originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
originally posted by: wobbs62
Dr David Clarke now thinks RFI was a combination of events... lighthouse, meteor, ect.
Like Ridpath before him, Clarke is a dolt. Because you can go through all the eyewitness quotes and show how each one proves that what was seen was
not a lighthouse, meteor, fireball, etc.
You can go through the 30+ eyewitness statements for the Yukon UFO and use those to prove it wasn't a
re-entry of a rocket booster.
"Report: "As he was walking his flashlight happened to point in the direction of the UFO. As if reacting to his flashlight, the UFO started speeding
rapidly toward him."
That proves it couldn't be a rocket booster, since rocket boosters can't do that.
"Report: the UFO was hovering approximately 300 yards in front of the observer. "Hynek Classification: CE1" (Close Encounter of the First Kind)."
The rocket booster was 233 km away, how could multiple witnesses say it was only 300 yards away and a "close encounter"?
"Report: "The interior lights in her car started to go dim and the music from her tape deck slowed down."
A rocket booster can't make car lights go dim and make music from the tape deck slow down, therefore it couldn't be a rocket booster.
"Report: "stars blocked out" by huge UFO."
A rocket booster doesn't block out stars, therefore it couldn't be a rocket booster.
So using your "method" of using witness testimony, it couldn't have been a rocket booster. The flaw in your "method" of course is that witness
observations are not reliable, even 30 of them as in that case:
"human perception is notoriously fallible, and no one is immune."
Something which you have yet to learn, young padawan; it's time to catch up to the evidence regarding unreliability of eyewitness testimony and stop
ignoring it. It was a rocket booster, all those witness statements only prove witness statements can't be trusted.
Whether there was more to the Rendlesham forest incident than claimed by Ridpath and Clarke, I don't know, I can't rule it out. However one thing I
be sure of, is that your "method" of assessing what really happened is fatally flawed if you assume eyewitness statements about UFOs are
reliable, when all evidence we have clearly shows that's a really badly flawed assumption.