It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by nightwing
Further reading would show the types of
dummies out there, and subcategories. In the dummy photo, a careful look shows many things. Cinder block
construction. Concrete floor, and partial details of a light fixture. Why cant you see OUT THE WINDOW ?
Is that a gurney from MASH or what? I see 5 dummies, the first is nude, the next three have some sort of
jacket, the last appears in coveralls, and none of the clothing is distinctively military. Dummie 1,3,4 appear
to be significantly more massive than dummie 2. The last dummie is clothed so its mass is indeterminate.
Dummie 2 shows either upper thigh damage or significant difference from the rest.
Originally posted by nightwing
"Hynek concluded that some reports represented genuine new empirical observations." == Hynek/Hal9000
As have I. But that doesn't mean the sky is falling. Most likely a chance to make an extraordinary find
in the realm of physical science.
"The fact that someone says something doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't mean they're lying, but it doesn't mean it's true." == Carl Sagan from
Howard Roark's excellent reference. And bears some additional emphasis.
I recall a short film I viewed as part of a law course in college. After the film, students were asked to report what they had observed.
......................
Originally posted by nightwing
"I guess what I was getting at in my first post , is that Group consensus is different from consistent independent testimony. " == l_s
How ?
I recall a short film I viewed as part of a law course in college. After the film, students were asked to report what they had observed.
About a week later, we were asked to re-submit our report but were not shown the film again. We shocked ourselves by the difference a week made. Then we were shown the film in slow motion. (around a few seconds worth, less than a minute anyways.) Most of the class (pre-biased by being in a law course) had assumed we were watching a crime. The reports reached a consensus that one person had been shot by another, and many in the class identified the weapon as a handgun, some even suggesting what model and manufacturer. About the only agreement with these classroom testimonies was over half the class agreed that two shots had been fired.
A slow motion view showed a man carrying some books to a lectern, another man who is visible in the edge of the scene, casually waves the BANANA he was eating and moves away from view. The other person moves to wave back and drops some books. The sound of the books hitting the floor is the only sound on the film.
The moral of the lesson, since most were law students, is that you cannot TRUST testimony even when the witness believes what he is saying, and in FACT IS YOU. I do not profess to know if this lesson is still used, but the point was very personally made to student attorneys that testimony IS NOT reliable.
Originally posted by nightwing
You are still missing the point of "control". There is nobody else to interview. The ONLY witnesses WERE the consensus. See?
Originally posted by nightwing
"I think that the Librarian and the Man reading the Book would be witnesses" == l_s
And that is why I really enjoy our conversations. You have an incredible way of stating things that so perfectly
makes my point. And thus leads to the answer I shall give to Hal's question.
Read the story again. There was NO Librarian and NO Man reading the Book. But you do have me acknowledging
bogus witnesses. Precisely what has been happening with Roswell since 1978. And yes, your addition to the story makes
a very great difference, and leads to any conclusion you want to support.
And yes, your addition to the story makes
a very great difference, and leads to any conclusion you want to support.
Originally posted by nightwing
And how are your assumptions different from those of the law students who concluded they would be watching a crime ?
I did say the "victum" was approaching a "lectern" with books.
Originally posted by nightwing
I could not define modern UFOlogy better than you just have. I would be remiss if I did not point out
that the group of people with insufficient information who were not present at the actual scene are,
in this case, the only and original witnesses. In such a few posts, you have succently demonstrated
the evolution of Roswell. Well done.
con·jec·ture
1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: