3 ms·

This is one example using a minor observational discrepancy. Put it this way- All the observers agreed with the reality that the plane did hit the water. You'r

This is one example using a minor observational discrepancy. Put it this way- All the observers agreed with the reality that the plane did hit the water. You're basically using this 1 example to prove that 10, 100, 1000 people all saying that the plane hit the water (with or without wings) is not evidence of anything hitting the water (assuming no aircraft was found).

WalterBright 4y ago
It wasn't minor, it was crucial to determine the cause of the accident. The wings being on or off was not just a "discrepancy".
- pmarreck 4y ago
  It's an irrelevant example. The question in THIS case is not whether "the wings fell off before or after hitting the water, if at all", but whether "there was a plane hitting the water at all" or "whether there even was a plane" (also a plane that was caught on multiple radars). It's simply not a good comparison. The Navy pilots say they see bogies on radar (not just visually) every day. Watch the "60 Minutes" broadcast I linked elsewhere (which is only 13 minutes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY). The USG has already admitted these things are real but have an unknown source. To continue to maintain extreme skepticism at this point is to bury one's head in the sand.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Q: What's the most likely explanation? A: Problems/glitches/bugs with the extremely complex radar system. Q: What's a likely explanation? A: We don't really understand everything there is to know about radar. Q: What's the least likely explanation? A: Alien craft buzzing around that nobody has ever managed to get a clear picture of.
    - pmarreck 4y ago
      If the radar system exhibited other types of "steady anomalies identifying nonexistent objects in space" that didn't happen to fit the "UFO expectation", we would be hearing of those too, no? Have we? Since the whole point of a radar system is identifying friend, foe or possible collision courses, it would seem to be extremely important that this basic function of a radar be extremely reliable, no? Also, what are the chances that both the radar AND the person's eyesight (which saw the object in the first place) are failing in the exact same way and with the exact same concordance? That has to be absolutely astronomical. So, no. You didn't compute your probabilities correctly in this case. Try again. It's like when people trivially dismiss eyewitness observers for "seeing things" every single time. I just Googled, and US citizens drive 3.2 trillion miles each year on US roads, which most of the time have two-way traffic with NO divider in between. If observers were as inaccurate as dismissals suggest, we should also be seeing FAR more accidents, head-on collisions etc. The error rate of the human visual system (if not the memory system which is admittedly often faultier) has to be extremely low to see the RELATIVELY low number of accidents we see. It's fundamental to survival for the human visual system to be as precise and accurate as possible.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        I've been hearing my whole life about the "it can only be aliens" explanation. Many, many of these have been debunked, but it never dampens the enthusiasm "yeah, but this one must be aliens!" Why has nobody ever taken a photo of these alleged aliens? It's up to the proponents to provide convincing evidence. "But I saw it with my own eyes!" is completely unconvincing. Anyone who claims to have never misinterpreted anything they saw is just not credible. Optical illusions affect everyone. Sane drivers know this and take it into account when driving, that's why it doesn't cause (many) accidents, and is so ordinary nobody bothers to report it. The human visual system is full of compromises and kludges that just happen to work well enough. Did you know that your eyes have a blind spot that your brain fills in for you? By guessing? That magicians rely on all kinds of errors your brain makes in perception? But no, it must be aliens!
        4y ago
lalopalota 4y ago
No. They are using this example to demonstrate that prior bias can influence eyewitness accounts.

WalterBright 4y ago

It wasn't minor, it was crucial to determine the cause of the accident. The wings being on or off was not just a "discrepancy".

pmarreck 4y ago
It's an irrelevant example. The question in THIS case is not whether "the wings fell off before or after hitting the water, if at all", but whether "there was a plane hitting the water at all" or "whether there even was a plane" (also a plane that was caught on multiple radars). It's simply not a good comparison. The Navy pilots say they see bogies on radar (not just visually) every day. Watch the "60 Minutes" broadcast I linked elsewhere (which is only 13 minutes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY). The USG has already admitted these things are real but have an unknown source. To continue to maintain extreme skepticism at this point is to bury one's head in the sand.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Q: What's the most likely explanation? A: Problems/glitches/bugs with the extremely complex radar system. Q: What's a likely explanation? A: We don't really understand everything there is to know about radar. Q: What's the least likely explanation? A: Alien craft buzzing around that nobody has ever managed to get a clear picture of.
  - pmarreck 4y ago
    If the radar system exhibited other types of "steady anomalies identifying nonexistent objects in space" that didn't happen to fit the "UFO expectation", we would be hearing of those too, no? Have we? Since the whole point of a radar system is identifying friend, foe or possible collision courses, it would seem to be extremely important that this basic function of a radar be extremely reliable, no? Also, what are the chances that both the radar AND the person's eyesight (which saw the object in the first place) are failing in the exact same way and with the exact same concordance? That has to be absolutely astronomical. So, no. You didn't compute your probabilities correctly in this case. Try again. It's like when people trivially dismiss eyewitness observers for "seeing things" every single time. I just Googled, and US citizens drive 3.2 trillion miles each year on US roads, which most of the time have two-way traffic with NO divider in between. If observers were as inaccurate as dismissals suggest, we should also be seeing FAR more accidents, head-on collisions etc. The error rate of the human visual system (if not the memory system which is admittedly often faultier) has to be extremely low to see the RELATIVELY low number of accidents we see. It's fundamental to survival for the human visual system to be as precise and accurate as possible.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      I've been hearing my whole life about the "it can only be aliens" explanation. Many, many of these have been debunked, but it never dampens the enthusiasm "yeah, but this one must be aliens!" Why has nobody ever taken a photo of these alleged aliens? It's up to the proponents to provide convincing evidence. "But I saw it with my own eyes!" is completely unconvincing. Anyone who claims to have never misinterpreted anything they saw is just not credible. Optical illusions affect everyone. Sane drivers know this and take it into account when driving, that's why it doesn't cause (many) accidents, and is so ordinary nobody bothers to report it. The human visual system is full of compromises and kludges that just happen to work well enough. Did you know that your eyes have a blind spot that your brain fills in for you? By guessing? That magicians rely on all kinds of errors your brain makes in perception? But no, it must be aliens!
      - 4y ago

lalopalota 4y ago

No. They are using this example to demonstrate that prior bias can influence eyewitness accounts.