Errors in Luis Elizondo's UFO Book "Imminent"

[flarkey]

I'm sorry if this has been addressed earlier, but around the 18-minute mark, we see the object apparently "disappearing under the water." Was there an explanation for that effect? Was it a camera artifact?

there's a few different theories on this. Some have said it's due to the temperature of the object matching the temperature of the ocean behind it, and therefore it blends in with the background giving the appearance of going into the water. I think it's a little more complex than that -it's a combination of the grey infra red image of the object not contrasting with the grey ocean, but also the video compression of a bland grey scene that causes macro-blocking artefacts and therefore a loss of detail.

Basically - it's an infra red camera effect.

 

[Ravi]

I cropped the video to the particular part, so we know what we're talking about:

 

[Ravi]

Basically - it's an infra red camera effect.

I agree, but we need to prove our hypothesis. Tricky to replicate of course.

 

[flarkey]

I agree, but we need to prove our hypothesis. Tricky to replicate of course.

You're right - it's kinda hard to prove it without recreating the exact conditions and using the same equipment. However it is possible to demonstrate the feasibility of the hypothesis, and to demonstrate that all the things that are required to make the hypothesis true are there - such as digital video compression artefacts being visible throughout the entire video, and the bland, slow moving scene at the moment the objects appear to enter the water, and the limitations of monochrome infrared imagery. The validity of the hypothesis should become clear to anyone who has experience with infra red cameras and digital video encoding such has H.264. The problem is that sadly most UFO fans and members of the SCU do not have such experience and accordingly trying to convince them is difficult.

 

[JMartJr]

I agree, but we need to prove our hypothesis. Tricky to replicate of course.

Maybe -- but since it has been pretty firmly established that the fire balloons at Aguadilla were not over the water at all, the claim that they are transmedium objects dipping in and out of the ocean is sufficiently disproved, I think. Demonstrating what caused the fade-in and out effect is icing on the cake, and we all like icing! But it is not necessary to disprove the claim.


Source of Aguadilla track:

Source: https://youtu.be/0fho4YyXWfE?t=1364

(The green track is where the lines of sight place the balloons.)



PS: At 49:34 in that video, Mr. West demonstrates the ability of paper to block the IR from a candle, which MAY have something to do with the disappearances...
Source: https://youtu.be/0fho4YyXWfE?t=1542

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I cropped the video to the particular part, so we know what we're talking about:

There is no explanation for an object capable of traveling under water... etc.

It's tempting to say that the author is committing a logical fallacy - begging the question - and leaving it at that. (A logical error where you try to prove a point by using that same point as your proof.)

The reasoning is:

1. The object moved at an apparently impossible speed through the water... etc.
2. Therefore, something extraordinary or inexplicable was occurring.
3. The apparent speed, etc., is evidence that the object really did all these things.

The conclusion "this was an extraordinary object" depends on the very premise that was never independently demonstrated.

But I think, because this is such an obvious fallacy, this points to some fundamental problems that should be addressed.


It's a methodological error. Failure to establish the observational premises before drawing physical conclusions from them.

It's such an obvious error that I can't help but feel that these are the most credible reasons the error was made.
1. Lack of talent for clear thinking.
2. Motivated thinking.

Not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact there can be a pretty strong synergistic effect.

It's a problem that keeps cropping up in recent UFOlogy. And worse, it's more common now than it was in 1970.


In terms of psychology, it's a cognitive error: Premature Closure.

Once the UFOlogist accepts, in his mind, the impossible speed through the water... etc. interpretation, all of his observations from there on are interpreted within that framework rather than testing whether the framework itself is correct.

Or is this a self-aware ploy to encourage the audience to commit this cognitive error?

 

[flarkey]

Maybe -- but since it has been pretty firmly established that the fire balloons at Aguadilla were not over the water at all, the claim that they are transmedium objects dipping in and out of the ocean is sufficiently disproved, I think. Demonstrating what caused the fade-in and out effect is icing on the cake, and we all like icing! But it is not necessary to disprove the claim.

I agree - determining the flight path of the objects shows that they are not over the weather, so they can't possibly have gone into the water. However explaining the 'transmedium' appearance is a necessary side quest because people say "Well if it didn't go in the water how do you explain that it looks like it went in the water? ha! you can't gotcha debunkers!"