tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
An interstellar insurance scam? OMG how deep (high) does this conspiracy go!!!
- Status
An interstellar insurance scam? OMG how deep (high) does this conspiracy go!!!
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
I made this earlier today on another forum to illustrate a point... but it seems relevant in this discussion too
Just a small dollop of this added to an otherwise mundane dish will liven it up no end.
Belgian thought
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,346
I thought the Zamora case had been dealt with in Nick Pope's book and was apparently cleared up as far back as 2000.
To summarise, experimental tests for the Surveyor moon lander were being carried out in the area at the time of the sightings,
The only link I can find is this one http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
amb
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 18,777
Most sightings of UFOs since the very beginning in 1948 have been explained. The ones that have not, there is not enough information available to reach a conclusive decision which would not be that it's unexplainable because they are alien in nature which the enthusiasts of UFOlogy claim without so much as a shred of evidence.
Some interesting observations
One thing has been puzzling me for a while is the ad hominem attacks made by (especially) Astrophotographer (but others have involved themselves also) on the witnesses of UFO encounters. Interestingly, Astrophotographer often likes to cite Hendry (usually from Hendry, J. Allen. The UFO Handbook. New York: Doubleday, 1979) to make his points, but let us look at what Hendry has to say about ad hominem attacks on UFO witnesses:
I find also Interesting Hendry’s assessment of Phillip J. Klass’ (another of Astrophotographers “golden” sources) methodology. For example in the Father Gill case (according to Jerome Clark):
Hendry on the Val Johnson case (http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
Jerome Clark on Klass and Val Johnson:
Something else has been bothering me about the way Astrophotographer selectively quotes from Hendry. This is the planets/stars explanation for UFO reports. To read Astrophotographer’s comments and quotes from Hendry one might assume that Hendry devoted a great deal of time to such explanations. In fact he did not.
Another thing that Astrophotographer does is to extrapolate from Hendry’s comments on cases in this direction to posit that stars, planets, etc can be seen to be “”jumping” all over the place, splitting in two, etc and so on… but the atmospheric affects that might cause this type of phenomenon to manifest to an observer are not only extremely rare, but they primarily occur close to the horizon and almost never when any significant degree of angle of observation above the horizon is apparent. In other words, such distortions of stars, planets etc are actually very rare (to the extent that they can be seen to “jump about” or “split apart” rather than merely “twinkle” to a greater or lesser degree or merely appear as less clear, etc) and even when such conditions might occur, then it is almost always in the horizontal and rarely, if ever, at any significant degree of azimuth.
I am also interested in the tactic of the UFO debunkers when they are shown to be wrong. Unlike myself for example, they never admit to being wrong, they merely change the subject! Either that or they simply hold fiercely to a position even when it is demonstrably at variance with the facts (as was witnessed with the “blimp” hypothesis in the Rogue River case).
I have more observations of this nature but that should be enough to (hopefully) get at least some people thinking about the issue of UFOs a little more clearly.
Finally I recommend people read Hoyt’s thesis on the social and historical background that led up to the Condon Report (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
and Jerome Clark’s article on Klass and his methods (http://www.nicap.org/klassvufo.htm) in order to gain some insights into and perspective on the field of UFO research.
One thing has been puzzling me for a while is the ad hominem attacks made by (especially) Astrophotographer (but others have involved themselves also) on the witnesses of UFO encounters. Interestingly, Astrophotographer often likes to cite Hendry (usually from Hendry, J. Allen. The UFO Handbook. New York: Doubleday, 1979) to make his points, but let us look at what Hendry has to say about ad hominem attacks on UFO witnesses:
“Some ufologists, for example Allan Hendry, the Center for UFO Studies' chief investigator, have found Klass' view of a witness' veracity a fairly dependable measure of a report's significance as an item of UFO evidence. "Insulting ad hominem attacks on the witness' basic reliability" are, Hendry says, "one way to gauge the strength of a case." If a would-be debunker cannot break the case except by attacking the witness' integrity, chances are the sighting is a good one.”
(http://www.nicap.org/klassvufo.htm)I find also Interesting Hendry’s assessment of Phillip J. Klass’ (another of Astrophotographers “golden” sources) methodology. For example in the Father Gill case (according to Jerome Clark):
“(Klass) acts as if the story's credibility rested on Gill's testimony alone.) At the conclusion of the open letter, Klass wrote, "While 'the results of a polygraph test, even by a skilled, professional examiner[,] can not [sic] provide 'positive proof,' the proposed test could provide additional evidence that would be useful in appraising this classic case."
What is this supposed to mean? If a polygraph test does not give us "positive proof," how can it "provide additional evidence ... useful in appraising this classic case"? How, in fact, can it do anything but further confuse the issue? It is hard to resist Hendry's conclusion that Klass meant "if Gill passes the test, then it's invalid because after all polygraph tests don't prove anything - but if he flunks, then we'll know it's a hoax!" Certainly Klass' past record of pronouncements on polygraph results supports Hendry's interpretation.
(…)
In fact Hendry found Klass' methods appalling, reckless and irrelevant to the real issues of UFO research. They were symptomatic, he believed, of one of the worst features of the UFO controversy: the tendency of extreme believers and extreme disbelievers to stake out opposing positions and to hold to them regardless. Such polarization turned UFOs into a political rather than a scientific question and the exercise quickly degenerated into point-making rather than fact-finding. To Hendry, who defines himself as neither a scoffer nor a proponent, UFOs are not the cause uncritical believers hold them to be or the threat debunkers make them out to be; they are simply a question to which rational, unprejudiced investigation may eventually yield an answer. Hendry's position is so eminently sane that emotional partisans like Klass and some UFO proponents seem incapable of understanding what he is up to.
Although Hendry considers it distinctly possible that UFOs may turn out to be extraordinary phenomena, he is less interested in the eventual outcome of the controversy than he is in seeing to it that the investigations are thorough and that the conclusions derived from them are sound. It serves ufology's purpose not at all to extrapolate from "facts" that might not really be facts. And the polarization between opposing camps over the three decades of the UFO debate has produced plenty of nonfactual "'facts" - from "solid" cases that are not truly solid to "debunked" ones that are not truly debunked. UFO researchers had better try a different approach. "Unless we develop drastically new ideas and methodologies for the study of baffling UFO cases and the human context in which they occur," Hendry writes, "we will watch the next 30 years of UFO report gathering simply mirror the futility and frustration of the last 30 years."
(http://www.nicap.org/klassvufo.htm)What is this supposed to mean? If a polygraph test does not give us "positive proof," how can it "provide additional evidence ... useful in appraising this classic case"? How, in fact, can it do anything but further confuse the issue? It is hard to resist Hendry's conclusion that Klass meant "if Gill passes the test, then it's invalid because after all polygraph tests don't prove anything - but if he flunks, then we'll know it's a hoax!" Certainly Klass' past record of pronouncements on polygraph results supports Hendry's interpretation.
(…)
In fact Hendry found Klass' methods appalling, reckless and irrelevant to the real issues of UFO research. They were symptomatic, he believed, of one of the worst features of the UFO controversy: the tendency of extreme believers and extreme disbelievers to stake out opposing positions and to hold to them regardless. Such polarization turned UFOs into a political rather than a scientific question and the exercise quickly degenerated into point-making rather than fact-finding. To Hendry, who defines himself as neither a scoffer nor a proponent, UFOs are not the cause uncritical believers hold them to be or the threat debunkers make them out to be; they are simply a question to which rational, unprejudiced investigation may eventually yield an answer. Hendry's position is so eminently sane that emotional partisans like Klass and some UFO proponents seem incapable of understanding what he is up to.
Although Hendry considers it distinctly possible that UFOs may turn out to be extraordinary phenomena, he is less interested in the eventual outcome of the controversy than he is in seeing to it that the investigations are thorough and that the conclusions derived from them are sound. It serves ufology's purpose not at all to extrapolate from "facts" that might not really be facts. And the polarization between opposing camps over the three decades of the UFO debate has produced plenty of nonfactual "'facts" - from "solid" cases that are not truly solid to "debunked" ones that are not truly debunked. UFO researchers had better try a different approach. "Unless we develop drastically new ideas and methodologies for the study of baffling UFO cases and the human context in which they occur," Hendry writes, "we will watch the next 30 years of UFO report gathering simply mirror the futility and frustration of the last 30 years."
Hendry on the Val Johnson case (http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
"Actually, I'm inclined to agree with Klass," Hendry continued, this time sarcastically. "I think that the sheriff and the six associates of Val Johnson were lying when they assured me of the integrity of their coworker. I think that Val Johnson is such a practical joker that he deliberately injured his eyes - as judged by two doctors - and he deliberately entered a phony state of shock for the benefit of the ambulance driver who removed him from the scene of the accident."
(http://www.nicap.org/klassvufo.htm)Jerome Clark on Klass and Val Johnson:
“Klass went on to reveal something else he had not bothered to share with the public: that everyone he interviewed (by phone) in the course of his inquiry into the case spoke highly of Val Johnson. [*]
(…)
[*] On October 10, 1980, I spoke with Marshall County Sheriff Dennis Brekke who was Johnson's superior at the time of the episode. (Johnson is now chief of police at Oslo, Minn.) Brekke dismissed Klass' "practical joke" theory as absurd, saying Johnson was "too sincere" a man to create a hoax of this magnitude. He had spent time alone with Johnson not long after the incident and seen a man so distraught, confused and frightened that any suspicion of "acting" was out of the question. Nothing he uncovered during his department's investigation gave him the slightest reason to doubt Johnson's word. Klass, of course, had never met Johnson.”
(http://www.nicap.org/klassvufo.htm)(…)
[*] On October 10, 1980, I spoke with Marshall County Sheriff Dennis Brekke who was Johnson's superior at the time of the episode. (Johnson is now chief of police at Oslo, Minn.) Brekke dismissed Klass' "practical joke" theory as absurd, saying Johnson was "too sincere" a man to create a hoax of this magnitude. He had spent time alone with Johnson not long after the incident and seen a man so distraught, confused and frightened that any suspicion of "acting" was out of the question. Nothing he uncovered during his department's investigation gave him the slightest reason to doubt Johnson's word. Klass, of course, had never met Johnson.”
Something else has been bothering me about the way Astrophotographer selectively quotes from Hendry. This is the planets/stars explanation for UFO reports. To read Astrophotographer’s comments and quotes from Hendry one might assume that Hendry devoted a great deal of time to such explanations. In fact he did not.
Another thing that Astrophotographer does is to extrapolate from Hendry’s comments on cases in this direction to posit that stars, planets, etc can be seen to be “”jumping” all over the place, splitting in two, etc and so on… but the atmospheric affects that might cause this type of phenomenon to manifest to an observer are not only extremely rare, but they primarily occur close to the horizon and almost never when any significant degree of angle of observation above the horizon is apparent. In other words, such distortions of stars, planets etc are actually very rare (to the extent that they can be seen to “jump about” or “split apart” rather than merely “twinkle” to a greater or lesser degree or merely appear as less clear, etc) and even when such conditions might occur, then it is almost always in the horizontal and rarely, if ever, at any significant degree of azimuth.
I am also interested in the tactic of the UFO debunkers when they are shown to be wrong. Unlike myself for example, they never admit to being wrong, they merely change the subject! Either that or they simply hold fiercely to a position even when it is demonstrably at variance with the facts (as was witnessed with the “blimp” hypothesis in the Rogue River case).
I have more observations of this nature but that should be enough to (hopefully) get at least some people thinking about the issue of UFOs a little more clearly.
Finally I recommend people read Hoyt’s thesis on the social and historical background that led up to the Condon Report (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)
and Jerome Clark’s article on Klass and his methods (http://www.nicap.org/klassvufo.htm) in order to gain some insights into and perspective on the field of UFO research.
Last edited:
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
In fact it requires redefining the term "unidentified" to mean "alien" in order for the UFO woos to stand their ground...
Without sticking to their irrational habit of completely changing the meanings of words and phrases to suit their fantasy, they'd have to rationally concede that there is no evidence that any of the unidentified flying objects are some particular thing.
According to Astrophotographer I stated:
”These are merely statement of belief from you. You provide no evidence to support your claims. Indeed the last sentence contains a claim that is demonstrably false.”
These are merely statement of belief from you. You provide no evidence to support your claims. Indeed the last sentence contains a claim that is demonstrably false. That is:
…and if THAT is not using Condon as a source then I am afraid you live in a world not inhibited in the least by reality.
Now let us look critically at YOUR quote from Condon to see if it supports the above or not. I will use bold text to highlight the relevant sections.
So the conclusions of Condon are that further research will not be “fruitful”, but that should not stop researchers from putting forward research proposals! Yeah sure…as if research proposals would be accepted after the conclusions state that research would be fruitless!
I cited the O’Hare case ((http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf):
The actual physical evidence does not support anything extraordinary. There is nothing in the evidence that could not be done by something on earth. Others have made other suggestions about what he might have seen. We do not know what he saw and he may have either made it up or had been fooled by something. That is all that Quintanilla was stating. He did not say he was insane so you can stop your emotional appeals for the witness. The case is interesting but nothing conclusive about an alien spaceship.
Again with your ad hominem attacks…. No, but YOU made it out to seem that insanity was what was implied! A UFO with small humanoid beings… Hmmm… suggest anything to you?
”These are merely statement of belief from you. You provide no evidence to support your claims. Indeed the last sentence contains a claim that is demonstrably false.”
That is because you never read the rest of my statement that you snipped short. I actually stated:
These are merely statement of belief from you. You provide no evidence to support your claims. Indeed the last sentence contains a claim that is demonstrably false. That is:
”Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.
(…)
Therefore we strongly recommend that teachers refrain from giving students credit for school work based on their reading of the presently available UFO books and magazine articles. Teachers who find their students strongly motivated in this direction should attempt to channel their interests in the direction of serious study of astronomy and meteorology, and in the direction of critical analysis of arguments for fantastic propositions that are being supported by appeals to fallacious reasoning or false data.”
(http://ncas.org/condon/text/sec-i.htm)(…)
Therefore we strongly recommend that teachers refrain from giving students credit for school work based on their reading of the presently available UFO books and magazine articles. Teachers who find their students strongly motivated in this direction should attempt to channel their interests in the direction of serious study of astronomy and meteorology, and in the direction of critical analysis of arguments for fantastic propositions that are being supported by appeals to fallacious reasoning or false data.”
…and if THAT is not using Condon as a source then I am afraid you live in a world not inhibited in the least by reality.
Now let us look critically at YOUR quote from Condon to see if it supports the above or not. I will use bold text to highlight the relevant sections.
Scientists are no respecters of authority. Our conclusion that study of UFO reports is not likely to advance science will not be uncritically accepted by them. Nor should it be, nor do we wish it to be. For scientists, it is our hope that the detailed analytical presentation of what we were able to do, and of what we were unable to do, will assist them in deciding whether or not they agree with our conclusions. Our hope is that the details of this report will help other scientists in seeing what the problems are and the difficulties of coping with them.
If they agree with our conclusions, they will turn their valuable attention and talents elsewhere. If they disagree it will be because our report has helped them reach a clear picture of wherein existing studies are faulty or incomplete and thereby will have stimulated ideas for more accurate studies. If they do get such ideas and can formulate them clearly, we have no doubt that support will be forthcoming to carry on with such clearly-defined, specific studies. We think that such ideas for work should be supported.
Some readers may think that we have now wandered into a contradiction. Earlier we said that we do not think study of UFO reports is likely to be a fruitful direction of scientific advance; now we have just said that persons with good ideas for specific studies in this field should be supported. This is no contradiction. Although we conclude after nearly two years of intensive study, that we do not see any fruitful lines of advance from the study of UFO reports, we believe that any scientist with adequate training and credentials who does come up with a clearly defined, specific proposal for study should be supported...*
(*Readers will note that this is merely a restatement of the contradiction! As is the statement directly below. Rramjet)
Therefore we think that all of the agencies of the federal government, and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to consider UFO research proposals along with the others submitted to them on an open-minded, unprejudiced basis. While we do not think at present that anything worthwhile is likely to come of such research each individual case ought to be carefully considered on its own merits.
This formulation carries with it the corollary that we do not think that at this time the federal government ought to set up a major new agency, as some have suggested, for the scientific study of UFOs. This conclusion may not be true for all time. If, by the progress of research based on new ideas in this field, it then appears worthwhile to create such an agency, the decision to do so may be taken at that time. (Condon Bantam Paperback edition p. 2-3)
If they agree with our conclusions, they will turn their valuable attention and talents elsewhere. If they disagree it will be because our report has helped them reach a clear picture of wherein existing studies are faulty or incomplete and thereby will have stimulated ideas for more accurate studies. If they do get such ideas and can formulate them clearly, we have no doubt that support will be forthcoming to carry on with such clearly-defined, specific studies. We think that such ideas for work should be supported.
Some readers may think that we have now wandered into a contradiction. Earlier we said that we do not think study of UFO reports is likely to be a fruitful direction of scientific advance; now we have just said that persons with good ideas for specific studies in this field should be supported. This is no contradiction. Although we conclude after nearly two years of intensive study, that we do not see any fruitful lines of advance from the study of UFO reports, we believe that any scientist with adequate training and credentials who does come up with a clearly defined, specific proposal for study should be supported...*
(*Readers will note that this is merely a restatement of the contradiction! As is the statement directly below. Rramjet)
Therefore we think that all of the agencies of the federal government, and the private foundations as well, ought to be willing to consider UFO research proposals along with the others submitted to them on an open-minded, unprejudiced basis. While we do not think at present that anything worthwhile is likely to come of such research each individual case ought to be carefully considered on its own merits.
This formulation carries with it the corollary that we do not think that at this time the federal government ought to set up a major new agency, as some have suggested, for the scientific study of UFOs. This conclusion may not be true for all time. If, by the progress of research based on new ideas in this field, it then appears worthwhile to create such an agency, the decision to do so may be taken at that time. (Condon Bantam Paperback edition p. 2-3)
So the conclusions of Condon are that further research will not be “fruitful”, but that should not stop researchers from putting forward research proposals! Yeah sure…as if research proposals would be accepted after the conclusions state that research would be fruitless!
I cited the O’Hare case ((http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf):
Well you now have at least nine of MY top ten… at least at the present but I reserve the right to add or delete as I see fit… We can discuss that case if you feel that you have nothing further to add on the other cases I have presented so far…
See my previous post (above) for some comments directly related to your ad hominem attacks. Yes, I agree, the plasma/ball lighting hypothesis seems implausible.
I’ll remind you to remember how “noisy” certain aircraft are. For example you claim in Rogue River that an aircraft was responsible (and remember this was in 1949) yet the witnesses heard no noise. Now you claim that the noise in this case should have been heard by everyone within a 5 mile radius! Moreover, just because a lot of noise might have been made does not mean everyone in the vicinity will immediately leap to their phones to report it. Another thing, given the denials by the military, the helicopters are as much a part of the mystery as the UFO is.
I don’t know about your assumption that “Betty had no problem telling her story to the public”. You base this assumption on the fact that she mounted a law suit. But that is an entirely different matter than having no problem “telling her story to the public”. But even if she WAS willing to relate her story, that STILL does not mean that she would be willing to release her medical records publically. Moreover, as I already pointed out, her medical condition was NOT the issue, she patently had severe problems… as you tell it, just because she did not release her medical records publically, that means she might have been “hoaxing” or otherwise acting up her medical status. No, THAT is not the issue in this case. Patently she was in trouble medically from SOME cause.
It would seem to be a matter of public record that she (and the others) received their “burns” at the time they stated they did. THAT also is not at issue. For you to make out that it is, is simply to deny the evidence in the case. It is merely an indirect ad hominem attack and perhaps you should again read over Hendry’s opinion of such attacks (in my previous post above).
Yes,that is so, and more’s the pity for her! I also noted with interest on the site you refer to attack Gerstein’s character (Richard Hall’s site) that another favourite of yours also gets a decent “serve” in the UFO Hall of Shame: Joe Nickell! (remember him from the Hopkinsville case?) (http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hall2.html)
Well, I don’t hang my hat on it. But there really is no reason to doubt his word.
The actual physical evidence does not support anything extraordinary. There is nothing in the evidence that could not be done by something on earth. Others have made other suggestions about what he might have seen. We do not know what he saw and he may have either made it up or had been fooled by something. That is all that Quintanilla was stating. He did not say he was insane so you can stop your emotional appeals for the witness. The case is interesting but nothing conclusive about an alien spaceship.
Again with your ad hominem attacks…. No, but YOU made it out to seem that insanity was what was implied! A UFO with small humanoid beings… Hmmm… suggest anything to you?
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
One thing that has been puzzling me for a while is Rramjet's frequent attempts to make himself sound clever by using phrases or words he clearly doesn't understand. Admittedly, if he wants to make himself look stupid that's up to him, but I don't understand why he goes out of his way to do this when he could get on with the pressing matter of posting his evidence.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Feel free to demonstrate this is the case. Because it is not true about it being on the horizontal. It depends on the atmospheric conditions. The process by which this usually happens is a process called scintillation. The more violent/turbulent the atmosphere, the more likely these effects are going to occur. I suggest you read Minnaert The nature of light and color in the open air p. 67:
The colour changes are to be ascribed to slight dispersion of the normal terrestrial ray curvature, so that the rays from the star travel along slightly different paths in the atmosphere, according to their colour. For a star at a height of 10° above the horizon we compute distance between the violet and red rays to be as much as 11inches at a height of 1.25 miles, and 23 inches at 3 miles. The air striae are, on an average, fairly small, so that it may often happen that the violet ray passes through a striation and is deflected, whereas the red ray passes on without deviation. The moments when the light of a star becomes brighter or feebler as a result of scintillation are, therefore, different for the different colours... Colour changes never occur, apparently, at altitudes of more than 50° , but frequently below 35° . The most beautiful scintillation of all is that of the bright star Sirius, which is visible in the winter months rather low in the sky.
I would think 35 degrees is fairly high and I have seen Sirius scintillate well into that range. Also, the few cases I have dealt with personally of people reporting these things (mostly with the stars Sirius, Capella, and Vega) usually had the stars well above the horizon.
The rest of your use of a NICAP website is just amusing. Your attempts to paint me as a person making ad hominem attacks on witnesses is amusing since you have stooped to that sort of thing with Klass, Condon, etc. I only have suggested alternate possibilities. We don't know if the witnesses were lying, suffering from psychological problems, were mistaken, or perfectly sane. As Hendry stated, you have to consider the human context in which UFO reports occur. If you ignore the human side of the equation, then you are wasting a lot of time.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
What a load of nonsense. Condon even stated that scientists are no respecters of authority. Are you telling me that his statement made all scientists afraid of studying UFOs? Are you sure you are a scientist?
Big snip of the usual waste of time.
She made numerous television appearances after the event. The medical condition IS the issue because it is THE EVIDENCE of the event. Choosing not to release them maintains the mystery. The case can not be evaluated unless the medical records are released.
Btw, I was incorrect about the witness who reported the helicopters at the wrong time.
Dayton, Texas police officer LL Walker reported to Schuessler that several hours after the Cash-Landrum encounter, he observerd helicopters in groups of three with their searchlights on. (Fawcett and Greenwood The UFO cover-up P.108)
He would add that he saw them only for a short period because he was driving at the time. So it was Walker, who's observations were not at the same time as the event.
Last edited:
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
Right back at'cha - see below.
I agree. That is pure nonsense. But I never said that I require evidence to jump, you did. Needing evidence to jump is not the analogy I made.
Only to the extent that a well-established fact would require a lot of evidence (an "extraordinary" amount, in terms of quantity and quality) to overturn it.
You're trying to read into Sagan's statement more than is necessary to understand it and see that it is logical and prudent.
It is if there is an extraordinary amount of evidence (as would be the case for a well-established fact) for the contrary claim.
You're getting hung up on the word "extraordinary," almost as if you're desperate to find some illogic in Sagan's statement.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
This was based on the idea that the surveyor test was scheduled for that day but only in the AM. It was suggested that it could be possible that the test was delayed for the day and as a result it happened late in late afternoon instead. I like the idea but I have yet to see a photograph of the rig for testing the surveyor with a helicopter and I have yet to see any evidence that it was being tested at the time in question. Trust me, I would love to see something to confirm this but it is not much better than the story about a hoax and rumors of super secret testing of the evidence found there. All we can conclude is the surveyor test was scheduled that day and not much more.
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
One other thought: Rramjet, the crux of the matter is not, as you seem to think, what "extraordinary" means in some particular sense. The use of the word "extraordinary" is just a way to encapsulate what's really going on, which is this:
If we seek to overturn a well-established conclusion, we need even more evidence for the contrary claim than exists for the well-established conclusion, which is an application of the general principle that we accept the conclusion with the most/best evidence. It is merely a casual, rough-and-ready way to say that a well-established conclusion has a bunch of evidence going for it to say that it's contrary claim would be "extraordinary," and therefore, proportionately, would require an extraordinary amount of evidence in order to reject the current, well-established conclusion.
Said another way: Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence is merely a special case of the general principle, "accept the conclusion with the most/best evidence." The special case is that in which the claim seeks to overturn a well-established conclusion, one with an "extraordinary" amount of evidence for it.
Furthermore, as I've said before, exactly what constitutes more or better evidence is an entirely different question: it's a great question, and is a difficult one, but that question and its intricacies does nothing to refute the extraordinary claims/evidence principle above.
I must be an optimist.
If we seek to overturn a well-established conclusion, we need even more evidence for the contrary claim than exists for the well-established conclusion, which is an application of the general principle that we accept the conclusion with the most/best evidence. It is merely a casual, rough-and-ready way to say that a well-established conclusion has a bunch of evidence going for it to say that it's contrary claim would be "extraordinary," and therefore, proportionately, would require an extraordinary amount of evidence in order to reject the current, well-established conclusion.
Said another way: Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence is merely a special case of the general principle, "accept the conclusion with the most/best evidence." The special case is that in which the claim seeks to overturn a well-established conclusion, one with an "extraordinary" amount of evidence for it.
Furthermore, as I've said before, exactly what constitutes more or better evidence is an entirely different question: it's a great question, and is a difficult one, but that question and its intricacies does nothing to refute the extraordinary claims/evidence principle above.
I must be an optimist.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
chuck4842
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Messages
- 604
Maybe all we'll ever have is stories if the secret government keeps destroying and suppressing all the evidence. OH NO! Another conspiracist. How can I help it with testimonies from prominent citizen and ones in authority, Jimmy Carter, Edgar Mitchell, Fife Symington, and this guy :
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9NmVfakQyN1NUdzA=
http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9NmVfakQyN1NUdzA=
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
Me2 said:
Yeah, that was kinda silly of me, huh? Living on the edge . . . .Very much so.
I take my last post also as an exercise in honing my own logical thinking. It forces me to try to be concise, explicit, exact, etc.
chuck4842
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Messages
- 604
Yeah, don't forget self-indulgent, distracting, and off topic. You're only strengthing the conspiracy belief when you can get away with off topic posts.
Last edited:
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Jimmy Carter, saw venus and his descriptions of it not only changed wildly over time but were not supported by the 11 people he was standing next to when he witnessed it
Edgar Mitchell, has never claimed to have even seen a ufo and only started believing in them when his income became reliant on a belief in ufology
Fife Symington, later retracted his claim and ridiculed the idea
Paul Hellyer saw a UFO and later assumed it was an alien craft after he watched a tv special on UFO's, he went on to claim that Dubya was planning an intergalactic war
youre right, with this kind of solid evidence Rramjet must be right
Last edited:
- Status