are based entirely on their faith in the speed uv lite limitation.

I agree that extraterrestrial visitation is the least fantastic explanation for some UFO sightings, including the Washington National events. (I use "otherworldly" to refer to e.t, time traveler, and "dimensional" explanations.)

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:09 am

TEnginist wrote: I agree that extraterrestrial visitation is the least fantastic explanation for some UFO sightings, including the Washington National events. (I use "otherworldly" to refer to e.t, time traveler, and "dimensional" explanations.)


Again, you completely fail to set out what facts or "logic" indicate to you that alien UFOs were present. You are simply being religious.

Again, you fail to do any basic research and read the published explanation in the USAF files (Blue Book) with the facts.


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


Transcription for the record at WNA:
(2130 EDT 26 July)
Washington Tower: Andrews Tower, do you read? Did you have an airplane
in sight west-northwest or east of your airport east-
bound?

Andrews: No, but we just got a call from the center. We're looking
for it.

Washington: We've got a big target showing up on our scope. He's just
coming in on the west edge of your airport-the northwest
edge of it eastbound.
He'll be passing right through the northern portion of your
field on an east heading. He's about a quarter of a mile
from the northwest runway-right over the edge of your
northwest runway now.

Andrews: What happened to your target now?

Washington: He's still eastbound. He went directly over Andrews Fiels
and is now five miles east.

Andrews: Where did he come from?

Washington: We picked him up ourselves at about seven miles east, slightly
southeast, and we have been tracking him ever since then. The
Center has been tracking him farther than that.

Andrews: Was he waving his course?

Washington: Holding steady course, due east heading.
Andrews: This is Andrews. Our radar tracking says he's got a big fat
target out here northeast of Andrews. He says he's got two
more south of the field.

Washington: Yes, well the center has about four or five around the
Andrews Range station.
The Center is working a National Airlines - the center is
working him and vectoring him around his target. He went
around Andrews. He saw one of them-looks like a meteor.
(Garbled)..Went by him..or something. He said he's got
one about three miles off his right wing right now.
There are so many targets around here it is hard to tell
as they are not moving very fast.

Andrews: What about his altitude?

Washington: Well, must be over 8,000 feet as we don't have him in
radar any more.


Would anyone like to guess why the intercept fighter's AN/APG-40 radar could not pick up the bogey? (Hint Ground radar is susceptible to inversion layer false readings.)

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:24 am

TEnginist wrote: I agree that extraterrestrial visitation is the least fantastic explanation for some UFO sightings, including the Washington National events. (I use "otherworldly" to refer to e.t, time traveler, and "dimensional" explanations.)

What is "more" fantastic than Aliens?...............I can only think of one: Greek Gods riding Unincorns. I mean....unicorns inside a space ship???? That just doesn't make any sense. I assume you just don't know coming from going.
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
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 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:37 am

Its possible that all or sum UFOz coud be future or cross time travelerz, Teng, but thoze are much more speculativ, sins we dont hav proof that there iz a multiverse or that time travel iz even possible, whereaz we are surrounded by a vast sea uv starz.

Matthew Ellard wrote:Do you mean they supplied their hypothesis and their supporting facts for their hypothesis, whereas you and Richard Crist don't have any facts, at all that alien UFOs were present.


Wut are you tokking about? We hav radar and visual sitingz!

JO 753 wrote:They had to do the press conferens to get everybody off the subject.
....by explaining the facts why there were false radar reading due to atmospheric conditions. What is your problem with that?


The temperature inversion hypothosis wuz never any good. from Wiki:

During the night, Lieutenant Holcomb received a call from the Washington National Weather Station. They told him that a slight temperature inversion was present over the city, but Holcomb felt that the inversion was not "nearly strong enough to explain the 'good and solid' returns" on the radarscopes.[15] Fournet relayed that all those present in the radar room were convinced that the targets were most likely caused by solid metallic objects. There had been weather targets on the scope too, he said, but this was a common occurrence and the controllers "were paying no attention to them."


and

the United States Weather Bureau also disagreed with the temperature inversion hypothesis, one official stating that "such an inversion ordinarily would appear on a radar screen as a steady line, rather than as single objects as were sighted on the airport radarscope."


and

McDonald discussed his conclusions before the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the US House of Representatives. He told the committee that the temperature inversion theory used to explain the unknown radar traces was "quite untenable"


How did you miss thoze, Matt?
The bloke from the USAF (Blue Book) wrote the official report using information supplied by these same people. I think you need to read the article to the end.


:roll:

Unless you can disproov key statements in the article, the Air Fors iz clearly attempting to disinterest the public with bland explainerationz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:42 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
TEnginist wrote: I agree that extraterrestrial visitation is the least fantastic explanation for some UFO sightings, including the Washington National events. (I use "otherworldly" to refer to e.t, time traveler, and "dimensional" explanations.)

What is "more" fantastic than Aliens?

time travelers, visitors from another dimension

I assume you just don't know coming from going.

more hostility for no reason--incredible

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 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:58 am

You do not need to think too hard. Radar in 1952 was crude and produced numerous false signals. Forget about time travellers, interdimensional travellers, multiverse travellers, and aliens from outer space. Just another one of the numerous ghost images that the radar of the time was prone to.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:16 am

TEnginist wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
TEnginist wrote: I agree that extraterrestrial visitation is the least fantastic explanation for some UFO sightings, including the Washington National events. (I use "otherworldly" to refer to e.t, time traveler, and "dimensional" explanations.)

What is "more" fantastic than Aliens?

time travelers, visitors from another dimension

I assume you just don't know coming from going.

more hostility for no reason--incredible

YOU made the distinction separating "fantastic" from "otherworldly." ...... yes.......I get grumpy when people play word salad and can't even follow their own argument. It means the brain is not actually engaged...... just the tongue.

Call it my own personal fault if you wish.
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: call for debaters

Postby TEnginist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:34 am

JO 753 wrote:The temperature inversion hypothosis wuz never any good.

Also:

The targets could not have been ghost images. At 3 a.m. on the 20th, two F-94 interceptors arrived. As soon as they appeared on the airport radar, the unknown targets disappeared. The pilots searched the area, then left. When the jets left the area, the unknown blips returned. A week later, at about midnight on the 27th, two F-94s again arrived and the targets again disappeared, and lights were reported from a nearby community. Again, the pilots looked around and left. As Al Chop said, “The minute they got off the scope, bang! Here’s the UFOs again.” At around 3 a.m., another pair of interceptors arrived. This time the targets remained on the screen. At one point, a group of targets were seen to cluster around the return of Patterson’s jet. Patterson saw lights moving in around his plane and radioed, “They’re closing in on me! What shall I do?” When he said that the lights were moving away from him, the blips were seen to move away from his target on the radar screen.

All this strongly implies that the objects were real and under intelligent control—the targets could not have been due to weather inversion.

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 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:37 am

None of which represents good evidence. It is all eye witness. As I have said before, people see what they expect to see. If there had been people claiming alien space craft, that is what people will see. Human nature being what it is, people will WANT to see alien space craft and will be peering into the darkness hoping to see them. No wonder people saw illusions !

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:57 am

JO 753 wrote:Wut are you tokking about? We hav radar and visual sitingz!
No Jo 753. You don't. You have three ground based radar false returns and no aircraft radar. You then have conflicting eyewitness testimonies where most of the people, including the pilots don't see anything. Try reading the facts.


JO 753 wrote:The temperature inversion hypothosis wuz never any good. from Wiki:

"During the night, Lieutenant Holcomb received a call from the Washington National Weather Station. They told him that a slight temperature inversion was present over the city, but Holcomb felt that the inversion was not "nearly strong enough to explain the 'good and solid' returns" on the radarscopes.[15] Fournet relayed that all those present in the radar room were convinced that the targets were most likely caused by solid metallic objects.[/i]
The pilots did not get false returns on their radar as they were airborne, which is what happens with temperature inversions. Did you forget again?

JO 753 wrote:"the United States Weather Bureau also disagreed with the temperature inversion hypothesis,."
The United States Weather Bureau's information in the final reports supports temperature inversion. :lol:

JO 753 wrote:McDonald discussed his conclusions before the Committee on Science and Astronautics of the US House of Representatives. He told the committee that the temperature inversion theory used to explain the unknown radar traces was "quite untenable"
McDonald didn't write a report.

JO 753 wrote:How did you miss thoze, Matt?
by reading the reports Jo, and not Wikipedia. Have you read them? :lol:

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:07 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:You do not need to think too hard. Radar in 1952 was crude and produced numerous false signals.
Thank you Lance. At no point did Richard Crist or Jo 753 think to look for common incidents of early radar obtaining false readings due to temperature inversions. They simply jumped to claim "time travellers" and "alien UFOs" without anything in the slightest indicating as such. :D

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:11 am

TEnginist wrote: The targets could not have been ghost images. At 3 a.m. on the 20th, two F-94 interceptors arrived. As soon as they appeared on the airport radar, the unknown targets disappeared.

