Liberals *SUPPORT* Terrorists!

In article ,
transporter wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote:
.....
UFOs are not subject to scientific analysis

Wrong again, it surely is.

Perhaps you don't understand what a scientific analysis is.
Of course the data can be remeasured and verified. That isn't
what I mean.

....
The Condon group was tasked with explaining away any and ALL sightings.

Not investigating and understanding, but explaining away.

That seems to be an accurate representation. And they were unable
to "explain away" all sightings. So?

So nothing.

No further research on those open cases, a shut door on those they
convinced the stooges were lens flares or Venus rising.

I'm talking about the observations that had no obvious reason.
If we all agree that we can't explain them, *then* what?
What scientific analysis do you propose?

.....
Certainly we can all agree that some percentage of sightings
have no good explanation. What scientific analysis do you
propose?
Gee, we might start with some of the STS video that's out there, most
illuminating stuff..

What scientific study do you envision can be anchored by this stuff?

Oh my...given it's captured on NASA instrumentation on NASA missions by
NASA personnel I'd say the control mechanism are quite evident, wouldn't
you?

You mean compare a photo that contains a UFO with a
photo that doesn't? There is no control group and no
reproducible experiment here. You can't reproduce a
UFO and do other measurements with quantitative predictions
in hand.

A standard scientific analysis requires something
we can repeatedly measure and a corresponding theory or set
of theories that make quantifiable predictions. This is not
a scientific problem. We can't use the meagre information
present in sightings to come up with a scientific theory of
creatures from outer space just as we can't come up with a
theory that rules that out. It just isn't a scientfic issue.
We can very well measure pre-photoshop photographic negatives and we can
very well measure, authenticate, and discuss STS videos in NASA's library.

You can measure a given photo all you want.

I said negative.

Sure, a photo can be either a positive or a negative.
If you are implying that the negative is better proof,
fine. But that isn't the issue here. Once we all agree
that something is unexplained in the image, Then What?

It remains a non-reproducible
datum.

And largely non-hackable datum, if on film.

Yes. So?

You can discuss all you want. It still isn't a scientific study.

You can't authenticate negatives?

You can conclude you don't know what formed the image.
Then What?

Do you expect some scientific study of this stuff to prove that aliens
visited earth?

I could care less whether anyone finds waving photos of little green
men, I'm looking for confirmation of certain historically significant
and repeating aerial craft.

If you couldn't care less, then you do indeed care very little.
Since you could care less, then care somewhat about the little green
men. Thanks for being candid for I think we all would really like
to see such confirmation if not actually have a few of these chaps
over for dinner.

Confirmation that some pictures are hard to explain is straightforward.
Translating that into confirmation that unknown aerial craft formed
those images is something else.

Daniel Packman wrote:
In article ,
transporter wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote:
.....
UFOs are not subject to scientific analysis

Wrong again, it surely is.

Perhaps you don't understand what a scientific analysis is.

I understand that Condon's sham preconceived a task.

Nuff said.

Of course the data can be remeasured and verified. That isn't
what I mean.

Um hummm.


....
The Condon group was tasked with explaining away any and ALL sightings.

Not investigating and understanding, but explaining away.
That seems to be an accurate representation. And they were unable
to "explain away" all sightings. So?
So nothing.

No further research on those open cases, a shut door on those they
convinced the stooges were lens flares or Venus rising.

I'm talking about the observations that had no obvious reason.
If we all agree that we can't explain them, *then* what?
What scientific analysis do you propose?

The analysis they did NOT do?

The analysis that better instrumentation in the ensuing 40 years might
improve???

.....
Certainly we can all agree that some percentage of sightings
have no good explanation. What scientific analysis do you
propose?
Gee, we might start with some of the STS video that's out there, most
illuminating stuff..
What scientific study do you envision can be anchored by this stuff?

Oh my...given it's captured on NASA instrumentation on NASA missions by
NASA personnel I'd say the control mechanism are quite evident, wouldn't
you?

You mean compare a photo that contains a UFO with a
photo that doesn't?

No....I mean analyze the STS mission video that DOES have anomalies on
it, and real obvious ones.


.. There is no control group and no
reproducible experiment here. You can't reproduce a
UFO and do other measurements with quantitative predictions
in hand.

NASA has the videos from their own missions.

A standard scientific analysis requires something
we can repeatedly measure and a corresponding theory or set
of theories that make quantifiable predictions. This is not
a scientific problem. We can't use the meagre information
present in sightings to come up with a scientific theory of
creatures from outer space just as we can't come up with a
theory that rules that out. It just isn't a scientfic issue.
We can very well measure pre-photoshop photographic negatives and we can
very well measure, authenticate, and discuss STS videos in NASA's library.
You can measure a given photo all you want.
I said negative.

Sure, a photo can be either a positive or a negative.
If you are implying that the negative is better proof,
fine.

And it is.


But that isn't the issue here.

Um yeah, it is.


Once we all agree
that something is unexplained in the image, Then What?

VERIFY the negative!

THEN blow the mofo up.

It remains a non-reproducible
datum.
And largely non-hackable datum, if on film.

Yes. So?

So no hoaxes.

You can discuss all you want. It still isn't a scientific study.
You can't authenticate negatives?

You can conclude you don't know what formed the image.
Then What?

BLOW it up, digitize it, shade it, enhance it, make it come to freaking
LIFE!

WTF is all our technology worth anyway???


Do you expect some scientific study of this stuff to prove that aliens
visited earth?
I could care less whether anyone finds waving photos of little green
men, I'm looking for confirmation of certain historically significant
and repeating aerial craft.

If you couldn't care less, then you do indeed care very little.

A small amount, yes.

Since you could care less, then care somewhat about the little green
men.

Just a tad, if they ever are photo'd.

Thanks for being candid for I think we all would really like
to see such confirmation if not actually have a few of these chaps
over for dinner.

Oh me too, but I won't hold my breath or wait longer that 10-31 each year.

Confirmation that some pictures are hard to explain is straightforward.
Translating that into confirmation that unknown aerial craft formed
those images is something else.

Wrong.

In article ,
transporter wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote:
......
Once we all agree
that something is unexplained in the image, Then What?

VERIFY the negative!

THEN blow the mofo up.

And you get a larger and clearer image of something.

You can conclude you don't know what formed the image.
Then What?

BLOW it up, digitize it, shade it, enhance it, make it come to freaking
LIFE!

WTF is all our technology worth anyway???

You don't have a situation that lends itself to scientific research.
If you see something that looks like some sort of aerial craft, you
can examine flight records to see if something was in the area. You
might be able to work distance and air speed (if there were enough
observations). You might be able to conclude that if it were some
craft, then its characteristics preclude it being any known craft.
Ok. You can blow it up all you want, but you are still limited by
the intrinsic resolution limits of the photographic device. If the
optics are good and the intervening air is quiet, you are limited
by the diffraction limit of the lens (directly related to its diameter).
So you get a larger and clearer image of something you can't explain.
And?

Daniel Packman wrote:
In article ,
transporter wrote:
Daniel Packman wrote:
.....
Once we all agree
that something is unexplained in the image, Then What?
VERIFY the negative!

THEN blow the mofo up.

And you get a larger and clearer image of something.

Now there's a concept...

You can conclude you don't know what formed the image.
Then What?
BLOW it up, digitize it, shade it, enhance it, make it come to freaking
LIFE!

WTF is all our technology worth anyway???

You don't have a situation that lends itself to scientific research.

Photo-enhancement isn't research??

If you see something that looks like some sort of aerial craft, you
can examine flight records to see if something was in the area. You
might be able to work distance and air speed (if there were enough
observations). You might be able to conclude that if it were some
craft, then its characteristics preclude it being any known craft.
Ok.

Ok, and don't forget radar summaries.

You can blow it up all you want, but you are still limited by
the intrinsic resolution limits of the photographic device.

Somewhat, good digital enhancement can bring shaded nuance to life.

If the
optics are good and the intervening air is quiet, you are limited
by the diffraction limit of the lens (directly related to its diameter).

Yes.

So you get a larger and clearer image of something you can't explain.
And?

Then you work from similarities, patterns, historical record to find
commonality and begin to delineate the shared traits.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:22:19 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article ):


I Ms Individual Rights writes:

"JTEM" wrote :


I Ms Individual Rights wrote:


Not five months before 9/11 the Bush administration
had tis to say about Bill Clinton:

A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
of the elephant and not the whole beast."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/



Yes and?

I speak for all Americans when I say that I wish Bush had
been focused on Bin Laden BEFORE 9/11, that I wish
Bush didn't think it was a "Mistake" to be focused on Bin
Laden before 9/11.

Ditto for slick willie and everyone before him. So quit blaming
Bush for everything.

I just showed you -- in no uncertain terms -- that far from what
that Reich wing propaganda claims, "Slick Willie" was actually
concerned about Bin Laden.

I don't care how concerned he was, he failed to kill him!

Which fact makes it a damn good thing that Bush killed bin Laden,
am I right?


-- cary

"Mission Accomplished"


++ gray