237 replies to this topic

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 17 June 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

If you actually think that any part of this segment has any impact on the flare conclusion, it belies only one thing; you don't know much about this case at all.

This segment wasn't concentrating on the 10 PM event that was captured on video by Mike K, Chuck R, Tom K, and Lynne K from four different locations.  It includes an interview with Mike K and shows his video, but that is probably because it was simply the most famous piece of footage from the night overall.  The bulk of the testimony in this segment that you're on about is regarding the earlier events that didn't involve the flares.

As such, it does nothing to the flare conclusion whatsoever.

One might ask why they neglected to include the only footage that does exist of the earlier events though?  And why they neglected to include the testimony of witnesses who identified the earlier events as planes in formation?  Well, the name of the show can answer that.

If you want to discuss the earlier sightings represented in this highlighted segment of yours, you may want to read this first.

Cheers.

I know about the two incidents and I know they were distinct.  I am fully aware of that.  The other sighting even more convincing was reported by eyewitnesses to be a huge delta shaped craft that flew low over houses and was said to be the size of an aircraft carrier. It was said to be grey dull metallic slow and totally silent.  Fife Symmington reported seeing something similar.

Just one thing about the supposed planes flying in formation.  The same thing was reported during the Hudson UFO wave ten years earlier.  Interesting that the plane formation in both cases was seen before the main sightings;  a bit of a coincidence?   My view is that this was done deliberately to shift public opinion.  We know that this happened at Roswell; first the USAF declare that they have in their possession a crashed UFO.  The next day it's a weather balloon.

This is nothing new; it's all been done many times before.  There are loads of examples if one searches diligently.  Is this part of a co-ordinated debunking attempt or some wags (sorry for that word again) playing a stunt?  I don't honestly know but it is rather a coincidence.

Edited by zoser, 17 June 2012 - 05:01 PM.

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 17 June 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

I know about the two incidents and I know they were distinct.  I am full aware of that.  The other sighting even more convincing was reported by eyewitnesses to be a huge delta shaped craft that flew low over houses and was said to be the size of an aircraft carrier. It was said to be grey dull metallic slow and totally silent.  Fyfe Symmington reported seeing something similar.

So we are in agreement that this does nothing to the 10 PM flare conclusion?

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 17 June 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

So we are in agreement that this does nothing to the 10 PM flare conclusion?

Watch the clip; there are several credible witnesses that saw the object at fairly close range.  They were adamant that what they saw were no flares; their words not mine and the timings and distances involved support this; It doesn't matter what we think it's what they testify to.

[Hazzard]

Your conclusions are based on wishful thinking more than what the evidence actually tells you. This might have to do with the way you do your research. It seems to me that you are only looking for the things that supports your preconceived notion. Cherry picking.

That is not the way to do propper research.

I have a friendly advice for you, zoser,... Study science, real science, this will teach you what the available evidence really tell you.

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 17 June 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Watch the clip; there are several credible witnesses that saw the object at fairly close range.  They were adamant that what they saw were no flares; their words not mine and the timings and distances involved support this; It doesn't matter what we think it's what they testify to.

I watched the clip before I responded in your thread.  I watched that episode of Unsolved Mysteries long long ago.

Of course they were adamant that they didn't see flares.  They weren't talking about the 10 PM event that involved flares.

So again I ask you, are we in agreement that this segment does absolutely nothing to the 10 PM flare conclusion?

[Hazzard]

Good lord, he cant even get that right!

[Coffey]

Hazzard, on 17 June 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Your conclusions are based on wishful thinking more than what the evidence actually tells you. This might have to do with the way you do your research. It seems to me that you are only looking for the things that supports your preconceived notion. Cherry picking.

That is not the way to do propper research.

I have a friendly advice for you, zoser,... Study science, real science, this will teach you what the available evidence really tell you.

I get it was flares, mostly from what Boon has wrote in the past.

But what you jsut said is a bit strange. Study science... Are you telling him to study textbooks? Or actually study Science? There is  huge difference. Also Science is constantly evolving. You can't "study" it once and know everything. To really study science you would have to devote your hole life to Science. Out of curiosity have you devoted your lfie to science?

Sorry but I don't like it when people use "sceince" as an answer as Science isn't complete 100% fact. It's mostly theory and past knowledge, ready to be changed any minute by a new theory or discovery. Science evolves everyday.

Edited by Coffey, 17 June 2012 - 05:46 PM.

[zoser]

Hazzard, on 17 June 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Your conclusions are based on wishful thinking more than what the evidence actually tells you. This might have to do with the way you do your research. It seems to me that you are only looking for the things that supports your preconceived notion. Cherry picking.

That is not the way to do propper research.

I have a friendly advice for you, zoser,... Study science, real science, this will teach you what the available evidence really tell you.

Modern science?  Nuclear reactors spewing out their poisons; fossil fuels in cars for the last 100 years; burning coal in homes slowly poisoning the planet that our ancients were doing to keep warm.  Forgive me if I don't bow down to science just yet,

[Hazzard]

Coffey, on 17 June 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

Sorry but I don't like it when people use "sceince" as an answer as Science isn't complete 100% fact. It's mostly theory and past knowledge, ready to be changed any minute by a new theory or discovery. Science evolves everyday.

Sorry,... I had the four steps of the scientific method in mind when I wrote that. Science instead of pseudo science.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Edited by Hazzard, 17 June 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Hazzard, on 17 June 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

Good lord, he cant even get that right!

I know, it is quite odd.

And I'm not even asking him to accept the 10 PM conclusion as factual, only to make the distinction that this segment from Unsolved Mysteries was centered on the earlier events and therefore makes little if any contribution to the 10 PM event.

In fact, this segment reinforces and confirms the 10 PM flare conclusion; which is the exact opposite of what zoser claims in the OP and in the naming of the thread.

Using testimony about the earlier events and claiming that it disproves conclusions about the later events is intellectually dishonest, a strawman, ignorance, or complete incompetence.  I'm not sure which applies in this instance, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with simple ignorance.

[The New Richard Nixon]

I was on holiday so no time, and anyway I think you present us with your evidence not some videos, just because its a video means its true

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 17 June 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

I know, it is quite odd.

And I'm not even asking him to accept the 10 PM conclusion as factual, only to make the distinction that this segment from Unsolved Mysteries was centered on the earlier events and therefore makes little if any contribution to the 10 PM event.

In fact, this segment reinforces and confirms the 10 PM flare conclusion; which is the exact opposite of what zoser claims in the OP and in the naming of the thread.

Using testimony about the earlier events and claiming that it disproves conclusions about the later events is intellectually dishonest, a strawman, ignorance, or complete incompetence.  I'm not sure which applies in this instance, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with simple ignorance.

Stop the intellectualism and watch the testimonies.  So simple.  Saying of a wise man "Intellectualism is a disease".  Listen to the people who were there.

Edited by zoser, 17 June 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[booNyzarC]

zoser, on 17 June 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Stop the intellectualism and watch the testimonies.  So simple.  Saying of a wise man "Intellectualism is a disease".  Listen to the people who were there.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that I watched your clip?

As a matter of fact, I've watched all of the documentaries about the Phoenix Lights multiple times.  I've listened to and read all of the testimonies multiple times.  I've not reached my conclusions from an uninformed position.

Why do you keep on avoiding the core point that I'm making here?

I'm confident that your evasion of that point is clear to the majority of readers here, so I'll not waste more effort on trying to discuss this topic rationally with you.

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 17 June 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that I watched your clip?

As a matter of fact, I've watched all of the documentaries about the Phoenix Lights multiple times.  I've listened to and read all of the testimonies multiple times.  I've not reached my conclusions from an uninformed position.

Why do you keep on avoiding the core point that I'm making here?

I'm confident that your evasion of that point is clear to the majority of readers here, so I'll not waste more effort on trying to discuss this topic rationally with you.

So what is your impression of the testimonies?  To me they are all consistent in relation to each other and to the facts.  i.e regarding when the USAF claimed they dropped flares and when the sightings occurred.  I don't want to get drawn into some ancillary issue; what are you saying?  Are you saying that they are referring to some earlier sighting and that sightings later were in fact fares? If so we still need to explain what they saw.

[DONTEATUS]

Like this story right ? " Believe it or not the day will come when all skeptics,and believers will stand on the same playing field and gaze upon the bright silver craft as it settles onto the ground. ANd for the first time in mankinds history all the answers of the universe will be given to us  Or not "
This is science you take from it what you may,It gives of its self as it does, only after the time spent is looked upon by many and they all decide to look even futher, just for science sake.
The Answers may change even this is why we continue to look. But Not to Look ,Not to Listen, not to understand that all is just a preception of a ever changing universe !
Our trick is to just be part of this time and place.