UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Now that you have admitted that your assertion is a total fabrication on your part, are you going to retract it? Also, do you have evidence that shows cause and effect between the person reaching out to the boy from behind a post and the alleged radiation readings?

You asked if I could provided a direct quote from you to show that you did claim that there was no evidence to connect the radiation with the incident. That is you stated: “Oh sorry, did you say that you had some evidence to tie this video (cause) to some radiation readings in the same location months later (effect)? You know, to show that they were related.” and in stating that there is no doubt that – despite your protestations – you meant that there is no connecting evidence – and even in the face of that you can maintain your position?

Nope. Those only explain your handwaving process. Try again. Show the process you have gone through to genuinely eliminate all mundane explanations. Then apply that process to Campeche.

So you simply handwave away my many and various posts explaining the process of elimination? If you cannot understand what the process of elimination entails, then perhaps you might have a look at this site for clues to the process (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...ow8QZP&sig=AHIEtbT2mM02q4U5MlJO-lV5qV3Dt0UU0g) or here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_of_elimination) for example. Then you might see if you can apply that methodology to Rogue River. If you think about it the set of mundane explanations for Rogue River is quite limited. For example we can rule out “telephone”, “page 352 from War and Peace”, “my great aunt Mary”, etc. so that we are left with “flying objects”. Of these we can rule out all common flying objects (“birds”, “planes”, “blimps”, etc.) …so what are we left with? Nothing mundane of course.

Regarding Campeche, I have indicated to you in some detail in previous posts that it is plausible that “oil well fires” provide at least a part explanation for the sighting, but also that at least one UFO (possibly more) were plausibly involved. After providing you with a detailed summary assessment of the case, I asked for your response. You never supplied it. Now you propose to raise the case again as if all that had never transpired?

Nope, not my definition. That's from your favorite source, Encarta. But by defition #3, five legged dogs are "alien". By your "descriptive definition", five legged dogs are still "alien". Thus, fully as illegitimate as everyone else in the thread has been patiently explaining to you.

You may have a point. I am forgetting that what might seem common knowledge to many people (that genetic mutations commonly occur to produce “weird” results) may not be so to others. Thus according to my definition of alien (outside our common conception of the natural and technological world) a five-legged-dog would be alien. It is not alien to me because I have personally witnessed an animal born with five legs. It would not be alien to a biologist or a geneticist and I have provided the information so that you might no longer consider such as alien (under my definition).

Re a tail as a leg: Have you witnessed a kangaroo walking? It uses its tail as a leg. Therefore it could be argued that a tail can also be a leg.

Nope, not my definition. The generally accepted definition as you have seen above from your favorite reference, Encarta.

However, Rramjet, you are again being disengenuous. I've allowed you to redefine "alien" to suit your needs. The real problem is your redefinition of the term UFO. You don't put that term in quotes yet you have redefined it to include your redefined word "alien". That seems to be the crux of your bait and switch tactics.

It would seem, since you are the one referencing Encarta as your principle source, that it is your favourite source. This type of projection IMO is typical of UFO debunkers. It seems to stem from a certain belief that whatever they believe, others must also believe. I would simply point out that this is a fallacy.

I have defined alien as something outside (or foreign to) our common conception of the natural or technological world. I have with reference to specific cases only explained that the sighted objects (UFOs) in specific cases have no mundane explanation. If something has no mundane explanation AND we do not have enough information to conclude ET, according to my definition, the UFO is “alien” – but that does not automatically mean we can therefore explain it as ET.

Something must be out of the question to be "alien"? So leprechauns and fairies and dragons are "alien"? But by that definition, a person reaching out from behind a post to a boy playing with a ball is not out of the question and therefore would definitely not be "alien". A drawing of what is seemingly a blimp is definitely not out of the question and therefore not "alien".

To put it as simply as possible my concept of alien means (in essence) “no mundane explanation”. I believe there are mundane explanations for “leprechauns and fairies and dragons”, so they are not alien (I will not here get into the argument concerning these things as alien…that would probably only confuse the issue at this point).

