What case? These are general principles, not ones for a specific case.10 rules for proving what you've already concluded---in this case anything OTHER than a real ufo.
What case? These are general principles, not ones for a specific case.10 rules for proving what you've already concluded---in this case anything OTHER than a real ufo.
What case? These are general principles, not ones for a specific case.
First, a minor criticism of the title, perhaps due to the context from the source: These are not principles to follow when investigating UFOs, but common pitfall characteristics of UFO reports. You dropped the word "report" in your title, but even the full label from the link isn't very good. You might call them "Principles for Interpreting Witness Testimony", but they are not overall principles for investigating reports of UFOs. With that in mind:Philip Klass is a noted skeptic of the idea that UFOs are extraterrestrial craft. In his books, UFOs Explained (1974) and UFOs: The Public Deceived (1997) he discusses 10 principles of investigating reports of UFOs.
No doubt you bolded that because it is a common claim of yours that UFO skeptics don't believe UFOs are real. This is nonsense and you know it (which makes it a trolling lie), since you've been told probably hundreds of times by dozens of different skeptics that all of them accept that the vast majority of UFO sightings are real. And more to the point, the starting assumption of the analysis is always that the story is real (because you can't show it to not be real unless you examine how it fits reality).1. In any research, first you have to work on the premise that what you're examining is real.
Indeed, the 1952 incident is a great example of many of those principles, being a mismash of vague and unrelated "sightings" spun together as if they were a single (or small number of), coherent ones. I remember when we had a discussion of that incident with a fast-burning crackpot who flamed out and left quickly a few years ago. I pointed out that claims that radar and visual sightings were coincident were, in fact, false. He didn't like that very much.
I guess the unstated inference is I must also be a 'fast-burning crackpot'. Just like all those trained military personnel 'crackpots' (and many others) who honestly reported, and radars recorded, yes a series of rather dramatic incidents spanning iirc several weeks. Caught on video footage too.Indeed, the 1952 incident is a great example of many of those principles, being a mismash of vague and unrelated "sightings" spun together as if they were a single (or small number of), coherent ones. I remember when we had a discussion of that incident with a fast-burning crackpot who flamed out and left quickly a few years ago. I pointed out that claims that radar and visual sightings were coincident were, in fact, false. He didn't like that very much.
No doubt you bolded that because it is a common claim of yours that UFO skeptics don't believe UFOs are real. This is nonsense and you know it (which makes it a trolling lie), since you've been told probably hundreds of times by dozens of different skeptics that all of them accept that the vast majority of UFO sightings are real UFO sightings are real.
I'll be honest -- I skimmed so fast I initially thought your post was from MR and didn't read any of it past the link. So I initially thought so, but later realized you weren't MR and re-worded my post to remove reference to him. Since I still haven't read your post, I have no idea if you are a crackpot or not. It isn't really relevant to my post anyway.I guess the unstated inference is I must also be a 'fast-burning crackpot'.
Let's start with one:Quote just a few of those hundred times that skeptics have accepted that the vast majority of UFO sightings are real. I'll wait.
Let's start with one:
"the vast majority of UFO sightings are real"
I did.Which skeptic said that?
Of course. I know what "UFO" means -- you sure you do?What do you mean they're real? That they're ufos as defined above?
I did.
Of course. I know what "UFO" means -- you sure you do?
That doesn't answer my question.I just defined it for you.
I said for a start. I have more and I'm sure you know it because you've been told it on this site countless times. But before I post more, I need you to acknowledge the one you have gotten. Do you acknowledge that a certain harsh skeptic (me) agrees that "the vast majority of UFO sightings are real"? Or are you going to pretend you didn't see it? Or claim I'm lying and thus make it impossible to have a rational discussion with you? Or goalpost shift the definition even after posting it yourself?So out of those hundred of claimed instances of skeptics saying they think the vast majority of ufos are real, you only quote yourself.
That doesn't answer my question.
I said for a start. I have more and I'm sure you know it because you've been told it on this site countless times. But before I post more, I need you to acknowledge the one you have gotten. Do you acknowledge that a certain harsh skeptic (me) agrees that "the vast majority of UFO sightings are real"? Or are you going to pretend you didn't see it? Or claim I'm lying and thus make it impossible to have a rational discussion with you? Or goalpost shift the definition even after posting it yourself?
Yes, I think you did. You never have been interested in actual discussion and you get really really angry when the flaws in your arguments are pointed out in a way that you can't weasel out of and this is more of the same. So I'll say it again:Did I not make myself clear?
Thanks Russ. I have edited the thread title to include the word "reports".First, a minor criticism of the title, perhaps due to the context from the source: These are not principles to follow when investigating UFOs, but common pitfall characteristics of UFO reports. You dropped the word "report" in your title, but even the full label from the link isn't very good. You might call them "Principles for Interpreting Witness Testimony", but they are not overall principles for investigating reports of UFOs.
Magical Realist, unsurprisingly, has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the reality of #5. He thinks people have a magical ability to deduce the sizes and heights of objects in the sky, without any point of reference.I think #5 is the most important problem with UFO investigation/reporting and it informs to #1.
Yes. The Portage County UFO chase of 1966 that I have recently been discussing with Magical Realist is a great example of that principle, along with the case you mentioned above.Applied here, the knee-jerk reaction people have to a bright light in the sky is (usually): brighter = bigger and closer. After you've established that, you can spin an entire story around what you are seeing, all of it complete fantasy.
Surely any object in the sky that is deemed to be flying is a UFO right up to the point it is identified as a known object or phenomenon? This includes something that is moments later identified as a bird, a frisbee, as ball-lightning, as a weather balloon, an aircraft, a cloud. Up to the point it is identified it is technically a UFO.Which skeptic said that? What do you mean they're real? That they're ufos as defined above?