UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Frying Dutchmen]

Perhaps you should have read the reason I posted that list then (that you did not does not surprise me of course…) and currently we are (or were) attempting to discuss the videos concerning the following cases (so perhaps you should have kept up with the thread also…):

Perhaps you should read the people replying to your reasons or just dodge the questions and answers.

..besides… what “decent” explanations? I have repeatedly requested those “explanations” from RoboTimbo (who made the same unfounded claim) and I am still waiting for them to materialise…

He has and yet you just hand wave them away because it's too much hassle to back up your claims that they are Alien.

The name is Travis Walton, although why anyone might expect you to actually know that is probably moot.

Skeptoid comments in conclusion about the Walton case that “…that there simply isn't any evidence either way.” (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4094) Huh! Now that’s a “decent explanation” if I ever heard one...

There isn't one polygraph said he was lying one said he was abducted by Aliens (the English term). I see you have to correct me with that over the top snide remark in typical RR fashion.

I am afraid you will have to be more specific here. I have proposed one Apollo case (see my list post recently). Has Skeptiod “debunked” that one? Perhaps you can provide a link?

I linked the site to you. You found the Travis Walton case with no problems but you can't find one that's on the front page. This took me 30 seconds to find and that's due to my tabs

This is simply an unfounded assertion with no supporting evidence and as such it is entitled to be summarily dismissed - unless of course you can provide supporting evidence for your assertions here. Besides, no-one here (as far as I know) has yet claimed any of the cases I have presented represent ET (for that is what I assume you mean by your term alien).

Yes, hand wave that evidence of me para phrasing Skeptoid's episode on the astronauts and aliens. (not just my term but the English term too)

I think you are simply confused between cases now. Campeche (as brought back by RoboTimbo) is being discussed currently at least by me (but curiously not by him…) and there I claim the case involves both a genuine UFO and a misidentification of mundane objects.

Curiously, it's not, so don't lie to me because I have the power to read the previous posts on this thread too. Also you hand waved it off before but now it's a case that is being "discussed currently" So what made you change your mind? This is the quote that's way back in March this year.

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.

So what's Alien about the case?

I have also consistently maintained that eyewitnesses can be fallible. Indeed if you remember way back to the Rogue River case, I pointed out that very fallibility was able to provide important clues about the veracity of the case.

Nice bit of revisionist history there RR. It was the other way around you claimed it was UFO thus Alien and that it was a saucer shaped while straw manning the skeptics position.

As to the “Mexican TV host” (who is best left nameless lest we invoke his spirit…) and the case of the “Mexican Alien Video” taken on mobile phone by some soccer playing teenagers - after investigation I conceded that the “Host” was gullible and that his lawyer sidekick was a charlatan. That of course says nothing about the veracity of the case itself – but of course the case was not helped by the involvement of those two characters - and at the point we left it in this thread, considering I could not speak Spanish, and that no-one in this thread who could was willing to research the case further, no conclusion was ever drawn (in this thread).

Much was discussed and much was ignored by you.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Let’s forget your preamble - which I believe I have addressed in my reply to Jocce above - and concentrate on your admission that “If your claim here is that bits of debris have trajectories that you can't imagine being mundane, I can agree with that.”

Now of course you will claim that you mean that it is only me who “cannot imagine” a mundane cause – but of course you are bereft of such imagination as well. I know this because if you could imagine a mundane cause, then you would have provided one and that would have been the end of the argument. I have asked you repeatedly to provide an explanation and you even went so far as to claim that an explanation has been provided (and therefore your assertion that you make no claims is erroneous) – but interestingly you cannot provide any evidence that such an explanation exists at all.

I stated:
“If I make a claim I need to support that claim with evidence.
If you make a claim you need to support that claim with evidence.”

But you are simply shifting the burden of proof here.

That's funny!

All I am providing are the observations. That is, the evidence of curving trajectories. No “work” (or calculations) are necessary to acknowledge the nature of the trajectories at all. It is an observable fact that the trajectories are curved. The work comes in an attempt to explain those curving trajectories in mundane terms – and that is something that neither you, nor I, nor anyone (nor any organisation) has so far been able to do.

Since you're the only one who sees aliens in a curved trajectory, perhaps nobody else is really interested.

If you're making a claim that it's aliens, provide some evidence for aliens.
If you're making a negative claim that it can't be mundane, show how it is impossible for a mundane object to have a curving trajectory.
If you are making no claims, just noting something interesting, it's off topic for this thread.

Still your burden of proof.

 

[Jocce]

Good point tomi71. Of course the UFO debunkers cannot explain any of the cases, so accordingly they are all "best" cases. Don't hold your breath waiting for them to actually provide plausible explanations though...

The main difference between you and the rest is that you claim that objects are of alien origin when you can't explain a case. I (and others) accept that there is not enough reliable data available to do proper research.

 

[Jocce]

But I have answered that question – many times. Let me reiterate:

Observation: Curved and meandering debri trajectories.

Woooahh...hold it right there..
Before going further, describe mathematically the relative trajectories of the "debris" in question and the camera in 3D space. Looking at a 2D representation of 3D space and saying "doesn't look right" is not a convincing argument.

 

[Jocce]

“If I make a claim I need to support that claim with evidence.

Your present claim is that a piece of debris is behaving in unusual ways. I have have asked you to substantiate that claim. You can not do that by simply repeating your claim that, to you, it behaves oddly. That's a simple concept to grasp right?

 

[Rramjet]

And here was have one of the foundations of the problem. Rramjet is making a negative claim: that is, the debris' trajectory is not mundane.

You are correct. It is not my great aunt Mary. It is not a cat. It is not the 346th page of War and Peace. It is not a great many things. In fact it is not anything mundane we can think of. …and that is a problem …for the UFO debunkers who would like to explain everything in mundane terms …and it is a problem for the true skeptics and scientists who would like to simply explain it - on any terms.