Regarding the Merida incident, if there is no mundane explanation for the being behind the pole (and it would seem to be a very thin pole to so successfully hide a human), then that being is ‘alien” (note the quotation marks around the term alien – that means I am using my definition and not the common “alien = ET” definition).

When were you going to present the evidence for "aliens"?

(I presume you here use my definition of alien) I have presented many cases where there is no apparent mundane explanation. Would you like a list of them?

 

[Rramjet]

Either Maussan knows these are frauds or he is just a bad journalist.

You make the statement as if they were the only options. You have directly informed us in this thread that you personally have been taken in by fraud – does that make you a bad investigator and therefore disqualify you from commenting seriously in this thread (or having your comments taken seriously)?

He has promoted some of the worst videos in UFOlogy. Examples:

1) The Solar Eclipse of 1991. Almost all of the videos showed the planet Venus. Any astronomer would have told him this and probably did. He rejected this. He states:

But let me tell you something, are the astronomers, the scientists who are 'qualified' to say if the sightings on earth are truthful, I think they are well prepared and trained to look through the universe, beyond the atmosphere, but the astronomers are not prepared to look inside the earth. Then, and I don't know why many times, they are asked if this is true and we want to know what they think about it, in reality they don't know more than the normal average person because this is happening here and not outside earth. (Chris Fowler interview with Jaimie Maussan (link now dead))

In other words, they tell me what I don't want to hear so I don't trust them.

I am sure, at the time you were deeply involved in your own personal experience of a your fraud case that you would have made similar comment. Later, you would have regretted those comments. Does that disqualify you from comment about other cases?

2) The 1997 mexico city UFO video hoax. He chose to believe witnesses over the analysis that demonstrated it was a hoax. Bad Journalism.

3) The 2004 mexican AF video. He promoted this and did not bother to see if they could be oil well fires. Bad journalism again.

This is why he is in the UFO watchdog's "Hall of shame".

There are plenty of your favourite skeptics listed on that site too (Joe Nickell for example).

So, either Maussan is very sloppy in his work or he knows that he is promoting these videos as hoaxes for personal gain. I think it is the latter because I don't think Maussan is that stupid.

Ah, (one of the) the fallback position(s) of the UFO debunker – “He’s in it for personal gain”. But this is not about Maussan. It is about the boy’s video and the subsequent investigation.

Once again, prove it is not a hoax by presenting the actual radiation surveys from the various universities and the one "scientist" in the videos.

Perhaps, since you have previously claimed familiarity with Spanish, you are in the best position to inform us of those factors.

This is not a valid source. It is in the comments section of an article by an anonymous writer and they produce no source for where they got that information.

The claim once again defies the laws of physics. A reading of 49r/hr (which is the same as 49 Rem/hr since it is gamma radiation) at 4.5 meters indicates a reading of about 1000 r/hr at 1 meter (inverse square of the distance law for radiation point sources). This means that anybody standing next to the source spot would become ill almost immediately. The radiation levels quoted indicate a source of approximately 1000 ci (curie-meter-rem rule)! How they can have such high levels and nobody suffer from radiation sickness is “mind boggling” and defies the laws of physics. It is stating that there is an extremely high gamma radiation field that does not damage living organisms with no shield at all! It is simply not credible. There are no scientific papers produced that show this unique event by any of these “universities that verified the data, which brings into question the claim that the data was verified.

How about starting with the name Dr. Jorge Guerrero (professor of science or is it astronomy or is it mathematics or is it physics – it keeps changing)? Establish his credibility first. Where is he working? Is he a real professor or is he a professor the same way Adamski was a professor? I seriously doubt that he is a real scientist but prove me wrong.

I never claimed it was a valid source. Merely that it indicates that there is data out there that we (English speakers) have no access to.

Nevertheless, you raise some serious issues that need addressing. We have contradictory information in this case. Where does the truth lie? You are presenting one side of the story. I am at a disadvantage in not being able to investigate Spanish sources (Universities, publications, etc). Perhaps given your knowledge of Spanish you can come up with an email or website contact so we can directly ask Maussan (or his fellow presenter Santiago Garza) if he can provide verification of his sources and point us to the results of investigation? I am trying currently to make contact via a third party – so it is a waiting game now for some kind of response.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“*Sigh*… I mean “alien = foreign to our concept of the natural and technological world”. When mundane explanations fail and there is NOT enough evidence to conclude ET …what are we left with…?”

Not enough evidence?

Not enough evidence for ET perhaps, but certainly enough evidence to conclude that something outside our concepts of the natural or technological world is going on and that it would be remiss of us (humanity) if we failed to investigate.

Well, what do you expect when you link to sites using 'alien' as a synonym for extra-terrestrial?

Yes, but I am trying to point out that while UFOs may defy mundane explanation, that does not necessarily mean they are ET. I realise that the “ET lobby” (for want of a better term) is a powerful presence in the field of Ufology and UFO skeptics alike, but it is my belief that “ET” is simply a step too far. It serves the purpose of UFO debunkers very well because they can ridicule “little green men” within the cultural zeitgeist with impunity, but it does no service to the cause of ufology because the evidence is just not strong enough to support the conclusion.

So you've changed your mind about finding a better word, then?

“Alien” (meaning foreign to our concepts of the natural or technological world) is quite an acceptable term. It is only the UFO debunkers who persist in trying to “muddy the waters” – rather than to clarify and advance our knowledge of the subject - who have a vested interest in trying to confuse the issue.

 

[Rramjet]

Who is playing with semantics? You show a video where people claim that multiple tests has shown high radiation at the site, I ask you to provide the results from those tests. You have failed to do so.

I have explained the reasons why I have (so far) been unable to do so. All I now ask is a little patience on your behalf while I make further enquiries.

It IS CLAIMED that extremely high radiation was found by investigation. Where is the proof???

We have evidence that high radiation readings were obtained. The key now is to find out what that evidence is worth. Again I ask for your patience.

I'm not handwaving away anything. I am asking you to present the results from the multiple investigations into radiation at the site. I can't really imagine a research article being accepted for publishing in say Nature that presents the data like this. Why does it have to be so sloppy when it comes to investigating UFOs and aliens?

It is only “sloppy” because you have failed to investigate. You cannot know what the results of investigation were (unless you are deliberately withholding evidence from us). So to make such value judgements before we know the results seems to me to indicate that you have an a priori opinion about the case that is not founded in fact or evidence.

You say it like it would be a bad thing. There is no evidence to tie high radiation at the site 8 months after the video was taken. If you have any, by all means present it.

As I say, I am making enquiries and would appreciate your patience.

But you are claiming that as RoboTim so clearly has shown. How can you deny it? Look again, here are your claims:

RR: I never said Rogue River was alien!
RR: I have always said Rogue River was only a UFO!
RR: A UFO is by definition alien!

A UFO is by definition alien AND Rouge river is a UFO = The Rouge river object is alien.

I have explained this many times. I no longer have any high expectation that the UFO debunkers to understand it.

Why would anyone think that it's within their powers to change the generally accepted meaning of any term? I don't go around being sorry that I can't change the meaning of "dog" to mean "not cat". I am pointing this out to you because it is one thing in your debating strategy that cause you trouble and makes it hard for the rest of us to understand.

Just face it. Aliens means ETI to most people of the world.

No, I am merely defining a term (within accepted definitional parameters) for the specific purpose of this debate. If you stated that “When I use the term ‘dog’ I mean ‘not cat’” then I would accept your definition and critically all the implications that follow. I would not try and argue you out of your definition. I would simply allow you to have and use your definition for the purposes of the debate – but if you ever claimed that a giraffe was not a dog, or that a teapot was not a dog, (etc) then you would be in trouble according to your own definition and you could be certain that I would point that out.

I merely ask that, for the purposes of this debate you accept my definition of alien as “foreign to our concept of the natural or technological world” (ie; not mundane) and if I ever use the term inconsistently, I would expect you to point it out.

Thus in the following summary of my position:

RR: I never said Rogue River was alien!
RR: I have always said Rogue River was only a UFO!
RR: A UFO is by definition alien!

