Stunning 'domed' craft photograph captured over Vancouver Island 1981

reply to post by FlySolo


Okay, how about this:

Tilted down, tilted up. Tilted down, tilted up.

Inset = tilted down. Actual = tilted up.

Different. Photos.

Okay, Haines concluded that the image was "unidentified". That does not mean it was an alien space-ship. It simply means no data exists to conclude what it was definitively. It could easily (and most likely is) something mundane. If you think that single photo alone is compelling evidence of anything non-Terrestrial, that means you wanted to believe in the first place. We have a single blurry photo, that's it. We have a professional analysis concluding that there's insufficient data to determine what it was. That doesn't rule out a mundane explanation. And while it doesn't rule out an ET explanation, we need far more evidence than a blurry photo to argue that! You're the one making the positive claim. The burden of proof is on you.

"Deny ignorance" is also laughable. It's a thinly-veiled appeal to ignorance, with some wishful thinking thrown in. I do think UFOs represent a phenomenon that ought to be studied by scientists (that is, a holistic model should be the goal of scientists to explain highly-odd sightings which aren't misidentified lights, etc). But claiming that a blurry photo is definitely an ET craft, and then saying "deny ignorance"...dude.

reply to post by RUInsane


First off, I didn't make this thread to force feed my opinion down your throats. I created this thread to share. I also created this thread because I failed with similar threads because 'they too' got hung up on technicalities. And those technicalities were blurfos, birds, insects, not sufficient evidence based on FSTOP, shutter speeds and frame rates.

This thread is the byproduct of me upping it a notch and raising the standards of the 'photographic' evidence I bring to ATS. For every time I got shot down, the more determined I became. Everything that I was lacking in my previous threads is here. Everything. From size estimations, luminescence of particular metals, distance estimations, shutter speeds, angles, field research, reputable scientists and more. And yet STILL, when all of those things are achieved, it comes down to a last ditch desperate attempt by the nay sayers to outright lie. Either to themselves or to the general public. To lie, brother. To convince yourself that the image studied is not the same image in the original photograph. It's mind blowing. Dude.

I'm only going to say this logic once more. In the most articulate way I can possibly muster. IF, after I finish saying what I'm about to say and you can still not find the truth in it, then I have no other to choice to hold my head in shame. Shame on you and shame on anyone else who claims to 'deny ignorance' on this matter.

skeptic's logic flow as follows:



So there you have it. The bare bones of the logical fallacy. Either say Haines is a hoaxer or your entire logic path falls into the abyss.


And oh btw, I don't 'want' or 'need' to believe because I already know. Yes, I said 'know' and that's another thread.

ETA: So what was in the original photo?? Guess no one gave a shoot cause all the attention went immediately into finding a picture to substitute it with. smh, stick a fork in me cause I'm done.

reply to post by FlySolo


Well if you define a hoax as intending to deceive then yes, Haines is a hoaxer? Why? Because he knows he can't calculate the size of the craft yet he does based on guesses with the intent of implying the object is of considerable size. He mentions the reflectiveness of aluminum as it is far too low, but intentionally leaves off chrome which matches the reflectiveness. Again, this seems to be a direct intent to deceive.

Haines has written several books about UFO's and he fully believes they are alien in nauture. This one is a red flag as it could mean he is looking for a specific outcome.

He also intends to deceive by touting his NASA employment when you can look up the projects he worked on and see everything he did was specifically related to how humans will interact in a tin can floating in the emptiness of space. Yet you think he is an expert on all things UFO related, including photography.

So yes, I would say Haines is either a hoaxter or he is so determined to find aliens he sees them where none are.

reply to post by raymundoko

So yes, I would say Haines is either a hoaxter or he is so determined to find aliens he sees them where none are.

NASA science researcher Richard F. Haines is a UFO hoaxer. You sir, are a buffoon. I can not converse with you any longer for I fear I will succumb to a sever case of mental retardation.

Good night and good luck. Cheerio.

reply to post by FlySolo


When all else fails...ad hominem.

The believer resorts to personal attacks. :-/

Dude, where did I imply Haines was a hoaxer? I granted that Haines' conclusion was true (i.e. there's not enough data to conclusively identify the object). I then said, if we had better data, it would probably be a hubcap or some similar object. If he fabricated the analysis, it would make sense to either deny an alien craft, or say it was definitely an alien craft. Not "unidentified". I do think some parts were sloppy (as Raymundoko pointed out with size/distance data), but he didn't over-reach.

On re-reading Raymundoko's post...it's not absurd to think he was intending to deceive. I'll place this in the "Maybe" file.

I see you like pointing out fallacies. Let's point out yours! Because pointing out fallacies makes you win the argument! Right?

Appeal to ignorance! It hasn't been disproved, therefore it definitely exists.
Appeal to authority! Haines worked for NASA, therefore he's incapable of fraud? There's no reason why a NASA scientist would be less likely to commit fraud if the results supported his previous conclusions. Now, I didn't claim he was a fraud--but he has so little data to work with, that he pulled out baseless estimates. And even then, he concluded it was "unidentified". You do know what "unidentified" means, right?
Ad hominem! Attacking the person instead of the argument (like you did with Raymundoko).

Bottom line: No data, no alien space ship. Sorry bud, we can't make exceptions simply because you want to believe. That's now how science (or how any other form of rational inquiry) works.
]

reply to post by raymundoko


A momentary lapse of reasoning. You're absolutely right and I apologize, my attitude got the better of me. For the most part, it serves me well but in this case it was wrong for me to do that. This thread has actually been well behaved with no post bans and I need to thank those who contributed for not getting it trashed. Ironically, it was I who overstepped that boundary.

My sincerest apologies.

I acted a bit harshly as well. I apologize.

reply to post by FlySolo


No worries. The debate has actually been really good IMO.

Fascinating thread.

I'm admittedly on the skeptical side in this case, but I do want to point out that Haines is still around. Would it be possible to bring him into this thread, or at least email him, so we can address questions directly to him? Otherwise we are condemned to go around in circles.

reply to post by RUInsane


The thing about Haines concluding it was unidentified comes after his "research" has already sent a believer down the path he wanted them to go, then he throws a Ripley's Believe It or Not "you tell me" at the end of it. That's a classic example of pandering to a pro "aliens are visiting is in hubcaps" base.