UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

Second, UFO does NOT mean “alien”. It seems there is too much invested in UFO = alien for my arguments to strike home. UFO is literally “Unknown”.

I think I found a semantic problem. The bolded part above is incorrect Rramjet. The U in UFO stands for Unidentified, not Unknown. A small but, I believe, vital distinction in our discussion.

 

[jer_j]

Just a thought.....Why would so many UFO sightings consist of "lights" in the sky. If these were actually intelligently-guided craft of some sort, and presumably of vastly advanced
technology...Why would they bother with lights?

(snip)

Let's face it; an advanced technology could learn all it wished to about humanity from orbit or with remotes rather than flying around pointlessly in the atmosphere...

I asked this question of Rramjet over one week and many hundred posts ago. He responded by asking me something about why a toaster doesn't turn into an extension cord, or some foolishness like that.

Just so you know what you're up against.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So I did!

Perhaps this will help then.

COULD THIS SIGHTING REPORT HAVE BEEN A HOAX?

It is my opinion that this report was not a hoax. When the two men decided to report the UFO, they did not turn to the newspapers or TV or radio to get the maximum publicity for their story. Instead, the two men, who worked in responsible positions within the Ames Research Laboratory, reported it to the security office at their own laboratory. If it was a hoax, by reporting it directly to their workplace security, they were (at the very least) endangering their jobs if exposed.

One might suggest that the time between the sighting and the report lends an air of “hoax” to the situation. It took the witnesses about three weeks to report the sighting. To me however, this suggests an element of caution on their part, in keeping with their reported character assessments. Did they really dare to report such a thing? Certainly they would not have wanted to look foolish. And what about their positions within the Ames laboratory? Yet they probably would also have felt - as confirmed by several of the early witnesses who reported “flying saucers” - that it was their duty as American citizens to report these things so that the government would know about them.

Of course the "dyed in the wool skeptic" (a phrase used by Phil Klass to describe himself during my first phone conversation with him in 1974) or “debunker” might argue that they played for high stakes. If they could get their story past the OSI investigators they could either laugh at the government (they did it for the fun of it) or use the OSI investigation as evidence it was a genuine sighting and make lots of money selling their story to the press, or both.

However, this scenario is unlikely. There is no indication I am aware of that they ever told anyone other than the OSI the details of their sighting. Hence they certainly didn't "do it for the money". Of course, I cannot prove they didn't do it for fun, but it would seem to be a highly risky undertaking for men in responsible positions to put their jobs on the line merely to be able to laugh at the OSI investigators. (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

Is English your native language? Surely if someone says, "it could have been a hoax," does not mean the observers were in on the joke. They could have been taken in by a hoax created by an unknown party. This has been know to happen.

 

[jer_j]

..and of course your cynicism points to the obvious question:

"How CAN we rationally assign motivation to an "alien"?

Of course we cannot.

Therefore we cannot use "The aliens would do this..." or "The aliens would not do that..." as the basis for ANY conclusion about why or why not they might "choose" any course of action at all.

Okay, so let's get this straight...

"Aliens have technology that's so advanced that it defies the laws of physics as we know them today, therefore you can't evaluate the plausibility of how I claim their vehicles work."

"Aliens have minds so foreign to ours that you can't evaluate the plausibility of how I claim they behave."

You're setting up the debate so that nobody can question the validity of your claims.

Then from there argument from ignorance carries the day.

Rramjet's arguments may seem elaborate, just because of the sheer volume of nonsense. But really he's done nothing more than construct a basic airtight "you can't argue with me" fortress.

 

[Vortigern99]

Rramjet, you appear to have missed the string of posts by EHocking and others systematically debunking your contention that there were "no blimps on the West Coast in 1949 except Goodyear."

You keep posting the same quotes from the Naval history site, and we keep reading them, but the key point you're missing/ignoring/pretending not to notice because it demolishes your position, is that the Naval Reserve is a distinct entity from the Navy.

The Naval reserve force is comprised of citizens with civilian jobs, not kept under arms, and "not considered part of a permanent standing body of armed forces" (see links below). Their records and histories are kept separately from those of the US Navy. Thus any information pertinent to the US Navy, which no one here disputes, excludes and is not pertinent to the US Naval Reserve. Why do you fail to observe and acknowledge this?

http://www.navyreserve.navy.mil/Welcome/Pages/Vision, Mission.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Reserve

You'll have to explain to me what part of this statement, from the links supplied, has nothing to do with blimps at all.
Naval History and HeritageCommand site,
"in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons (ZP) were established. "

Read the damned cite from the US Navy itself.

