Originally posted by atlasastro
You took the bait...
Unfortunately, you think this is all there is. Thats was the bait.
Here is the hook... "Newspaper accounts of SIGHTINGS furnished by the clipping service are being retrieved at approximately a constant rate;
howerver the LIFE articles is now responsible for only HALF of the clippings. Originally the clipping were copied at Battelle and then transmitted to
Maybe logic really is not your thing?
You dangle empty bait and think anyone will bite?
What's happening here is this: Just as you confuse and improperly interchange the words 'evidence' and 'proof', now you assume
trying to plant the false inference that 'clipping' = 'sighting'. As in 'clipping' = '1 entire SR14 sighting'.
Is that done with purpose, or due to carelessness?
, and a few paragraphs below I'll prove it without a doubt.)
I asked you this before, and I'll ask again:
what evidence do you have that any significant portion of those ~3000 final SR14 sightings were sightings which contained only a single
newspaper article as their 'evidence'?
That is what you've been trying to imply. Don't avoid the question; I'll just ask again.
Amazingly, the "punched cards are being prepared" sentence you mention is in a completely separate section of the summary. Did you not see, or just
not care to point out that big underlined "FUTURE WORK" heading?
WHY did you say this:
[Discussion of news clipping service]
"next page and paragraph reads" [link] 'The available files will be coded and punchcards will be prepared....' "
when it does NOT actually say that?
Everyone see here
. And the previous page.
Astounding. And so tedious to highlight. But it's important to see that user atlasastro doesn't think it relevant that the second portion of his
quote is in an entirely different section of the document ("Future Work") than the first portion of his quote?!
This is EXACTLY the kind of desperate trick many 'skeptics' (haha) will pull to 'win' a disagreement or plant false inferences.
Catalogued, right here. "The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic." There ya go....
Just to be 100% clear here, the project update begins,
"A preliminary analysis of the existing report files has been completed. Information derived from this analysis has been applied in improving the
present interrogation form." [That was Intro to paragraph 1]
"The facts reported in present files or on new sightings are to be entered on the observer's data sheet. This information will not be coded for
direct entry on punched cards. Instead, the facts will be classified and analyzed before entries are made on the punched cards." [Paragraph 2's
"The final element in the data record is the punched card on which the results of coded calculations and analyses are entered." [Paragraph 3
Finally in paragraph 4 we see mention of the news clippings, which he quoted. Then on the next page, an entirely new section
Work" appears, and that's where his "available files will be coded..." quote begins.)
Disgusting! Your "news clippings" quotes and the inferences you'd like others to draw from them are entirely misleading
. Do you care?
Have you noticed that I tend to insert much longer passages than you?
As long as any of the posters in here just keeps pasting in portions
of documents, which is all that's really possible, then that individual
is vulnerable to an "out of context" accusation, true or not. But I hope that people will read all of this material -- Blue Book Special Report
14, + all 12 of these Project Stork updates -- so that it will be entirely obvious (if not already) who here is attempting to mislead and plant false
Lastly, I keep writing "~3000 sightings" not because I'm not sure or am trying to mislead; it's because of the difference in the Report between
"Unit Sightings", "Object Sightings" and "All Sightings".
They numbered 2554, 2199, and 3201, respectively. So, my saying "~3000" is
justified. You missed that portion of SR14?
The numerical difference between the three, by the way, has to do with there apparently being many multiple witness sightings. (Zeta?)
And did you forget that ~800 'reports' were completely tossed? Not included in the tables, in the "Other" category, or in the "Insufficient
Information" category... but just tossed out completely. (On p.11: "In those cases in which an attempt to reduce the information to a factual level
failed completely, the report was eliminated from further consideration, and thus not included in the statistical analysis. About 800 reports of
sightings were eliminated or rejected in this manner.")
You just forgot
that part when accusing me of inventing or ignoring the numbers? Or you didn't read it?