I stated:
“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!”
Yes, precisely in the image of Klass…
never admit you are wrong… simply change the subject!
Just for once I would like to see an admission from the UFO debunkers that they are mistaken. It is clearly obvious to all by now that “extraordinary evidence” cannot be defined and therefore Sagan’s claim (“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”) is a nonsense claim.
More and better evidence? Sure… after I have dealt with a few more of your erroneous assertions.
I was NOT arguing the “opposite” at all. In fact I even pointed out some conditions (such as refraction and dispersion) that DO “make stars/planets twinkle, move and change color.” I ALSO mentioned that these conditions primarily existed close to the horizon and that they rarely affect the apparent motion of a star or planet to the extent that it could be mistaken for an object “jumping” locations or “splitting apart” to any significant degree. IF you claim there exist atmospheric effects that CAN make the apparent motion so large, then please describe them to us.
I merely claimed that your assertion that observations of objects in the sky of the type at Rogue River from a boat were not possible because of the instability of boats did not make sense. All sorts of accurate observations can be made from boats. Navigators successfully use sextants for example… I also pointed out that the assertions that no useful observations could be made from boats might be news to the Navy and that you should approach them with your hypotheses. More, the river was wide, flat and shallow at the point of observation. No-one mentioned that the boat caused observational problems. It is simply a red herring.
I stated that
heat haze was a “ground” related effect. NOT something seen at high angles of elevation. I might add that you do NOT get heat haze over water.
You really should pay more attention to what I
actually stated, rather than relying on what you
believe I stated.
Just because witnesses CAN be mistaken, does NOT mean that they ARE mistaken. People are actually very
good at identifying objects in the sky. This is a point that the UFO debunkers seem to ignore. To hear them speak, you would wonder that humans can perceive the world at all!
Moreover, we have the research which shows precisely the conditions and circumstances when human perception MIGHT be mislead (note MIGHT) because even under such trying circumstances, a significant proportion of people will STILL observe correctly!
All we have to do is note such research and look for such conditions as they might apply in the UFO reports. If we find NO such conditions applicable, then we must consider the reliability of the observation to be all the more accurate. Further, as I have pointed out in the Rogue River case, research points to areas where reliability SHOULD be variable (distance estimates in a clear blue sky for example) and if we DO observe distance variance in the witness reports, then that ADDS to the veracity of the reports, rather than detracts, because if the witnesses ALL reported the same distance, we would be suspicious!
I stated:
” 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!”
Perhaps you should read a research paper on the history of UFO research. I recommend Hoyt (
http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf).
Subject: The Cash/Landrum Incident (29 Dec 1980) (
http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm) and the Val Johnson Case (27 Aug. 1979) (
http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
As far as I know the medical records are not publically available. However, NO serious researcher involved in the case, from proponents to debunkers alike, has ANY doubt that serious radiation burns were apparent. They DO question the cause and timing, but NOT the fact. You are merely trying to raise a red herring from a dead fish.
”Frankly, it is one of the most puzzling incidents in the history of ufology. This strong statement is partly because of the fact that the case involves a man who has been described as "the perfect witness." At the time, Johnson was a Deputy Sheriff in Marshall County, Minnesota, and is a trained observer as well as an experienced police officer. The physical evidence suggests that something very strange happened to him in the early morning on a lonely stretch of road near the Red River. The time sequence of events is very firmly established by both tape recorded and written logs of his actions that morning. The physical traces were examined and measurements were made immediately after the encounter by trained police investigators, and Johnson was taken to a hospital by ambulance directly from the site.”
(
http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
I do NOT claim an “alien ship” was responsible. I merely note that NO plausible mundane explanation has been forthcoming after close examination by trained investigators and researchers.
”It is easily demonstrable that something very unusual happened that morning.” (
http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
However, in the absence of mundane explanations, then I DO claim that by definition, what occurred WAS “alien” (in that it defies all mundane explanation).
Definition: Mundane - adj. Of, relating to, or typical of this world.
Often they are testimonials but you seem to be playing with semantics and guess I can broadly agree with you…
I stated:
”I challenge the UFO debunkers posting in this thread who believe that UFO case reports do not constitute evidence, to go ahead and argue your case as to WHY you do not think that UFO case reports represent evidence.”
1. That IS a problem with many cases, but not all.
2. That is not true for the cases I am presenting.
3. UFO report ARE repeatedly made and in the White Sands incident (
http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
they were repeatable enough for observers to set up their instruments with the intent of capturing UFOs – which they duly did! So the non-repeatability claims merely stem from the fact that there has been NO concerted effort (well very few) to DO as the White Sands researchers did – set up a properly constituted research program with specific scientific goals in a UFO “hotspot” and conduct observations and measurements.