What part of "in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons (ZP) were established. ... ZP-871 at NAS Oakland, Calif.;...ZPs 951 and 952 at MCAF Santa Ana, Calif.", are you having difficulty with?

Note also these items (admitted added after I posted, so you may have missed them)

Squadron Designations for the relevant period.
ZP Airship Patrol Squadron 1942-1961
ZP Blimp Squadron 1942-1961
ZP Airship Patrol Squadron (All-Weather
Anti-Submarine) or Airship Squadron
or LTA Patrol Squadron 1942-1961
ZX Airship Operational Development
Squadron or Airship Development Squadron 1950-1957

Photograph of a Navy Reserve LTA still operating in California in 1950.
"The following photos were submitted by another Bluffs' neighbor, Van Jacobsen, when he learned that we were going to publish David Wallace's blimp memoir. According to Van: "Here are some pictures I took with a 4x5 speed graphic when I was at Tustin in the Navel Reserve during the 50s.

"It was a great experience and a lot of fun. We loved flying over football games and looking at the girls up and down the beaches. We also had practice over coastal waters and islands chasing and bombing submarines with unarmed bombs."
"

Perhaps you have not had time to read my posts with quotes from the Navy’s historical arm, and various other “official” sources which show NO blimps on the West Coast in 1949 EXCEPT possibly the GOODYEAR blimp…

The reduction in LTA following the war left ZP-12 at NAS Lakehurst and ZP-31 at NAS Santa Ana as the only active squadrons. A detachment of ZP-31 continued at NAS Moffett Field. On November 15, 1946, ZP-12 was redesignated ZP-2 and ZP-31 became ZP-1. In the summer of 1947, ZP-1 made a home port and fleet change from NAS Santa Ana in the Pacific Fleet to NAS Weeksville in the Atlantic. The change was due to the reduction of NAS Santa Ana to a maintenance status and the elimination of the ZP overhaul mission at NAS Moffett Field. (http://www.history.navy.mil/download/lta-09.pdf)

More, we have from the book: “Oakland Aviation” By Ronald T. Reuther, William T. Larkins “Navy Reserve Squadron ZP-871 (Lighter than air) flew one after the war at Oakland from 1952 to 1958 (Note: this is a reference to the GoodYear type blimp). (This photograph shows…) It was used as a slow, low-flying billboard, with the words “JOIN THE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE, BE A NAVAL AVIATION CADET” on the side.

So there was ONLY ONE blimp at Oakland - and it was used solely as an advertising blimp over the city, between 1952 – 1958!

Add that to my original source: "Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended."
(http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html)

ALL the evidence posted about blimps subsequent to my post show possible (but by no means conclusive) evidence of (just ONE) Navy blimp on the WEST Coast in the 1950s…but critically NOT in 1949. But even if the evidence directly pointed to 1949, the evidence is then at BEST seriously conflicted.

So unless we want to argue this forever, I suggest we move on.

For the record, I will argue this until you acknowledge and address it. The only explanations for your continuing non-acknowledgement are that you are intellectually dishonest, unwilling to admit a major error, and emotionally attached to a preconceived idea.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Yes, but critically, “blimp” has been the ONLY alternative proposed that has even the remotest chance of being plausible…(that is, there are NOT “many” competing hypotheses, only “Blimp” v. UFO)

Nonsense, Blimp is not the only possible hypothesis that has the remotest chance. Maybe in your eyes you have dismissed other possibilities because you have pegged the witness observations of the "craft" as being 100% accurate as far as shape is concerned. However, I demonstrated some time ago that hundreds/thousands were fooled by the film of the Catalina Island UFO, which was portrayed as a disc shaped craft by all UFOlogists for at least a decade. This turned out to be a simple airplane after analysis seen at an angle and under the right conditions to make it appear as a "disc". So what prevents the observers from seeing a simple plane under similar circumstances? Remember, the photographer of the Catalina Island UFO film was a pro and he felt it was a disc as well. People see what they want to see under the right conditions. This is why various optical illusions are so fun.

