james
In the present case, we have some recorded sightings of <i>something</i>, along with radar observations and so on. But it doesn't take long at all to go from that to a detailed discussion of "vehicles" and unknown technologies. The problem is that an assumption is made very early on, and conclusions are drawn which are not actually mandated by the data. To show you what I mean, I will extract a few quotes from recent posts.
i see nothing wrong with speculation. if however, speculation is passed off as a definitive conclusion, there is a problem. i considered all angles and even rated them in terms of probability. if i tend to favor one over the other, that is my right. i will not try to justify it on logical and evidentiary grounds. it is a personal preference.
you will kill off this forum if we adhere to your high standards. (yes i noticed your sig)
there is nothing wrong with considering all possible scenarios no matter how farfetched. i am not posting in sciforums under any official capacity
In addition, <b>spookz</b> has attempted to ridicule the people who dare to question his conclusion. He asks:
<i>perhaps you wanna the president to sign off on the doc? the un? you? perhaps we got have the mighty jamesr as the final arbiter of all things?(spookz)</i>
thas is in direct response to...
why are you asking this. if i had access to the entire sobebs report i would have given it. summaries, conclusions and other various commentaries taken from and on the report are provided. look at the conclusion reached by the belgians...
Could the Air Force have done more? Undoubtedly, but only in terms of a particular effort with more means and personnel. Let us not forget that the UFO phenomenon emerges at unforeseeable places and times. The implementation of a tight network of observers, special optical glasses, infra-red cameras, means of communication, helicopters and planes would have required an enormous financial effort. Such an effort cannot be justified without the proof that there are indeed flying objects which could constitute a possible threat for the population and the air traffic or which is really of extraterrestrial origin. The dilemma is as follows: how can these UFO be identified without the engagement of additional means whereas such an identification is the indispensable condition to justify their engagement. The day will undoubtedly come where the phenomenon will be observed with technological means of detection and recording which will not leave any doubt as of its origin. This should raise part of the veil which covers the mystery for a long time. A mystery which thus remains whole. But it exists, it is real, and this is already an important conclusion. Postface to the SOBEPS report, by Général De Brouwer (at that time Colonel, joint Chief of Staff of the Belgium Air Forces)
all these people are saying (in an official capacity) is that a ufo was observed (visual, video and radar). the final analysis was inconclusive. i believe some go on to speculate off the record about various scenarios just as we are doing here. the belgians have come to the only possible conclusion that is in adherence with the scientific method. why are you knocking it? they are rapping to your tune! you have to assume that the data in the sections that we are not privy also support the conclusion. that is... there is nothing there that identifies the origins of the ufo
No, spookz, I'm not the arbiter of all things. It's much simpler than that. You see, I am willing to suspend judgment on this information until there is data which points us inevitably towards one conclusion or another. You, and the other believers, want to prejudge the case and jump to the conclusion that these observations represent alien spacecraft. I have said before that argument from authority is a very weak form of argument, but apparently you missed that. I don't care what the President believes regarding this data. What I want is not somebody in authority to tell me what to believe, but good enough data to be able to draw my own conclusion.
fair enough. my most sincere apologies for that unwarranted crap. however, in all honesty, i do not know for sure what the ufo is. neither have i jumped to any definite conclusion.
I don't think anybody has suggested that the Belgian airforce is incompetent, so this is a straw man argument. What I <i>have</i> suggested is that people can sometimes make mistakes, which is a different thing altogether.
james, that was directed at persol in response to something he posted
First, the screenshots do not provide any information to determine if this was a real contact. This could be clouds, radar echos, malfunction, whatever... (persol)
there are two ground stations and 2 jets tracking object with radar. i find that redundant enough
In the present case, we have some recorded sightings of <i>something</i>, along with radar observations and so on. But it doesn't take long at all to go from that to a detailed discussion of "vehicles" and unknown technologies. The problem is that an assumption is made very early on, and conclusions are drawn which are not actually mandated by the data. To show you what I mean, I will extract a few quotes from recent posts.
i see nothing wrong with speculation. if however, speculation is passed off as a definitive conclusion, there is a problem. i considered all angles and even rated them in terms of probability. if i tend to favor one over the other, that is my right. i will not try to justify it on logical and evidentiary grounds. it is a personal preference.
you will kill off this forum if we adhere to your high standards. (yes i noticed your sig)
there is nothing wrong with considering all possible scenarios no matter how farfetched. i am not posting in sciforums under any official capacity
In addition, <b>spookz</b> has attempted to ridicule the people who dare to question his conclusion. He asks:
<i>perhaps you wanna the president to sign off on the doc? the un? you? perhaps we got have the mighty jamesr as the final arbiter of all things?(spookz)</i>
thas is in direct response to...
Originally posted by James R
However, nobody has yet pointed me towards a definitive government report of the outcome of investigations, or similar source.
why are you asking this. if i had access to the entire sobebs report i would have given it. summaries, conclusions and other various commentaries taken from and on the report are provided. look at the conclusion reached by the belgians...
Could the Air Force have done more? Undoubtedly, but only in terms of a particular effort with more means and personnel. Let us not forget that the UFO phenomenon emerges at unforeseeable places and times. The implementation of a tight network of observers, special optical glasses, infra-red cameras, means of communication, helicopters and planes would have required an enormous financial effort. Such an effort cannot be justified without the proof that there are indeed flying objects which could constitute a possible threat for the population and the air traffic or which is really of extraterrestrial origin. The dilemma is as follows: how can these UFO be identified without the engagement of additional means whereas such an identification is the indispensable condition to justify their engagement. The day will undoubtedly come where the phenomenon will be observed with technological means of detection and recording which will not leave any doubt as of its origin. This should raise part of the veil which covers the mystery for a long time. A mystery which thus remains whole. But it exists, it is real, and this is already an important conclusion. Postface to the SOBEPS report, by Général De Brouwer (at that time Colonel, joint Chief of Staff of the Belgium Air Forces)
all these people are saying (in an official capacity) is that a ufo was observed (visual, video and radar). the final analysis was inconclusive. i believe some go on to speculate off the record about various scenarios just as we are doing here. the belgians have come to the only possible conclusion that is in adherence with the scientific method. why are you knocking it? they are rapping to your tune! you have to assume that the data in the sections that we are not privy also support the conclusion. that is... there is nothing there that identifies the origins of the ufo
No, spookz, I'm not the arbiter of all things. It's much simpler than that. You see, I am willing to suspend judgment on this information until there is data which points us inevitably towards one conclusion or another. You, and the other believers, want to prejudge the case and jump to the conclusion that these observations represent alien spacecraft. I have said before that argument from authority is a very weak form of argument, but apparently you missed that. I don't care what the President believes regarding this data. What I want is not somebody in authority to tell me what to believe, but good enough data to be able to draw my own conclusion.
fair enough. my most sincere apologies for that unwarranted crap. however, in all honesty, i do not know for sure what the ufo is. neither have i jumped to any definite conclusion.
I don't think anybody has suggested that the Belgian airforce is incompetent, so this is a straw man argument. What I <i>have</i> suggested is that people can sometimes make mistakes, which is a different thing altogether.
james, that was directed at persol in response to something he posted
First, the screenshots do not provide any information to determine if this was a real contact. This could be clouds, radar echos, malfunction, whatever... (persol)
there are two ground stations and 2 jets tracking object with radar. i find that redundant enough