reply to post by Skeptical Ed
I'm talking about your double standards, not whether the Internet should be used or not. The Internet is a resource
not a source
The OP, besides the video you mention, also provided a link to a NICAP document with a timeline of the
which included all the respective sources.
article you use
to support your claim that what's seen on the video are airplanes flying in formation is from a University newspaper written
by Aaron Sakulich, a student.
Interesting quotes from the article:
Like all UFO reports, each eyewitness seems to have seen something different.
UFO reports? He probably means all UFO reports except
the ones he isn't even aware of or decided to ignore. Either situation
is unacceptable for someone who sets out to debunk something.
Some of you reading this are, I'm sure, terrified, but worry not: gigantic alien spaceships are not roaming the skies of New England.
Here is the first hint that this person is a denialist
, the argument from personal incredulity.
Unlike this portion of the UFO enthusiast community, I will admit that there are some witness accounts that don't support the aircraft
explanation. All of these accounts, however, have explanations.
The author, then, proceeds to 'explain
' that the accounts that don't support the aircraft explanation were all due to hysteria and nothing
more. After all, the author already established that there could be no other explanation.
The UFO enthusiast makes the claim that sightings occurred in weather that would have grounded small planes, or on days when no aircraft took off
from the Stormville airport. This was verified, apparently, by crack UFO enthusiast reconnaissance teams that camped out near the airport. These
observations can be explained by remembering two things. First, more airports than just the Stormville airport exist in the world. Perhaps the
pilots flew from somewhere else. Perhaps they took off from several airports, met together in the sky, formed up, and after scaring the hell
out of some people, dispersed. This would also explain why the local airports did not report six or seven modified aircraft taking off or landing
Aww and the pseudoskeptics like to mention Occam's razor so much. Is it really the simplest explanation
that the fact that no local airport
reported the aircraft taking off or landing simultaneously because they "took off from several airports, met together in the sky, formed up and
after scaring the hell out of some people, dispersed
"? Or is the simplest explanation that no local airports report several aircraft taking off
or landing simultaneously, because there weren't any aircraft?
The rest of the accounts that cause concern can be easily explained. Some witnesses report that the craft moved absolutely silently: this could be
a slight exaggeration on the part of the witnesses; it could be that the planes were flying at a higher altitude; it could be that the air was more
humid and hampered the travel of sound waves. Any number of things can explain these accounts.
Another typical denialist position. Since nothing can fly silently, the witnesses exaggerated, the planes were flying at higher altitude, etc etc.
"Any number of things can explain these accounts
" says the author. Any number of things
, except apparently, the possibility that the
witnesses actually witnessed something silent flying.
[The UFO proponents] also assume that the vast majority of witnesses are not exaggerating at all, were not duped by copycat hoaxers, and are not
themselves mistaking natural phenomena.
The author also fails to notice that for his theories to hold water one has to assume that all
witnesses exaggerated or misidentified natural
phenomena, or witnessed hoaxes which required special weather conditions and were perpetrated by people who were so reckless to the point of flying
over a nuclear power plant.
It's absolutely certain that pranksters in airplanes were responsible for a portion of the sightings
Such certainty for someone who:
I admit my research on the issue is somewhat lacking. Due to, I suspect, limited productions, a number of books written about this incident are
hard to track down. (...)
All of this information comes from books about UFOs in general that mention this case, or information written by UFO enthusiasts on the
In sum, the author is certain
there isn't anything unexplained regarding this case, although, admittedly, his research was "somewhat
". The author also cites his sources as "books about UFOs in general
" or "information written by UFO enthusiasts on the
We're left without knowing, objectively, what his sources are or were.
Like what most pseudoskeptics and denialists expect people to do when confronted with unusual events and cases, we have to take their word for it that
their reaching 'explanations', assumptions and personal disbelief are more acceptable than the true believers' assumptions and personal beliefs.
Another case closed!
[edit on 17-10-2009 by converge]