Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Great Interview with Dr Richard Haines.

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
That's a fair point but even if just one of the cases that Haines has covered have elements that are unexplainable (and with the number of cases he has covered, I would say there is), then surely it does prove there are things going on the sky which have no rational explanation :up


Thanks, Z - I think you've got the problem absolutely upside-down. "Unexplainable elements" will always naturally occur in any report collection even IF based entirely on prosaic stimuli. The time-tested classic human perceptual/interpretive/mnemonic algorithms guaranty this. Space/missile event cases [a subet of all cases] demonstrate this clearly.

The issue is -- if SOME prosaic-caused reports are nevertheless passed by the filter [and again -- I can prove they have been], how is there any guaranty that OTHERS have not passed, and reasonably, how MANY others could be tolerated before the data base becomes toxic?
edit on 25-4-2013 by JimOberg because: typos




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
Can you go into specifics about your concerns and describe the nature of (and list the number of) the cases you're talking about?


It was the entire thrust of my 'reply to Kean' review on MSNBC's science page a few years back -- but as best I can recall, there were no responses to the argument, just attacks on my motives and intelligence. Let me get the links.

add links:

Here's the Kean review:
www.nbcnews.com...

Pilot report with EM/health effects caused by missile launch:
www.jamesoberg.com...

Other pilot misperceptions:
www.zipworld.com.au...

EM effects of fireballs:
www.astronomy.com...

edit on 25-4-2013 by JimOberg because:



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
That's a fair point but even if just one of the cases that Haines has covered have elements that are unexplainable (and with the number of cases he has covered, I would say there is), then surely it does prove there are things going on the sky which have no rational explanation :up


Thanks, Z - I think you've got the problem absolutely upside-down. "Unexplainable elements" will always naturally occur in any report collection even IF based entirely on prosaic stimuli. The time-tested classic human perceptual/interpretive/mnemonic algorithms guaranty this. Space/missile event cases [a subet of all cases] demonstrate this clearly.

The issue is -- if SOME prosaic-caused reports are nevertheless passed by the filter [and again -- I can prove they have been], how is there any guaranty that OTHERS have not passed, and reasonably, how MANY others could be tolerated before the data base becomes toxic?
edit on 25-4-2013 by JimOberg because: typos


Hey, if you're dead set against believing in the possibility that some of the reports are not of terrestrial origin, then it's up to you to prove it, it seems like you're trying to say if some are prosaic then ALL must be, which imo, just isn't the case.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Hey, if you're dead set against believing in the possibility that some of the reports are not of terrestrial origin, then it's up to you to prove it, it seems like you're trying to say if some are prosaic then ALL must be, which imo, just isn't the case.


By no means. There is no 'must' -- there is only a 'could be'

It is the burden of the claimant of extraordinariness, to show the stories can NOT be caused by prosaic stimuli. And when they include cases with that claim, that fail the reality check, they diminish the likelihood of their hypothesis.






top topics
 
19
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join