Have you ever noticed?...

[electrafixtion]

Actually it was several articles from highly respected authors, spread over three or four different magazines.
And the question is, why would they STILL be trying to get Mach 7 and higher from highly expensive test programmes if something like the Aurora was in service?

Hey Oli
Thanks for the reply. Who is "they" emboldened above?

See below for my inspired response to the first part of your response to my questions and PLEASE don't hesitate to fire back. This matter is "key" to me because so much of the speculation that I and others make is contingent on the act of witness testimony.

 

[Oli]

Hey Oli
Thanks for the reply. Who is "they" emboldened above?

NASA/ USAF/ USN/ ONERA (French)/ the Aussies/ the Russians/ the Germans... (that I know of off the top of my head).

See below for my inspired response to the first part of your response to my questions and PLEASE don't hesitate to fire back. This matter is "key" to me because so much of the speculation that I and others make is contingent on the act of witness testimony.

There's a whole slew of reports on the (un)reliability of eye witnesses, and add that to the fact people "adjust" their memories, or can be led to alter them depending upon who asks the questions (or even how the questions are asked).
I have a PDF (lost the location on the net) called Eyewitness Identification A Policy Report (admittedly to do with criminal proceedings) published by thejusticeproject.org.
This is merely one of many documents that delve into the reliability of eyewitnesses and the psychology of human perception.
Or another (again, on my hard drive: by a guy called Tim Printy).
From THE ABILITY OF EYEWITNESSES

During World War II, experienced pilots on both sides often misidentified many things. Not only did their gun crews try and shoot down planets but they also made numerous mistakes in identifying earthly objects. During the battle of the Coral Sea, a Japanese scout plane misidentified an Oiler and a Destroyer for a Cruiser and Aircraft Carrier.

Does that mean that pilots are lousy observers? No, but it does mean that when a pilot is presented as an "expert witness", one should not accept their testimony as fact.
Are Police officers any better than pilots? Alas, police officers suffer from misperceptions as well and there are numerous examples that I have produced before. Allan Hendry discovered that 94% of the UFOs reported by law enforcement individuals were misperceptions

UFO "investigators" often allow misperceptions to highlight their reports as genuine UFOs. For instance, Peter Davenport of the National UFO Center constantly grabs these events and appears on Art Bell's radio program to proclaim it as a genuine UFO event. In August 1999, he made extraordinary claims about a -16.5 magnitude fireball. He claimed the meteor moved too fast to be a meteor. However, he based this on the fact that the "UFO" traversed half the sky in a matter of seconds. However, these values are typical for a meteor. The witness's reports were typical observations of a meteor and I recognized it right away. How can UFO investigators make such mistakes? This is because the preconception extends to the investigator too

More than 90% of these reports are found to be hoaxes or poor accounts of well-known or trivial events. Under those circumstances an unexplained residue of perhaps 10% is no basis to believe in miracles. It is more reasonable to assume that this residue is so distorted or incomplete as to defy all analysis. (Condon et al. 842)

 

[electrafixtion]

Jimmy Carter reported seeing a UFO. He even filed a report. He saw Venus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter_UFO_incident

As Oli states eye witnesses are not credible.

It is SUSPECTED that what Jimmy Carter saw was thought to be Venus, not proved.

Concerning eye witnesses. As Oli points out, eye witness testimony is not infallible or 100% reliable. However, what happens when the number of expert witnesses reaches a number of 500. Are they all wrong? I don;t think so. The law of averages dictates a rate of accuracy far higher than a number that would constitute a complete lack of confidence or accuracy.

Then we are left with many, many examples of flawless video observation. These are examples of the type that analysts can't find anything "wrong" with them. That includes analysts that still feel the objects may portray hoaxes, they just can't fathom how and what is being used to perpetrate the hoax. Nonetheless, they are forced to technically conclude the footage is legitimate until proved otherwise.

 

[stereologist]

The opening sentence of this Wiki article is telling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification

Just check out the first paragraph. People believe other people when they are told something face to face.

The statement here is that over 75% of people exonerated by DNA evidence were convicted on eyewitness evidence.

