posted by RRRGroup at
Monday, June 01, 2015
Hello here,"Case n°2: September 1965. Fort-de-France (Martinique) Classification: MA-1... have been explained in 2010/2011." A very good example supporting the SPH :)It illustrates the statut to accord to residual cases* (a simple difference of statut explained versus non-explained, period), the value of these types of analysis, how ufologists project things on IFO in reality, the value of these type of papers (scientific in disguise) and regarding Vallée particulary**, etc.* See second part (in French) and if interested "Quel Statut attribuer aux Cas résiduels ?" http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2014/04/ufologie-et-arguments-statistiques-la.html** "Wonders in the sky" is full of errors and whishful thinking too : http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2014/05/quelques-ressources-sceptiques.htmlRegards,Gilles
By Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, June 02, 2015
I dont find English articles giving the explanation for this case if you are interested and those I know are or in French (audio) or in Spanish. Sorry.Audio (French): http://pangolia.com/blog/?p=1580Text (Spanish, but many pictures to understand): http://www.ikaros.org.es/fortdefrance.pdfThere was a Manuel Borraz text too (probably the person who identified the case in 2009/2010) but all my links of the original paper are now dead.Regards,Gilles
In the paper : Case no. 6: August 24, 1990 Greifwahl (Germany) Ð Classi®cation: MA-1This case have been explained too, it was a Warsaw pact military exercice (military flares)*. On a side note -sic- Fort de France (1965) & Greifwald (1990) were "best-case number #2 & #6 of famous 1997 Potantico Colloque...* Sorry, again in French or in Spanish http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t1104-greifswald-allemagne-1990-fusees-eclairantesRegards,Gilles
Cas 4 & 5 - (June 19, 1978. Gujan-Mestras (France) & November 5, 1976. Grenoble (France) - are discussed in the French book "Les OVNI du CNES" (the parts it is are one-line but again in French :( by my friends Eric Deguilaume, David Rossoni & Eric Maillot, but the identification is not certain (bolid and helico if my memories are correct), I must admit. Only to point that for this 2 others "best cases" of the paper, conventionnal stimuli cant be excluded and the methology having driven to class them as PAN D by old GEPAN.CNES is really questionable.Thank you to have readed me.CU,Gilles.
PS: Gujan-Mestras case is now reclassed B by GEIPAN: http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/index.php?id=202&cas=1978-06-00525Grenoble le 05/11/76 is now reclassed C: http://www.phenomene-aerospatial.com/ovni-geipan-les-temoignages-isere-38/Gilles
Hmmm... two out of six. That does not speak well for PSH as "the answer" to unidentified phenomena. Also it seems that PSH proponents are using "misidentification" as a "proof" of PSH. Saying "Because 'X' is FALSE, PSH must be true" is a bit of "over reach". "Misidentification" is not necessarily delusion it may just be just misidentification. That's the kind of "magical" thinking that gets "believers" in trouble-- that they have a lock on the "truth". As I recall the PSH is that people "mythologize" what they are seeing and their reaction / interpretation is based on their "mythology" and has nothing to do with "reality". Zoam has gone so far as to say there are no instances of unknown phenomena that are not PSH induced delusions. That kind of thinking leads down the merry path of "nothing is real" [which apparently is what happens at the quantum level but let's not go there]. Any observed phenomena could be mythologized delusions and PSH cannot say without a doubt one class of observation is "real" while another one class is "delusion". The "PSH overlords" are wearing no clothes. Saying "It's delusion because I say it's delusion." is not Science. So far it seems they a just pushing an "unprovable hypothesis" meaning it is just as much "pseudo-science" as the people they are attacking... They might as well say that we live in an computer simulation--- which is just as unprovable.Believers don't get a free ride either. So far there is no hard evidence that supports the Earth is being visited by something from another planet. ETH- Prove it. Hard proof. Repeatable proof. Conspiracy theory is not proof. No Proof? Get over it and get a life.
By gishzida, at Tuesday, June 02, 2015
Case no. 3: December 30, 1966. Haynesville (Louisiana) Ð Classi®cation: CE-2.Allow us (French Team)) - but you can help too - some time to verify (eliminating or validating) a simple candidat: the Moon. This possible candidat was proposed 20 years ago in France.Regards,Gilles
"two out of six?" I don't think so. But even if it were all six, six unresolved reports of failure to identify cherry-picked out of thousands means what? If these six cases were anything significant we all know them well today. Instead they're relatively obscure "UFO" reports chosen just for that reason. But now explained. PSHers are not using misidentification as proof of anything; misidentification is not a delusion. Joel, you confuse "delusion," an individual expression of mental illness, with collective or mass "social delusion," a widespread false belief about the world in a population, within limits of time, location, and culture--a mania! "That does not speak well for PSH as 'the answer' to unidentified phenomena."The PSH is not "the answer" to individual reports--those "answers" would be any of the many mundane stimuli that instigate "UFO" reports; the PSH explains why people make "UFO" reports in societies affected by the "UFO" myth and collective delusion. Some kinds of reports illustrate the veracity of the PSH more than others, but the PSH is not "the answer" to any report; it's the social background at all reports.The myth is the idea, the false belief that there is an "unidentified phenomenon.""Zoam has gone so far as to say there are no instances of unknown phenomena that are not PSH induced delusions."See above; I've said nothing of the sort; I have not explained any report as the product of an idiosyncratic false belief about the world--a delusion caused by mental illness. The PSH explains all reports as expressions of the "UFO" myth and delusion--the latent false belief that REAL "UFOs" exist in the world and that the mere failure to identify an ambiguous visual stimulus somehow creates a "UFO." But then there's no reason to believe that's the case. In fact, it's very good reason to think the opposite: actual knowledge of the world displaces ignorant fantasies.All the rest is Joel appealing to ignorance, the go-to logical fallacy for mystery-mongering "UFO" loons.The PSH overlords say it's a delusion because there's no evidence of Real "UFOs."You keep forgetting that part. (g)
By zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, June 02, 2015
Aaron,You are pushing your luck. The fact that you are willing to sprinkle ad hominem attacks among your remarks marks you as a crackpot and/or a bully. I learned from my mistakes... you apparently have not. [Rich feel free to edit or deny this post]You said: "...the false belief that there is an "unidentified phenomenon.""You should learn not to make "blanket statements" It's is unscientific. If there are no unidentified phenomena then "Science is done" and you can quit working at your current institute of higher learning since there is nothing left for you to teach or to research or to write papers about... and you do not need to pull "believers" chains since everything is already settled, at least in your mind.I'm not appealing to anything -- my purpose is just to keep you honest. You said "PSH is not "the answer" to any report; it's the social background at all reports."I'd say "Prove it." but we both know you can't-- That statement is unprovable. If it is not "the answer" then what use is it? As for the difference between personal and social delusion: as far as can be observed there isn't one. A nation that commits genocide is no more sane that an individual that does so. World War Two and the Cold War are great examples of this. Read Max Tegmark's paper on "atomic war from a cosmic perspective" and STUPID... he points out how crazy the arms race is. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.00246v1.pdf If it ain't real or reasonable it ain't real regardless of the number of people that believe or observe it. But if it is real then what?You certainly stick to your guns that UFOs don't exist and mystery lights or other phenomena are delusional... but that is a one note symphony. What if the observed phenomena is real and not a known object but not ET? But that's impossible, right?Your argument with ETHers is much like the argument that Satanists have with Catholics... yet the Catholics need the Satanists as much as the Satanists need the Catholics. You can't get anywhere (in atmosphere) without friction... What if you were to give the ETHer's no attention? Your attachment to them is beginning to sound like it too is partly delusional.good luck with that. I've got better things to do.
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile