posted by RRRGroup at
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
You just wrote (previous blog):"It's a stupid discussion but what do I care? It's there, not here."It's here now!In other words, why have you bothered to bring this 'stupid discussion' to your own blog?If anyone is foolish enough to want to argue over the alleged speed of those damn blobs of light, let him do so. As long as he or she realises it is a complete dead end.
By cda, at Wednesday, December 11, 2013
That kind of "discussion" or debate lessens, further, the whole UFO topic and field, especially taking place at the blog of a recognized UFO writer and researcher.It besmirches UFOs and those who study them in ways that have ruined the subject since day one.RR
By RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Perhaps I am parsing the issue at hand, but the terms researcher and writer are used interchangeably, whereas a more accurate term would be journalist, or more accurately investigative journalist. To me it seems what is going on is archival not research unless you want to throw historical revisionism into the mix. Of course, none of this history has been significantly revised as a result of this sort of retro-causal hobby. What underlines this further is delving into the past seems to indicate that there is absolutely no real research in the present tense. Its harmless as long as it is not taken in an overly serious manner, which seems not to be the case. Odd. Sort of a constipated situation when viewed at a distance.
By Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Sniff...I think I did find out something new and interesting: Newhouse changed his story over time making it bigger and bigger. I think that is interesting.Lance
By Lance, at Wednesday, December 11, 2013
And you didn't know that before? Nor did Kevin?Come on....RR
Bruce...Where I come from the terms researcher and writer are NOT used interchangeably.As for the matter not being taken seriously, have you read the comments at Kevin's blog?My point, again, is that when a noted UFO and highly regarded UFO writer indulges the kind of idiotic back-and-forth that is extant at his blog, it shows the media (and public), and even UFO mavens, that the matter remains a joke.No one who has the credentials to get involved in a study of UFOs will be encouraged to do so when they see what passes for a serious take on the phenomenon.The kind of Kevin commentary is what killed UFO UpDates.RR
I didn't know much of anything about the case earlier this week. But after reading the file and giving the smallest amount of attention, I think I am the country's foremost expert on it!The best part is that after making a fool (again) of Rudiak, that he can't seem to think of anything to say. Needless to say, any man would have apologized for the error and moved on. Any man, I say.Lance
The discussion, for me, and a few sensible persons I know, is like the Roswell discussions at Kevin's blog, to which you contribute, nicely I concede, but...It's a no-win situation. You'll never convince these guys that their pet UFO cases are flawed.Nor will they convince you that there's some meat on those UFO bones.It's dance of "fools" and demeans the topic further, which helps your agenda but not the agenda of those who see a real mystery with the phenomenon.RR
I think the issue is confounding and simple. In reality, they have run out of material. Its like nicotine addition, a habitual behavioral tick. I was not referring to your blog when I made the distinctions on journalism and research, but rather the whole scene where these terms are so loose as to be meaningless.I think the operative term for the subject matter is entropy, out of steam, new material, new theoretical explorations..a sort of zombie autonomic blather that gets testier as the oxygen in the room runs out. Who is attracted to this rerun of a rerun? One trick ponies.
I think the crappy evidence for UFO's makes it's own gravy...we aren't demeaning itIt is what it is.But I don't see how the discussion of the evidence is completely foolish. And the early evidence is best (from my perspective) because it doesn't carry the same baggage as the later stuff ((technology changes have rendered video and still virtually useless today).Lance
CDA, you certainly have a right to your skepticism but why is it "foolish" to argue over the speed of "alleged blobs of light" with respect to the Trementon filmstrip? I thought that good scientific methods offered the only hope of making progress on the UFO phenomenon. (How else can we distinguish the "writer" (as RR puts it) from the "researcher"? Well in the case of this film strip, the Navy photo analyists put in many hundreds of hours attempting to determine what the objects were. Calculating (estimating) speed would rule out many possibilities. Again, good science and not just talk. Now if the calculations are many hundreds of miles per hour, regardless of the assumptions, than we have a reasonably genuine conclusion based on reasonably genuine scientific methods. Can we debate the analysis and conclusions? Of course. Is it all "foolish"? Absolutely not, unless you are commited in principle to not considering evidence on this phenomenon. But if you are, then why are you on this blog in the first place?
By Dominick, at Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Lance...I'd like to see you apply your intellect to a full-scale skeptical/debunking attack at your site rather than see this ongoing, senseless squirmishes. (Is that the right spelling? I'm on my cell phone ... floating above the terrain...no UFOs in sight.)