 

[stereologist]

It is SUSPECTED that what Jimmy Carter saw was thought to be Venus, not proved.

Carter did not see a UFO he is SUSPECTED of seeing a UFO.

Concerning eye witnesses. As Oli points out, eye witness testimony is not infallible or 100% reliable.

It's more like eyewitness accounts are not 0% unreliable.

The law of averages dictates a rate of accuracy far higher than a number that would constitute a complete lack of confidence or accuracy.

What is this law of averages? That's a thought used by gamblers to support their betting hunches.

Then we are left with many, many examples of flawless video observation. These are examples of the type that analysts can't find anything "wrong" with them. That includes analysts that still feel the objects may portray hoaxes, they just can't fathom how and what is being used to perpetrate the hoax. Nonetheless, they are forced to technically conclude the footage is legitimate until proved otherwise.

This is a meaningless and vague statement of no value to this thread.

 

[John99]

Concerning eye witnesses. As Oli points out, eye witness testimony is not infallible or 100% reliable. However, what happens when the number of expert witnesses reaches a number of 500. Are they all wrong? I don;t think so.

it is definately possible and some would say likely because afa i know there are no ufo experts. 500 people when there are billions of people on the earth is not so extraordinary.

 

[Oli]

Heinkel He 113 in combat.
31 May 1940 - A 213 sqn Hurricane pilot claims to have shot one down.
10 Jun 1940 - A case of mistaken identity ... caused one pilot (of a Spitfire) to dive toward a "friendly" formation of He 113s.
30 Jun 1940 - Air attaché Bern confirms the He 113 is a series production model.
3 Aug 1940 - RAF publication The Aeroplane states that three he 113s "have been shot down over this country in the past week".
23 Jan 1941 - AI (Air Intelligence) produces first summary of He 113 based on all intelligence accumulated. It states that the aircraft can be employed in either a fighter-bomber role or high-speed reconnaissance role. Additionally night-fighting equipment can be added. ... AI believes that the Soviet Union is predominantly producing the He 113, under license.
20 Jun 1941 - Berlin correspondent of Giornale d'Italia reports that the He 113 been "distinguishing itself among German fighters"...
30 Dec 1941 - French intelligence reports that the He 112/113 is being tested as a torpedo bomber and is already employed as a night-fighter over Belgium, Holland, and the Rhineland.
28 Jun 1943 - Lt S. A. Peck of 432 Sqn positively identifies as He 113 fighters that attacked his bomber formation on a raid over St. Nazaire.

Selected excerpts from Luftwaffe by Chris Staerck and Paul Sinnott, pp 38 & 39.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PPA38,M1

And the significance?
The Heinkel He 113 did not exist - it was made up by German intelligence, based on a handful of He 100 aircraft painted in different squadron colours and their photos published in German newspapers.
The aircraft never saw combat, indeed it didn't enter service or production - yet they were reported in droves during the Battle of Britain, and for some time afterwards.
Pilots - reliable eye witnesses?

 

[electrafixtion]

Carter did not see a UFO he is SUSPECTED of seeing a UFO.


It's more like eyewitness accounts are not 0% unreliable.



What is this law of averages? That's a thought used by gamblers to support their betting hunches.



This is a meaningless and vague statement of no value to this thread.

Anyone can be argumentative, but few can fail at it so completely.

In this post alone you have explained (and most eloquently I might add) that 1) You have dyslexia,

2) you can't comprehend 5th grade reading material (most likely due to the dyslexia)

3) You struggle with the most basic of mathematic problem solving strategies,

and

4) You failed elementary level economics?

If nothing else, you are entertaining at very least.

 

[electrafixtion]

it is definately possible and some would say likely because afa i know there are no ufo experts. 500 people when there are billions of people on the earth is not so extraordinary.

500 people is just am imaginary number that has been exceeded many times over John99. There are MANY UFO experts, just ask one, but there are far less avionic technicians, pilots, astronauts, radar technicians, test pilots, military personnel, etc, that have in fact reported seeing clear evidence of UFOs. They don't claim to be "UFO Experts" but they are very accredited in their respective fields of expertise and are depended on to make sight based judgments and air born identifications on a daily basis. Even to the effect that other's lives depend on such proved personal capabilities.

 

[leopold]

More than 90% of these reports are found to be hoaxes or poor accounts of well-known or trivial events. Under those circumstances an unexplained residue of perhaps 10% is no basis to believe in miracles. It is more reasonable to assume that this residue is so distorted or incomplete as to defy all analysis. (Condon et al. 842)

condon is a firm believer in the non existence of UFOs.
kehoe makes it clear that condons colorado conference was a sham from the get go.

 

[Oli]

condon is a firm believer in the non existence of UFOs.
kehoe makes it clear that condons colorado conference was a sham from the get go.

And?
Condon isn't the only one to come to the 10% figure.
Conversely, Keyhoe is/ was a firm believer in UFOs - his report would be biased the other way, neh?

 

[leopold]

And?
Condon isn't the only one to come to the 10% figure.
Conversely, Keyhoe is/ was a firm believer in UFOs - his report would be biased the other way, neh?

i'm not sure whether kehoe believed or actually knew.

 

[electrafixtion]

condon is a firm believer in the non existence of UFOs.
kehoe makes it clear that condons colorado conference was a sham from the get go.

I also think it's really important to address the fact that this document is severely dated. The problem with attempting to dismiss a great deal of the reports these days is the advent of common hand held video devices. There is just no way that many of the reports made over the last 20 years can be successfully swept under the disinformation rug. All they disinformers can do is to state for the record that they BELIEVE what is being reported is either a hoax or mistaken natural phenomenon. The trouble is they duplicate the hoaxes and they can't legitimately define the natural phenomenon.

It's also interesting to note that reports prior to the Condon Report came to the official conclusion that UFOs were unexplainable phenomenon that we could do nothing about. They were considered technological in nature.

 

[leopold]

the biggest problem to all of this is a total lack of physical evidence.
pictures and video can be doctored, and like oli stated above eyewitnesses aren't always reliable.

i'm still sitting on the fence.

 

[spidergoat]

You have evidence of something registering on a videotape. From there, it's a big stretch to imagine what that something is. Unidentified is still unidentified, how do you have belief or non-belief in something so vague? It could be aliens, but that is unlikely. One would first have to discount all likely explanations.

 

[jpappl]

the biggest problem to all of this is a total lack of physical evidence.
pictures and video can be doctored, and like oli stated above eyewitnesses aren't always reliable.

i'm still sitting on the fence.

Ditto.

Whether there is a dis-information campaign or not, whether they have managed to hide all of the evidence thus far.

With everyone running around with cameras both still and vid, it's either just a matter of time or it's not really occuring and they are all hoaxes or have prosaic explanations.

A multiple-video-photo from different angles from different people should suffice. If any one has the above please post the link. But thus far it has always been a one-sided shot from one camera/vid and it's usually blurry. Whereas photos or vids of known planes tend to be or are often clear. So somethings gotta give, and again with the number of cameras out there it should be attainable if there really is something to it.

There definitely is alot of odd stuff out there being captured but not enough in my opinion to agree to say for sure it has to be ET or even a completely unique home grown craft. You know like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZpqpBVOa1U

 

[electrafixtion]

You have evidence of something registering on a videotape. From there, it's a big stretch to imagine what that something is. Unidentified is still unidentified, how do you have belief or non-belief in something so vague? It could be aliens, but that is unlikely. One would first have to discount all likely explanations.

It *is* really great to hear from you SG, like all those on the SF, whether they agree with me or not. The reason is simple. I don't normally have this quality of brain exchange elsewhere. I respect those that don't agree with me as long as they maintain a respect for me.

It's not really that big of a stretch at all and most scientists agree that intelligent life elsewhere is probable. It's just that the distance gets in the way of them rationally settling the issue. Truth is, if these devices have shown any one quality, it's that they do not operate via technologies we normally incorporate into our existence as a species. They more so "seem" to demonstrate a mastery of the presently far fetched imaginings (many proved on paper) within the realm of quantum physics. Space folding, dimensional manipulation and gravity manipulation unlike anything we use in common forms of transportation. These may seem to us to be just nonsensical science fiction, and you know what I think, they very well could be. But I am intelligent enough (as is everyone here) to know that newly discovered alternate technologies are demonstrated from time to time that accomplish certain ends that do not adhere to previously imagined means. Correlations with respect to common goals are discarded and new avenues of previously unexplored means do in fact reveal themselves.

I like what you state Spidergoat concerning "unidentified is still unidentified". That's a fact.

"It could be aliens, but that is unlikely" is the most intelligent thing I have read in this thread so far because it's unquestionably THE TRUTH. I agree with you fully.

Arguing and convincing is not my intent with respect to my speculations. I only seek intelligent possibilities and worthy imaginings. Pseudoscience is NOT a place of force fed teachings or even a refinement of my many inadequacies as a formally educated human being. (they are countless) Pseudoscience is a place of discussion for the imagined yet unproved sciences. Maybe even only their basic appearances.

The only truth concerning this curiosity is that there is no formal truth. No matter how much certain individuals wish there was.

This is what we know about triangles. The phenomenon is photo documented with exceptionally high quality photos as far back as the late 80s. NO ONE has been able to refute these device's photo evidence. No one. The investigations into this phenomenon have been both intense and thorough. What are they? I don't claim to know, but I suspect and speculate, as did those who years later investigated Jimmy Carter's supposed UFO sighting, (so what?) that these devices are man made. I do not believe that they are formally government researched vehicles as evidenced by Oli's research. I FULLY believe Oli even if I don't fully agree with all his notions.

It's my feeling that fully concealed or disguised agencies that know no monetary boundaries fund this project and those like it. I am certainly not ready to prescribe to the notion that any particular country has a secret air to space fleet or a parallel secret world government. I also do not believe that we are secretly in cahoots with "the aliens" and that this is one of their latest sports models at some S4 intergalactic proving grounds or even a used flying saucer lot known as Groom Lake. All I do know is that these vehicles exist and that there is positively no public record of these vehicle's development or testing.

A VERY important consideration within the realm of this speculation's claim to imaginings is that these vehicle's, and even more nothing like them, have been seen entering and exiting the oceans around the world by reputable naval sources such as captains and crew members. Oddly, they do not seem to disturb the water's surface coming or going! Sometimes they are observed navigating slightly beneath the ocean's surface in small fleets. I know it sounds like stuff right out of a comic book, but I also know that the people reporting these events are not attention getters that often refuse to release their identities for fear of professional reprisal.

There are simply too many substantiated reports to dismiss all these phenomena because certain of us think they understand enough to dismiss them "off hand"

Holy egotism.

 

[stereologist]

Electric-fiction you posts are nonsense. You claims are vacuous. Your use of English is abysmal. Your writing is overflowing with poor use of words, misused words, and no sense of basic thinking processes.

 

[stereologist]

500 people is just am imaginary number that has been exceeded many times over John99. There are MANY UFO experts, just ask one, but there are far less avionic technicians, pilots, astronauts, radar technicians, test pilots, military personnel, etc, that have in fact reported seeing clear evidence of UFOs. They don't claim to be "UFO Experts" but they are very accredited in their respective fields of expertise and are depended on to make sight based judgments and air born identifications on a daily basis. Even to the effect that other's lives depend on such proved personal capabilities.

Another unqualified nonsense statement.

 

[stereologist]

I also think it's really important to address the fact that this document is severely dated. The problem with attempting to dismiss a great deal of the reports these days is the advent of common hand held video devices. There is just no way that many of the reports made over the last 20 years can be successfully swept under the disinformation rug. All they disinformers can do is to state for the record that they BELIEVE what is being reported is either a hoax or mistaken natural phenomenon. The trouble is they duplicate the hoaxes and they can't legitimately define the natural phenomenon.

So we can all see blurry videos representing nothing? Useful - wrong.

Despite years of so-called sightings all that can be produced are blurry videos showing nothing. Yet there are people like that guy on that bogus show UFO hunters claiming he could have thrown an object and hit the craft. Where was everyone with the cameras then? Wasn't like it happened in a remote part of the world. It was in suburbia.