However, we can add other items as plausible explanations as well:

A blimp
wind blown trash in a thermal moved by the wind
a kite of some kind
a balloon of some kind
a parachute
etc.
etc.
etc.

I am sure others can think of more possible scenarios. You have simply dismissed these with a wave of the hand. Not very scientific IMO since all have a potential for being the source of the object.

 

[GeeMack]

So I did!

Perhaps this will help then.

COULD THIS SIGHTING REPORT HAVE BEEN A HOAX?

It is my opinion that this report was not a hoax.

But your opinion is supported by...? Seems to be your ignorance and incredulity again. (I'm noticing a consistent theme here.) The incident could have been a hoax perpetrated by an unknown person or group. The witnesses may have all been duped. It could also be that the "witnesses" themselves were lying. They may have done it for a prank. They may have been the kinds of people who believe there's some mysterious, unknown explanation for UFOs that involves aliens from other worlds or even advanced humanoids from right here on Earth. People with a deep seated belief in that kind of crap have been known to lie to support your conjecture. Why, you've done it yourself, several times, right here in this thread!

For the record, I will argue this until you acknowledge and address it. The only explanations for your continuing non-acknowledgement are that you are intellectually dishonest, unwilling to admit a major error, and emotionally attached to a preconceived idea.

We have a substantial body of evidence, nearing 400 of his posts, to support any or all three as plausible possibilities.

 

[jer_j]

The idea that any two hypotheses are equal until their evidence has been evaluated sounds good. It certainly seems enlightened and open-minded.

But in reality, it's nonsense. Why?

Testing the evidence of competing claims is a rigorous and time-consuming process. Because of this, people must sort through various claims to decide which ones are even worth pursuing.

Informally, we all do this without thinking about it. For example, if my wife were to walk into the other room, I would simply decide that she continues to exist instead of disappearing into thin air. When I hear barking next door, I decide that my neighbor has a pet dog, and not that he has the power to morph into other creatures. Are there hypotheses that could contradict mine? Yes. Are all of them worth my time and energy to consider? No.

Institutions do this more formally. Let's say there are two hypotheses for making military vehicles more resistant to roadside bombs. They are: 1) Use heavier armor, and 2) attach balloons to the vehicle. Military officials would, I hope, not even consider Option #2. And I would propose that, by not considering both hypotheses equal, they are not closed-minded. They are actually exercising crititical thinking skills in a constructive way.

You do not arrive at more truth by giving all hypotheses equal merit ahead of time. You actually discover less truth because (due to the sheer bulk of ridiculous theories one could propose) you're busy chasing after nonsense when you could be giving worthwhile ideas your consideration.

So evaluating the "equality" of two hypotheses is not as simple as "true or not true." I actually see two criteria for approaching a possible explanation for a phenomenon:

1. Is this hypothesis reasonable enough to be worth my time and consideration?
2. Once I've decided it's worth my time, does the evidence support it?

The answer to #1 is usually based on whether or not the hypothesis is consistent with observed reality. If it is wildly inconsistent with the bulk of what we've experienced, the answer is usually no - and it is very reasonable to dismiss it. It does not mean you necessarily reject it as being false. It just means you have to file it away as unlikely and move on. So by that criteria, two hypotheses can be considered "unequal" without being rigorously tested. Most people know this, at least instinctively - and it's really splitting hairs to claim in the name of open-mindedness that all ideas are equal until tested.

Most of us automatically filter out explanations based on extraterrestrial aliens upon asking ourselves Question #1 - again, not because we are unreasonable, but because of an intelligent process of sorting and prioritizing. This is why burden of proof is such an important issue: we must see something really compelling to get us past #1 before we can be reasonably compelled to move on to #2. (In this case, #2 would mean evaluating the direct evidence for blimps and saucers on equal terms.)

Is there a danger in being too closed minded? Is there room for innovation and "thinking outside the box"? Yes. But let's not glory in open-mindedness at the expense of reality.

 

[Marduk]

really guys come on, theres only so many ways you can tell/demonstrate/infer/teach someone theyre wrong. If they then persist in being wifully ignorant of the facts then you should deploy your own willful ignorance of their existence

 

[jer_j]

really guys come on, theres only so many ways you can tell/demonstrate/infer/teach someone theyre wrong. If they then persist in being wifully ignorant of the facts then you should deploy your own willful ignorance of their existence

You're right. I was being good for soooo long, and then I slipped. Oh well, it's out of my system.