Dominick...CDA is merely pointing out that I've scourged the discussion at Kevin's blog but have (inadvertently) brought it over here.My action is what has ended up being stupid.I don't wish to engage in or have comments about the Tremonton film as such here.It's a topic that takes us nowhere.RR
What you have are a dwindling number of savants who are incapable of discussing anything other than ancient history. The interest in the subject is drying faster than paint on a summer day. What's left to discuss over the bones of a thousand year old frozen turkey dinner? That and ten cents will get you less and less interest unless you are a nostalgic type, yearning for the clarity of naivete. I am at the brink of moving on..theres just nothing left to discuss, unless you enjoy repetitive arguments over desiccated leftovers that are pummeled into fine particles.
Bruce...You are not archaeologically or paleontologically inclined in any way, so you don't see the value in studying old ruins or old bones.I happen to disagree with your "modern" stance and do see value in looking at old UFO cases.(We've been down this road before.)My distress lies in how we go back to those old cases.By regurgitating the same old, same old stuff over and over again, as is the case with Kevin's topics, despite his attempts to thwart such nonsense, we get nowhere.If an archaeologist kept doing a tap dance on the head of the Sphinx, without analyzing the thing, academics would move on.That's where we are with Kevin's discussion.Although Lance got notice of Newhouse's changing story -- nicely done -- that, alone, doesn't take us anywhere.It's a tap dance, is all I'm saying.I know -- we all know -- you eschew the classic UFO cases.But I happen to think there there are or may be clues in those cases, and one should look at them with new eyes, forensic eyes.Talking on and on about the cases gets us nowhere.Let's look at them anew.They are cold cases waiting to be solved or helpful in denuding the UFO enigma.RR
We will see if this develops as you suggest it might. I am not holding my breath. If you can teach an old dog new tricks now that might be interesting.I am just not seeing any new insights from old cases.They never get out of square one due to their ( ahem) age. If they do, it would be a great hat trick..worthy of accolades,but this stuff has a lot of mileage on it, I just don't see it sprouting new wings. Of course I hope I am wrong but that has always gotten me into trouble in the past.
To formally answer your question:If the Trementon Film shows Alien Space Craft, then skeptics can no longer (rationally) claim that it is impossible for alien space craft to get here from there. It is an existence proof.Moreover, if it happened once, it almost certainly happened more than once. Hence, the Bayesian probability that some of the other, similar UFO reports are also Alien Space Craft goes up to significant levels. For example, Jimmie Robinson claims to have seen a similar constellation around the same time at a location 800 miles away. It would be hard to say that Newhouse's sighting was real but Robinson's wasn't. And so on.Basically, admitting that any one UFO report is actually an Alien Space Craft would kill off all the debunkers and leave only true skeptics. Logically, then the debate would move from "Are any UFO's real?" to "What are the real UFO's?"BTW, "Alien Space Craft" is your term, not mine. I am fairly certain that there are some Unconventional Flying Objects (as Paul Hill uses the term) moving around in what we like to think of as "our" airspace, but I have no data that would definitively identify them as alien, or as space craft.
By Larry, at Wednesday, December 11, 2013
I accept and like your views Larry.
I agree with Larry as well. And I think his framework applies to the hundreds of reports of fairies and leprechauns as well.Perhaps you see how this means nothing?Lance
I'm allowing comments that address the issue of the "meaninglessness" of a debate about the "technicals" of the alleged movie/sighting, but that's it.CDA applied a rejoinder for Dominick but it was taking us into the Kevin-like discussion so I'm not inputting CDA's comment, as concise and cogent as it was (or seemed to be).Sorry Christopher...RR
Lance wrote:"...Perhaps you see how this means nothing?"We might be able to see that if you gave us a clue as to what "this" refers to.
Sure.Your statement.Essentially you are saying that if something is true then it is true. And if that thing is true then similar things may well be true.Lance
Lance wrote:"...Essentially you are saying that if something is true then it is true. And if that thing is true then similar things may well be true."Actually, my statement was of the form:"..If A is true, then premise B is false. Moreover, if A, then C. If C, then D. Also, if A then D. If D, then F." I followed that with the idea that if premise A was modified to premise A’, then the logic would still follow.You managed to collapse that down to the tautology "If A, then A." followed by; "if A then C."I guess complex abstract reasoning is not your strong suit.
Are we having fun yet?RR
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile