From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:06:38 -0700 Archived: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 06:15:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Important 1961 NICAP Report Solved >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:57:22 -0500 >Subject: Re: Important 1961 NICAP Report Solved >>From: Herb Taylor <herbufo.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 08:08:30 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: Re: Important 1961 NICAP Report Solved >>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:38:45 -0300 >>>Subject: Re: Important 1961 NICAP Report Solved >><snip> >>I informed Printy of your comments re this 1961 Pacific Ocean >>report, and after citing several compelling reasons that made >>your arguments unsustainable, he stated the following; >>"I consider this case probably solved and only consider it not >>100% because I don't have a launch time. I would bet it probably >>was 15-30 minutes before the sighting." As I shall show below, never, ever trust anything Printy has to say without examining it carefully yourself with a critical eye. >So your role on UpDates is to pass on - always without the >faintest hint of doubt or independent analysis, of course - >anything that's handed you on a plate from the object of your >latest debunker crush? I'd ask if you have any pride left, but >that would be only a rhetorical question. >I fear that the above shows, again, that you are unable to think >or argue for yourself, that all we learn from you is that you've >found the True Faith from an infallible prophet who you believe >reads Scriptures correctly... >Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can surprise us all by >making as the subject of your next post a scorching examination >of how the mighty Tim Printy completely blew it when he attempted >to dismiss this or that puzzling UFO case. Yes, dead on Jerry. Debunkers often uncritically cite Printy's work as the last word when it is usually totally unscientific BS. Printy never went to college, as far as I know never took a college science or engineering courses, never got got any sort of science degree. Instead he joined the Navy after high school and became a nuclear submarine tech. Nothing wrong with that. But he is unschooled in real scientific analysis and it shows in his repeated bungled attempts at such analysis while he preaches how scientific he is and unscientific the UFO true believers are. Printy, like many debunkers, is a wannabee scientist. Because he was a nuclear tech and is now an avid amateur astronomer, he thinks this alone is enough to make him a trained scientist. Instead he is a vacuum cleaner sucking up data with no proper filter on how to analyze it properly, hence endless pseudoscientific nonsense on his website. He is the perfect example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Printy knows how to sound authoritative, but when you look at his arguments in detail, they are often totally erroneous, irrelevant, all over the place and self-contradictory. (He also employs the other usual tools of debunkers, such as denial, cherry-picking of evidence, ridicule, making up his facts, and when all else fails, lying.) Here's one very clear example of total scientific cluelessness by Printy, where he attacked points I made on my website concerning the Kecksberg case. (Very ironically, he titles it "Science Fiction vs. Science Facts" where I am the one supposedly guilty of the "science fiction".) I had noted there were serious problems with an astronomy paper that supposedly proved a fireball associated with the 1965 Kecksburg case had a trajectory at right angles to one that would have taken it to Kecksburg. Printy (like many fellow pseudo-skeptics), however, accepts this paper as religious gospel, immune to criticism, and therefore uses it as one of his lynchpin arguments against the Kecksburg UFO crash scenario. This uncritical acceptance of "science" in the abstract is very typical of wannabee junior scientists like Printy, who love the idea of science but don't really understand it, i.e., scientists do make mistakes all the time and criticism of assumptions, methods and results is the norm. That is ultimately how science can self-correct and progress. Else we would still be teaching alchemy and Platonic astronomy. Among my key criticisms was that the paper contained zero error analysis, virtually unheard of for a supposedly quantitative paper in a peer-reviewed science journal. As it turns out, even very small and easily made errors in field measurements of two photo sets used for triangulation could completely change the trajectory to one compatible with Kecksberg (also witness testimony recorded at the time). Printy's response to this was that the paper's analysis was 110% perfect, no questions, no errors, and it was my responsibility to demonstrate there were any errors. This alone shows how totally ignorant Printy is about the scientific method. Anyone trained in rigorous science or engineering courses has it drummed into their heads that there are ALWAYS multiple sources of error in any measurement. Thus the real question is not whether there is error, but whether it is serious enough to cast the conclusion into doubt. Therefore the need for error analysis to demonstrate that the conclusion remains statistically significant even after all potential sources of error are accounted for. It is always the responsibility of the authors of a paper to include such an analysis; it is not the responsibility of the readers of the paper. That the paper failed to include the required error analysis only demonstrated a badly written paper and a deeply flawed peer review process that should have demanded it, not that my criticism was invalid or the paper's result was necessarily correct, as Printy apparently religiously believes. Another indication of scientific cluelessness on Printy's part were three different times when he stated that an explosion point associated with the photographed trail was totally "consistent" with the computed trajectory of the paper. Printy apparently also played hooky from his high school geometry class, where he would have learned that a single point does not define a line or trajectory. My favorite Printy bungle, however, was his counter to another point that I made. I noted that the photos used in the paper showed the fireball trail thinning as it progressed, which would be geometrically consistent with the object moving away from the two cameras (and roughly in the direction of Kecksburg) instead of sideways to them, according to the paper's computed trajectory (in which case you would expect the trail to remain of relatively constant average thickness). Printy's supposedly triumphant counter was to cite a photo of a very well studied fireball from 2000 up in the Yukon, which he claimed showed the trail thinning as it approached the camera. Yet when I examined his linked source material, it was quickly apparent he hadn't bothered to read it with a semi-critical eye, if he read it at all. Plotting out the fireball trajectory on a map along with the camera position, it was blatantly obvious that Printy had the direction of travel on the photo 180 degrees reversed. So the trail was indeed growing larger as it approached the camera, exactly as one would expect from simple geometrical perspective. Anyone interested in the sordid details, including much more Printy "skeptical" "scientific" nonsense: www.roswellproof.com/Kecksburg_Printy_rebuttal.html www.roswellproof.com/Kecksburg_triangulation_error.html Incidentally, I wasn't the only one to note serious flaws in this paper. So did a photographer named Rand McNatt doing a retrospective for Kecksburg's 40th anniversary. http://tinyurl.com/kl6nwms McNatt is a self-described skeptic, who noted, like I did, the paper had a number of serious problems. Unlike science fawners like Printy, McNatt appears to be a true skeptic capable of independent critical thought, who doesn't hold science papers as sancrosanct and immune from criticism as does Printy. McNatt himself comments: "Even though there was a glaring typographical error in the article, and several questionable assumptions, it has been gleefully cited by UFO sceptics as a perfect example of science over superstition (even though it seems none of them actually checked the figures independently, because the originally published coordinates had the object shooting UPWARD at Mach 45." Indeed! He also thought the authors had force-fit a meteor fireball explanation by massaging the time-of-observation data of dozens of eyewitnesses, cutting it in half to make the speed of the object consistent with a meteor instead of an object entering from orbit at half the speed. McNatt's theory was a re-entering U.S. ICBM, which I don't necessarily agree with, but which I think is at least more consistent with the available data. No doubt, like a broken clock, Printy is occasionally correct, but the much safer bet is that Printy is wrong about practically everything. (Many more examples) I'm sure if your sub's nuclear reactor needs fixin' or if you want him to point out the North Star, he is a good man to call. However, anybody who holds Tim Printy up as some sort of "scientific" authority on all things UFO never to be questioned is probably as clueless as Printy usually is. David (fed up with pseudo-skeptics) 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