 

[wollery]

Sorry, but as a point of order, and after reading Rramjet's response to Tapio's response to my last post, I have to point something out.

Rramjet, you keep noting that the blimp explanation for the Rogue River sighting is less than certain, and nobody here disagrees with that. You also keep noting that it is a UFO and that that does not, in and of itself, imply "alien", which we also all agree with. You then go on to state that all hypotheses are equal.

Now, leaving aside my objection to that last bit for a moment - what is your alternative hypothesis? That it's a UFO?

We know that. That isn't a hypothesis, it's an observation, a simple statement of fact. Whatever it was at Rogue River hasn't been positively identified, and is therefore, by definition, a UFO. An alternative (and therefore, by your argument, equal) hypothesis would by necessity entail an explanation of what the sighting was. But you offer none. You simply state the already well established fact that we haven't been able to make a positive identification of the object.

So what? Does that give us any insight into what it might have been? Does it add to the weight of human knowledge? Is it a scientific observation? Does it, in fact, answer any question at all?

The answer to all of those questions is an emphatic, "No".

So what's the point? It seems to me that what you're arguing for is that since there are some objects that have been observed that can't be positively identified, this means that there are things floating around in the Earth's atmosphere that, by their very nature, are "unidentifiable".

And I ask again, so what?

What do you think is gained from this line of argument? We all agree that there are observations of flying objects that can't be identified. We all agree that there are some sightings that will forever remain unidentified. We all agree that this does not imply that they're alien.

So what exactly are you arguing for?

Help me out here, because I am really confused about what your point is.

 

[Paul2]

jer_j, the corollary of you last post is this: there is actually an infinite number of "equally" likely hypotheses to explain *any* data set, so we're in for a *long* haul if we treat all hypothesis the same.

 

[Rramjet]

Nonsense, Blimp is not the only possible hypothesis that has the remotest chance. Maybe in your eyes you have dismissed other possibilities because you have pegged the witness observations of the "craft" as being 100% accurate as far as shape is concerned. However, I demonstrated some time ago that hundreds/thousands were fooled by the film of the Catalina Island UFO, which was portrayed as a disc shaped craft by all UFOlogists for at least a decade. This turned out to be a simple airplane after analysis seen at an angle and under the right conditions to make it appear as a "disc". So what prevents the observers from seeing a simple plane under similar circumstances? Remember, the photographer of the Catalina Island UFO film was a pro and he felt it was a disc as well. People see what they want to see under the right conditions. This is why various optical illusions are so fun.

However, we can add other items as plausible explanations as well:

A blimp
wind blown trash in a thermal moved by the wind
a kite of some kind
a balloon of some kind
a parachute
etc.
etc.
etc.

I am sure others can think of more possible scenarios. You have simply dismissed these with a wave of the hand. Not very scientific IMO since all have a potential for being the source of the object.

Even accepting the GOODYEAR (or even a Navy reserve) blimp WAS active we must also account for the witness' sworn testimony, CONSISTENT between themselves, describing the object as (observation made by five witnesses under perfect viewing conditions with the sun at their backs, two with the aid of binoculars):

UFO: CIRCULAR, pancake shaped (blimp: CIGAR shaped)
UFO: 25-35 feet in diameter (blimp: HUGE in comparison)
UFO: Speed of a jet plane (how fast does the Goodyear blimp go again?)
UFO: No sound (how does the blimp propel itself again?)
UFO: "rotation about the vertical axis" (blimp: I’d like to see that…)
UFO: FLAT, smooth underside (blimp curved, lots of protuberances)

The witness descriptions also lack the features a blimp DOES have:

BLIMP: Bottom and horizontal fins (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Gondola (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Engines (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Trailing tether lines (UFO: None)
BLIMP: BIG sign on side stating “Good Year” - some with flashing neon lights too! (UFO: No markings whatsoever)

Let me now add some additional comments to the above points.

