(Apr 16, 2018 09:01 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah..so he shows how it matches a Concord in the posted photos but claims it was an A330 Airbus. Something smells fishy here. And as the airports all claim, there was no aircraft in that location at the time and no radar data of such a flight at that time. How did he come up with that? Methinks he's lying. After all, he works for a debunking website. It's what he gets paid to do.
Genetic fallacy. The video explanation didn't refer to a Concord at all. The location reported by the helicopter could have been off in range and/or heading, which the video seems to indicate.
Quote:OTOH, real ufos never leave contrails. And they never manifest any sort of heat propulsion. That argues in favor of it being a conventional aircraft. So at this point I remain agnostic. Could be either way.
So based solely on a fallacy, you'd rather ignore your own eyes and reasoning skills. Got it.
(Apr 17, 2018 12:58 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Magical Realist' pid='19528' dateline='1523908912']
Yeah..so he shows how it matches a Concord in the posted photos but claims it was an A330 Airbus. Something smells fishy here. And as the airports all claim, there was no aircraft in that location at the time and no radar data of such a flight at that time. How did he come up with that? Methinks he's lying. After all, he works for a debunking website. It's what he gets paid to do.
Genetic fallacy. The video explanation didn't refer to a Concord at all. The location reported by the helicopter could have been off in range and/or heading, which the video seems to indicate.
Not a fallacy at all. You posted the photo yourself which that site said of:
"Comparison of a commercial jet’s thermal signature with that of the object in the video. Image credit: Metabunk.org"
Quote:OTOH, real ufos never leave contrails. And they never manifest any sort of heat propulsion. That argues in favor of it being a conventional aircraft. So at this point I remain agnostic. Could be either way.
Quote:So based solely on a fallacy, you'd rather ignore your own eyes and reasoning skills. Got it.
It's not a Concord. The Metabunk author himself said it isn't.
(Apr 17, 2018 02:35 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ] (Apr 17, 2018 12:58 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Apr 16, 2018 09:01 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah..so he shows how it matches a Concord in the posted photos but claims it was an A330 Airbus. Something smells fishy here. And as the airports all claim, there was no aircraft in that location at the time and no radar data of such a flight at that time. How did he come up with that? Methinks he's lying. After all, he works for a debunking website. It's what he gets paid to do.
Genetic fallacy. The video explanation didn't refer to a Concord at all. The location reported by the helicopter could have been off in range and/or heading, which the video seems to indicate.
Not a fallacy at all. You posted the photo yourself which that site said of:
"Comparison of a commercial jet’s thermal signature with that of the object in the video. Image credit: Metabunk.org"
So you obviously have no idea what a genetic fallacy is. Hint: it's bolded above.
And apparently you didn't watch the 60 second video, which shows that any four heat sources seen from a distance in infrared will become two blobs. The photo was just an example of jet engines and contrail in infrared. Or do you really think Concords have wildly different engine and contrail heat than any other jet? O_o
Quote:Quote:OTOH, real ufos never leave contrails. And they never manifest any sort of heat propulsion. That argues in favor of it being a conventional aircraft. So at this point I remain agnostic. Could be either way.
Quote:So based solely on a fallacy, you'd rather ignore your own eyes and reasoning skills. Got it.
It's not a Concord. The Metabunk author himself said it isn't.
No one ever said it was a Concord. You're just dense enough to assume a picture comparing engine and contrail in infrared
must mean they're making a one for one comparison, when the truth is probably that it was just the first such infrared pictures they found to compare.
Just your dogmatic belief once again clouding your own eyes and whatever reasoning skills you may retain. And you hedging your nets by saying it "argues in favor of it being a conventional aircraft" demonstrates that you know it's already debunked, because you never make such concessions otherwise.
(Apr 17, 2018 04:07 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Apr 17, 2018 02:35 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ] (Apr 17, 2018 12:58 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Apr 16, 2018 09:01 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah..so he shows how it matches a Concord in the posted photos but claims it was an A330 Airbus. Something smells fishy here. And as the airports all claim, there was no aircraft in that location at the time and no radar data of such a flight at that time. How did he come up with that? Methinks he's lying. After all, he works for a debunking website. It's what he gets paid to do.
Genetic fallacy. The video explanation didn't refer to a Concord at all. The location reported by the helicopter could have been off in range and/or heading, which the video seems to indicate.
Not a fallacy at all. You posted the photo yourself which that site said of:
"Comparison of a commercial jet’s thermal signature with that of the object in the video. Image credit: Metabunk.org"
So you obviously have no idea what a genetic fallacy is. Hint: it's bolded above.
And apparently you didn't watch the 60 second video, which shows that any four heat sources seen from a distance in infrared will become two blobs. The photo was just an example of jet engines and contrail in infrared. Or do you really think Concords have wildly different engine and contrail heat than any other jet? O_o
Quote:Quote:OTOH, real ufos never leave contrails. And they never manifest any sort of heat propulsion. That argues in favor of it being a conventional aircraft. So at this point I remain agnostic. Could be either way.
Quote:So based solely on a fallacy, you'd rather ignore your own eyes and reasoning skills. Got it.
It's not a Concord. The Metabunk author himself said it isn't.
No one ever said it was a Concord. You're just dense enough to assume a picture comparing engine and contrail in infrared must mean they're making a one for one comparison, when the truth is probably that it was just the first such infrared pictures they found to compare.
Just your dogmatic belief once again clouding your own eyes and whatever reasoning skills you may retain. And you hedging your nets by saying it "argues in favor of it being a conventional aircraft" demonstrates that you know it's already debunked, because you never make such concessions otherwise.
He should've posted a photo of the Airbus he is claiming it is. The Concord photo is misleading. And the 2 year investigation confirmed there were no aircraft in that vicinity at the time as well as no radar target from 3 radars. The debunker is just making shit up. There's no way a 2 year investigation would miss something like that.
(Apr 17, 2018 04:23 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]He should've posted a photo of the Airbus he is claiming it is. The Concord photo is misleading. And the 2 year investigation confirmed there were no aircraft in that vicinity at the time as well as no radar target from 3 radars. The debunker is just making shit up. There's no way a 2 year investigation would miss something like that.
Why, do you have an infrared camera and an operating Airbus handy? Why would you think anyone else would? The Concord photo is only misleading to people easily or willfully mislead. That you think in such identities that you cannot manage to abstract to jets in general explains a lot about your ignorance of science.
The investigation apparently never questioned the distance or heading of the sighting, since the video lined up actual geography with recorded flight path data. And South America is known for lacking skepticism of UFO sightings. Military service doesn't magically fix that.
So congratulations. You're on par with superstitious beliefs of a 3rd world continent.