Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
TheMacGuffin

UFOs with Speeds up to 27,000 MPH

472 posts in this topic

This is what Isaac Koi had to say about Project Condign at its UAP-plamsa theory.

"As detailed below, I consider the Condign Report to be a very

useful and valuable document. The report is valuable as a case

study of the risks inherent in scientific research being

conducted in secrecy, including the risks of inefficiency and

ineffectiveness.

The Condign Report appears to have been compiled by a single

individual:

(a) without involving any consultation with scientists in the

relevant fields, and

(without involving any consultation with ufologists to

determine what previous consideration of the relevant theories

had occurred (including to discover if any reasons had been

advanced for rejecting the relevant theory or whether there was

any data inconsistent with it).

These factors are at the core of the most significant problems

with this severely flawed report.

In short, the Condign Report reinvents the wheel. The theory

that UFO sightings are caused by plasma has been considered

previously by various ufologists, scientists and engineers. The

Condign Report advances this theory without reference to much of

that previous consideration (or apparent awareness of the

relevant material), or any reference to the various arguments

opposing that theory.

The severe flaws in the Condign Report highlighted below do

_not_ mean that the plasma theory (or any other theory) is

necessarily wrong, and they certainly do not mean that the

claims that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth are true.

Publications of such sloppy quality give skepticism a bad name."

http://www.ufoeviden...nts/doc2024.htm

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also make it sound like I never heard of

and you think nobody has heard about all these black and white bits from the 40 n 50's you keep alluding to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are numerous flaws with this Condign Report, although there is hardly enough space to mention them all here.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc2024.htm

"On an initial reading of the report, I was puzzled why the

author had bothered to perform (or include in his report) such

detailed statistical analysis of such poor data. It occurred to

me that the author was simply unaware of the old computing

adage, "Garbage In, Garbage Out" ("GIGO"). However, my initial

thought was unfair to the author. He actually includes in the

body of the report the following statement: "It is emphasized

however that those conclusions drawn can only be as good as the

reported data" (Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 3, para 2). Given the

numerous complaints in the report about the inadequacies in the

"reported data", I am left puzzled why the author bothered with

such detailed statistical analysis (other than feeling that the

Terms of Reference required him to perform such an exercise,

regardless of his own views).

In any event, that statistical analysis does not in fact appear

provide a basis for most of the conclusions of the report. Upon

a preliminary examination of the Condign Report, it appears to

me that about the only statement made in the executive summary

as a result of the compilation and analysis of the database is

that there is an increased incidence of UFO reports during

periods of peak meteor activity.

Given that the Condign Report's content, in accordance with the

relevant Terms Of Reference ("TOR"), largely relate to the

statistical analysis performed, one might have expected the

plasma-UFO theory advanced in the report to be supported by the

statistical analysis. With this in mind, readers may wish to pay

particular attention to the page of the report which actually

deals with an attempt to find a correlation between UAP reports

and weather conditions (Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 21, para 50).

The relevant page stresses the fact that an attempt was made to

analyze "the most obvious factor - that of the potential of

enhanced electrical conditions in the atmosphere". However, the

results of the consideration of several samples were mixed, with

the overall conclusion being drawn that "there are many

occasions when UAP reports are received when there is no

recorded thunder conditions and hence no enhanced electrical

activity in the form of lightning. On those occasions (other

man-made objects excepted) UAP must be caused by something

else".

It seems almost too minor a matter to note that the results of

the statistical analysis in relation to weather are in fact

misrepresented in the conclusions section a few pages later on.

The conclusions section states "Positive (+0.62) correlation was

shown between thunder (lightning present) and the presence of

UAP reports" [Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 31]. In fact, as noted

above, the relevant page of the analysis dealt with three

samples with mixed results. The first sample (1988 reports) has

a correlation of -0.43 (i.e. a negative correlation, i.e. UAP

are _less_ likely to be reported when there is a high incidence

of lightning), the second sample (1996 reports) has a positive

correlation of 0.62, and the third sample (1988 reports) had a

correlation of 0.19. It is not clear whether the correlation in

relation to the third sample was positive or negative, since the

relevant description of the results refers to a "weakly

positive" correlation but this appears to be a correlation

between days of thunder against days when _no_ UAP reports were

received (i.e. a negative correlation between UAP reports and

lightning). Thus, the conclusion section's reference to a

"positive (+0.62) correlation) merely refers to the one sample

out of the three which most supports the theory being advanced.

The other two samples (and the significant disparity in the

results) are simply ignored in the conclusions section.

Instead of advancing a theory that plasmas caused by weather

conditions are misreported as UFOs (as suggested by some reports

in the media), the thrust of the material relating to

statistical analysis is in fact that meteors are the most

significant cause of plasmas which result in UAP reports.

The reasoning in support of this contention is probably the most

amusing part of the report.

The report does not contain any references to data in support of

the suggestion that plasma bodies are generated by meteors.

Instead, the report refers to the large quantity of matter

entering the earth's atmosphere which "in theory is said to burn

up". The report then simply says that certain issues arise "if

it is postulated that" not all this material burns up or impacts

the surface. (The report acknowledges that there is "a dearth of

information in the scientific press on this possibility").

The report then makes the further imaginative leap that the

postulated further material turns into "meteor plasmas". The

report notes a finding (which may not be considered very

surprising) that "peak reporting periods co-incided with meteor

show peaks", but contends that the reports did not involve (as

one might have expected) sightings of "falling meteors" but were

in fact sightings of "meteor plasmas". The report simply asserts

that these sightings "were clearly events which occurred after

the plasmas had been formed, were usually at low altitude and

exhibited the regularly-seen erratic, bobbing, hovering and

climbing motion which would not [sic] be mistaken by the public

and other credible witnesses" [Volume 1, Chapter 3, paras 53-65

(particularly at paras 54-55 and 65)]."

and you think nobody has heard about all these black and white bits from the 40 n 50's you keep alluding to?

I suspect that many people have not, although I have no way of knowing if you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what Isaac Koi had to say about Project Condign at its UAP-plamsa theory.

"The severe flaws in the Condign Report highlighted below do

_not_ mean that the plasma theory (or any other theory) is

necessarily wrong, and they certainly do not mean that the

claims that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth are true.

Publications of such sloppy quality give skepticism a bad name."

can you point out these 'severe flaws'?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread416758/pg1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Koi points out, among other problems, if you intend to explain UFOs as atmospheric plasmas, then you have to consider the weather conditions, seasons and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are numerous flaws with this Condign Report, although there is hardly enough space to mention them all here.

and i suspect that you have taken the trouble to look up the databases for scientific literature to back up said claims? remember that the condign report is more than a decade old... have you checked what percentage of the 'claims' have been validated by recent research? or are you just going to google and ctrl ^c ctrl ^ v unverified data ad nauseam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and i suspect that you have taken the trouble to look up the databases for scientific literature to back up said claims? remember that the condign report is more than a decade old... have you checked what percentage of the 'claims' have been validated by recent research? or are you just going to google and ctrl ^c ctrl ^ v unverified data ad nauseam?

You are the one who has posted that Condign Report on here a few times, not me. All I have done is reply with links to one of its main critics and debunkers.

It was flawed in its data, methodology and conclusions, and that's all I have to say about it.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Koi points out, among other problems, if you intend to explain UFOs as atmospheric plasmas, then you have to consider the weather conditions, seasons and so on.

prerequisites? based on our understanding regarding misinterpretations about lightning requirements? what weather conditions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

prerequisites? based on our understanding regarding misinterpretations about lightning requirements? what weather conditions?

Are you claiming to be some kind of expert in this field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you claiming to be some kind of expert in this field?

answer the specific questions asked... :passifier:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is that whenever I start posting all this information about UFOs from the past, you jump on here again and again with the Condign Report and your UAPs and plasmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that mean? Are you claiming to be Dr. M.A. Persinger?

no, it doesn't mean that... i hadn't seen your question prior posting that link... if you read it, you will see that other configs are capable of inducing said phenomenon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is that whenever I start posting all this information about UFOs from the past, you jump on here again and again with the Condign Report and your UAPs and plasmas.

and you believe that regurgitating outdated data means anything? or do you believe that the 'cover-up' automatically translates to et?

Edited by mcrom901

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or do you believe that the 'cover-up' automatically translates to et?

Yes, of course I do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and you believe that regurgitating outdated data means anything? or do you believe that the 'cover-up' automatically translates to et?

Since this thread that I started is about the New Mexico UFOs of the 1940s and 1950s, Project Twinkle, White Sands and so on, my posts are a lot more relevant to the subject than Project Condign and all that, which have only a very tenuous connection (at best) to my thread.

I notice that you almost never respond to any of the UFO cases I have posted on here, except to dismiss them out of hand. I did not start this thread to discuss Project Condign and plasmas. If you want to do that, then please start your own thread.

Edited by TheMacGuffin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya bee... the data is insufficient to reach any definitive conclusion regarding what they might have been... it's the certainties put forward by mcg that i'm questioning... whether it be ruling out natural phenomenon or the certainty that they were nuts and bolts spacecraft under the guise of plasma glow... anyways, natural plasma formations have been observed repeatedly displaying all these unique attributes which are considered to be otherworldly... unfortunately most of said data wasn't available back in the days when natural phenomenon was being ruled out... other than that i haven't seen any data which suggests anything otherwise... :)

hi mcrom....ok...from your previous statement I thought you thought you might know what was going on.

You seem to be saying you don't know what's going on and you don't think anyone else does/did either?

Fair enough, if that is your opinion :)

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Steve Wilson, he wasn't a real colonel at all but a fraudster. I don't know where he picked up the name Project Pounce, but it existed long before the Paul Bennewitz case in 1980.

Of course, anything about those events is suspect given the involvement of Richard Doty and his tendency to "leak" all kinds of fake documents for disinformation purposes. Bennewitz really saw UFOs, but Doty then began to manipulate UFO researchers and lead them down the garden path.

thanks for that TMG....I thought it was a bit over the top..... :D ...interestingly it was on the first page of a search about 'Project Pounce'

I suppose it's just standard practice in the world of 'Intelligence' to confuse a sensitive subject with disinfo...

It was that bit about the green light that made me post it...but now I wish I hadn't...lol

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of course I do.

mcrom doesn't like your certainty...but I do.... :tu:

cheers

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for that TMG....I thought it was a bit over the top..... :D ...interestingly it was on the first page of a search about 'Project Pounce'

I suppose it's just standard practice in the world of 'Intelligence' to confuse a sensitive subject with disinfo...

It was that bit about the green light that made me post it...but now I wish I hadn't...lol

Kevin Randle found out quite a while ago that there was no record of a "Col. Steve Wilson" doing any of the things this guy claimed, but he still lingers on the Internet, 15 years after his death.

There was a real Project Pounce connected with UFOs, but this "colonel" was a fake.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkevinrandle.blogspot.com%2F2006%2F11%2Fcolonel-steve-wilson.html&ei=DbC6UKPBO5TU8wSAlIHYCA&usg=AFQjCNG4lB1Xasts4pZhzYsrzAkt7rPQtw&sig2=YXN_SDMUlRYa4d9GT70fDQ

Edited by TheMacGuffin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi mcrom....ok...from your previous statement I thought you thought you might know what was going on.

You seem to be saying you don't know what's going on and you don't think anyone else does/did either?

Fair enough, if that is your opinion :)

hi bee... as you might have noticed i've been arguing that natural phenomenon, specifically plasma formations, cannot be ruled out i.e. it is definitely a possibility and the most likely candidate.... but at the same time, i'm afraid that the data is insufficient to reach any firm conclusions; that doesn't mean that we have no idea as to what might have been going on in the skies back then tho...

Edited by mcrom901

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this thread that I started is about the New Mexico UFOs of the 1940s and 1950s, Project Twinkle, White Sands and so on, my posts are a lot more relevant to the subject than Project Condign and all that, which have only a very tenuous connection (at best) to my thread.

tenuous? how?

I notice that you almost never respond to any of the UFO cases I have posted on here, except to dismiss them out of hand. I did not start this thread to discuss Project Condign and plasmas. If you want to do that, then please start your own thread.

i'm afraid that plasmas very much apply to all ufo cases (its discussion)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.