423 replies to this topic

[badeskov]

synchronomy, on 07 October 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

If this picture is a fake, it's a damn good one.
If it's real, that is, there was really an object in the sky, it's a good picture of a UFO.
Problem is, there's no way to prove the UFO is extraterrestrial.
I think we've beaten this one to death unless someone comes up with a new approach.

Agreed, until something new comes up there is very little else to be said or done.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Leona Lewis]

Looks fake in my opinon.

I think it's a ballon.

[synchronomy]

Mademoiselle de Lioncourt, on 08 October 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Looks fake in my opinon.

I think it's a ballon.

Very possible. It could be a childs balloon, metallic, shaped like some cartoon character and viewed from a strange angle. Perhaps even partially deflated, so the shape is unrecognizable, and still with sufficient helium to keep it aloft.
There are many possibilities.

[scowl]

synchronomy, on 07 October 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

If this picture is a fake, it's a damn good one.
If it's real, that is, there was really an object in the sky, it's a good picture of a UFO.

Have the criteria for good UFO pictures dropped this low? The UFO is out of focus, it's just a few dozen pixels wide and the details we can see are a mess. People can't even agree what they're seeing. Some see a balloon. Some see a parachute. I see a globe connected to a hoop.

[TheMacGuffin]

scowl, on 08 October 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

Have the criteria for good UFO pictures dropped this low? The UFO is out of focus, it's just a few dozen pixels wide and the details we can see are a mess. People can't even agree what they're seeing. Some see a balloon. Some see a parachute. I see a globe connected to a hoop.

I believe the original photographic analysis by Ritzmann and have not seen anyone do better, at least not any source that I would trust.

[Euphorbia]

TheMacGuffin, on 08 October 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

I believe the original photographic analysis by Ritzmann and have not seen anyone do better, at least not any source that I would trust.

You have very selective trust issues!

[badeskov]

TheMacGuffin, on 08 October 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

I believe the original photographic analysis by Ritzmann and have not seen anyone do better, at least not any source that I would trust.

A proper analysis has nothing to do with trust. It is all about what is derived and how it is done, all put forth for scrutiny. In this case The analysis by Ritzman is not as transparent as one could wish for. I find that Chrlz made a very good case.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[scowl]

TheMacGuffin, on 08 October 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

I believe the original photographic analysis by Ritzmann and have not seen anyone do better, at least not any source that I would trust.

Despite what Ritzmann or anyone else says, the object in the photo is still blurry and too small to make out any details. This is not what I would call a good photo of anything.

[TheMacGuffin]

badeskov, on 08 October 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

A proper analysis has nothing to do with trust. It is all about what is derived and how it is done, all put forth for scrutiny. In this case The analysis by Ritzman is not as transparent as one could wish for. I find that Chrlz made a very good case.

Everything has to do with trust because everything is "political" and everyone has their own agenda.  That's life, so I often go with my gut instincts about who can be trusted.

[badeskov]

TheMacGuffin, on 08 October 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

Everything has to do with trust because everything is "political" and everyone has their own agenda.  That's life, so I often go with my gut instincts about who can be trusted.

That is why an analysis should be transparent and reproducible, as that eliminates the political angle and thus the need for trust. Just as 2+2 = 4 does not need trust.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[TheMacGuffin]

badeskov, on 08 October 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

That is why an analysis should be transparent and reproducible, as that eliminates the political angle and thus the need for trust. Just as 2+2 = 4 does not need trust.

I've written many analyses and read many more, but I have found that the most important things may never be written down at all.

[badeskov]

TheMacGuffin, on 08 October 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

I've written many analyses and read many more, but I have found that the most important things may never be written down at all.

Then you write down what you can/will and then that it is incomplete will simply be pointed out by others, just as Chrlz pointed out a few issues here, thereby augmenting the analysis. Thus the need for transparency and the reason why I am not hooked on Ritzman.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited by badeskov, 08 October 2012 - 07:48 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

badeskov, on 08 October 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

Then you write down what you can/will and then that it is incomplete will simply be pointed out by others, just as Chrlz pointed out a few issues here, thereby augmenting the analysis. Thus the need for transparency and the reason why I am not hooked on Ritz

The thing that is obvious with him is that he is extremely biased against the idea that UFOs are ET and is merely looking for evidence that will confirm his preconceived views.

Nothing could be clearer than that given his many comments on here (and yours too), but the thing I can't stand is the false claims of scientific neutrality and objectivity.  I never see any of that on here.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 08 October 2012 - 08:55 PM.

[badeskov]

TheMacGuffin, on 08 October 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

The thing that is obvious with him is that he is extreme biased against the idea that UFOs are ET and is merely looking for evidence that will confirm his preconceived views.

Nothing could be clearer than that given his many comments on here (and yours too), but the thing I can't stand is the false claims of scientific neutrality and objectivity.  I never see any of that on here.

We all have bias one or the other way, I doubt that anybody can honestly proclaim themselves free of that, however, that only emphasizes the need for a transparent analysis, does it not?

Cheers,
Badeskov

[TheMacGuffin]

badeskov, on 08 October 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

We all have bias one or the other way, I doubt that anybody can honestly proclaim themselves free of that, however, that only emphasizes the need for a transparent analysis, does it not?

I'll take one if I can get it, but I just don't see many of them.