I would point out that the first contention was a denial of Rogue River as ET.
The second is true.
The third contention uses my definition of alien (not mundane). (The critical information the UFO debunkers left out of their re-formulation of my statements here was the quotation marks around ‘alien”!)

Then given that the first contention speaks about alien as ET, and the third about alien as not mundane, then there is no inconsistency in the three statements.

 

[Astrophotographer]

That scientists have not “rushed to witness this marvel” is perhaps an incorrect assessment. According to Maussan’s presentation there has been scientific investigation – we just do not have access to the results.

Moreover, given the climate of ridicule and denial surrounding this subject, scientists are perhaps not ‘rushing” in simply because of that fact.

Coming from a scientist, I can really accept your "ridicule" argument. Scientists, who discover something truly extraordinary, do not shy away from presenting this kind of evidence. If they do, they are not very good scientists.

I have yet to see anybody establish that any real scientists were involved. Only Maussan/Garza claim there was a scientific investigation. Present the scientific papers presented by these scientists. Come back to us with proof that scientists actually did investigate before you proclaim that such an investigation occurred.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

You asked if I could provided a direct quote from you to show that you did claim that there was no evidence to connect the radiation with the incident. That is you stated: “Oh sorry, did you say that you had some evidence to tie this video (cause) to some radiation readings in the same location months later (effect)? You know, to show that they were related.” and in stating that there is no doubt that – despite your protestations – you meant that there is no connecting evidence – and even in the face of that you can maintain your position?

Wow straw men ahoy! The point is there's no evidence of the amount of radiation at the site.

So you simply handwave away my many and various posts explaining the process of elimination? If you cannot understand what the process of elimination entails, then perhaps you might have a look at this site for clues to the process (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...ow8QZP&sig=AHIEtbT2mM02q4U5MlJO-lV5qV3Dt0UU0g) or here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_of_elimination) for example. Then you might see if you can apply that methodology to Rogue River. If you think about it the set of mundane explanations for Rogue River is quite limited. For example we can rule out “telephone”, “page 352 from War and Peace”, “my great aunt Mary”, etc. so that we are left with “flying objects”. Of these we can rule out all common flying objects (“birds”, “planes”, “blimps”, etc.) …so what are we left with? Nothing mundane of course.

Why are you using Wiki? I thought it was something to look down at?

This article does not cite any references or sources.

Oh I see why. Also I don't see anything about how you used process of elimination just more of the same old.

Regarding Campeche, I have indicated to you in some detail in previous posts that it is plausible that “oil well fires” provide at least a part explanation for the sighting, but also that at least one UFO (possibly more) were plausibly involved. After providing you with a detailed summary assessment of the case, I asked for your response. You never supplied it. Now you propose to raise the case again as if all that had never transpired?

What I can gather from your insight of the Campeche event is that you hand wave it due to the fact that no ufologist uses it anymore. Thus you can say it's oil fires.

I have defined alien as something outside (or foreign to) our common conception of the natural or technological world. I have with reference to specific cases only explained that the sighted objects (UFOs) in specific cases have no mundane explanation. If something has no mundane explanation AND we do not have enough information to conclude ET, according to my definition, the UFO is “alien” – but that does not automatically mean we can therefore explain it as ET.

Here we go again, how do you eliminate all other possibilities other then "alien"

To put it as simply as possible my concept of alien means (in essence) “no mundane explanation”. I believe there are mundane explanations for “leprechauns and fairies and dragons”, so they are not alien (I will not here get into the argument concerning these things as alien…that would probably only confuse the issue at this point).

Such as?

Regarding the Merida incident, if there is no mundane explanation for the being behind the pole (and it would seem to be a very thin pole to so successfully hide a human), then that being is ‘alien” (note the quotation marks around the term alien – that means I am using my definition and not the common “alien = ET” definition).

Show us how you came to the conclusion that it was "alien"

(I presume you here use my definition of alien) I have presented many cases where there is no apparent mundane explanation. Would you like a list of them?

Yes, lets go back to the circle... again.

I stated the video was “interesting”, nothing more or less. I then noted that there are statements made in Muassan’s presentation video that lend veracity to the report (particularly surrounding the actions of the media and what they did – commit a fraud - and have subsequently not been able to do – expose Maussan in a fraud).

Here's the problem we have one article with no links with no other sources of the fraud.

...and yes, strictly speaking there is no such thing as "bad" evidence. Evidence is evidence - we just have to work out what it is evidence for.

There is such a thing called bad evidence, I can't understand why you can think otherwise.

 

[Jocce]

Yes, it is worthwhile evidence... but just not evidence for what you want it to be for. I merely used it to point out that someone knows more about the case than we do…

Someone claims to know something and you choose to believe him because it fits your predetermined conclusion.

not only that fact, but also that there must also exist reports of the results of the radiation data investigations (for where did the poster get the precise measurements from otherwise?).

Ehh....maybe he made it up? Maybe he's repeating hearsay? Maybe he has access to the data but for some unknown reason choose to not quote his source? You can't just believe what any random guy says on the interwebs.

 

[Jocce]

You asked if I could provided a direct quote from you to show that you did claim that there was no evidence to connect the radiation with the incident. That is you stated: “Oh sorry, did you say that you had some evidence to tie this video (cause) to some radiation readings in the same location months later (effect)? You know, to show that they were related.” and in stating that there is no doubt that – despite your protestations – you meant that there is no connecting evidence – and even in the face of that you can maintain your position?

I don't know about anyone else but imo there is still no firm evidence of unusual radiation levels at the location and much less any evidence connecting these alleged readings to an event 8 months earlier.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I don't know about anyone else but imo there is still no firm evidence of unusual radiation levels at the location and much less any evidence connecting these alleged readings to an event 8 months earlier.

I agree. The video is not good evidence based on what I can see and it defies the laws of physics. I want to see some sort of scientific paper showing the radiation survey and who conducted them. So far, I am of the opinion that this "scientist", Jorge Guerrero, is not a scientist at all.

 

[Astrophotographer]

You have directly informed us in this thread that you personally have been taken in by fraud – does that make you a bad investigator and therefore disqualify you from commenting seriously in this thread (or having your comments taken seriously)?

There is a difference between carefully investigating a case and not spending your money wisely. I was young and chose to spend a few hundred dollars on something I thought was a good investment without even looking into the matter. I learned from that experience to do a bit more research and I have made better investments because of this. I am not sure why you even feel it is pertinent to this discussion because it is not.

Get back to the topic. Prove that Jorge Guerrero is a real scientist and present his scientific papers regarding these radiation surveys. This is your claim. If you can prove it then we can proceed. However, the claims defy the laws of physics. That suggests the readings are flawed or hoaxed unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You asked if I could provided a direct quote from you to show that you did claim that there was no evidence to connect the radiation with the incident. That is you stated: “Oh sorry, did you say that you had some evidence to tie this video (cause) to some radiation readings in the same location months later (effect)? You know, to show that they were related.” and in stating that there is no doubt that – despite your protestations – you meant that there is no connecting evidence – and even in the face of that you can maintain your position?

Now that you've admitted it was a total fabrication on your part for a second time and you've provided the evidence for that, you should retract it.

So you simply handwave away my many and various posts explaining the process of elimination? If you cannot understand what the process of elimination entails, then perhaps you might have a look at this site for clues to the process (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...ow8QZP&sig=AHIEtbT2mM02q4U5MlJO-lV5qV3Dt0UU0g) or here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_of_elimination) for example. Then you might see if you can apply that methodology to Rogue River. If you think about it the set of mundane explanations for Rogue River is quite limited. For example we can rule out “telephone”, “page 352 from War and Peace”, “my great aunt Mary”, etc. so that we are left with “flying objects”. Of these we can rule out all common flying objects (“birds”, “planes”, “blimps”, etc.) …so what are we left with? Nothing mundane of course.

Where did you get the mistaken impression that blimps had been eliminated?

Regarding Campeche, I have indicated to you in some detail in previous posts that it is plausible that “oil well fires” provide at least a part explanation for the sighting, but also that at least one UFO (possibly more) were plausibly involved. After providing you with a detailed summary assessment of the case, I asked for your response. You never supplied it. Now you propose to raise the case again as if all that had never transpired?

What did Jaime Maussan have to say about Campeche? Oh yes, his website talked about halos and a powerful magnetic field and frequencies and vortex. So, where do you suppose the Campeche "aliens" hail from?

You may have a point. I am forgetting that what might seem common knowledge to many people (that genetic mutations commonly occur to produce “weird” results) may not be so to others. Thus according to my definition of alien (outside our common conception of the natural and technological world) a five-legged-dog would be alien. It is not alien to me because I have personally witnessed an animal born with five legs. It would not be alien to a biologist or a geneticist and I have provided the information so that you might no longer consider such as alien (under my definition).

Re a tail as a leg: Have you witnessed a kangaroo walking? It uses its tail as a leg. Therefore it could be argued that a tail can also be a leg.

A kangaroo uses it's tail as a tail. Here is a wiki entry for your edification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo

You may also wish to peruse this thread concerning the redefinition of eyelids on snakes to see how it can go south on you really quickly.

It would seem, since you are the one referencing Encarta as your principle source, that it is your favourite source. This type of projection IMO is typical of UFO debunkers. It seems to stem from a certain belief that whatever they believe, others must also believe. I would simply point out that this is a fallacy.

Really? Which one?

I have defined alien as something outside (or foreign to) our common conception of the natural or technological world. I have with reference to specific cases only explained that the sighted objects (UFOs) in specific cases have no mundane explanation. If something has no mundane explanation AND we do not have enough information to conclude ET, according to my definition, the UFO is “alien” – but that does not automatically mean we can therefore explain it as ET.

But you haven't shown any UFO's that are definitely not mundane, except for Campeche. It is not one of the seven that you could think of.

To put it as simply as possible my concept of alien means (in essence) “no mundane explanation”. I believe there are mundane explanations for “leprechauns and fairies and dragons”, so they are not alien (I will not here get into the argument concerning these things as alien…that would probably only confuse the issue at this point).

No, there are no mundane explanations for leprechauns, fairies, or dragons so they are "alien" according to your redefinition.

Regarding the Merida incident, if there is no mundane explanation for the being behind the pole (and it would seem to be a very thin pole to so successfully hide a human), then that being is ‘alien” (note the quotation marks around the term alien – that means I am using my definition and not the common “alien = ET” definition).

You mean, other than another boy with some sort of mask and arm extension who was hiding so they could scare their friend? I admit, it seems really far fetched that boys would play a prank on each other and video it with a cell phone camera. It would take an absolute genius to think of something so far out of the ordinary.

(I presume you here use my definition of alien) I have presented many cases where there is no apparent mundane explanation. Would you like a list of them?

A list of the mundane explanations that you've eliminated? Sure!

 

[Rramjet]

I have been unavoidably absent.

I have been in contact with some sources about the Merida incident. My sources tell me that Jorge Guerrero is probably best considered a charlatan and not above decidedly dishonest tactics. Jaime Maussan on the other hand is considered to be a person who does not conduct sound research. He is not overtly dishonest, but perhaps when in the company of such as Guerrero, is liable to be led astray.

However, just because two characters such as these have been associated with the case does not make the case less interesting. I would still like to see the radiation data.

As for Campeche, my thoughts on this case have been put clearly and succinctly many times. While the FLIR may be plausibly explained as “oil-well” fires (note the evidence for this is circumstantial, but of course that does not stop the UFO debunkers claiming the cause IS oil-well fires - somewhat of a double standard I would have thought), there does seem to be at least one genuine UFO involved.

There is still some argument about the process of elimination. Surely it is not that difficult a concept to grasp. I even pointed to some websites explaining the process and have outlined how it works in (for example) the Rogue River case (and especially in conjunction with the historical and eyewitness evidence to rule out blimps).

As for “bad evidence”, like beauty, I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. What one person sees as bad evidence for something and thus concludes fraud - for example - another might consider it GOOD evidence for fraud. Thus, strictly speaking, there IS no such thing as “bad evidence”, it all depends on what you use the evidence FOR.

Concerning scientist not “rushing to investigate”, the comments posted here suggest that the people making them do not understand the historical and cultural situation pertaining to UFOs – and certainly they don’t understand the nature of scientists and scientific funding bodies. Conservatism is the norm. Controversy is shied away from. “Blue Sky” science struggles for funding as it is, throw in a controversial subject and there is no hope.

I am sorry but I have no time to supply detailed replies to your various posts here. I will be absent for a little while longer. You may take it however that I have not given up the subject, just a short hiatus while other duties command my undivided attention. I will be back

 

[carlitos]

When I use quotation marks I either mean that it is a direct quote from a specified source or it has a specific definition that needs to be indicated (or is being delineated).

I most commonly use quotation marks around the term “alien”. This indicates that it is NOT meant to represent ET or any other particular hypothetical explanation that has been commonly attributed to UFOs. That is, it seems whenever people hear the word “alien”, they seem to automatically assume ET – and I am trying to avoid leaping to that conclusion. I actually mean “alien to our common conception of reality”. That is, UFOs are “alien” to us because we have no mundane explanation for them. I know this has lead to confusion and debate and this is because people simply cannot (or will not) see past ET as an explanation for UFOs. My contention is that while UFOs may not have mundane explanations, we cannot assume this automatically means ET.

It is a point of distinction the UFO debunkers have (as is their wont) tried to muddy the waters around and obscure in confusion. In arguments to me they deliberately swap (without specification) between using “alien as ET” (an explanation) and my “alien as not mundane” (a definition) in the same argument, setting up a strawman so they can then claim I am confused. I originally used quotation marks around “alien” in the hope of forestalling that type of misrepresentation, but of course the UFO debunkers found a way to confuse the issue anyway. IMO it seems for UFO debunkers it is better for confusion to reign that clarifying definitions or investigation to emerge.

I hope this answers your question carlitos. If not, perhaps you have other specific examples in mind you could point to that I could use explicate the issue further.

Thanks for explaining about the quotation marks. (As an aside, I feel compelled to ask what your definition for "UFO debunker" is?)

Looking at your last post, your use of quotations makes me wonder which of these terms you are either quoting directly from a source (none linked), or you are you are attempting to redefine away from the common definition:

"oil well"
"Blue Sky" (science) - I've never heard of this, not much is on the google.
“rushing to investigate”

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"Blue Sky" (science) - I've never heard of this, not much is on the google.

Ah, well that one I can answer: Blue sky research is scientific research set free to pursue interesting lines, without any intended application.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_skies_research

 

[carlitos]

Ah, thank you. I have used this phrase in R&D myself, I had just never heard it phrased "blue sky science." (Or "Blue Sky" science, for that matter)

This is why I am honest in asking about the overuse of quotation marks; they really seem to muddy up the discourse and make it hard for me to understand what should be a simple point. Rramjet, would you consider using italics for emphasis, and leave the quotations for their intended meaning, that is to quote someone?

 

[Astrophotographer]

(As an aside, I feel compelled to ask what your definition for "UFO debunker" is?)

I doubt he will give a reasonable definition. It is just a term UFOlogists love to use to label the opposing opinion. Rod Brock once wrote in his blog "Aliens at my buick" (this block has since been shut down by Rod):

There's a word the ufologically "faithful" use to "demonize" their skeptical opponents. Various lengthy attempts have been made on certain UFO lists to "objectively" define this particular word. These attempts have been little more than hot air; in practice, anyone who dissents against the views of one of the faithful, regardless of the quality of his/her argument, will be conveniently labeled with this term. It's an old propaganda trick, a standard in rhetorical argument. Within ufological circles, it's the kiss of death, leveled with all the venom of more extreme pejoratives, such as "*****," "scum," "vermin," etc.

The word is "debunker."

The ***** I edited out. I discuss how the term "debunker" and "debunking" has been twisted over the years by UFOlogy in my commentary, "Skeptic, debunkers, and Pelicanists, Oh My!":

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SDP.htm

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

I'll bite

As for Campeche, my thoughts on this case have been put clearly and succinctly many times. While the FLIR may be plausibly explained as “oil-well” fires (note the evidence for this is circumstantial, but of course that does not stop the UFO debunkers claiming the cause IS oil-well fires - somewhat of a double standard I would have thought), there does seem to be at least one genuine UFO involved.

You mean the oil fires? All we have is the FLIR and the radar which was of the oil fires.

There is still some argument about the process of elimination. Surely it is not that difficult a concept to grasp. I even pointed to some websites explaining the process and have outlined how it works in (for example) the Rogue River case (and especially in conjunction with the historical and eyewitness evidence to rule out blimps).

No I understand what it is, but I don't see where your working is.

As for “bad evidence”, like beauty, I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. What one person sees as bad evidence for something and thus concludes fraud - for example - another might consider it GOOD evidence for fraud. Thus, strictly speaking, there IS no such thing as “bad evidence”, it all depends on what you use the evidence FOR.

I gave myself a bloody nose due to your lack of reasoning on this. Beauty is subjective, evidence however isn't

Concerning scientist not “rushing to investigate”, the comments posted here suggest that the people making them do not understand the historical and cultural situation pertaining to UFOs – and certainly they don’t understand the nature of scientists and scientific funding bodies. Conservatism is the norm. Controversy is shied away from. “Blue Sky” science struggles for funding as it is, throw in a controversial subject and there is no hope.

Oh rubbish, you can't bat for a theory if your evidence is bad.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Concerning scientist not “rushing to investigate”, the comments posted here suggest that the people making them do not understand the historical and cultural situation pertaining to UFOs – and certainly they don’t understand the nature of scientists and scientific funding bodies. Conservatism is the norm. Controversy is shied away from. “Blue Sky” science struggles for funding as it is, throw in a controversial subject and there is no hope.

I can keep reciting what all the scientific panels have stated over the years about the subject but I would be repeating myself. This is why there is no "rush to investigate". Scientists just don't find your/UFOlogy's evidence compelling enough to drop what they are currently doing and pursue some phantom sightings that produce no evidence that is substantial. Where you see "alien" answers, they see something unidentified or a more mundane possibility. That is the issue here and you are attempting to make it appear that there is some other reason. Therefore, you go to some conservatism or controversial subject angle. Nice try but it does not fly in the face of what all these scientists have stated.

Additionally, your "expertise" as a scientist and understanding the process of scientific funding has NEVER been established and has been brought into question numerous times. Therefore, I can only draw the conclusion that this is your uninformed opinion based on what you read in UFO books or web sites. It is worthless until you can establish the fact that you are a practiciing scientist, have experience in these matters, and have produced actual scientific research on some subject other than UFOs.

 

[Correa Neto]

A given project, presented for funding, is based on data such as what's presented by folks like Jaime Maussan.

Funding denial for such a project would be based on "conservatism"?

Oh, yeah, there's no such thing as bad evidence. I say this is BS. Unless you think the evidence used to present and back cold fusion was not bad. Or maybe you think the evidence presented by Hwang Woo-suk at his papers are good. Or maybe that the evidence presented by fundies to back ID and YEC are OK. Actually this would not be completely unexpected from some UFOlogists...

 

[Tricky]

A given project, presented for funding, is based on data such as what's presented by folks like Jaime Maussan.

Funding denial for such a project would be based on "conservatism"?

Oh, yeah, there's no such thing as bad evidence. I say this is BS. Unless you think the evidence used to present and back cold fusion was not bad. Or maybe you think the evidence presented by Hwang Woo-suk at his papers are good. Or maybe that the evidence presented by fundies to back ID and YEC are OK. Actually this would not be completely unexpected from some UFOlogists...

Kind of a semantic thing though. Is evidence just the raw data, or does it only become "evidence" when it is interpreted and used to support a position? I'd call your examples "bad interpretation of the evidence".