posted by RRRGroup at
Thursday, February 27, 2014
If a driver was going along a country road at night and happened to see the moon and Venus as per the photo, 98 or 99% of them would recognize both for what they were and forget about it.But there is always the remaining 1% who will claim "these two funny lights followed my car, bouncing over the treetops and keeping pace with me. Whenever I went round a bend they did the same."He or she will report it as a UFO (or two UFOs), and lo and behold we would have another UFO event to think about, with (probably) the driver rejecting the astronomical explanation. Debates and arguments would ensue from this.
By cda, at Thursday, February 27, 2014
And so we would analyze the sighting because a 1% of Venus viewers got us to accept their folly?As Gilles Fernandez often writes, "That's ufology."RR
By RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 27, 2014
RR -...I think I just cracked the mystery of where/how you are sourcing the "research work" of AJB:http://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fake-papers-flooding-academia
By Kurt Peters, at Thursday, February 27, 2014
It was specifically to avoid the problem that CDA raises that (Allen Hynek, as I recall) adopted the definition of UFO as the stimulus for a report that REMAINS puzzling even after an attempt to explain it by a relevant expert has failed. In the case of Venus, a relevant expert would be, E.G., an astronomer.
By Larry, at Thursday, February 27, 2014
P.S. history lesson: ...the attractiveness of the 'astronomical explanation' was the singular reason that a younger more skeptical Josef A. Hynek was recruited into the Project Blue Book morass....
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile