TheMacGuffin Posted December 1, 2012 Author #251 Share Posted December 1, 2012 You also make it sound like I never heard of Project Condign before or that I do not know about its controversial conclusions. http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/condcmnt.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted December 1, 2012 Author #252 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) 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 December 1, 2012 by TheMacGuffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted December 1, 2012 #253 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted December 1, 2012 Author #254 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted December 1, 2012 #255 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted December 1, 2012 Author #256 Share Posted December 1, 2012 can you point out these 'severe flaws'? http://www.abovetops...hread416758/pg1 I have already posted the same links to Koi's article for those who are interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted December 1, 2012 Author #257 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted December 1, 2012 #258 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted December 1, 2012 Author #259 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) 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 December 1, 2012 by TheMacGuffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted December 1, 2012 #260 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted December 1, 2012 Author #261 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted December 1, 2012 #262 Share Posted December 1, 2012 http://www.shaktitechnology.com/tectonic.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted December 1, 2012 #263 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Are you claiming to be some kind of expert in this field? answer the specific questions asked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted December 1, 2012 Author #264 Share Posted December 1, 2012 http://www.shaktitec...om/tectonic.htm What does that mean? Are you claiming to be Dr. M.A. Persinger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted December 1, 2012 Author #265 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted December 1, 2012 #266 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted December 1, 2012 #267 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) 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 December 1, 2012 by mcrom901 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted December 1, 2012 Author #268 Share Posted December 1, 2012 or do you believe that the 'cover-up' automatically translates to et? Yes, of course I do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted December 1, 2012 Author #269 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) 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 December 1, 2012 by TheMacGuffin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted December 1, 2012 #270 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted December 1, 2012 #271 Share Posted December 1, 2012 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..... ...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 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted December 1, 2012 #272 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Yes, of course I do. mcrom doesn't like your certainty...but I do.... cheers . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMacGuffin Posted December 2, 2012 Author #273 Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) thanks for that TMG....I thought it was a bit over the top..... ...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 December 2, 2012 by TheMacGuffin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted December 2, 2012 #274 Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) 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 December 2, 2012 by mcrom901 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted December 2, 2012 #275 Share Posted December 2, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now