From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:36:21 -0700 Archived: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 07:11:17 -0400 Subject: Printy 'Science' & Kecksberg [was: Debunkers Irrational Uninformed And Ignorant] >Source: Frank Warren's UFO Chronicles >http://tinyurl.com/7sest3t >Thursday, March 29, 2012 >UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed And Ignorant >Stanton T Friedman >In early February, 2012, Andre Skondras, who distributes many >interesting UFO articles on the internet, carried a 15 page 2008 >article by Tim Printy entitled The UFO Disclosure Myth; I am a >primary target of the last portion of the article. I also found >his paper My Skeptical Opinion about UFOs. Clearly he is a >debunker not a skeptic. He seems to know very little though he >has strong opinions. Ah yes, Tim Printy, the Sarah Palin of Ufology, indeed irrational, uniformed, and ignorant. He thinks he knows much more than he really does, claims to be the defender of "science" But like a lot of debunkers, he is more of a science wannabe who thinks he knows what "science" is about, but hasn't a clue about true scientific argumentation. Printy never really had any formal scientific education. Unlike Stan or me, or many others in this crazy field, Printy has zero college science degrees. Just remember that whenever you read Printy ranting about how sancrosanct "science" is and how supposedly pseudoscientific Ufologists like Stan or me are. According to a bio he once did on himself, he has only a high school diploma before putting in for (as I remember) a 20 year stint in the Navy as a tech on a nuclear submarine. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it doesn't somehow make one a "scientist" any more than being an auto mechanic makes you a scientist. Nonetheless, that and being a long-time amateur astronomer, apparently makes Printy think he is a scientific genius, even though he bungles just about every argument he makes because he usually 1) doesn't get his basic facts right or just makes them up or omits/dismisses inconvenient ones, or 2) doesn't even comprehend what the argument is about. Printy is bombastic in his writing style and knows just barely enough to make him sound superficially authoritative, but when you analyze his arguments, they almost invariably turn out to be total rubbish. Much like Printy's recent attacks on Stan Friedman which Stan felt he had to respond to, I recently put up a second web page on the 1965 Kecksburg incident to counter a lot of Tim Printy foolishness attacking me personally and another Kecksburg page I put up. I was originally criticizing a 1967 astronomy paper in the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (JRASC), that Printy and other debunkers rely heavily on, that claimed to prove that a widely seen fireball associated with Kecksburg was really on a trajectory at right-angles to one that would have taken it in the direction of Kecksburg. Thus, this supposedly proved the fireball couldn't possibly have anything to do with Kecksburg. (Printy's basic argument is absolutely nothing of significance happened there.) But the JRASC paper had lots of problems with it. I pointed out that the two astronomer authors had no error analysis in their triangulated trajectory and even very tiny errors in their measurements (examples of which I pointed out) could have easily created a trajectory towards Kecksburg. Further, the photos they used in their trajectory triangulation showed a thinning trail strongly suggestive of the fireball moving off in the distance towards western Pennsylvania, rather than sideways to the cameras as they claimed (where one would have expected a trail of about the same average thickness). Original web page: http://www.roswellproof.com/kecksburg_triangulation_error.html My later counter to Printy: http://www.roswellproof.com/Kecksburg_Printy_rebuttal.html In attacking me and my Kecksburg website, Printy claimed some of the following pseudoscientific nonsense: 1. It was in an astronomy journal (ooooh, scary!), therefore the article was above criticism. Did you know that any scientist or paper they write never makes any mistakes, at least in fawning Printy DebunkerWorld? Instead, Printy claimed it was up to me to prove measurement error, when any idiot with even minimal science training knows that there are ALWAYS errors in measurements. All _properly_ refereed science journals demand an error analysis--from the authors, not the readers--to demonstrate results are not artifacts of inherent errors. This is absolutely fundamental to the scientific method, but Printy obviously doesn't know this. (To show how sloppy the paper actually was, the authors reversed their trajectory data points, meaning they originally had the fireball flying upwards into space instead of crashing into the ground, and in point 4 below is a good example of how they played games with the actual eyewitness data to support the meteor hypothesis.) 2. Printy claimed another much-better studied and photographically documented fireball showed a thinning trail as it approached the camera, i.e., Printy claimed to have provided a counter-example proving my thinning argument wrong. Unfortunately for the totally clueless Printy, he obviously didn't spend event two seconds to analyze the data and photo he referenced, because if he had he might have realized he had the direction of travel BACKWARDS. (All he had to do was look at a map to get it right.) In other words, the fireball trail was indeed getting larger as it approached the camera, or thinned out as it moved away, as photographed from other sites, just as one would expect from simple geometrical laws of perspective. 3. Three times claimed that single-point data "confirmed" the trajectory of the authors, when any minimally educated person knows it takes at least two points to determine a line or trajectory. E.g., he cites a seismographic single-point data record used by the authors as somehow proving their trajectory, when it proves nothing of the sort, since one seismographic record can't possibly tell you what direction a sound came from or the direction of travel of the object that made it. In reality, the authors used the seismographic record of a sonic boom or explosion near Detroit to try to pin down the time of passage. They obviously knew a lot better than to make Printy's absolutely inane argument that the single seismic record showed direction of travel. 4. Claimed I deliberately left out the collected eyewitness reports, supposedly supporting the absoluteness of their trajectory. In reality, there was nothing for me to report, since the analysis of the 66 detailed eyewitness reports they said were gathered and analyzed was supposed to be "Part II" of the JRASC paper, but was NEVER published, for reasons that have never been explained. (Their article was "Part I", they referenced "Part II", and "Part II" should have been the very next article, but it never appeared.) Instead, the only two specific witnesses mentioned, the two photographers whom the authors claimed were best-positioned to accurately report the fireball, disagreed with the paper on two key points. One, e.g., made several statements (one in a letter to Project Blue Book immediately afterward) that the fireball appeared to be fading out in the distance and moving away from him (born out by the photographs of the thinning trail), i.e., headed eastward towards western Pennsylvania, not diving northward into Lake Erie. Both disagreed with the authors' estimate of duration (used to calculate speed), one saying 1 second, the other 4 seconds. What did the author's use?: the "average" of 2 seconds, even while noting that the vast majority of the other eyewitnesses placed the duration at 3 to 4 seconds. Why didn't they use the much more statistically sound average of everybody? Well, it seems the longer average duration would have cut the speed to well below expected meteor speeds to more like what one would expect from a re-entering space object. So it was obvious the authors were massaging the eyewitness duration reports to support their meteor hypothesis, a good example of confirmation bias in action. 5. Claimed there were no eyewitness accounts from the period supporting a Kecksburg area crash. But if there were, they were all due to faulty reporting, e.g., a Columbus, Ohio weather observer reporting a bright object due east of him, i.e. right in the direction of Kecksburg (but if the event ended near Detroit, he should have reported it due north, so, of course, the reporter quoting him must have gotten it wrong, at least according to Printy). Actually there were many other reports back then supporting something flying well beyond Detroit and into western Pennsylvania airspace, such as widely reported grass fires in Elyria, Ohio (also recovered metallic fragments). But Elyria was on a trajectory taking the fireball towards western Pennsylvania. None of what was reported in Elyria could have happened if the JRASC trajectory, 50 miles away and at right angles, was correct. There were also widely reported sonic booms in western Pennsylvania discussed by an astronomer (and even a Project Blue Book log of reports associated with the fireball noted an unspecified "sound" from Greensburg, PA, near Kecksburg 10 minutes after the fireball event supposedly ended). The Pittsburgh airport control tower said there was something in their airspace several minutes later, i.e., again after the fireball had supposedly ended near Detroit. Project Blue Book files also had a dramatic eyewitness written report of a passenger on a Canadian airliner, a former RCAF pilot, south of Pittsburg near Kecksburg, seeing a bright UFO out his window in a direction opposite Detroit (to his east, not backward and to his northwest) going from horizontal flight into a rapid steep dive at an unbelievable rate. There was another newspaper report from Uniontown, PA, even further south, of a bright object north of the area appearing to head toward eastern suburbs of Uniontown (whereas sighting of a meteor diving steeply near Detroit should have been reported strictly to the northwest and headed straight into the ground, not seeming to fly to the east of Uniontown). There was a widely reported Army and military scientists/engineers search of the Kecksburg area prompted by 7 local eyewitnesses seeing something dive into the woods there. Printy again claims the reporters were confused by a small Air Force unit called out there (never noting, e.g., that one of the reporters, Bob Gatty from Greensburg, was raised in an Army family and was well aware of what Army uniforms looked like). And why would either the Army or Air Force be involved in the search for a suspected "meteorite"? Obviously they would be concerned about something else possibly crashing there. 6. Printy made many other foolish, false, and spurious claims. E.g., he claimed I deliberately didn't quote a passage from the JRASC authors (when I always had, questioning in detail it's accuracy--kind of hard to miss if he had actually bothered to read what I wrote). He falsely claimed I had never looked into the seismographic angle (I had years before Printy, contacting a NOAA expert, who informed me that data like sonic booms or explosions were typically thrown out of permanent records because they are considered artifactual seismic data--the Detroit area data point used in the JRASC article no longer exists either.) In short, I feel Stan Friedman's frustration and pain dealing with a perpetually clueless and dishonest debunker like Printy. But fellow debunkers love to cite his stuff, being equally clueless as to just how vacuous it really is. Really, thinking there are never any measurement errors by scientists or getting the direction of meteor exactly backwards does not speak highly of his "scientific" acumen, now does it? David Rudiak Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp