[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

How is my post denialism?

Did I misinterpret this comment?

"Or telemetry and visual reports were tricked by the same affect."

Were you not suggesting that all the systems and people were faulty in their data collection, actions, and recollection of events? That would mean multiple people managed to describe the exact same things, from multiple angles and distances, where chromatic aberrations would not be represented in the same way, producing very different descriptions. That would also mean that the radar and tracking data from separate planes would have the exact same failure at the exact same time, while having very different angles of attack and views of the events. That would also mean that each ship in the attack group that was tracking this craft had similar failures. That would also mean that the ballistic defense shield, which tracked these devices from low earth orbit into the atmosphere and the field of the engagement also suffered a catastrophic failure that day and saw ghosts in the machine. This is the case you are attempting to build with that single statement. All of the telemetry, from at least a half dozen locations, were ALL wrong. Is that not what your statement was suggesting?

The most common explanation for UAVs has been bad telemetry or misidentification. If these Tic Tacs turn out to be Aliens it will be the first time that has been shown to be the case.

It actually wouldn't. J. Allen Hynek identified a number of instances where telemetry data made explanation impossible. Those are part of the 700+ incidents he couldn't close during his days with Project Blue Book, and then the other 800+ he categorized after his departure. Radar telemetry has played a big part in substantiating some of the wildest events around the globe, so this is not a first.

A good example of the fear of bad measurement is the Higgs Boson. It was observed in December but it took them until July confirm with a 5-6 Sigma confidence that what they observed was in fact the Higgs and not a random fluctuation.

We the scientists who worked on this vilified, considered whackadoodles, and then subject to a disinformation campaign? No, they were encouraged to finish their research. Not the same with this particular field, even though - as Knuth points out - there is a massive investment in the search for ET outside our planet by multiple interests. But this particular field is taboo for what reason? As photon pointed out, "observations trump theory, so if you observe something that violates your theory you have to change your theory."

When any new scientific discover is made the question of is this bad data should be asked. Cold Fusion, violations of the laws of thermodynamics have all been “proven” to exist but fall apart under scrutiny. Holding a default position of the most likely explanation is the explanation that does not involve alien life visiting from a far planet that there are no detectable signs of from space but they are bad enough at hiding that we observed them seems like a reasonable position.

Does it? Seems like this house of cards come crashing down when you include the ballistic missile defense data, tracking the objects from lower earth orbit?

Your good doctor more or less agrees with me. “IF” they are craft. He does discuss in his paper that he feels that it’s more likely it is craft than bad telemetry but certainly doesn’t exclude it as an option.

No, he does not agree with you. That claim is actually laughable. How can you read that publication and think he agrees with you that it was bad telemetry? Yes, he said it is a possibility, but that is part of the scientific method - to identify all possibilities - but then produces a wealth of work and math to show that it was not bad telemetry. The good doctor took apart the "bad telemetry" argument by getting data from multiple sources and having the wherewithal to make sure he verified the function of all equipment.

The last statement of studying these unknown effects is important certainly is reasonable. It just needs to be done with a level of scientific rigour not currently found in the field.

Here we agree. The number of people approaching this topic with any rigor is low. And that includes the likes of Mr. West and skeptic/cynic community.
A big part of that is because of the ridicule and #### the real researchers have to go through. Why subject yourself to such garbage and put your career at risk? The disinformation and smear campaign has been very successful in keeping serious scientists from working on this topic. It isn't that there isn't a rich field of inquiry, it's that anyone who wades into it is cast a pariah.

As an aside if/when evidence of extraterrestrial life reaches an acceptance level of say climate change I would still think your position today that the most likely explanation of this event is ET ( correct me if this is a Mis-statement of your position) is absurd. The balance of probabilities does not tilt in that direction.

I have no idea what this is. None. Evidence suggests it is well beyond our current technical capabilities. It could be terrestrial in nature - but from the oceans. It could be extraterrestrial, and there is evidence to support this. It could be interdimensional. I don't know. I am not ruling out any explanation, except the suggestion that it was a massive technical glitch and mass hysteria. That is absurd and anyone trying to argue as such is in the same boat as those who are arguing climate change isn't happening.