UFO claims.

nismaratwork

Yes, I'm aware of that... very much the African (Swahili) version of the Arabic: "Sheikh".

pftest: When you hear, "see Venus", are you thinking that people are just stargazing, see the planet, and come to a truly outrageous conclusion? It doesn't occur to you that it's in the context of weather conditions that can cause INTENSE atmospheric lensing, which HAS been proven to occur, even on grand scales such as entire metropolitan areas.

Again, the issue here is not what one self-described skeptic said, but an example of why the proof of WHAT needs to come from those making the claim. Anything else leads to beliefs that are based on truly confused information and assumptions.

pftest

Feel free to provide sources that demonstrate that venus can be distorted to make it look like what the eyewitnesses describe. I think what you are suggesting about the capabilities of atmospherical conditions, is somewhat twisted out of proportion (to put it mildly ) and has no grounding in reality. For example, you cannot simply claim that natural atmospherical conditions can make venus can take the form of a giant footballfield-sized mickey mouse either. Remember, we are no longer talking about UFO sightings in general, but about a specific case. I did this precisely to put the supposedly existing mundane explanations to the test.

nismaratwork

1.) Atmospherical isn't a WORD. Normally I wouldn't comment, but you have it spelled correctly in the the post you quote.

2.) This isn't a contest: concepts of burden of proof are established elsewhere, and here. When people are asking you in a post, it's usually because they're not reporting you for the same reason. Take. The. Hint.

3.) A simple moisture-laden atmospheric boundary between two wildly differing air-densities creates extreme lensing. You've seen examples in "hit shimmers" on roads, and how they distort objects on the horizon. Well... this is a lot more wide-spread, in the sky, and the distant object is both bright and FAR FAR more distant than what we see on the horizon.

I don't know if you're so unfamiliar with optics and meteorology that these are foreign concepts, or if this is more of your... playing... around. Either way, here's the olive branch: http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/mirages/Wollaston.html

I'm done trying to reason with you until I have some iota that you're more than a crackpot who dances on the razor edge of the this site's rules.

nismaratwork

You don't know what a source is... do you? You can't just site a mix of real images (of what... hm) third and worst-hand testimony, and a DRAMATIC RECREATION.

pftest

Atmospherical:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atmospherical

Btw, it is well known that mirages are only seen on or near the horizon, they vanish beyond a certain degree, and they certainly do not fly over peoples heads and appear the way they did to all the eyewitnesses. Again, this suggestion of what atmospherical conditions are capable of is not grounded in reality.

As for the burden of proof: if someone claims that a particular atmospherical condition can explain a UFO sighting, then the burden is upon him of course. In a skepticism and debunking forum, you can expect people to be skeptical.

nismaratwork

re: bold: You're factually incorrect here, and I'm down to fact-check and report with you. Do you have any support or citations for your erroneous claim in bold? You're actually contradicting the link you could have read about reflection and optics...


re: atmospherical: It's a neologism accepted as secondary in common usage in one (non internet) dictionary I could find. This is what the site you cited has to say on the subject of its etymology: http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/atmospherical . Just in case none of that stuck: without engaging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you might want to argue less on this point, and research more. The proper term is, "Atmospheric"...
...Which is actually the first thing YOUR link spells out:

Still, it exists, so you have that... now if only you were so willing and able to provide evidence for the other claims you've made... Oh well.

pftest

The video has some of the original taped conversations between several police officers and the 911 center, the police officers themselves, 2 civilian eyewitnesses, a photograph, drawings of the object (at least some of which were done immediately after the event by a police officer). That in itself makes it a valuable source.

The reconstruction was done by sigma animations:

pftest

Click on your own link. Then click on "inferior mirage". Behold:

Whatever floats your boat...

nismaratwork

That is by definition, a MIRAGE... as I said, an example of the effect being talked of, and one I described in detail! There is a reason I talked about "Atmospheric Lensing", and not "mirages". I used a mirage as a toy example that I thought someone without an understanding of optics might start with.

Remember #2? THIS IS NOT A CONTEST. UFO's don't become what you want them to be, or what the fellow who implicated Venus wants them to be. This is SUPPOSED to be about debate which leads to an exchange of ideas... which is impossible if you're unwilling or unable to honestly debate.


