Please look in to the definition of lore, folklore and popular culture. To date, you and all other UFOlogists failed to demonstrate UFO evidence is composed by something other than an assemblage of anecdotes and tales. Scientific evidence for aliens from outside the borders of what we call nature (whatever it means) it is not. So we're left with?
The existence of UFOs demonstrates that there is something we are “missing” from our conception of what constitutes “reality”. UFOs seem to represent something beyond the limits of what we commonly take to be the boundaries of the natural world. They give us a clue to the fact that we have not yet discovered all the manifestations of what we have conceptualised as the “laws of nature”. Only through scientific research might we uncover just what it IS that we are “missing”.
Also UFOs represent MUCH more than a “popular” cultural phenomenon. As you, of all people should be aware, their existence crosses both cultural and historic boundaries.
From UFOlogy POV, yes, failure, since none of these studies managed to provide any shred of evidence to bak the presence of aliens from outside the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means).
When something has no mundane explanation… it is by definition “alien”. However, that does not mean that UFOs are “unnatural”. They may represent a part of the “natural world (or universe) that we simply have not discovered yet. The studies you refer to as “failures” (Battelle, Condon… even the recent university PhDs – that is PEER-reviewed research) have all invariably shown us that there is MUCH more to UFOs than mere “lore”.
I stated:
” You seem to get bogged down in the details here (“exact facts”). What is important is the occurrence itself and the way in which it was reported. A UFO coupled with radiation like injuries – in 1886! But the report itself is NOT a “UFO” report. The reporter believes he has an explanation (an electrical/meteorological phenomenon) of the type being discussed in Scientific American. He merely outlines the case for the consideration of what he considers to be more learned minds than his own. It is a matter of fact report that we simply have no reason to doubt the veracity of.”
Again- you have nothing but another unconfirmed report. You can not (i) look at the original data (this is quite common in UFOlogy, eh? Like in "The negatives were lost", "The government confiscated the evidence");
If this were ALL we had (if this were the ONLY report of its kind), then I might agree with you, but it is NOT all we have. We have many reports extending throughout history and across cultural boundaries. While you might be able to dismiss individual reports with the “wave of a hand”, I find it not so easy (or indeed prudent) to dismiss a whole body of evidence in such a manner.
(ii) have any reasonable assurance that description of the injuries and the sighting of the lights were exact (you can't even pin down the location);
We have absolutely NO reason to suspect that the report is not a reasonably accurate representation of the facts on the ground. You are merely resorting to your
belief system here – “It is impossible, therefore it cannot be so”.
(iii) you can't actually link the alleged sighting of the light with the alleged injuries
Now this is IRONIC (that you cite correlation NE causation). Much of science works on the basis of reasonable causal inference and we have no reason to suspect that the causal inference in this case is erroneous.
and at last but not least (iv) you can't actually link it all with any degree of certanity with radiation and/or UFO phenomena.
This is actually a restatement of your point iii above.
I could go on, but anyone with basic scientific training by now would have realized that even if you could accomplish i to ii you would still be at loss with iii and iv. Not to mention you would also have to look for and exclude other possibilities for the injuries.
Perhaps unfortunately, history shows that verified instances of such injuries are invariably linked to ionising radiation poisoning. There is no reason - that is we have no
scientific evidence - to suspect that such injuries are caused by anything other than ionising radiation. But wait… this is 1886 we are talking about here! What possible cause can we find? Oh yeah, there is the small matter of
”a loud humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house… It is to be noted that the brilliant light was not accompanied by a sensation of heat … the remarkable part of the occurrence is that the hose was uninjured …”
(
http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
Once again you try to divert the readers' attention by twisting skeptics'position. This is not a scientific debate methodology. Note that your arguments rely on the assumption that the eyewitnesses reports are precise descriptions of the events they claim to have experienced. Can you back this point? Or you deny it?
UFO debunkers contend that sincere eyewitnesses in UFO reports are invariably mistaken (100% wrong) in what they perceive. That is, to a UFO debunker, the eyewitnesses have
invariably misperceived a mundane object. That is the eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time. If that is “twisting the skeptic’s position” then perhaps you can explain to us HOW it has done so?
Serious (sincere) UFO proponents are just as skeptical as UFO debunkers. If we had but a single report to contend with, then we could dismiss it, but when the same things keep reappearing in case after case, then it is not so easy. We are then required to
explain it – and this is where UFO debunkers and proponents go their separate ways. UFO debunkers contend the eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time, while UFO proponents are not so sure the evidence can so easily be dismissed.
I stated:
” Again I repeat, a specimen is NOT proof of a species.”
Tell this to a biologist.
Perhaps you should
ask a biologist.
Oh, now you are asking for precision... So Rramjet, show me precision in the collection and treatment of data. Show me scientific methodology. Show me data researched with care and precision. Something you have not been doing, given the many basic errors you constantly make. Do I need to remind you of them?
I was asking for precision in the definition of terms – something the UFO debunkers seem strangely unable to do. For example when I ask a UFO debunker for their definition of UFO – they cannot even do THAT! They invariably reply with “A UFO is a UFO”. But THAT is NOT a
definition (one cannot define something by mere reference to itself). In this particular instance I was pointing to the fact that if you explored the definitions of “type” and “proof” (and “a specimen” and “species”), you might actually find a way of overcoming my objections to your formulation: “A specimen is proof of a species”.
As for the “precision” research itself I merely point you in the direction of all the peer-reviewed research that has been conducted on UFOs to date. Here for example is a pointer to such a
recent research study (
http://voice.unimelb.edu.au/view.php?articleID=5319), here is another (
http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)...
To date you failed to present reliable evidence and research pointing towards a good chance that they are images of real UFOs controlled by aliens from outside the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means).
First, your misreading (misconception) of my contention is noteworthy. I have stated MANY times now that UFOs represent a phenomenon (or are representative of a phenomena) that seems to exist beyond the limits of what we commonly take to be the boundaries of the natural world (or words to that effect).
There are a few key terms in that phrase. The one you MISS is the
“what we commonly take to be” part. This means that UFOs MAY be part of the natural world, just that we have not yet discovered HOW they might fit into the natural world. There is also NO mention of “aliens”.
I want reliable evidence. I want clear pictures not even suspected of being hoaxes or misidentifications
There is NO picture in the WORLD that cannot be “suspected of a hoax”. Technology has brought us to a point where pictures CAN be effectively hoaxed – so pictures ALONE cannot be admitted as evidence. However, when pictures are supported by testimony, the case is strengthened. Where pictures are independently taken of the same object and supported by independent testimony, the case is strengthened again. Of course the ideal would be to have two people taking photos of the same object and a third taking a photo of the two – but that would require a well funded research program to set up (with any reasonable expectation of success) – and to date the funds just aren't forthcoming.
I want images from various sources of the same event. This is the minimal, lowermost level of evidence one would expect to be available if UFO lore can be trusted. Got some?
(
http://vodpod.com/watch/2104507-ufo-giving-birth-to-baby-ships-in-mexico-may-2009)
