reply to post by imitator
Well I guess your intitled to be wrong, what I described is my explaination. It is a dismissal of an UFO encounter based on their
Only a person with a sub-par pathetic argument has to assert their argument as correct rather than simply demonstrating it as true. At least you admit
though that what you've written is a dismissal, rather than a legitimate attempt to account for all the facts.
To have a productive conversation involves accepting certain things as true and then trying to figure out based on those true statements what
can be discerned. You've decided nothing is true ... So there's no productive conversation to be had.
What part of this didn't you understand?
The quality of men does not matter,
I'm real partial to trusting criminals and conmen over deputies who serve their community day-in and day-out, helping the community keep the peace.
...they are human and no human is perfect.
No disagreement there. Have you ever considered this as applied to yourself? I have.
Yes they where delusional and hysterical based on their behaviour, you can not refute that fact.
Please call a psychologist and ask them, "Are delusion and hysteria the same as panic?" You'll be quickly informed they're not. So it's fairly easy to
refute your claim. Or perhaps you want to start redefining words too?
And besides under what circumstances would you as an observer flee from a helicopter, only to shortly after go back and look at it more closely using
binoculars? Moreover, after everything's all said and done, contact the Air Force to request feedback. I don't think many people would want to open
themselves up to that kind of ridicule without careful consideration, do you?
If you was to ask Maj Leach to take a ride with these two clowns, I'm sure he would turn them down...
There you go again wildly imagining things. Do you have any other fictional details you'd like to add to this story?
The sketch is a shape they saw in the dark, your not going to see the rotor or landing gear, that makes perfect sense in the dark.
With a near full moon and clear visibility this couldn't be further from the truth. Light often refracts into the blades from the beacons. Like this
Also let me give you some extra details about the case,
The night of September 3, 1965, was almost perfect in southeastern Texas: no clouds, a clear sky, sparkling stars. A three-quarter, gibbous
moon hung about the south-southwest horizon, its light throwing the shadows of trees and buildings onto the ground. ... In subsequent statement to
Air Force Maj. Laurence R. Leach, Jr., on September 8, 1965, McCoy described what he saw, 'The bulk of the object was plainly visible at this
time and appeared to be triangular-shaped with a bright purple light on the left end and the smaller, less bright, blue light on the right
end. The bulk of the object appeared to be dark gray in color with no other distinguishing features. It appeared to be about 200 feet wide and 40-50
feet thick in the middle, tapering off towards both ends. There was no noise or any trail. The bright purple light illuminated the ground directly
underneath it and the area in front of it, including the highway and the interior of our patrol car. The tall grass under the object did not appear to
be disturbed. There was a bright moon out and it cast a shadow of the object on the ground immediately below it in the grass.
You seem to completely ignore this.
I'm sure you have seen a house light bulb put out a yellow hue, but the light itself is actually white! My light pole outside is a white light
that puts a blue purplish hue....and well, Helicopters do use search lights that do the same thing at great distances. As for the size and distance
they simply got it wrong.
You will not see a search beam hit the ground on the nearby terrain unless the craft is several hundred yards away. Do you refute that? Or do you know
of search beams that can travel miles in distance? Furthermore a search light might take on a small hue change, but not be
a particular color.
For instance I can have a 100 watt bulb emitting 1600 lumens. Ultimately the gas in the bulb and the glass encasing it will help determine the color
temperature. If Sheriffs Goode and McCoy were detecting a change in the hue they would have likely described it as having a white-purple'ish tint not
purple (and almost definitely not a strong or "bright purple light"). There's a massive difference. Furthermore the hue wouldn't have transferred to
such a degree that the ground
appeared purple. This would only happen is if the light source was predominantly emitting a 380–420 nm purple
You seem to dismiss the state of things as they appear to be,
Lets get specific. What in particular?
It flys, it hovers, it has a spot light and it's near a AFB... and based off of their sketch it's in the shape of what? oh yes it can fly up on
you before you know it.... Please answer me this?
You're attempting to use induction to arrive at a conclusion. Induction is great to come up with a tentative hypothesis. It's not a way to come to a
firm conclusion. To make my point imagine if I asked you, "What comes through the atmosphere that leaves a firey trail through the sky?" If meteorites
were the only thing you knew that fit this criteria, then that would be your answer. However if you realize that satellites and other space debris
fall to earth you'll include those as possibilities too. Making conclusions from incomplete preconceived knowledge is not only foolish, it's
wrongheaded. Simply put, all or the majority of the data has to support the hypothesis for it to be considered plausible. A single diagram of a
roughly triangular object with a protruding knob is hardly killer evidence, especially when all the other details contradict the helicopter
You failed my challenge, ...
Only because you failed to make an argument. Better luck next time.
edit on 7-8-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)