A blimp or airship is typically 3 or 4 (or more) times long than it is wide. If the witnesses had seen it coming directly toward or directly away from them they would have seen something not quite circular but like a fat ellipse with its major axis vertical. However, they said it crossed in front of them (heading almost southward while they looked eastward). In this case they should have viewed it broadside and seen an overall shape somewhat like a cigar with its major axis horizontal. They might mistake this for an oblique view of a disc - but when it turned, at least the guy with binoculars would have seen its length appear to shorten or, if it weren't perfectly transverse to the line of sight, the width of the image would change. Yet the witnesses describe no such change – maintaining it appeared circular throughout.

Then the witnesses describe (and indeed represent in a drawing) an object with a fin on the top (and this is where the “blimp hypothesis” people want to claim “resemblance” to a blimp). First the “fin” in the drawing begins “amidship” while a fin on a blimp is very much restricted the end of the object. Furthermore, it is obvious that if the witnesses (two using binoculars) could see the “top fin”, they would also have noticed if there were lower and horizontal fins (and a gondola!).

One skeptic has complained that Mrs. A described the object as travelling at the speed of a C-47, which is not a jet aircraft. Right, not a jet aircraft, but still faster than you're likely to see a blimp travel! (Note also that Mrs A was referring specifically to the speed of the object, not its’ size or shape)

The “skeptics” make their arguments by selectively rejecting portions of the witness testimony – while at the same time accepting only those portions that support their own hypothesis. But if you do that, you can explain ANYTHING.

Finally, the “skeptics” seem to want to define a UFO a la Condon as “an object unidentified by the observer”. But this denies the OSI investigation by experts who should have been able to identify known, mundane phenomena/objects yet failed to identify the object despite sufficient detailed, credible information that identification should be possible based on what is known "today."

The evidence MUST be viewed in toto. All together. First, the direct evidence that a blimp could possibly have been in the area seems conflicted (at BEST), but even accepting it was possible for a blimp to have been in the area (and given also the location that seems highly unlikely), then we have the eyewitness testimony that describes an object quite unlike a blimp in most, if not all, characteristics AND the OSI investigation to account for.

Together the evidence points toward UFO as the only conclusion that can be reached. All other explanations "wind blown trash", "kite", "balloon of some kind", "parachute", etc. just do NOT fit the evidence. It's as simple as that.

My assessment above (and in previous posts) has not "dismissed with the wave of a hand" anything at all. In fact I have provided much detailed evidence and explanation to support my position. Rather it is the "skeptics" who "dismiss at the wave of a hand". They simply refuse to directly address most, if any, of the substantive, detailed points that have been made by me. It is as simple as that.

 

[Rramjet]

Is English your native language? Surely if someone says, "it could have been a hoax," does not mean the observers were in on the joke. They could have been taken in by a hoax created by an unknown party. This has been know to happen.

Okay then, provide evidence that your hypothesis is a plausible one. For example - WHAT object placed into the air by WHAT method could possibly match what the witnesses describe (and fool the extensive OSI investigation)?

I note also you are now denying the blimp hypothesis. That is, the implication of your "hoax" claim is that you now believe the blimp hypothesis implausible and are thus hypothesizing it as a hoax.

 

[Marduk]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5233352&postcount=969

 

[wollery]

Okay then, provide evidence that your hypothesis is a plausible one. For example - WHAT object placed into the air by WHAT method could possibly match what the witnesses describe (and fool the extensive OSI investigation)?

I note also you are now denying the blimp hypothesis. That is, the implication of your "hoax" claim is that you now believe the blimp hypothesis implausible and are thus hypothesizing it as a hoax.

So, if someone offers a second possible hypothesis that means that they must, by default, completely deny their previous hypothesis?

What world do you inhabit where people can only entertain one hypothesis at a time?

If I don't know for certain what something is why can't I entertain several possibilities, without discounting any single one?

 

[Rramjet]

The idea that any two hypotheses are equal until their evidence has been evaluated sounds good. It certainly seems enlightened and open-minded.

But in reality, it's nonsense. Why?

Testing the evidence of competing claims is a rigorous and time-consuming process. Because of this, people must sort through various claims to decide which ones are even worth pursuing.

Informally, we all do this without thinking about it. For example, if my wife were to walk into the other room, I would simply decide that she continues to exist instead of disappearing into thin air. When I hear barking next door, I decide that my neighbor has a pet dog, and not that he has the power to morph into other creatures. Are there hypotheses that could contradict mine? Yes. Are all of them worth my time and energy to consider? No.

Institutions do this more formally. Let's say there are two hypotheses for making military vehicles more resistant to roadside bombs. They are: 1) Use heavier armor, and 2) attach balloons to the vehicle. Military officials would, I hope, not even consider Option #2. And I would propose that, by not considering both hypotheses equal, they are not closed-minded. They are actually exercising crititical thinking skills in a constructive way.

You do not arrive at more truth by giving all hypotheses equal merit ahead of time. You actually discover less truth because (due to the sheer bulk of ridiculous theories one could propose) you're busy chasing after nonsense when you could be giving worthwhile ideas your consideration.

So evaluating the "equality" of two hypotheses is not as simple as "true or not true." I actually see two criteria for approaching a possible explanation for a phenomenon:

1. Is this hypothesis reasonable enough to be worth my time and consideration?
2. Once I've decided it's worth my time, does the evidence support it?

The answer to #1 is usually based on whether or not the hypothesis is consistent with observed reality. If it is wildly inconsistent with the bulk of what we've experienced, the answer is usually no - and it is very reasonable to dismiss it. It does not mean you necessarily reject it as being false. It just means you have to file it away as unlikely and move on. So by that criteria, two hypotheses can be considered "unequal" without being rigorously tested. Most people know this, at least instinctively - and it's really splitting hairs to claim in the name of open-mindedness that all ideas are equal until tested.

Most of us automatically filter out explanations based on extraterrestrial aliens upon asking ourselves Question #1 - again, not because we are unreasonable, but because of an intelligent process of sorting and prioritizing. This is why burden of proof is such an important issue: we must see something really compelling to get us past #1 before we can be reasonably compelled to move on to #2. (In this case, #2 would mean evaluating the direct evidence for blimps and saucers on equal terms.)

Is there a danger in being too closed minded? Is there room for innovation and "thinking outside the box"? Yes. But let's not glory in open-mindedness at the expense of reality.

My objection is specifically adressed to the fallacy of "Extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary evidence.

If you had followed the logic carefully you would have noted that the first part (extraordinary hypothesis) is a fallacy because

"All hypotheses are a priori equal. (a point which you seem to actually confirm in the above)

...and second, the evidence needed to refute ANY hypothesis is the same old mundane evidence that is required in our day to day existence. Thus making the "extraordinary evidence" bit also fallacious.

It really IS as simple as that. But please, do NOT take my word for it. Consult some peer-reviewed texts, ask someone qualified in the history and philosophy of science or who has been formally trained in logic.

 

[Rramjet]

So, if someone offers a second possible hypothesis that means that they must, by default, completely deny their previous hypothesis?

What world do you inhabit where people can only entertain one hypothesis at a time?

If I don't know for certain what something is why can't I entertain several possibilities, without discounting any single one?

Of course, you can entertain as many hypotheses as you think plausible - BUT while you are doing so you cannot claim any single hypothesis as THE explanation and MUST therefore state that you don't know what the object is (ie that it IS a UFO) until such time as you settle on a single hypothesis (that you think might identify the object) that becomes a plausible hypothesis. (shrugs) it really is quite simple. Basic logic 101.

(ie; You cannot "explain" the object as more than one thing... to attempt that is a complete nonsense).

 

[GeeMack]

If I don't know for certain what something is why can't I entertain several possibilities, without discounting any single one?

Especially since every hypothesis is equally as valid as any other. Hell, he has said it himself. Hoax, blimp, even the possibility that we are all playing a very elaborate joke on Rramjet, using him more or less as a cat toy to bat around for our amusement. We hacked his computer and doctored his access to all the links on the 'net. All the UFO stories are faked by folks from this forum. We put all that bogus information there so he would fall for it, every bit of it, hooked like a dumb fish grabbing a worm. After all, that's every bit as possible as any other explanation, you know, to someone who would claim, repeatedly, in all caps...

ALL HYPOTHESES ARE EQUAL.

 

[GeeMack]

Of course, you can entertain as many hypotheses as you think plausible - BUT while you are doing so you cannot claim any single hypothesis as THE explanation and MUST therefore state that you don't know what the object is (ie that it IS a UFO) until such time as you settle on a single hypothesis (that you think might identify the object) that becomes a plausible hypothesis.

Nobody has claimed that any particular explanation is THE explanation. Your insinuation that anyone has taken that position is a lie. Your argument is from ignorance and incredulity.