@joe --
When did I claim I solved it? I offered up a very plausible explanation. Nothing in that report other than the reported speed were outside of the ability of the technology of the time to produce, and the speed can be accounted for due to the state of shock that Zamora admitted he was in(hence the stumbling around he described himself doing).
Oh yes you did, you went further and said gee that was easy. And no you did not offer up a plausible explanation. The US government admitted that it could not offer a plausible explanation. What you did is what you have consistently done throughout this thread - do a turd dump and ignore the facts of the case.
So you are now saying, in 1964 the US government had a verticle take off craft that flew at supersonic speeds with out wings? Hell we don't even have that today. And as previously pointed out to you, it was not until the late 80's and 90's that the British and US governments introduced winged verticle take off aircraft. You had previously claimed you could do this in your garage. A claim that ignores current reality not to mention the technology of almost 50 years ago when pocket calculators didn't exist.
Your theory is that Zamora was in a state of shock, but you have yet to prove it. And I asked you previously, and which you have not answered, what cause this shock you are advocating? Your explanation flies in the face of the known physical laws of this universe. In our universe cause preceeds effect. In your explanation, effect preceeds cause.
@
As for what caused the state of shock, could it have been seeing the thing itself? People merely hearing about the attacks on 9/11 went into shock, any truly unexpected event can cause one to enter a state of shock. It doesn't matter whether it happened before, during, or after(altering the memory, another thing which has been proven to happen in the human brain).
Did any of those folks you reference see the things Zamora reported? Did any of those people reinvent history? I was shocked as I think the world was when I saw what happened on 9/11 but here is the thing, I didn't nor did anyone else go around and start hallucinating. In order for your idea to be correct and comparison relevant, we would have all had to go around hallucinating for a period of time. That is not what happened. And your idea, just does not hold up even in a light breeze.
@
A hoax plus shock explains everything, even the other observers(none of whom noted the speed). Do I have physical evidence that shock is what caused the sensory distortion? No, I can't. However it is the best explanation that fits the evidence, it's certainly a lot better than aliens, hell, positing that god did it would be just as bad as saying aliens did it. Given the available explanations, this one is the best.
You don't have any evidence that seeing what Zamora did would cause hallucinations and memory defects. If you could put together a coherent logical story that would explain the Zamora incident, then I would agree. But you have not, nor has anyone since the incident occured in 1964. And is there evidence of a hoax? Did Project Blue Book (which had a distinct anti-UFO bias) find any evidence of a hoax? NO. So there you are again, with out a shred of evidence to support any of your claims. Do you have proof Zamora reinvented history? No you don't. Project Blue Book found him to be a very credible wittness. Did Project Blue Book say it was proof positive of an alien encounter? Did I say that? No I didn't. That is you creating another straw man. And if you took the time to do you homework, you would have known that other people saw the object Zamora wittnessed.
The best explanation is that this remains unexplained. Just because you cannot explain something, it does not mean you have to invent something and distort and ignore reality in the process. Two no one is saying that aliens were involved here - that is you creating another straw man. The arguement is that this incident has not been explained and remains unsolved. You yield to your biases rather than look at the incident objectively.
--------
@
I notice that you like to skirt your burden of proof as well. Saying "oh there are unexplained accounts" doesn't prove your argument, it's mere semantics. Why don't you provide some evidence.
And if you're going to accuse me of making straw man arguments then at least have the decency to point out where I did so. Please include the post number when you do so. If you don't then I'll have no choice but to report you for character assassination.
LOL, just where I failed to provide proof? I gave you an example of a UFO incident that has not been explained. I proved my point. You have not proven yours. Go ahead and report me for "character assassination". Because I have done no such thing (not to mention I don't think there is any such rule here at Sciforums), and I think that is very clear. I have just pointed out your use of illogical arguements and that your claims are short on facts and evidence. I have even given you the definitation of a straw man arguement. I suggest you look at your posts and go back and tell me were you used illogical arguements. I have previously pointed out those arguements as you made them - no need to do it again.
You have proven what I have been saying all along. People like you, the anti-alien nothing to see here crowd, have to ignore evidence in order for them to come to their conclusions regarding the UFO phenomena. The pro-alien crowd need to create facts not in evidence in order to sustain their position on the matter - something you have done in an attempt to discredit a credible observation. A realistic, an objective position on the issue of UFO's is to say that it is a phenomena that cannot yet be fully and adequately explained. There may be aliens visiting us. And aliens may not be visiting us. At best, the evidence is inconclusive. And there is little doubt that the UFO field is vexed with a bunch of kooks predominately on the pro-alien side of the fence.
Sometimes the right answer is, I/we don't know. Sometimes the evidence is inconclusive as it is with UFO's. And that is ok. One of the points that I have been trying repeatedly to get through to you on, is that you should not become a victim of your biases. It is not easy. But if you can manage your biases rather than they managing you, your life will be much more productive. And if you can manage your biases, you just may be the person who solves world hunger. But you will never solve world hunger if you are going to summarily dismiss things you don't understand or do not want to understand (e.g. psychology, UFO's).
Listen grasshopper and learn:
"Master Po: Close your eyes. What do you hear?
Young Caine: I hear the water, I hear the birds.
Po: Do you hear your own heartbeat?
Caine: No.
Po: Do you hear the grasshopper which is at your feet?
Caine: Old man, how is it that you hear these things?
Po: Young man, how is it that you do not?[4]" - Wikipedia, Kung Fu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series)
