Access Denied wrote:lost_shaman wrote:I'm familiar with the Leone paper and also the subsequent rebuttals from both sides. Leone himself did not call the "scientific rigor" of the investigation in general into question only one specific observation out of many!
I strongly disagree…
You need to recognize that Leone was there simply to collect eyewitness testimony from Hessdalen residents. Only a portion of the Phenomena occur near the ground so more often than not "car Headlights" can not explain the Phenomena. Leone did not document or photograph what he claims he saw so it is simply anecdotal in nature and there is therefor no real evidence that he even observed the same source as Teodorani described in the EMBLA 2002 paper. Despite what Leone wrote in his paper Hessdalen is the Capital of scientific surveillance of luminous phenomena on the planet! To say such an unprecedented scientific surveillance was not "set up" is simply a false statement.
Access Denied wrote: The information recorded during the 1984 field mission is suggestive but not conclusive, and the researchers in the field of anomalous aerial phenomena need better phenomenological foundations. These foundations require a careful attention to both the methodology of collection of eyewitness testimony and the issue of “objective” evidence.”[/i]
Not exactly subtle… more like “ouch”.
IMO, it's less like "ouch" and more like "what is Leone talking about"?
Access Denied wrote:lost_shaman wrote:Are you by chance familiar with the subsequent rebuttals?
No, I’m not and I don’t see any reason why I need to be. The fact of the matter is they “identified” car headlights as anomalous phenomenoa despite being told at the time that’s what they were and they went ahead and wrote up a “scientific” paper on it anyway. That leaves me with little to no confidence in the integrity of the researchers involved…
AD, since Leone gathered no evidence other than his word it is more likely that he simply was looking at something else. We actually have no evidence at all of what Leone was looking at! Taking that into consideration you should at least bother yourself with understanding the science that has been undertaken at Hessdalen before pointing to Leone (2002) and saying there is no reason to be familiar with the science.
Access Denied wrote:lost_shaman wrote:Even if Leone (2002) is correct, do you believe that all the research done in Hessdalen to date is falsified and can not be replicated?
Well, if there’s actually anything to it, I await for a peer reviewed paper documenting it to be published with bated breath…
Obviously, Leone (2002) satisfies your 'peer review' need, so the rebuttals that you haven't bothered to read should also be acceptable right? Not to mention the original papers themselves?