Mom, dad I want to be a armchair expert who has an agenda of debunking all ufo sightings
So it's years of study of Astronomy for me
UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Mom, dad I want to be a armchair expert who has an agenda of debunking all ufo sightings
So it's years of study of Astronomy for me
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Would that be the person who didn't even have the presence of mind to take note of the time?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The person who knew it wasn't a star or a planet because it was moving from the NE towards the peak of Mt. Shasta and flashing like a strobe.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
MR: "Four moving lights in the sky? Could it be UFOs??"
Me:
"Here is the sky
- on that exact day,
- at that exact time,
- at that exact location,
- looking in that exact direction,
- showing exactly one light, followed shortly by three more lights,
- moving up the sky over the mountain,
- scintillating just like they should be for objects in exactly those atmospheric conditions."
MR: "Definitely an unsolvable mystery! What an inexplicable place is the world!"
Me:
"Here is the sky
- on that exact day,
- at that exact time,
- at that exact location,
- looking in that exact direction,
- showing exactly one light, followed shortly by three more lights,
- moving up the sky over the mountain,
- scintillating just like they should be for objects in exactly those atmospheric conditions."
MR: "Definitely an unsolvable mystery! What an inexplicable place is the world!"
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I never said it was an unsolvable mystery. It's just not a star or planet. See posted link about "earth lights".
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/page-396#post-3708300
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Uh. North East.
Isn't it funny how the events of an account can get mangled in the retelling? Huh!
It's almost like we should probably not take every claimed fact of an account as gospel - especially when it's passed down from teller to teller...
It's almost as if ... as if your memory is not completely reliable!
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
How does it traveling from the NE and halting over the peak of Mt. Shasta entail it is the Planet Venus? Does Venus do that? No..It doesn't move like that at all.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Oh, so you're going back and correcting your faulty memory of reading the incident?
Who was it who said perception and memory are perfectly reliable? Who was it who attempted to use that supposed reliability as a defense that people don't forget or alter facts of accounts?
Oh right. That was you.
Please take time time to actually read the articles you post here. It would go a long way to separating the high quality wheat from the low-quality chaff of your dalliances.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It has been demonstrated - on this very page, and for posterity - that neither you, nor the eyewitness, have the skills or inclination to accurately recount what was and was not seen.
You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but that opinion is weighed against your historical inability or unwillingness to bring any rational analysis, logic - or even faithful recounting - to bear on the subject.
So, do you have any reports where the erstwhile eyewitness has the presence of mind to record something as fundamental as the time of the events?
(Please post links, do not try to write your own version of the account - it is as likely to be littered with fabrications as not.)
You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but that opinion is weighed against your historical inability or unwillingness to bring any rational analysis, logic - or even faithful recounting - to bear on the subject.
So, do you have any reports where the erstwhile eyewitness has the presence of mind to record something as fundamental as the time of the events?
(Please post links, do not try to write your own version of the account - it is as likely to be littered with fabrications as not.)
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You can't say that. You weren't there, remember? That "I wasn't there" door swings both ways.
(See above, under "unwillingness to bring logic to bear").
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The eyewitness account is of moving lights that travel across the sky and hover over Mt. Shasta. There's no debating it. Either you dismiss their account or you accept it. It's obvious you are doing the former to fit your (or is it James's?) forgone conclusion that they are stars or planets. No amount of vaunted expertise or astronomical knowledge on your part can excuse that. Google confirmation bias.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I can say that because I know the eyewitness's account rules out stars or planets. The lights were observed moving across the sky and hovering over Mt Shasta. That excludes the possibility of stars or planets.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Nothing in that account rules out Mars and three bright stars as the culprits
As previously stated:
You are in no position to rebut that.
However, being able to show objective irrefutable facts (i.e. that four celestial bodies were at the right place, at the right time, and quite plausibly doing the right thing) is objectively much more reliable evidence - in terms of objectivity, repeatability and independent verification - than a demonstrably inexperienced eyewitness. Objectivity, repeatability and independent verification is the Holy Grail of analysis.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
LOL Except that Mars and three stars don't move across the sky and hover over Mt Shasta.
Thanks, DaveC.
I think we're done with this one.
Not Venus, then, but something a lot like it. Also, something I suggested might be the case as one of the first thoughts I had.
This sort of possibility doesn't ever feature on MR's radar. And he's still in denial, as usual.
Let us review what the eyewitness said. My own comments are interpolated in bold type:
Now let's check Magical Realist's recall of what the witness said he saw.
Witnesses are error-prone, some more than others. If you imagine they are perfect, you'll go right on believing the woo, even when - like here - the correct solution is right in front of your nose.
In this case, the guy made a rookie error. That's life. We can't blame him for being human, or for not being an astronomer.
We can blame you, MR, for being gullible and lazy, especially since you should know better after all these years.
Your claim that it was not stars or a planet is utterly baseless and worthless. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Pull your head in.
I suggested, first of all, that you, MR, should try to rule out that it might have been a planet. I suggested you check Venus and - yes - Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. You did nothing but make empty claims and sulk, as usual. Now that we solved the case and the thing turned out to be Mars, you're in an even bigger sulk. You're useless at this.
But pay attention now. There was no "foregone conclusion". There was no a priori assumption on my part. I merely suggested a line of investigation. You refused to investigate, and now here you are with egg on your face, looking stupid again and riled up because my hunch bore fruit this time.
Suck it up, MR. Your sulking isn't helping you.
Case closed. Let's move on. No more sulking!
About twenty minutes before it got dark I saw a bright white spherically shaped ball of light coming from a north-east direction. Note that the Earth rotates west to east, so stars and planets are observed to rise in the east. At first I told myself it must be a drone. But as it flew slowly SLOWLY and silently SILENTLY over the tops of the forest it it began to act like a strobe light. TWINKLING. What else moves slowly across the sky and twinkles, kids? It eventually flew over to, hmmm maybe a couple of thousand feet No way to judge the distance. This is just a guess to the top of the mountain off to the right a bit from my angle. It basically just stopped or parked itself in one spot Like stars seem to do if you only watch them for a shortish time and began to strobe.
I just sat there and watched it wondering at this point if it was mechanical or spiritual because it could be anything. It could be Mars, which is part of "everything". It was by itself for about ten minutes or so and then, all of a sudden three more of the same bright white lights of spheres came from the same direction that the first one came. Time frame is about right for the other bright stars to rise above the horizon. As they got closer to the first one they too began to strobe. More twinkling.
They ended up stopping in place maybe five hundred feet or so from the first one. Again, this distance guesses are meaningless. At this point I was taken back.
All four of these orbs where just sitting there for about 30 or 40 minutes flashing like a strobe light. Twinkling like stars. They would get very bright and increase in size to up to maybe 3-4 times their initial size to decreasing in size and brightness to a barely visible low spherical light. This is what twinkling stars do. The size variation thing is an illusion, of course. I thought to myself they must be communicating or doing something energetically in that space. Cognitive bias towards the woo.
I just sat there and watched it wondering at this point if it was mechanical or spiritual because it could be anything. It could be Mars, which is part of "everything". It was by itself for about ten minutes or so and then, all of a sudden three more of the same bright white lights of spheres came from the same direction that the first one came. Time frame is about right for the other bright stars to rise above the horizon. As they got closer to the first one they too began to strobe. More twinkling.
They ended up stopping in place maybe five hundred feet or so from the first one. Again, this distance guesses are meaningless. At this point I was taken back.
All four of these orbs where just sitting there for about 30 or 40 minutes flashing like a strobe light. Twinkling like stars. They would get very bright and increase in size to up to maybe 3-4 times their initial size to decreasing in size and brightness to a barely visible low spherical light. This is what twinkling stars do. The size variation thing is an illusion, of course. I thought to myself they must be communicating or doing something energetically in that space. Cognitive bias towards the woo.
Now let's check Magical Realist's recall of what the witness said he saw.
Wrong. The eyewitness does not describe anything "flying across the sky".
Your false recollection doesn't help rule out anything.
Stars and planets twinkle, especially when near the horizon. The witness's description of "act like a strobe light" is just the witness struggling to describe what he saw accurately. We know this isn't an experienced or careful observer of the night sky.
Wrong again. You're pretty sure of a lot of things that just ain't so. MR ought to learn. But he refuses. Why?
The investigation that took place here and the data that led to it and the conclusion drawn are all based on the account given.
Witnesses are error-prone, some more than others. If you imagine they are perfect, you'll go right on believing the woo, even when - like here - the correct solution is right in front of your nose.
We listened. We used the information provided to solve the case. A pretty good job, given that the report is (as is typical) low on relevant detail.
He didn't know what it was. If he knew what it was, he wouldn't have made such a fuss about it. Since he didn't know what it was, clearly he also didn't know what it wasn't.
In this case, the guy made a rookie error. That's life. We can't blame him for being human, or for not being an astronomer.
We can blame you, MR, for being gullible and lazy, especially since you should know better after all these years.
You have done zip, zero, nada, nothing to rule out that what was seen was, among other things, the planet Mars.
Your claim that it was not stars or a planet is utterly baseless and worthless. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Pull your head in.
Right. There's no need, because we solved the case. There's nothing for you to debate.
As usual, you didn't pay attention.
I suggested, first of all, that you, MR, should try to rule out that it might have been a planet. I suggested you check Venus and - yes - Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. You did nothing but make empty claims and sulk, as usual. Now that we solved the case and the thing turned out to be Mars, you're in an even bigger sulk. You're useless at this.
But pay attention now. There was no "foregone conclusion". There was no a priori assumption on my part. I merely suggested a line of investigation. You refused to investigate, and now here you are with egg on your face, looking stupid again and riled up because my hunch bore fruit this time.
Suck it up, MR. Your sulking isn't helping you.
Mars and stars do move across the sky, but slowly. Just as described by the witness.
Case closed. Let's move on. No more sulking!
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
"But as it flew slowly and silently over the tops of the forest it it began to act like a strobe light. It eventually flew over to, hmmm maybe a couple of thousand feet to the top of the mountain off to the right a bit from my angle. It basically just stopped or parked itself in one spot and began to strobe."
Yep...definitely not a star or planet..
How do "we" know that?
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
: insert foghorn 's list of quotes where you repeatedly claim not to judge, assert, analyze or draw conclusions or whatever your current hypocrisy-of-the-day might be :
Stay in your lane; leave the analysis to the grownups who have the skills and inclination.
The witness also said "...it could be anything." which is our cue to analyze and interpret his fumblings for understanding.
It has been explained how inexperienced observers see things moving and also see the same things not moving. His description is well within line of the celestial objects visible during that time.
Since you have admittedly no skill or interest in the sciences of physics, optics or perception, you have no argument otherwise. Any opinions you might have are given appropriate weight.
Because he is so inexperienced that he delivered a crap account of events. If he didn't have the presence of mind to observe the single most basic unit of an event - the time - then it is prudent to assume he is capable of being just as sloppy at any aspect that is more complex than that.
There is ample objective, irrefutable, independently verifiable evidence that it could be bog standard celestial objects - of which there were just the right amount, in just the right place, at just the right time, doing just the right thing. There is zero evidence of any other explanation. There is also zero evidence that there is - or ever will be - any more information bound to come to light about this hapless witness' story.
I think as this point you are just trolling - pretending to be bloody-headed just for the amusement of watching us analyze - something which you not only don't bother to do - but demonstrably disdain. That's OK. It's all on-record.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
LOL So just because he didn't report the time of the sighting makes him an unreliable and inexperienced witness? Nope. That doesn't follow at all. You assume the incompetence of the eyewitness only because it fits your contrived narrative of the lights being stars and planets. A made up narrative that doesn't fit the details of the eyewitness account at all.
Last edited: