- Status
Since you desire correct and easily verifiable information, you may want to revisit Petaluma's location in "Southern California." Golden Gate bridge is in San Fran. Sorry - just a quick observation.
I too, eagerly await alien evidence. I read some in "News of the World" as a kid, but it's been a while.
ETA - and I really am sorry for nit-picking on an excellent, well-documented post. I'm just a geography nazi.
I too, eagerly await alien evidence. I read some in "News of the World" as a kid, but it's been a while.
ETA - and I really am sorry for nit-picking on an excellent, well-documented post. I'm just a geography nazi.
Last edited:
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
I retract my geographical claim, until after the next big one
No apologies needed, I learned something. Thankyou
I am sorry Paul2, but stooping to snipping parts of my statements out of context to attempt to make your point reflects on yourself rather than me.
YOU stated that “effort” and “evidence” were analogous in your statement: ”Look at it this way: to jump (physically) a miniscule amount requires a minimal effort; to jump a moderate amount requires a moderate amount of effort; to jump an extraordinary amount requires an extraordinary amount of effort.”
I stated in response that: “You require evidence to jump? Nonsense. Pure nonsense.”
YOU DIRECTLY stated that “effort” and “evidence” were analogous. If that IS so and we replace “effort” with “evidence” in your statement above… we end up with nonsense…So I ask again, if you consider your “analogy” a rational one that allows us to understand the meaning of the term “extraordinary evidence”, please show us all how.
I asked:
But how is “enough evidence” extraordinary?
Second, Sagan stated that it was “extraordinary evidence” that was required. If he had meant an extraordinary amount of evidence, he would have stated “Extraordinary claims require and an extraordinary amount of evidence.” He did NOT state this.
Thus I stated:
” Of course having “enough” evidence is NOT extraordinary.”
For a start “well established fact” is an oxymoron. A fact is a fact. Nothing more, nothing less.
By definition a “fact” cannot be contradicted by contrary evidence because that would mean that it could NOT have been a fact in the first place.
Many people assume things as fact when in fact they are mere hypotheses or beliefs. For example, many took it to be a fact that the Earth was the centre of the Solar System. This was one of your “well established facts”. As it turned out, the belief was a huge miscalculation and NOT a “fact” at all.
Returning to your statement then, in an attempt to make it a rational statement, we can then try to restate it in terms of hypotheses or beliefs. Thus:
It is if there is an extraordinary amount of evidence (as would be the case for a hypotheses or belief) for the contrary claim.
But this STILL does not seem to make sense, even though we have “corrected” the oxymoron.
We need to restate it again, considering the meaning that you are attempting to convey. Thus (and substituting my statement for your “It is”)…
Having enough evidence is “extraordinary” - if there is an extraordinary amount of evidence for a contrary claim.
But this STILL does not make sense! There is simply no way to make your statement logical or rational and still retain your intended meaning.
So I merely ask you, WHAT IS your meaning here?
So far no-one has been able to define “extraordinary evidence”. Sagan’s claim is utter nonsense!
What is so difficult about asking someone for more evidence?
They (but not you apparently) immediately understand what is required of them.
Apparently the amount of evidence they have provided is NOT enough to satisfy (or convince) their opponent and they must supply more evidence to do that!
WHAT is so difficult about that?
Similarly we can assess “better” evidence.
What is so difficult about asking someone for better evidence?
They (but not you apparently) immediately understand what is required of them.
Apparently the quality of the evidence they have provided is NOT good enough to satisfy (or convince) their opponent and they must supply better quality evidence to do that!
WHAT is so difficult about that?
We can even combine the two terms into the one requirement (more AND better evidence). … But when it comes to “extraordinary evidence”… THAT is where the difficulty begins… For example:
I require you to produce “extraordinary evidence”.
What IS “extraordinary evidence”?
It is something I require of you.
But you have NOT defined the term. How can I supply it if I do not know what it is?
Of course you will NOT do that… I KNOW this, I don’t have to be “optimistic” either…
Finally, this is NOT an “off topic” exploration as some UFO debunkers are now trying to claim. It goes to the very heart of the UFO debunker argument against UFOs being unidentifiable in mundane terms. They seem to require that UFO proponents supply “extraordinary evidence” for their claims. I am simply pointing out that this is an impossible requirement to fulfil if we cannot define “extraordinary evidence!
For a concrete example: Let us suppose that I require UFO debunkers to supply “extraordinary evidence” that a blimp was responsible for the Rogue River sighting. … go on then… what’s wrong? … you don’t even have ordinary evidence for your claim? … so what might the additional requirement of “extraordinary evidence consist? You can’t answer that can you…
YOU stated that “effort” and “evidence” were analogous in your statement: ”Look at it this way: to jump (physically) a miniscule amount requires a minimal effort; to jump a moderate amount requires a moderate amount of effort; to jump an extraordinary amount requires an extraordinary amount of effort.”
I stated in response that: “You require evidence to jump? Nonsense. Pure nonsense.”
YOU DIRECTLY stated that “effort” and “evidence” were analogous. If that IS so and we replace “effort” with “evidence” in your statement above… we end up with nonsense…So I ask again, if you consider your “analogy” a rational one that allows us to understand the meaning of the term “extraordinary evidence”, please show us all how.
I asked:
But how is “enough evidence” extraordinary?
Two points: First just because the amount of evidence YOU require might be “extraordinary”, this does NOT make the evidence itself “extraordinary”.
Second, Sagan stated that it was “extraordinary evidence” that was required. If he had meant an extraordinary amount of evidence, he would have stated “Extraordinary claims require and an extraordinary amount of evidence.” He did NOT state this.
Thus I stated:
” Of course having “enough” evidence is NOT extraordinary.”
What on earth does this statement mean?
For a start “well established fact” is an oxymoron. A fact is a fact. Nothing more, nothing less.
By definition a “fact” cannot be contradicted by contrary evidence because that would mean that it could NOT have been a fact in the first place.
Many people assume things as fact when in fact they are mere hypotheses or beliefs. For example, many took it to be a fact that the Earth was the centre of the Solar System. This was one of your “well established facts”. As it turned out, the belief was a huge miscalculation and NOT a “fact” at all.
Returning to your statement then, in an attempt to make it a rational statement, we can then try to restate it in terms of hypotheses or beliefs. Thus:
It is if there is an extraordinary amount of evidence (as would be the case for a hypotheses or belief) for the contrary claim.
But this STILL does not seem to make sense, even though we have “corrected” the oxymoron.
We need to restate it again, considering the meaning that you are attempting to convey. Thus (and substituting my statement for your “It is”)…
Having enough evidence is “extraordinary” - if there is an extraordinary amount of evidence for a contrary claim.
But this STILL does not make sense! There is simply no way to make your statement logical or rational and still retain your intended meaning.
So I merely ask you, WHAT IS your meaning here?
I merely pointed out that if we cannot define “extraordinary evidence” then Sagan’s claim that “extraordinary evidence” exists is utter nonsense (making his claim that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” utter nonsense also).
So far no-one has been able to define “extraordinary evidence”. Sagan’s claim is utter nonsense!
But this is requiring an amount of evidence that is “extraordinary”. You have STILL not shown how this makes the evidence itself extraordinary. Sagan claimed that we require “extraordinary evidence” NOT an extraordinary amount of evidence.
A “special case”? But you appeal to the SAME thing again (an extraordinary amount of evidence) as if merely restating things in a slightly different way will make them any more rational or logical.
Requiring “more” or “better” evidence is the EASY part!
What is so difficult about asking someone for more evidence?
They (but not you apparently) immediately understand what is required of them.
Apparently the amount of evidence they have provided is NOT enough to satisfy (or convince) their opponent and they must supply more evidence to do that!
WHAT is so difficult about that?
Similarly we can assess “better” evidence.
What is so difficult about asking someone for better evidence?
They (but not you apparently) immediately understand what is required of them.
Apparently the quality of the evidence they have provided is NOT good enough to satisfy (or convince) their opponent and they must supply better quality evidence to do that!
WHAT is so difficult about that?
We can even combine the two terms into the one requirement (more AND better evidence). … But when it comes to “extraordinary evidence”… THAT is where the difficulty begins… For example:
I require you to produce “extraordinary evidence”.
What IS “extraordinary evidence”?
It is something I require of you.
But you have NOT defined the term. How can I supply it if I do not know what it is?
If you are really trying to do what you claim to be doing, then I want you to go through my reply above and analyse the logic involved, step by step, statement by statement, premise by premise, conclusion by conclusion, and THEN report your analysis in your next post.
Of course you will NOT do that… I KNOW this, I don’t have to be “optimistic” either…
Finally, this is NOT an “off topic” exploration as some UFO debunkers are now trying to claim. It goes to the very heart of the UFO debunker argument against UFOs being unidentifiable in mundane terms. They seem to require that UFO proponents supply “extraordinary evidence” for their claims. I am simply pointing out that this is an impossible requirement to fulfil if we cannot define “extraordinary evidence!
For a concrete example: Let us suppose that I require UFO debunkers to supply “extraordinary evidence” that a blimp was responsible for the Rogue River sighting. … go on then… what’s wrong? … you don’t even have ordinary evidence for your claim? … so what might the additional requirement of “extraordinary evidence consist? You can’t answer that can you…
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
Rramjet, I'm sure this argument is fascinating to you, but it's boring the arse off everyone else. It's very simple: if I say I have a pet cat, I will not be expected to provide evidence cats exist. If I say I have a pet dinosaur, I'll be expected to prove that this is even possible before people start asking where I keep the litter tray. Got it?
Now, with that in mind, do you have any evidence that doesn't consist of people seeing something and not knowing what it was?
Now, with that in mind, do you have any evidence that doesn't consist of people seeing something and not knowing what it was?
chuck4842
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Messages
- 604
Other than testimony, what other evidence would be deemed acceptable? Photos? or vids? Physical anomalies? cattle mutilation, crop circles, . Unexplained phenomena maybe? Like ancient technology, the Bahgdad battery, the Crystal skulls, the pyramids? The Dropa stones.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
none of those examples are genuine, do you want links as to why or would you rather research them yourself
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Well, the evidence we have for the existence of cats is... cats! Do you have anything similar for aliens?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Nope. Unexplained phenomena are unexplained. Incredulity isn't evidence. Ignorance doesn't support a claim. No matter what Rramjet and SnidelyW think.
chuck4842
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Messages
- 604
Did you offer to post a link? LOL, Please don't bother, I'm a legend at it:
[edit] Physical evidence
Besides visual sightings, reports sometimes include claims of indirect and direct physical evidence, including cases studied by the military and various government agencies of different countries (such as Project Blue Book, the Condon Committee, the French GEPAN/SEPRA, and Uruguay's current Air Force study).
[edit] Physical evidence
Besides visual sightings, reports sometimes include claims of indirect and direct physical evidence, including cases studied by the military and various government agencies of different countries (such as Project Blue Book, the Condon Committee, the French GEPAN/SEPRA, and Uruguay's current Air Force study).
Breach of rule 4 removed. Copying and pasting a large amount of material is not posting a link.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Cuddles
Last edited by a moderator:
And here I was labouring under the impression that you actually KNEW something about astronomy!
Scintillation is a change in brightness. Thus stars appear to “twinkle” while planets do not. Scintillation therefore CANNOT cause a star (or planet) to “jump” locations, or “split” apart as you seem to imply in your statements of eyewitness “misinterpretation. (just look up the definition of “scintillation”). That is scintillation affects the magnitude of brightness in a way that makes a star appear to twinkle.
Perhaps also you can look at this website to educate yourself on some things that DO affect what an observer sees in the direction you imply. (http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/ast3722/lectures/EffectOfAtmosphere/EffectAtmos.htm) I am sure there are other websites out there too.
So perhaps you mean “refraction”? For example: “…causing objects (especially point sources such as stars) to change rapidly in apparent size and location…” But we MUST note three points about this “refraction”. First: the article is talking about viewing things through a telescope. Second, “Note that the effect of refraction is to reduce the apparent zenith distance as one looks closer and closer to the horizon.” And finally, the magnitude of the changes in “location” or “size” when viewing a planet of star with the naked eye are in the order of fractions of a second of arc!
Thus we also have the “dispersion” effect.. “Dispersion is the variation in refraction as a function of wavelength. A star viewed at a large zenith distance (near the horizon Rr) may appear elongated by this effect. The figure (not shown here but go tot the website Rr.) illustrates what may be seen where z is the zenith angle and r is the seperation between the blue and red images…” But again a point needs to be made: That through a telescope with the star or planet of apparent size 1” (!) the GREATEST magnitude of “dispersion” ( a split in the wavelengths to display different colours) is seen to be about 2.2” THAT is, approximately double the objects apparent size… with the naked eye, this distortion does NOT amount to “jumping” locations OR “splitting” apart.
Perhaps you would like to revisit your above comments and explain to us exactly WHAT atmospheric effects cause stars or planets to “jump” locations or “split” apart to ANY significant degree that would cause an observer with the naked eye to misidentify them in the manner you claim?
Tell us also Astrophotographer - was the quote you cited above talking about viewing with the naked eye or through a telescope?
Actually, presenting EVIDENCE of HOW, WHEN and to what PURPOSE Klass makes ad hominem attacks is simply conducting good research on the subject.
I then pointed out what Hendry thought of such as hominem attacks (that if that was the only thing UFO debunkers could come up with to refute a case then he considered it likely that the case in question was a GOOD case).
I then drew a link between your own ad hominem attacks (for example on Val Johnson and Lonnie Zammora) and what Hendry stated about such attacks.
Moreover, I said NOTHING about Condon making such attacks! For you to claim that I did is … well… I will leave it up to the readers to fill in the blank!
Finally, sure you have to consider the human context. But if the EVIDENCE suggests that the witness is reliable, well respected, serious minded, etc, then to mount attacks on their sanity or to call them liars or hoaxers, is simply to ignore that EVIDENCE. To paraphrase Hendry: If THAT is the best UFO debunkers can bring against a UFO report, then the case is probably a GOOD one!
No, scientists are NOT afraid of studying UFOs, it is just that in light of the negative conclusions from Condon et al., they cannot (or rarely can) get their proposals accepted to obtain the necessary funding to DO so!
Big snip of the statements I make that you have no argument against and would prefer to ignore in the vain hope that they will simply go away you mean! LOL.
This amounts to denying that Betty Cash (and the others involved in the sighting) had no resulting medical problems. I can find no way of explaining your denial of the medical condition of particularly Betty cash except to say that such a denial is irrational. None of the people who actually researched the case (even the UFO debunkers) have supposed that it was the medical conditions in the case that were at issue. The cause of the medical conditions might be questioned, but NOT the fact that they existed as described! (oh master of the Red Herring!)
In the gully about 20 feet below him, the “thing” sat silent. The two figures had disappeared. Zamora advanced closer.
“It was egg-shaped with one end, which I figure was the front, sort of tapered,” Zamora says. “It was white and smooth, with no windows or openings of any kind. It was sitting on legs about four feet tall and seemed to be about the size of a car.”
(http://users.ev1.net/~seektress/lonnie.htm)“It was egg-shaped with one end, which I figure was the front, sort of tapered,” Zamora says. “It was white and smooth, with no windows or openings of any kind. It was sitting on legs about four feet tall and seemed to be about the size of a car.”
Tell me astrophotogrpher…what is the description of the “surveyor”?
Also, given you propensity to attack the witness’ credibility in such cases:
Of all the evidence that could be presented to support the contention that what Lonnie Zamora saw was something totally unexplained, perhaps nothing is more compelling than this brief article. It appeared in the formerly classified CIA publication entitled "Studies in Intelligence" from the fall of 1966. It was written by Hector Quintanilla, Jr., the former head of the Air Force's Project Bluebook.
It gives a history and methodology of the Air Force's investigation of UFO's, and after presenting many of the prosaic explanations that had been encountered, he concluded his article with a synopsis of a "Policeman's Report" in which he described the Socorro incident. One short quote from this article in itself makes a profound statement about the reality of some UFO reports.
"There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left quite an impression on him. There is also no question about Zamora"s reliability. He is a serious police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw, and frankly, so are we. This is the best-documented case on record, and still we have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation, to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic."
This document was approved for release on January, 2, 1981 and is available to anyone under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
(http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora4.htm)It gives a history and methodology of the Air Force's investigation of UFO's, and after presenting many of the prosaic explanations that had been encountered, he concluded his article with a synopsis of a "Policeman's Report" in which he described the Socorro incident. One short quote from this article in itself makes a profound statement about the reality of some UFO reports.
"There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left quite an impression on him. There is also no question about Zamora"s reliability. He is a serious police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw, and frankly, so are we. This is the best-documented case on record, and still we have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation, to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic."
This document was approved for release on January, 2, 1981 and is available to anyone under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Chuck, if you don't quote the person youre talking to, people will assume it was the previous poster. Geemack said nothing about links so your post now seems out of place
This is not the "fireworks" you promised Rramjet in your "private messages" is it. Is the display going to start soon ?
btw your "private messages" are the only genuine proof of a UFO conspiracy I have ever seen
congratulations.
BTW it might help your credibility in future if you don't admit to not being "educated" (just a thought)
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
That looked to be lifted wholesale from another body of work without citation.
chuck4842
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Messages
- 604
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
none of those examples are genuine, do you want links as to why or would you rather research them yourself
My BAD! I will spare the painful repost. It was wholesale btw I thank wiki, I'm very proud of my lack of education when dealing with those whose education has caused the spillage waste of their common sense. If you want the references I'll copy paste stick too but I somehow feel the request insincere.
Last edited:
There seems to be a small detail you are all forgetting here. The title of my Thread is "UFOs: the Research, the Evidence"
That is "RESEARCH" actually precedes "evidence" in the title. Thus I am presenting BOTH research findings (articles, discussion etc) AND evidence (in the form of UFO case reports).
More, just because you believe UFO case reports do not constitute "evidence", does not make that a true belief.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Chuck, your claim that youre "not very educated but I do have common sense" is meaningless when discussing things which require scientific evidence. Common sense is surplus to requirements when no evidence has been presented. To evaluate the evidence you do need to be educated in basic scientific principles. Something which Rramjet lacks. As you are happy to admit it more power to ya
also in reference to your supposed ooparts
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164388
read post 2 please
In this context by research I mean "more than ten years, academic level data"
if you start a new thread on them I will happily respond with very credible evidence as to why none of those examples are valid
Last edited:
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
the content is just copied and pasted from wikis page on UFOS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object
I don't see any relevance to it, if youre going to claim that UFO's are proof of Aliens then I think I need to remind you that UFO's are by definition unidentified and so are proof of nothing until that changes
without linking to the page you are also actually breaking international copyright law.
Yes, everyone posting here agrees that sometimes unidentified flying objects are seen, and that there is indeed evidence of same. Will you be posting evidence of aliens now? You being a legend and all?
ETA - stilton
ETA - stilton
Last edited:
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
There seems to be a small detail you are all forgetting here. The title of my Thread is "UFOs: the Research, the Evidence"
That is "RESEARCH" actually precedes "evidence" in the title. Thus I am presenting BOTH research findings (articles, discussion etc) AND evidence (in the form of UFO case reports).
More, just because you believe UFO case reports do not constitute "evidence", does not make that a true belief.
Oh really?
Now you can't even agree with yourself. Present your evidence or admit you don't have any.
Last edited:
chuck4842
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Messages
- 604
What kind of evidence do you expect me to provide you from my computer? If we were on the phone discussing this , you'd say "all he can do is talk" Also it was a simple unnoticed typo when I entered, I corrected with reply, sue me, arrest me, call your congressman.
Last edited:
- Status