Guest LarryP Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 They also can't control bears, wild cats What is Wildlife Management? Of course they can control bears, wildcats, deer, etc.
Guest LarryP Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 . The reason why the government was so interested in UFOs was because they represented an obvious security risk at a national level. Anything that can't be managed and controlled at least to a certain degree is a "security risk" as far as the government is concerned. So thanks for making my point. When they looked into it they found nothing. Please elaborate? They found a heck of a lot more than "nothing". Even Project Bluebook (which was a complete joke) found things it couldn't explain.
Guest Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) Anything that can't be managed and controlled at least to a certain degree is a "security risk" as far as the government is concerned. So thanks for making my point. I did not make your point for you. The government had a legitimate concern that they had other countries sending advanced aircraft to spy on American soil. What were they supposed to do, sit around and do nothing? LarryP quote: Please elaborate? They found a heck of a lot more than "nothing". They found a heck of a lot... Of evidence proving what law enforcement has known for a long time, that eye witness testinmony is frequently unreliable. LarryP said: Even Project Bluebook (which was a complete joke) found things it couldn't explain. And when will you be satisfied? When the government turns out every single file, folder, and project and there's nothing to verify that there's any more than what they've reported? Or will you invent some other excuse that the government isn't disclosing everything? Edited February 24, 2014 by Leftfoot
Guest LarryP Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 They found a heck of a lot... Of evidence proving what law enforcement has known for a long time, that eye witness testinmony is frequently unreliable. Project Blue Book "Unknowns" http://www.nicap.org/bluebook/bluelist.htm
Guest DWA Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 "Eyewitness testimony is unreliable" is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion. Almost all the reasons people have to falsify information don't apply in this field. (Money and riches and fame? Please. Non-starter.) Innocent misidentification and hallucination can be handily discarded as comprehensive explanations. That is just not happening.
Guest Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) Project Blue Book "Unknowns" http://www.nicap.org/bluebook/bluelist.htm A copy of the original conclusions, as publicaly available from the Department of Defense: From 1947 to 1969, the Air Force investigated Unidentified Flying Objects under Project Blue Book. The project, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, was terminated December 17, 1969. Of a total of 12,618 sightings reported to Project Blue Book, 701 remained "unidentified." The decision to discontinue UFO investigations was based on an evaluation of a report prepared by the University of Colorado entitled, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects;" a review of the University of Colorado's report by the National Academy of Sciences; previous UFO studies and Air Force experience investigating UFO reports during 1940 to 1969. As a result of these investigations, studies and experience gained from investigating UFO reports since 1948, the conclusions of Project Blue Book were: No UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security. There has been no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present day scientific knowledge. There has been no evidence indicating the sightings categorized as "unidentified" are extraterrestrial vehicles. Furthermore, while the actual official Project Blue Book requests that people keep reporting UFO sightings to the USAF that witnesses are free to share any aspect of the report with anyone they so choose. Let me stress that again: Witnesses are free to share any aspect of the report with anyone they so choose.Some cover-up, don't you think? "Eyewitness testimony is unreliable" is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion.I'll admit that the reliability of witnesses is irrelevant to the discussion, but it's hardly a red herring. You ever hear of a man named Kash Register? In 1979, Brenda Anderson testified that a young man with whom she had gone to high school shot her elderly neighbor to death. Thirty-four years later, Anderson's sister Sharon took the stand and said the account, which helped send the young man to prison, was a lie. He's hardly the only person this has happened to, but we live in a world where witness testimony send innocent men to jail and even to death row... Excuse me if I don't hold it to the same golden standard you seem to. Edited February 24, 2014 by Leftfoot
indiefoot Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 How often do eyewitnesses tell the truth? How often are they accurate in their descriptions? Your argument for dismissing all eyewitness testimony is based on several logical fallacies.
Guest LarryP Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Furthermore, while the actual official Project Blue Book requests that people keep reporting UFO sightings to the USAF that witnesses are free to share any aspect of the report with anyone they so choose. Let me stress that again: Witnesses are free to share any aspect of the report with anyone they so choose. For quite some time now, both the USAF and the FAA have asked the general public to report UFO sightings to MUFON. Then there's NARCAP: http://www.narcap.org/About_NARCAP.html NARCAP was developed because it seems that the aviation industry is operating under a bias that is causing an under-reporting of safety-related encounters with UAP. Without this data, effective procedures have not been implemented and there is a real threat to aviation safety. Dr. Richard F. Haines has compiled a catalogue of over 3400 aviation related UAP cases. He has conducted a comprehensive review of UAP reports by U.S. air traffic controllers and pilots from the past 50 years. A result of this effort is Richard's paper "Aviation Safety in America- A Previously Neglected Factor". It contains analyses of over one hundred reports of UAP involved in near misses, close pacing, disrupted avionics, and collisions. These events either occurred to US aviation professionals on domestic or foreign flights, or foreign aircrews operating in US airspace. This document includes Dr. Haines' recommendations for addressing these issues. This paper is not copyrighted and is being widely distributed throughout the aviation industry. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Talk to any commercial pilot and they will tell you that filing an official report of a UFO (UAP) with the FAA is an almost certain guarantee that you'll end up "flying a desk".
Guest DWA Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) How often do eyewitnesses tell the truth? How often are they accurate in their descriptions? Your argument for dismissing all eyewitness testimony is based on several logical fallacies. Jurisprudence is based more on eyewitness testimony than on anything else. That people deliberately or for other reasons testify incorrectly is why we have the system. DNA analysis goes no further without eyewitness testimony than...well, no further than it will go without a body of a bigfoot the DNA came from. No one is saying eyewitness testimony is proof. But it most certainly is testable evidence. Why the continual skeptical inability to understand this most basic point? Edited February 24, 2014 by DWA
Guest Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) How often do eyewitnesses tell the truth? How often are they accurate in their descriptions? Your argument for dismissing all eyewitness testimony is based on several logical fallacies. I don't argue to dismiss witness testimony, I argue caution when weighing it as evidence. Edited February 24, 2014 by Leftfoot
Guest DWA Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Caution is fine. Blanket dismissal? Unwarranted.
Guest Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 NARCAP was developed because it seems that the aviation industry is operating under a bias that is causing an under-reporting of safety-related encounters with UAP. That bias is towards profit, obviously. Many well-known accidents involving inclement weather, human error, and technology could have easily been otherwise been avoided if not for the industry-wide attitude of get-there-itis. It's unsurprising that they don't want to deal with as yet explained phenomenon. Blanket dismissal? Unwarranted. That depends on what the witness claims to have seen. They claim to have seen an aircraft of unfamiliar configuration? I urge caution, they probably seen a reflection of sunlight off of a known aircraft at a distance. They claim to have seen Vishnu riding on the back of a giant, flying, eight-headed, world-eating dragon? I urge blanket dismissal, they're probably off their medication.
Guest LarryP Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 It's unsurprising that they don't want to deal with as yet explained phenomenon. Huh?
Guest DWA Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Science doesn't deal with unexplained stuff? HEY EDNA! THINK WE JUST FOUND THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!
Guest Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Huh? It doesn't surprise me that the commercial aviation industry doesn't want to deal with unexplained phenomenon. Probably interferes with the smooth operations of their business of getting their flights in on time. Agree or disagree? Science doesn't deal with unexplained stuff? Commercial Aviation ≠Science Not even remotely close.
Recommended Posts