Finally... re: "atmospherical"... put it on your CV... have fun with it. Yet another example made of you taking the oppositional process of debate and making it simple oppositional behavior. Now, for extra credit, why is "oppositional" a correct usage, but "atmospherical is dog poo?

nismaratwork

I understand all of that... it still isn't a valid source. I get it... you think this is some legalistic nonsense and part of keeping down the truth... whatever that may be. Its NOT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fu...ons_experiment

This isn't just about lights in the sky: this is about how science is done, what constitutes evidence, and standards that you and I are subject to, but don't have a vote it. You don't have to like, or even participate in that kind of debate... you clearly see it as overly restrictive... however it's also an option to reconsider.

You believe what you're talking about... so... why can't or WON'T you produce evidence to match the claims?

ecsspace

Oh yeah, I'm familiar with the Illinois 2000 incident. Did some digging on it after seeing the Discovery channel (or whichever Discovery network aired it) program about it. The three different cops, the photo, the drawings, sure. Leaning towards (not 'definite') it being a stealth blimp test. The well-parsed replies from 'Boeing' kind of confirm. Maybe even the same craft that caused all the brouhaha w/ 'Phoenix Lights' (the 'lights' themselves being flares dropped by a confirmed Maryland National Guard flight, purposefully to distract most of the city inhabitant's attention to the flares and away from the blimp test. Funny in how all the arm-waving It was only shown once how those descending lights all managed to 'wink out' at the point where they would have dropped below the line of sight as defined by the hilly horizon beneath where they appeared.)
My general feeling is that if 'aliens' really are visiting we may not be able to recognize them, like trying to get a polar bear to describe the team from the university who comes out to put the radio tracking collar on him. Or the pet dogs in a typical family suburb neighborhood all getting together to try to figure out what a television is: there is one in every home, their masters pay a lot of attention to it, the dogs themselves see it and might be able to recognize some images on the screen, but they would never be able to grasp it's use or purpose.
If 'aliens' exist, we are the dogs unable to grasp what they are doing. I feel that if the Illinois cops really saw something otherworldly not all three of them would come forward. Probably an actual experience with real alien craft might be closer to what is depicted in that movie 'Fire In The Sky' - so instinctually weird and creepy you mind seeks to reject what you see whether you want it to or not. It could be too traumatic, even if benign.

pftest

Then once again i must ask:

pftest

I think you have me confused with someone else. I just posted a link to a case in the UFO napster and asked if you could find a mundane explanation. Its all fine to keep the discussion very general and vague, but how about we take a look at an actual UFO case for a change?

pftest

I dont know anything about stealth blimps or even if they exist (aliens too btw), so im not going to speculate on that (though i once read a paper on PF that compared humans on earth with a gorilla reservation in the jungle). I just think that whatever the explanation is, it should match the eyewitness reports as closely as possible.

ecsspace

He did that with me, too (nismaratwork)

ecsspace

Yeah, one of the things that is so interesting about Illinois 2000 are how similar but also the differences
in each of the witness's recreated simulations, with the documentary affirming that each person approved the accuracy of their relevant simulated image. Notice how the cop's simulations were more alike to one another than the simulated image of the first guy who saw it.
The world of stealth technology can be every bit as mysterious as UFOs, and probably attracts as many varied-interest parties, though I imagine with some culling due to that fact that it's considered more highly probable that all 'stealth tech' is a definite human invention. Here's a page that may have some facts and some 'indulgent enthusiast' stuff. http://www.thestealthblimp.com/
Give people a circus balloon and they'll take the Hindenburg.

nismaratwork

What do you not understand? Just as though I were attempting to prove your GUILT in a crime (i.e. a set of events), the burden to prove:
-That a crime was comitted
-The nature of the crime
-Your connection to the crime

Do you understand that this basic concept is central to the process of science, and asking for a MUNDANE explanation to then attack as a straw man is ABSURD.

This thread is a pathetic example of the very worst of S&D run-away. I'll leave you both to your chatter until the inevitable locking.

edit: Seriously, I've had more structured and serious conversations with acid-casualties who were institutionalized.