Learn to read facts. I have already quoted from the actual radio transcripts that the F-94s could not pick up the signals on their own AN/APG-40 radar as they were airborne and not suffering false readings like the ground radar due to temperature inversion.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28569&start=400#p605033

"The bomber was vectored several times by National Airport over unknown targets on the airport's radarscopes, yet the crew could see nothing unusual. Finally, as a crew member related, "The radar had a target [which] turned out to be the Wilson Lines steamboat trip to Mount Vernon . . . the radar was sure as hell picking up the steamboat"


TEnginist wrote:the targets could not have been due to weather inversion.
"During the night, Lieutenant Holcomb received a call from the Washington National Weather Station. They told him that a slight temperature inversion was present over the city,

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:22 am

JO 753 wrote: I no that sientists hav offered up alternativez, such az us from the future and vizitorz from alternate universez, but theze are based entirely on their faith in the speed uv lite limitation.


The bomber was vectored several times by National Airport over unknown targets on the airport's radarscopes, yet the crew could see nothing unusual. Finally, as a crew member related, "The radar had a target [which] turned out to be the Wilson Lines steamboat trip to Mount Vernon . . . the radar was sure as hell picking up the steamboat"

As a general rule time travellers and aliens don't use steamboats. They are a bit slow (can't go faster than the speed of light) and very very hard to get airborne. :lol:
Mt Vernon Steamboat.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 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:47 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I get grumpy when people play word salad and can't even follow their own argument. It means the brain is not actually engaged...... just the tongue.

Call it my own personal fault if you wish.

I appreciate the explanation--you seem like a decent person.

I think I wasn't playing word salad, and I think I wasn't losing track of the argument--but, suppose that I was; suppose that I did have trouble engaging the brain. Why would a lack of ability to concentrate or to follow a line of reasoning make you angry and make you want to be insulting? If someone couldn't walk well, I'm sure you wouldn't berate him or her for it; so why be angry at someone you believe is not thinking well? (I'm really asking.)

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:06 am

Well.....the final USAF report is very illuminating.

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

One ARTC controller worked a
USAF B-25 (AF 8898 ?) for about 1 hr 20 mins about 2230 EDT.
B-25 was vectored in on numerous targets and commented that each
vector took him over a busy highway ir intersection. Maj Fournet
(AFOIN-2A2) and Lt. Holcomb (USN, AFOIN-2C5) arrived at ARTC
Center at about 27/0015 EDT. Lt. Holcomb observed scopes and reported
"7 good, solid targets". He made a quick check with airport Weather
Station and determined that there was a slight temperature inversion
(about 1 degree) from the surface to about 1000'.


Even more fun they picked up the same false readings before those two weekends. Funny how Richard Crist and Jo 753 didn't mention that.
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.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:12 am

Richard Crist and Jo 753 are simply regurgitating from UFO fan websites. The facts are quite different.

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

"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."

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 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:36 pm

Matt, Lance, bobbo, Nikki - dont want to factor in the Air Forse brass efforts to subdue public interest. Not only duz this taint everything they say, it requirez an honest investigator to wunder wut they are not saying.

Your favored temperature inversion/faulty equipment/incompetent radar operatorz/mass hysteria delusional pilots hypothosis requirez ALOT uv suspension uv disbelief all by itself. Wen you drop desietful and justifiably motivated officialz on top uv it, it collapsez like a carton uv eggz under a sinderblok.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: call for debaters

Postby Cadmusteeth » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:28 pm

You sure about that? I think the suspension of disbelief is more about what you believe in the first place rather than the actual facts are.
What does the evidence say about it? The radar in the planes could not pick up the disturbance, why is that?

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 928
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: call for debaters

Postby Cadmusteeth » Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:31 pm

:offtopic:
https://youtu.be/6tRUvtyAMOg
Here's a follow-up to that video I posted a while back.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:05 pm

JO 753 wrote:Not only duz this taint everything they say, it requirez an honest investigator to wunder wut they are not saying.

Jo: in my experience, the "truth" does not HIDE. Things that "ARE" have lots of evidence for them. Things that ARE NOT have only arguments and disputes.

Its a very simple guideline. Not 100% correct, only 99.99. Where would you put your money?
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
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 » Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:20 pm

You know there is something very wrong with an idea when it's supporters call on evil conspiracies to explain why it is not the accepted reality.

Let me say this again. Conspiracies depend on secrecy. But secrets cannot be kept if too many people know about them. If the US Air Force were keeping a secret about alien space craft, by now it would have been betrayed many times, and the knowledge would be everyday stuff.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:27 am

JO 753 wrote: Matt, Lance, bobbo, Nikki - dont want to factor in the Air Forse brass efforts to subdue public interest. Not only duz this taint everything they say, it requirez an honest investigator to wunder wut they are not saying.

Your favored temperature inversion/faulty equipment/incompetent radar operatorz/mass hysteria delusional pilots hypothosis requirez ALOT uv suspension uv disbelief all by itself. Wen you drop desietful and justifiably motivated officialz on top uv it, it collapsez like a carton uv eggz under a sinderblok.


The story has been fully debunked. The same ground radars had "several months" of fake readings during temperature inversions, before those two weekends. The two weekends in question are simply when the newspapers added the banner title UFOs. In essence the newspapers were copying the 1941 Battle of Los Angeles story format.

Neither you or Richard Crist can do any basic research and simply regurgitate UFO crap from B-grade websites, without thinking. No doubt Richard will continue selling his book despite knowing it omits basic facts. This is why you two are simply considered "woo" followers and not science based, critical thinking, skeptics, who do basic research.

Richard himself needs to self reflect on "calling for a debate" when he refused to provide his facts and simultaneously refused to set out his logic, why he claimed "aliens". He should watch a couple real debates and learn the basics on how debates work first.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:50 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:The story has been fully debunked. The same ground radars had "several months" of fake readings during temperature inversions, before those two weekends.


If I may ask, as a spectator in the peanut gallery, how you answer the critics who dispute the "temperature inversion" explanation?

So far, I have only read this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident

. . . the United States Weather Bureau also disagreed with the temperature inversion hypothesis, one official stating that "such an inversion ordinarily would appear on a radar screen as a steady line, rather than as single objects as were sighted on the airport radarscope."


As I understand it, the Air Force's explanation is that it could have been temperature inversion, but I did not see where they offered any conclusive evidence that in this particular instance it was a temperature inversion.

Just asking questions, is all. Like a good skeptic should.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:53 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Richard himself needs to self reflect on "calling for a debate" when he refused to provide his facts and simultaneously refused to set out his logic, why he claimed "aliens". He should watch a couple real debates and learn the basics on how debates work first.


He is under no obligation to debate with anyone who treats him with disrespect as you have done. Maybe you should watch some debates and notice that the participants are required to be respectful.

I'm just saying.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:57 am

xouper wrote: Just asking questions, is all. Like a good skeptic should.
Stop reading Wikipedia and start reading the USAF report. The several months of false reading before the two weekends had the same false readings.

"In fact, he (Captain Edward Ruppelt) 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."

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:59 am

xouper wrote: He is under no obligation to debate with anyone who treats him with disrespect as you have done.
Go {!#%@} yourself. He had an obligation to present his evidence and logic as to why he claimed aliens and refused to do so in both instances. He gets treated the same way as Gorgeous, Placid. Omniverse and Salomed.

He is going to continue to sell his book knowing it is false and take money from people.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: He is under no obligation to debate with anyone who treats him with disrespect as you have done.

Go {!#%@} yourself.


That was uncalled for Matthew.

And you know it.

You ruin your credibility when you stoop to that level.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:10 am

xouper wrote: You ruin your credibility when you stoop to that level.
Put me on ignore then and go away.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Put me on ignore then and go away.


No.

This is a skeptic forum and anything you post is fair game for comment.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:12 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
xouper wrote: Just asking questions, is all. Like a good skeptic should.
Stop reading Wikipedia and start reading the USAF report.


OK, sure. Where can I find it?

I would google for it, but I don't know what it's called or what search terms to use.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:17 am

xouper wrote: This is a skeptic forum and anything you post is fair game for comment.
Good for you. So make a comment.

So were the aliens there for the several months when the same false readings were being received or only after the newspapers said "aliens" for those two weekends?
must be aliens 2.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:23 am

xouper wrote: OK, sure. Where can I find it? .
I have been quoting from it. If anyone was paying attention Blue Book was declassified in 1985.

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

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

Re: call for debaters

Postby xouper » Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:30 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:So were the aliens there for the several months when the same false readings were being received or only after the newspapers said "aliens" for those two weekends?


I do not yet have sufficient information to make an informed opinion one way or the other.

The way I see it, the null hypothesis is that there were no aliens. In order to reject that hypothesis, I need more evidence.


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest