NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

I agree, and I don't consider those accounts scientific evidence, and I consider my own position to be scientific and skeptical. But I regard them as the best and most interesting available material we have (sadly).

If we look just that video in vacuum, we more or less see a blob that could be pretty much anything. I don't believe either side of the debate can gain much from the video alone. So if they debunk that by showing a similar blob can be produced by making assumptions about a plane that happened to be there or some quirk of the camera that could have happened and so on, what are they actually debunking? A "what if" scenario for whose assumptions there is no evidence? And if they dismiss other parts of the story by assuming they were not related, what evidence is there that the video wasn't that unrelated part? After all, it wasn't shot by Fravor's jet and its origin is still somewhat questionable, and it could for example actually show how another jet mistakenly filmed some airplane as the target.

I'm trying to say it goes both ways. If they make such selections and assumptions, their results are about them as well, not the whole story. They should be likewise skeptical about their own assumptions as well. And in my view explaining the whole story necessitates saying something less than flattering about Fravor and others. As you said:

In practice they do that now, but don't dare to say it. And in my opinion that needs to be said if something like what they suggest is supposed to work as an explanation for the story as a whole.

Sounds fascinating. Have you described that somewhere in more detail?

<blockquote data-quote="Realm" data-source="post: 266873" data-attributes="member: 9250">I agree, and I don&#039;t consider those accounts scientific evidence, and I consider my own position to be scientific and skeptical. But I regard them as the best and most interesting available material we have (sadly).If we look just that video in vacuum, we more or less see a blob that could be pretty much anything. I don&#039;t believe either side of the debate can gain much from the video alone. So if they debunk that by showing a similar blob can be produced by making assumptions about a plane that happened to be there or some quirk of the camera that could have happened and so on, what are they actually debunking? A &quot;what if&quot; scenario for whose assumptions there is no evidence? And if they dismiss other parts of the story by assuming they were not related, what evidence is there that the video wasn&#039;t that unrelated part? After all, it wasn&#039;t shot by Fravor&#039;s jet and its origin is still somewhat questionable, and it could for example actually show how another jet mistakenly filmed some airplane as the target.I&#039;m trying to say it goes both ways. If they make such selections and assumptions, their results are about them as well, not the whole story. They should be likewise skeptical about their own assumptions as well. And in my view explaining the whole story necessitates saying something less than flattering about Fravor and others. As you said:In practice they do that now, but don&#039;t dare to say it. And in my opinion that needs to be said if something like what they suggest is supposed to work as an explanation for the story as a whole.Sounds fascinating. Have you described that somewhere in more detail?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Realm, post: 266873, member: 9250"] I agree, and I don't consider those accounts scientific evidence, and I consider my own position to be scientific and skeptical. But I regard them as the best and most interesting available material we have (sadly). If we look just that video in vacuum, we more or less see a blob that could be pretty much anything. I don't believe either side of the debate can gain much from the video alone. So if they debunk that by showing a similar blob can be produced by making assumptions about a plane that happened to be there or some quirk of the camera that could have happened and so on, what are they actually debunking? A "what if" scenario for whose assumptions there is no evidence? And if they dismiss other parts of the story by assuming they were not related, what evidence is there that the video wasn't that unrelated part? After all, it wasn't shot by Fravor's jet and its origin is still somewhat questionable, and it could for example actually show how another jet mistakenly filmed some airplane as the target. I'm trying to say it goes both ways. If they make such selections and assumptions, their results are about them as well, not the whole story. They should be likewise skeptical about their own assumptions as well. And in my view explaining the whole story necessitates saying something less than flattering about Fravor and others. As you said: In practice they do that now, but don't dare to say it. And in my opinion that needs to be said if something like what they suggest is supposed to work as an explanation for the story as a whole. Sounds fascinating. Have you described that somewhere in more detail? [/QUOTE]

Verification