471 replies to this topic

[taniwha]

mcrom901, on 25 November 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

can you please reference the data in question?

[mcrom901]

taniwha, on 25 November 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

because maccabee suggested so? since the lights lasted more than 12 minutes? that's why "place severe requirements on a conventional phenomenon such as glowing plasma or ball lightning"? check page 7 we've already discussed these... oh, and regarding the size & brightness; all moot points...

btw, that ufo plasma looks like casper the ghost...

[taniwha]

mcrom901, on 25 November 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

because maccabee suggested so? since the lights lasted more than 12 minutes? that's why "place severe requirements on a conventional phenomenon such as glowing plasma or ball lightning"? check page 7 we've already discussed these... oh, and regarding the size & brightness; all moot points...

btw, that ufo plasma looks like casper the ghost...

Hardcase mate... sooo since you asked how many Plasma varieties do you know of that have been simultaneously tracked on radar, air traffic control, witnessed by more than one person and filmed. Thirty years ago this Plasmic Flying Object (PFO) lol, was unique in the world of ufology, but surely comparable sightings have significantly increased exponentially with time and technology? Please refer me a couple of the good cases you know that were then proved to be PFOs lol

[Chrlzs]

I'd suggest that the most interesting stuff on those scanned pages is the response letter, sadly truncated.  Maccabee has some very bad habits:
- tunnel vision - he refuses to think outside his preferred solutions, and often completely ignores obvious possible explanations
- unsupported inferences - he frequently makes assertions that are not backed up by facts, examples or cites
- unsupported conclusions - he often jumps from one fact to another without offering any reasoning nor proof that B must follow A

In this case - a few examples.
1. He cites (an effectively useless) claim that the object must have been '100,000 cd' in brightness.  But he bases that on an illogical and unjustified set of assumptions (see below), and assumes that the supposed radar information must be the same object.  He doesn't compare the figure with anything anyway, so what was the point?  He admits it is an estimate, but offers no error range? - that is exceptionally unscientific - if a uni graduate offered that in their thesis or even as an answer in an assignment, it would gain a big fat zero.  What is more, he later admits that the radar readings (see below) could not be corroborated to the images!!  Yet the initial claim of 100,000 cd stands.  Ridiculous - and it gets worse - see below.

2. There is no reference to the actual radar data.  Radar is notorious for false returns and 'ghosts', and without an expert examination of that data and the fact that no data is available, such claims are useless.

3. Later in the report, Maccabee states that due to handholding "most images are smeared", and then, for those few images that may not be so smeared, "for such highly overexposed images it is difficult to estimate the illuminance on the film".  He's right there.. once you near the (non-linear) limits of the film response curve (the 'heel' and 'toe' effects) such data is very unreliable and error prone.

But then, in typical Maccabee look-at-all-these-cool-equations style, he blazes on and creates his numbers using a wealth of impressive looking equations.  But no error ranges or proepr statement of assumptions, and the calculations fly in the face of his own comments about how the data does not support what he is doing.  And the final result? - a number that has no apparent relevance to anything anyway...

4. The 'analysis' includes a rather odd calculation of the size of the object.  He makes several assumptions, including that the object was stationary (what did he mean - in the sky, relative to the camera (clearly not)?).  What's more, there is a clear implication that the camera is in focus - an assumption that he doesn't even mention.  Then he gives a couple of answers that depend on guessed distances from the uncorroboratable radar data, and then .. he simply picks one..


I could go on, but I'm losing the will to live.. I'm sorry - Maccabee's stuff is often good for a laugh, but that's about it.  I invite readers to look at the response letter that appears to the lower right of the analysis.  It is truncated, but it rightly begins with a number of criticisms of Maccabee's 'analysis' - I think you can see where it is going...

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 25 November 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

as mentioned, plasmas exhibit all those same 'unique' attributes which you seem to be wanting to associate with et... i was interested to know why you confidently thought that natural phenomenon should be ruled out... not that i was hoping that you would come up with a convincing argument, but nonetheless... never mind....

Okay, never mind.

I have yet to see you link even ONE of the UFO cases that I posted to the Hessdalen lights or anything like that.  Not one.  I think you're just talking through your hat here.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 25 November 2012 - 07:05 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 25 November 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

you don't have counter-arguments? that's why you ignore addressing them? i'm referring to the duration of plasmas, btw...

I do, but you don't seem to want to read anything that I'm posting, so it just begins to feel like a ridiculous discussion.  You do that all the time, of course, evidently just for laughs.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 25 November 2012 - 07:05 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

taniwha, on 25 November 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Hi Mac, I am guessing you are familiar with the Kaikoura lights/ufos,  location not far from here in Christchurch.

It showed the mysterious film footage for the first time of what is now world renown, and thirty plus years later the object/s remain unexplained.

What do you think Mac? The object/s seemed to do weird acrobatic manouvers, have the ability to shape - change and intensify in different  
frequencies.

Maccabee did discuss these sightings on a more recent radio interview, which he called "the best-documented civilian case ever", with multiple witnesses, color film, tape recordings from air traffic control, ground and air radar tracking, recordings from the journalist on the plane.  This case was one of the few that ever made it into the scientific press, at least briefly.

It's hard to imagine a more completely documented UFO case.  The guy taking the film was crouched down in the cockpit, shaking back and forth with the plane, so it was hard to get steady pictures of the UFOs.

What Maccabee really said was that the cameraman was able to get steadier pictures when he had his arm on the co-pilot's seat rather than trying to hold the camera steady on his own.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 25 November 2012 - 06:47 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

The first time they saw the UFOs in front of their plane.  They were actually up there reenacting another UFO report from ten days earlier, December 20, 1978, when the UFOs appeared, and then a "formation" followed them on the return trip.

As usual, they were dismissed, ridiculed, accused of perpetrating a hoax, or filming Venus, boats, birds, meteors, harbor lights, Jupiter, or city lights, all of which somehow showed up on radar as well.  Like most of the usual UFO explanations, these were all ridiculous, but perhaps silliest of all was the psychiatrist who said they had all lost their faith in God and then started imagining that they were filming "angels"--angels that appeared on radar no less!

Most of these "explanations" are simply too silly and fatuous to spend even a second of my time on.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 25 November 2012 - 06:51 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

These UFOs on December 20, 1978 were also tracked on radar, and everyone was surprised when the UFOs appeared again in various places around the plane.  Here is more of the actual film.  

[TheMacGuffin]

This is what the UFO did on one single frame of film, which means it was extremely fast and maneuverable.

[TheMacGuffin]

taniwha, on 25 November 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

Hardcase mate... sooo since you asked how many Plasma varieties do you know of that have been simultaneously tracked on radar, air traffic control, witnessed by more than one person and filmed. Thirty years ago this Plasmic Flying Object (PFO) lol, was unique in the world of ufology, but surely comparable sightings have significantly increased exponentially with time and technology? Please refer me a couple of the good cases you know that were then proved to be PFOs lol

Maybe it was a plasma bird reflected in the swamp gas from the planets Venus and Jupiter.  I think we should just use our common sense here rather than reaching for all these ludicrous "explanations", none of which has even the slightest bit of proof, like all this talk about Hessdalen lights around the missiles and military bases of New Mexico that appeared then and there for some reason, but never before or since.

It's downright laughable, and obviously intended to be taken that way.

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 25 November 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

because maccabee suggested so? since the lights lasted more than 12 minutes? that's why "place severe requirements on a conventional phenomenon such as glowing plasma or ball lightning"? check page 7 we've already discussed these... oh, and regarding the size & brightness; all moot points...

btw, that ufo plasma looks like casper the ghost...

Yes, it was Casper the Friendly Ghost, a whole bunch of them in fact, now go back to sleep.  You obviously know nothing about this particular UFO case or any other UFO case as far as I can tell, and are just here to jerk people's chains.  I never found you all that funny, though.

[Chrlzs]

TheMacGuffin, on 25 November 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

This is what the UFO did.. which means it was extremely fast..

Sighs wearily.

NO, no, NO! Even Maccabee quite correctly and clearly states that the camera was not on a tripod and that image and others were 'SMEARED' by camera movement.  When an image shows anything looking like movement, the steadiness of BOTH the object and the CAMERA must be considered.  This is one of the first things covered in Photography 101... Tiny movements of the camera create very large movements of the object, especially when the lens is highly zoomed.

Did MacG not read the 'analysis'?  If so, did he deliberately ignore what was in it, or does he simply not understand the concept of camera shake?  Either way, it's not good...

To be precise.. at about 1/20 to 1/30 sec exposure time, a small bump to a camera will often create a 'loopy' motion like that shown.  This effect is common when a camera is being steadied against something in a vehicle or aircraft, when a bump in the craft will briefly knock the camera away from the support..  It then very quickly returns to roughly the same location, creating the 'loop'.  That effect has NOTHING to do with any motion of the 'thing', which might be completely stationary.

[taniwha]

Analysis by Maccabee on the frame in question doesnt mention camera wobble, can you interpret the data for me Chrlz.

[Chrlzs]

Taniwha, read the last paragraph at the bottom of the left column on page 1, starting with "The photographic equipment consisted of.." and note the parts about not using a tripod and the quote "..and consequently most images are smeared"..  Then look at Fig 2. on page 2 where it specifically states that particular image is 'smeared'.