What we must not do however is merely deny its inexplicability. We must continue to gather inexplicable events. We must collate them. Search for patterns. Look for commonalities. Research their differences. Explore the context and environment in which they occur … in other words we must conduct scientific exploration of UFO cases. And we must not give up simply because we have so far failed to find an answer. Where would science have been if people simply gave up on a problem after a few decades – even centuries?

This negative cannot be turned into a positive (the debris is alien, or whatever) without some positive evidence. If it's alien, then we must first establish that these certain aliens do exist, and the debris' trajectory fits with what we know in positive terms about these aliens.

You are correct again. And I have never claimed that ET is the answer. I have consistently affirmed that while there may be circumstantial evidence of ETs in a number of cases (ie; intelligent control, associated beings, etc), still we must not leap to the conclusion that the ETH is “the” answer.

Once again however, this does not mean we simply give up on research as too difficult or because such research does not seem to fall under what the layperson might consider the limits of scientific exploration. Seemingly intractable problems of the past have been solved by persistence over very long periods of time – why should we imagine the UFO problem is going to be any different?

If we can't find a mundane explanation, but don't have any positive evidence as to what type of non-mundane thing it is, we have to leave it at unexplained.

You are not correct here. We do not “have to leave it at unexplained.” We must persist in research and we must not give up because so far no acceptable solutions have been found. And we must not cease to put these type of cases into the public eye for discussion and consideration. There is a mystery here and it might take a new generation of thinkers to solve that mystery where we cannot. That new generation of thinkers cannot apply itself to the problem if it is buried and denied and ridiculed as is the current trend in places such as the JREF.

I stated:
“I make no other claims whatsoever about the nature or source of the debris shown in those videos.”

Promise?

I do not have my crystal ball on me right now but at this point in time I stand by my statement.

I stated:
“Given mundane debris, then unless your are implying extraordinary (non-mundane) physical processes, you should be able to explain the mundane physical processes that produce the trajectories we see in the videos.”

No, there is a third option - unexplained.

Here you miss a critical point I was trying to make. A mundane object should be amenable to mundane explanations.

The UFO debunkers want the debris to be mundane in the sense that it is something that has literally come from earth (on - and from - the Shuttle, or satellite, rocket, missile, etc). Such debris (ice, bits of metal, insulation, etc) must therefore be subject to the mundane physical forces we all know and understand well (Shuttle thrusters, gravity, electrostatics, magnetism, etc). However, none of those agencies can explain the trajectories we see (unless of course you – or anyone you know - can think of a solution in those terms). Thus whatever the debris is, either it is itself not mundane, or it is acting under the agency of a non-mundane force (or both). So you see it is not quite as simple as merely stating that it is “unexplained”.

Of course once something has been plausibly explained, then it becomes mundane (commonplace, ordinary, etc) – even if ET is the eventual explanation.

 

[Rramjet]

Perhaps you should read the people replying to your reasons or just dodge the questions and answers.

From the very beginning of this thread I have consistently answered the replies to my comments always as completely and fully as I can. I have never “dodged” questions or answers. I will however note that the same cannot as often be stated as true of my opponents in this thread.

He has and yet you just hand wave them away because it's too much hassle to back up your claims that they are Alien.

I find it amusing that the UFO debunkers continue to claim that they have provided explanations (preceded by adjectives such as ‘decent” satisfactory”, etc), yet when repeatedly pressed on the issue, fail to be able to either provide those explanations or point to where they have been put forward in this thread.

There isn't one polygraph said he was lying one said he was abducted by Aliens (the English term). I see you have to correct me with that over the top snide remark in typical RR fashion.

I apologise for the seeming snideness of my remarks on occasion. However, I get frustrated when someone comes in and claims knowledge of a case when they cannot even get the name of the primary protagonist correct. I then think to myself that it is typical of the UFO debunker mentality of not bothering to examine the evidence before commenting - and my frustration shows through. However I do apologise and will try and restrain myself in future.

As for the polygraphs in the Walton case, no matter what the outcome, the UFO debunkers would have claimed the result as a negative. If he passed with flying colours (which he did on at least one occasion) the UFO debunkers (rightly) claimed that the polygraph process has serious flaws. If Walton failed a test (which he did on at least one occasion) then the UFO debunkers jumped all over it with alacrity and claimed that it was evidence of fraud (or lie) on Walton’s part. If Walton never took a test at all, the UFO debunkers would have claimed that he had something to hide. Walton was always going to lose in the polygraph stakes, no matter what he did or what the outcome.

I linked the site to you. You found the Travis Walton case with no problems but you can't find one that's on the front page. This took me 30 seconds to find and that's due to my tabs

The link you just provided does not speak at all about the Apollo case I presented (here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo10/html/lunar_activities.html)
Higher res extended version: (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm - Magazine K), which is why I asked if you could provide a link to the case in question.

Further, if you want to get into what astronauts saw then you could do worse that examine the Skylab 3 case I have presented in this forum (here: http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html).

Yes, hand wave that evidence of me para phrasing Skeptoid's episode on the astronauts and aliens. (not just my term but the English term too)

Well, no… your statements seemed to refer to UFO cases in general - outside the few Apollo/astronaut ones discussed in the Skeptoid article. Especially as you snidely (pots and kettles?) refer your remarks back to “Mac attack” in obvious reference to Dr Bruce Maccabee’s research articles – none of which refer to Apollo astronauts by the way.

I stated:
” I think you are simply confused between cases now. Campeche (as brought back by RoboTimbo) is being discussed currently at least by me (but curiously not by him…) and there I claim the case involves both a genuine UFO and a misidentification of mundane objects.”

Curiously, it's not, so don't lie to me because I have the power to read the previous posts on this thread too. Also you hand waved it off before but now it's a case that is being "discussed currently" So what made you change your mind? This is the quote that's way back in March this year.

My following statements on the Campeche case (from yesterday) must then put the lie to your claims here then:

From post #7650 (p.192)

” Yes, why don’t you do that… seems there may be a UFO there that kicked the whole thing off… then the pilots/crew got carried away and misidentified some oil well fires… (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/).”

And from post #7653:

” Oh...and you seem to have completely missed commenting on the Campeche UFO. You keep bringing the case up - yet after you do - you fail to comment on what the case represents. Why is that? What is your purpose in bringing that case up when you will not discuss it in any meaningful way?”

And # 7658:

” In my opinion the “UFOs” represented in (for example) the FLIR from the Campeche incident probably were misidentified oil well fires, but that being said, there does seem to be a genuine UFO that kicked the whole thing off. See here for an extensive analysis (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/).

So yes, I maintain that I have been currently discussing the Campeche case, and the quote you cite (from March apparently, though you do not provide us the courtesy of linking to that post so we cannot verify for ourselves):

” 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.”

...is entirely consistent with my recent comments (from Yesterday!). So your claims that I am somehow lying are now succinctly placed into context.

So what's Alien about the case?

I have never claimed alien (or as you mean it, ET) for the case. I was merely pointing out that the UFO debunkers were so sure it was a case of mistaken identity that they failed to see the evidence of the involvement of a genuine UFO.

Nice bit of revisionist history there RR. It was the other way around you claimed it was UFO thus Alien and that it was a saucer shaped while straw manning the skeptics position.

You should have actually read the Rogue River posts then. At the time I claimed (repeatedly) that because the eyewitnesses descriptions did not match on certain aspects (and were thus fallible) that this lent a certain veracity to their stories (as opposed to a collusion between them - in which case we might have expected their descriptions to match more closely). I also claimed that it was circular… and I never claimed it was alien…

Much was discussed and much was ignored by you.

If you say so. But of course you know (or should know) by now that I will reply to such statements that merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

 

[Paul2]

Here you miss a critical point I was trying to make. A mundane object should be amenable to mundane explanations.

The UFO debunkers want the debris to be mundane in the sense that it is something that has literally come from earth (on - and from - the Shuttle, or satellite, rocket, missile, etc). Such debris (ice, bits of metal, insulation, etc) must therefore be subject to the mundane physical forces we all know and understand well (Shuttle thrusters, gravity, electrostatics, magnetism, etc). However, none of those agencies can explain the trajectories we see (unless of course you – or anyone you know - can think of a solution in those terms). Thus whatever the debris is, either it is itself not mundane, or it is acting under the agency of a non-mundane force (or both). So you see it is not quite as simple as merely stating that it is “unexplained”.

Of course once something has been plausibly explained, then it becomes mundane (commonplace, ordinary, etc) – even if ET is the eventual explanation.

You are biased toward the non-mundane in the absence of a confirmed explanation. You should remain neutral, however, until we affirm in a positive way what it is. Then we can say if it's mundane or not. If we don't know what it is, we can't say if it's mundane or not. Just because we haven't found a mundane explanation doesn't mean it's not mundane. If something is not explained, we don't know if it's mundane or not, because we don't have an explanation.

 

[Rramjet]

Since you're the only one who sees aliens in a curved trajectory, perhaps nobody else is really interested.

Well …obviously you at least are interested. Why would you be posting here if you were not?

…and what is it with the UFO debunkers and their aliens? They seem to have a particular mindset that UFOs = aliens and (it seems) nothing can shake them from that (potentially) erroneous belief.

If you're making a claim that it's aliens, provide some evidence for aliens.

I wish the UFO debunkers would simply read my posts. If they did they would understand that I have repeatedly stated that I make no claims about the debris whatsoever outside the fact that they display anomalous trajectories.

If you're making a negative claim that it can't be mundane, show how it is impossible for a mundane object to have a curving trajectory.

Leaving aside the double negative… and leaving aside the “impossibility” of proving anything at all to be “impossible”… I believe I have demonstrated that the trajectories were not caused by anything mundane we can think of (especially not by the shuttle’s thrusters). Does that rule out the possibility that the eventual explanation will be mundane? Of course it does not. Theoretical physics is not a dead science (as the UFO debunkers seem to think it is) and some future advance might make a mundane explanation apparent. Until then (or another explanation such as ET is forthcoming) the cases will remain UFO cases and deserve to be analysed and considered in conjunction with other UFO cases. They all present us with a mystery. There may be a common cause (such as ET), there may be disparate phenomenological causes, whatever the answer, just because we currently do not have an answer, does not mean we simply dismiss those cases as somehow intractable and cease to consider them at all (which is what the UFO debunkers seem to want very much to do – as if out of sight is out of mind).

If you are making no claims, just noting something interesting, it's off topic for this thread.

No… not at all. I claim that these NASA video cases provide evidence for UFOs. That is directly on topic. You even admitted that they are UFOs. Remember your own statement from post #7647 (p.192)?

” Until anyone can present new information, they remain simply unidentified, thus the term "UFO" in the sense that it is Unidentified, appears to be Flying, and appears to be a tangible Object.”

So your claim here is erroneous even by your own statements.

Still your burden of proof.

You still have not been able to explain that unfounded assertion. What precisely is it you want me to “prove”?

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

From the very beginning of this thread I have consistently answered the replies to my comments always as completely and fully as I can. I have never “dodged” questions or answers. I will however note that the same cannot as often be stated as true of my opponents in this thread.

I have asked you many times to show where anyone on this thread said they didn't believe in UFOs and you still use the Slur UFO debunker. So yeah you do dodge and avoid.

I find it amusing that the UFO debunkers continue to claim that they have provided explanations (preceded by adjectives such as ‘decent” satisfactory”, etc), yet when repeatedly pressed on the issue, fail to be able to either provide those explanations or point to where they have been put forward in this thread.

Where is your explanation that anything you have shown is alien rather then UFO?

I apologise for the seeming snideness of my remarks on occasion. However, I get frustrated when someone comes in and claims knowledge of a case when they cannot even get the name of the primary protagonist correct. I then think to myself that it is typical of the UFO debunker mentality of not bothering to examine the evidence before commenting - and my frustration shows through. However I do apologise and will try and restrain myself in future.

That's an Unfounded Assertion by your part. I know of the case before you added it to your best evidence for... I used to believe the case was a solid Alien(English term or common term) abduction. Then I did some research and found out that polygraphs are not legally admissible in court. So the question is why do you think this case is a one of the best cases? Since there's no physical evidence Travis Washington and his

As for the polygraphs in the Walton case, no matter what the outcome, the UFO debunkers would have claimed the result as a negative. If he passed with flying colours (which he did on at least one occasion) the UFO debunkers (rightly) claimed that the polygraph process has serious flaws. If Walton failed a test (which he did on at least one occasion) then the UFO debunkers jumped all over it with alacrity and claimed that it was evidence of fraud (or lie) on Walton’s part. If Walton never took a test at all, the UFO debunkers would have claimed that he had something to hide. Walton was always going to lose in the polygraph stakes, no matter what he did or what the outcome.

Using your logic Jeffrey Dahmer(or Ted Bundy) was innocent since he passed the polygraph test, and no I wouldn't say the result was a negative I would say it was pointless since it doesn't test whether your lying or not but rather the electron conductivity by the sweat on your skin.

The link you just provided does not speak at all about the Apollo case I presented (here: (http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/video/apollo/apollo10/html/lunar_activities.html)
Higher res extended version: (http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-video-library.htm - Magazine K), which is why I asked if you could provide a link to the case in question.

You keep linking to Apollo footage but saying your not talking about Apollo sightings make up your mind.

Further, if you want to get into what astronauts saw then you could do worse that examine the Skylab 3 case I have presented in this forum (here: http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html).

I have been reading this thread so yeah I don't need to go back to step one regardless on what you want to do.

Well, no… your statements seemed to refer to UFO cases in general - outside the few Apollo/astronaut ones discussed in the Skeptoid article. Especially as you snidely (pots and kettles?) refer your remarks back to “Mac attack” in obvious reference to Dr Bruce Maccabee’s research articles – none of which refer to Apollo astronauts by the way.

Okay I'm sorry the article was about Astronauts and Aliens but I guess it's really about Apollo.

I stated:
” I think you are simply confused between cases now. Campeche (as brought back by RoboTimbo) is being discussed currently at least by me (but curiously not by him…) and there I claim the case involves both a genuine UFO and a misidentification of mundane objects.”

Because you haven't shown any of this. You keep linking to Bruce Maccabee's work and saying there that's my evidence and yet you haven't linked or shown anything of this genuine UFO.

My following statements on the Campeche case (from yesterday) must then put the lie to your claims here then:

Don't want to play more semantics but these single replies in your posts were from posts from a few days ago not Yesterday. Unless I posted on the 24th

” Yes, why don’t you do that… seems there may be a UFO there that kicked the whole thing off… then the pilots/crew got carried away and misidentified some oil well fires… (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/).”

Bolding added sums it up.

” Oh...and you seem to have completely missed commenting on the Campeche UFO. You keep bringing the case up - yet after you do - you fail to comment on what the case represents. Why is that? What is your purpose in bringing that case up when you will not discuss it in any meaningful way?”

I'm not Robotimbo but the oil fires were the UFOs they reported look at every report done it was reported the oil fires were the UFOs and this mysterious UFO that started it off, where is the evidence of that?

” In my opinion the “UFOs” represented in (for example) the FLIR from the Campeche incident probably were misidentified oil well fires, but that being said, there does seem to be a genuine UFO that kicked the whole thing off. See here for an extensive analysis (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/).

Look here a skeptical look at that case. though I think you'll just hand wave it off like you did the last time it was linked.

So yes, I maintain that I have been currently discussing the Campeche case, and the quote you cite (from March apparently, though you do not provide us the courtesy of linking to that post so we cannot verify for ourselves):

Yes you post single paragraphs per post that equals discussion.

” 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.”

IT was OIL FIRES. Nothing else was shown on that video and all the articles I have read talked about zero other UFOs in that case.

...is entirely consistent with my recent comments (from Yesterday!). So your claims that I am somehow lying are now succinctly placed into context.

Yeah it's the same un-compelling UFO research trying prove it was ET

I have never claimed alien (or as you mean it, ET) for the case. I was merely pointing out that the UFO debunkers were so sure it was a case of mistaken identity that they failed to see the evidence of the involvement of a genuine UFO.

The only failure is you saying there was a UFO by posting a Macca report from 2004 and nothing else to prove your case.

You should have actually read the Rogue River posts then. At the time I claimed (repeatedly) that because the eyewitnesses descriptions did not match on certain aspects (and were thus fallible) that this lent a certain veracity to their stories (as opposed to a collusion between them - in which case we might have expected their descriptions to match more closely). I also claimed that it was circular… and I never claimed it was alien…

Oh so you didn't claim it was Alien. So the point of using this 'case' is?

If you say so. But of course you know (or should know) by now that I will reply to such statements that merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

Irony. You make unfounded assertions about me but you cry when I point out your errors.

Skeptiod concludes: “ The Battle of Los Angeles was triggered by true UFO's: Something spotted in the sky that nobody was able to definitively identify.” (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4171). That’s not exactly a refutation of the case either…

What was alien about the case? Since Skeptoid concluded that it was it was unknown as in we don't know not your idea of unknown where it's ALIEN. so what makes it alien.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well …obviously you at least are interested. Why would you be posting here if you were not?

…and what is it with the UFO debunkers and their aliens? They seem to have a particular mindset that UFOs = aliens and (it seems) nothing can shake them from that (potentially) erroneous belief.

Reread your OP. It is your claim to prove aliens. There is no need for you to prove UFOs.

I wish the UFO debunkers would simply read my posts. If they did they would understand that I have repeatedly stated that I make no claims about the debris whatsoever outside the fact that they display anomalous trajectories.

So your claim is that they have anomalous trajectories and your evidence is video of a seemingly curving trajectory. How does this address your OP?

Leaving aside the double negative… and leaving aside the “impossibility” of proving anything at all to be “impossible”… I believe I have demonstrated that the trajectories were not caused by anything mundane we can think of (especially not by the shuttle’s thrusters). Does that rule out the possibility that the eventual explanation will be mundane? Of course it does not. Theoretical physics is not a dead science (as the UFO debunkers seem to think it is) and some future advance might make a mundane explanation apparent. Until then (or another explanation such as ET is forthcoming) the cases will remain UFO cases and deserve to be analysed and considered in conjunction with other UFO cases. They all present us with a mystery. There may be a common cause (such as ET), there may be disparate phenomenological causes, whatever the answer, just because we currently do not have an answer, does not mean we simply dismiss those cases as somehow intractable and cease to consider them at all (which is what the UFO debunkers seem to want very much to do – as if out of sight is out of mind).

So your scientific research method is to look at video and ask others to prove the debris is mundane?

No… not at all. I claim that these NASA video cases provide evidence for UFOs. That is directly on topic. You even admitted that they are UFOs. Remember your own statement from post #7647 (p.192)?

” Until anyone can present new information, they remain simply unidentified, thus the term "UFO" in the sense that it is Unidentified, appears to be Flying, and appears to be a tangible Object.”

As others have pointed out throughout this thread, you don't need to prove UFOs exist. I was pointing out that your incorrect definition of UFAO doesn't apply.

So your claim here is erroneous even by your own statements.

What claim is that? This is simply more of your bait and switch. I've told you repeatedly, I'm not the one making any claims, you are. Your OP, your claim, your burden of proof.

You still have not been able to explain that unfounded assertion. What precisely is it you want me to “prove”?

What precisely is it that you intended to prove with your OP?

 

[Rramjet]

The main difference between you and the rest is that you claim that objects are of alien origin when you can't explain a case.

What is it with the UFO debunkers and their seemingly intractable belief that UFOs = aliens? Cannot they see that there is no direct evidence of that association and that I have repeatedly denied that there is and that I have never claimed ET to be the answer. I have however claimed there is circumstantial evidence for the ETH as the most parsimonious explanation in cases such as the Tehran Jet chase case, Father Gill and Lonnie Zamora, but that remains circumstantial evidence and thus not amenable to any conclusive assertion of such a link. I have never claimed ET for the NASA video cases.

I (and others) accept that there is not enough reliable data available to do proper research.

Then you have not thought deeply enough about the problem - research is certainly possible as I will show below.

Woooahh...hold it right there..
Before going further, describe mathematically the relative trajectories of the "debris" in question and the camera in 3D space. Looking at a 2D representation of 3D space and saying "doesn't look right" is not a convincing argument.

First you claim there is not enough data to properly research the case(s), then you demand a mathematical analysis of those same cases?

Of course the unstated assumption behind your claims here is that because we are observing a 2D representation of a 3D space, then the trajectories we observe are somehow not actually curved but only appear to be so.

However, it should be obvious that if the trajectories appear to be curved in a 2D plane, then if that trajectory is extended into the 3D plane (in whatever permutation you might suggest), the trajectories would in reality be more curved than they actually appear to be, not less. That is, there is NO straight line trajectory that can be drawn on a 2D plane that could become a curved trajectory in a 3D plane.

Try a simple experiment if you don’t believe me. it. Draw a both curved line and a straight line on a piece of paper (a 2D plane) and then hold up that paper and tilt it to whatever angle you like in the 3D plane and note what happens to the appearance of the lines.

The straight line remains straight but simply becomes foreshortened - meaning of course that a truly straight trajectory in space will always remain a straight trajectory – and this also potentially means what we see as dots, could actually be objects moving directly away from or toward us. The curved line however can be made to seem to straighten out - meaning of course that what we see as straight trajectories on the video could in fact be curved! This little experiment actually proves the precise opposite of your claims in this regard.

The upshot is of course that there may be many more curved trajectories (and mobile objects) in reality than we can observe on the video. It also means that what we observe as a curved trajectory could in fact be more curved than we observe – but never less curved.

 

[wollery]

First you claim there is not enough data to properly research the case(s), then you demand a mathematical analysis of those same cases?

Of course the unstated assumption behind your claims here is that because we are observing a 2D representation of a 3D space, then the trajectories we observe are somehow not actually curved but only appear to be so.

However, it should be obvious that if the trajectories appear to be curved in a 2D plane, then if that trajectory is extended into the 3D plane (in whatever permutation you might suggest), the trajectories would in reality be more curved than they actually appear to be, not less. That is, there is NO straight line trajectory that can be drawn on a 2D plane that could become a curved trajectory in a 3D plane.

Try a simple experiment if you don’t believe me. it. Draw a both curved line and a straight line on a piece of paper (a 2D plane) and then hold up that paper and tilt it to whatever angle you like in the 3D plane and note what happens to the appearance of the lines.

The straight line remains straight but simply becomes foreshortened - meaning of course that a truly straight trajectory in space will always remain a straight trajectory – and this also potentially means what we see as dots, could actually be objects moving directly away from or toward us. The curved line however can be made to seem to straighten out - meaning of course that what we see as straight trajectories on the video could in fact be curved! This little experiment actually proves the precise opposite of your claims in this regard.

The upshot is of course that there may be many more curved trajectories (and mobile objects) in reality than we can observe on the video. It also means that what we observe as a curved trajectory could in fact be more curved than we observe – but never less curved.

Your little experiment assumes that the observer remains stationary during the entire motion of the object. If two object move in straight lines past each other then they can each appear to the other to be moving in a curve. Now let's add a curving motion to an observer and anything that isn't moving in a parallel curve will appear to move in a curve. An object moving in a parallel curve will appear to be stationary or moving in a straight line. So at least part of the motion of the debris could be explained by movement of the observing platform.

Now, let's remind ourselves, are things in orbit (such as space shuttles manoeuvring around space stations) stationary, or are they in motion?

 

[Jocce]

I (and others) accept that there is not enough reliable data available to do proper research.

Then you have not thought deeply enough about the problem - research is certainly possible as I will show below.

First you claim there is not enough data to properly research the case(s), then you demand a mathematical analysis of those same cases?

Of course the unstated assumption behind your claims here is that because we are observing a 2D representation of a 3D space, then the trajectories we observe are somehow not actually curved but only appear to be so.

You are looking at a low resolution video of objects you know nothing about, moving in 3D trajectories that are unknown, filmed by a moving camera with properties you know nothing about. Yes, I claim that this would not be enough data to do proper research.

However, it should be obvious that if the trajectories appear to be curved in a 2D plane, then if that trajectory is extended into the 3D plane (in whatever permutation you might suggest), the trajectories would in reality be more curved than they actually appear to be, not less. That is, there is NO straight line trajectory that can be drawn on a 2D plane that could become a curved trajectory in a 3D plane.

Complete bullocks. First, we're not looking at lines, we're looking at points moving about the screen. Second, of course you can make an object moving in a straight line appear to be making a curved trajectory by simply moving the camera. You're just looking at videos and claim that it doesn't look right without providing any real evidence whatsoever.

 

[Rramjet]

I have asked you many times to show where anyone on this thread said they didn't believe in UFOs…

Merely stating unfounded assertions does not make them true.

…and you still use the Slur UFO debunker.

Anyone who has been following this thread would realise I have asked the UFO debunkers many times to supply an alternative appellation – none has so far been suggested.

So yeah you do dodge and avoid.

Again, merely stating an unfounded assertion does not make it true.

Where is your explanation that anything you have shown is alien rather then UFO?

I stated in my OP that I would provide evidence for UFOs and “aliens”. I believe I have amply fulfilled the UFO section. As to the “aliens” bit there seems to be some contention. I deliberately placed the term “alien” in quotation marks in the OP because while there seems to be circumstantial evidence that we are being “visited” by ETs (aliens), I have never been certain that ET was an accurate or adequate explanation.

I have nevertheless provided cases where ET does seem to be a parsimonious explanation (Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora, etc), but that does not mean that ET is the explanation for these cases. For example some in the UFO community have suggested that while an intelligence might be at work, it might somehow be fooling us (playing tricks on us) into believing in ETs, while ET is actually not the explanation. So, while many in the UFO community do believe that ET is the explanation, I contend that while the ET explanation might seem the most parsimonious (and thus probably the reason why it has gained the most popular support) we must remain open to alternative possibilities.

That's an Unfounded Assertion by your part. I know of the case before you added it to your best evidence for... I used to believe the case was a solid Alien(English term or common term) abduction. Then I did some research and found out that polygraphs are not legally admissible in court. So the question is why do you think this case is a one of the best cases? Since there's no physical evidence Travis Washington and his

Let me see if I can follow your logic here.
1. You knew of the Walton case before I mentioned it. Hardly surprising.
2. You used to “believe” it was a case of alien abduction. Yes, it does seem a good case pointing in that direction (but of course I maintain that we must keep an open mind).
3. You now do not believe the case represents alien abduction. That is your inalienable right.
4. The reason you no longer believe it is an alien abduction case is that you found out that polygraphs are inadmissible in a court of law. Can I ask what polygraphs have to do with the actual evidence in the case? If polygraphs are, as you admit, fallible - and thus not able to inform us about the evidence one way or other, how is it you can decide the veracity of a UFO case based merely on that fact? It seems to me that polygraphs have (or should have) no role in the case whatsoever.

Why do I think it is a “best” case? Actually I don’t. It is merely another piece in the evidential chain. Just another part of the overall puzzle. There are also some basic irrefutable facts about the case that make it intriguing. There were multiple witnesses. Walton literally disappeared for a substantial period of time. The witnesses were accused by law enforcement of a possible murder (or at the very least foul play) – and maintained their story in the face of the potential dire consequences for them arising from that had Walton not reappeared. There is no evidence that refutes the men’s story… as for physical evidence, there was Walton’s physical and mental condition after he reappeared – and that indicates strongly that he was severely traumatised and thus supports his story.

I stated:
“As for the polygraphs in the Walton case, no matter what the outcome, the UFO debunkers would have claimed the result as a negative. If he passed with flying colours (which he did on at least one occasion) the UFO debunkers (rightly) claimed that the polygraph process has serious flaws. If Walton failed a test (which he did on at least one occasion) then the UFO debunkers jumped all over it with alacrity and claimed that it was evidence of fraud (or lie) on Walton’s part. If Walton never took a test at all, the UFO debunkers would have claimed that he had something to hide. Walton was always going to lose in the polygraph stakes, no matter what he did or what the outcome.”

Using your logic Jeffrey Dahmer(or Ted Bundy) was innocent since he passed the polygraph test, and no I wouldn't say the result was a negative I would say it was pointless since it doesn't test whether your lying or not but rather the electron conductivity by the sweat on your skin.

Obviously you did not understand what I wrote. Let me try again. When Walton passed a polygraph, the UFO debunkers claimed that polygraphs are fundamentally flawed and the results did not prove anything. When Walton failed a polygraph, the UFO debunkers claimed it was evidence that he was lying (in other words a double standard on the UFO debunkers behalf). IF Walton had never taken a polygraph, I am sure the UFO debunkers would have claimed that this meant he had something to hide. Thus Walton could not win in the UFO debunker’s eyes no matter what he did in relation the polygraph tests or what the outcome of those tests might have been. Understand my point now?

Do you know why skin conductivity is (purportedly) important in polygraph tests?

You keep linking to Apollo footage but saying your not talking about Apollo sightings make up your mind.

Strange, I could have sworn it was you who brought up the subject of Apollo astronauts in relation to aliens… oh wait…it was you…

Also Skeptoid has done (…) a few of the Apollo ones. Which I might added were easy proven not to be ALIEN…

I have been reading this thread so yeah I don't need to go back to step one regardless on what you want to do.

That is your right, but it merely demonstrates what is, in my opinion, a typical UFO debunker trait: That of ignoring the evidence.

Okay I'm sorry the article was about Astronauts and Aliens but I guess it's really about Apollo.

The article was not about the case I presented in this thread. If I had presented Apollo cases mentioned in the article, then your linking to that article might have constituted a legitimate refutation. Unfortunately for you it does not mention the relevant case.

Because you haven't shown any of this. You keep linking to Bruce Maccabee's work and saying there that's my evidence and yet you haven't linked or shown anything of this genuine UFO.

I link to any information that I deem relevant to the cases I am presenting and that can support my contentions. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you proposing some sort of conspiracy?

Don't want to play more semantics but these single replies in your posts were from posts from a few days ago not Yesterday. Unless I posted on the 24th

Yesterday… the day before…what’s the relevant difference?

I stated:
“Yes, why don’t you do that… seems there may be a UFO there that kicked the whole thing off… then the pilots/crew got carried away and misidentified some oil well fires… (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/).”

Bolding added sums it up.

(shrugs) So what is your point? Would you prefer if I was more categorical about the UFO?

I'm not Robotimbo but the oil fires were the UFOs they reported look at every report done it was reported the oil fires were the UFOs and this mysterious UFO that started it off, where is the evidence of that?

Again, what is your point? The evidence is outlined here (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/). Perhaps you could actually have a look at that evidence and comment on it?

Look here a skeptical look at that case. though I think you'll just hand wave it off like you did the last time it was linked.

That link analyses the Campeche FLIR video of the probably misidentified oil well fires. I have no argument with the conclusions that is what the FLIR video shows. So what’s your point? I am instead claiming there was a genuine UFO that preceded the video episode. Look at the analysis in the link I provided.

Yes you post single paragraphs per post that equals discussion.

Yes… so… your point being?

IT was OIL FIRES. Nothing else was shown on that video and all the articles I have read talked about zero other UFOs in that case.

I would not be as categorical - but it is a plausible explanation for the FLIR. Then you should read the analysis under the link I provided you.

Yeah it's the same un-compelling UFO research trying prove it was ET.

Perhaps then you have not read any of the statements I have made on the matter of whether UFOs represent ETs or not.

The only failure is you saying there was a UFO by posting a Macca report from 2004 and nothing else to prove your case.

Evidence is evidence, no matter what you personally think of the source. Oh, and the Campeche article you cite as a refutation of the FLIR? …It was from 2004!

Oh so you didn't claim it was Alien. So the point of using this 'case' is?

If you don’t know then perhaps you should re-read the case as I presented it.

Irony. You make unfounded assertions about me but you cry when I point out your errors.

Show me where I have made any unfounded assertion about you. Once again it is you who have stated an unfounded assertion seemingly in the belief that merely stating such an assertion will make it true.

What was alien about the case? Since Skeptoid concluded that it was it was unknown as in we don't know not your idea of unknown where it's ALIEN. so what makes it alien.

I don’t know. Answer me this though: What do we have flying around that can withstand a concerted and sustained anti-aircraft barrage – then simply fly away as if nothing had ever happened?

 

[Rramjet]

Reread your OP. It is your claim to prove aliens. There is no need for you to prove UFOs.

No, I actually mentioned “aliens” in my OP (in quotation marks - and I specifically provided my reasoning for including the quotation marks). Selective consideration of the evidence is what I have come to expect from the UFO debunkers.

In my OP I stated:
“I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality. “They” could be from “out there”, they could be from “precisely here”, they could be extra- or intra-dimensional, they could be, well, anything at all…we just do not know and without a concerted research effort, perhaps we will never truly “know”.”

In the cases I am presenting I am therefore trying to demonstrate the diversity of compelling testimony and evidence that exists. Considering those cases it will often be a personal value judgement as to what the true explanation will actually be. I do however contend that whatever the explanation, the evidence in those cases seems to positively defy mundane explanation.

So your claim is that they have anomalous trajectories and your evidence is video of a seemingly curving trajectory. How does this address your OP?

See above.

So your scientific research method is to look at video and ask others to prove the debris is mundane?

Not at all. In fact there was an extensive discussion a few pages back concerning the merits of the shuttle’s thrusters as a potential explanation and the result was that the shuttle’s thrusters failed as an explanation for the trajectories. I lead that research and provided much useful information on the subject. I did not ask others to do it. I did it myself.

Then I simply ask: If not the shuttle’s thrusters, then what? Use your imagination. Come up with a hypothetical explanation (which should be easy for you as you DO claim to have already put one – or more - forward) and I will research it for you. That requires little if any work on your part – just a little thinking. How could I be more fair?

As others have pointed out throughout this thread, you don't need to prove UFOs exist. I was pointing out that your incorrect definition of UFAO doesn't apply.

If you say so.

What claim is that? This is simply more of your bait and switch. I've told you repeatedly, I'm not the one making any claims, you are.

Considering your claim from post #7647 (p.192) that:
“Until anyone can present new information, they remain simply unidentified, thus the term "UFO" in the sense that it is Unidentified, appears to be Flying, and appears to be a tangible Object.”

I was merely pointing out that you made that claim which made your other claim that the NASA video cases were “off topic for this thread” (post # 7682, p. 193) erroneous. Nothing more, nothing less. So perhaps you will be able to explain now how that constitutes a “bait and switch”?

Your OP, your claim, your burden of proof.

What claim is that?

What precisely is it that you intended to prove with your OP?

Perhaps you should read my OP. I specifically provided my reasoning there (also see my first reply in this post to you above).

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, I actually mentioned “aliens” in my OP (in quotation marks - and I specifically provided my reasoning for including the quotation marks). Selective consideration of the evidence is what I have come to expect from the UFO debunkers.

Whether you redefine the term alien or not is moot. You have yet to provide compelling evidence for aliens or "aliens"

In my OP I stated:
“I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality. “They” could be from “out there”, they could be from “precisely here”, they could be extra- or intra-dimensional, they could be, well, anything at all…we just do not know and without a concerted research effort, perhaps we will never truly “know”.”

Yes, exactly. You haven't provided evidence for anything outside our common understanding of reality.

In the cases I am presenting I am therefore trying to demonstrate the diversity of compelling testimony and evidence that exists. Considering those cases it will often be a personal value judgement as to what the true explanation will actually be. I do however contend that whatever the explanation, the evidence in those cases seems to positively defy mundane explanation.

The problem is UFO creduloids' value judgment is to always lean towards the fantastic. Actual compelling evidence shouldn't require judging at all.

See above.

See entire thread.

Not at all. In fact there was an extensive discussion a few pages back concerning the merits of the shuttle’s thrusters as a potential explanation and the result was that the shuttle’s thrusters failed as an explanation for the trajectories. I lead that research and provided much useful information on the subject. I did not ask others to do it. I did it myself.

What do you make of Wollery's points? My guess is that you will handwave them away.

Then I simply ask: If not the shuttle’s thrusters, then what? Use your imagination. Come up with a hypothetical explanation (which should be easy for you as you DO claim to have already put one – or more - forward) and I will research it for you. That requires little if any work on your part – just a little thinking. How could I be more fair?

This is the typical UFO creduloid's attempt at shifting the burden of proof. I give you credit for being consistent. You name seven things that it can't be and then challenge others to provide an explanation. Your OP, your claim, your burden of proof. You are saying debris with an apparent curving trajectory is outside of our understanding of reality. Now give compelling evidence that that is so.

If you say so.

Considering your claim from post #7647 (p.192) that:
“Until anyone can present new information, they remain simply unidentified, thus the term "UFO" in the sense that it is Unidentified, appears to be Flying, and appears to be a tangible Object.”

I was merely pointing out that you made that claim which made your other claim that the NASA video cases were “off topic for this thread” (post # 7682, p. 193) erroneous. Nothing more, nothing less. So perhaps you will be able to explain now how that constitutes a “bait and switch”?

This is just bizarre. My "claim" is that a UFO is a UFO unless you, Rramjet, can provide compelling evidence otherwise, therefore I have the burden of proof to prove the status quo? I'm going with YES, it's the typical UFO creduloid's bait and switch.

What claim is that?

If you aren't claiming something is outside of what we normally comprehend reality to be, why did you bring it into the thread?

Perhaps you should read my OP. I specifically provided my reasoning there (also see my first reply in this post to you above).

Perhaps you should read your OP. You stated your would provide evidence for aliens. Whether you put it in quotes or not, you haven't done so.

 

[Rramjet]

Your little experiment assumes that the observer remains stationary during the entire motion of the object. If two object move in straight lines past each other then they can each appear to the other to be moving in a curve. Now let's add a curving motion to an observer and anything that isn't moving in a parallel curve will appear to move in a curve. An object moving in a parallel curve will appear to be stationary or moving in a straight line. So at least part of the motion of the debris could be explained by movement of the observing platform.

Now, let's remind ourselves, are things in orbit (such as space shuttles manoeuvring around space stations) stationary, or are they in motion?

Sure, but as for assessing the movement of the observation platform (the shuttle in this case) we simply look at the background stars. All the stars in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) move in a straight line, slowly (in comparison to the debri in question) from the top of frame downward. No curves, no unusual trajectories.

This means of course the shuttle is very slowly orbiting MIR (too slowly to have caused the observed curved trajectory affects on the debri such as you outline). You can even see the perspective of MIR change slightly over the course of the video. I am afraid therefore that your analysis, while theoretically correct, does not explain the curved trajectories of the debri. I do however appreciate the thought and intelligence behind your explanation though. It is a welcome addition to this thread at this time.

 

[Rramjet]

You are looking at a low resolution video of objects you know nothing about, moving in 3D trajectories that are unknown, filmed by a moving camera with properties you know nothing about. Yes, I claim that this would not be enough data to do proper research.

But I just conducted some research… and Wollery added further detail to it… so there was certainly enough data to perform that research at least.

Complete bullocks. First, we're not looking at lines, we're looking at points moving about the screen.

Sorry, I should perhaps have pointed out that the lines on the paper in my experimental research represent dots (the debri) over a period of time.

Second, of course you can make an object moving in a straight line appear to be making a curved trajectory by simply moving the camera.

See Wollery’s addition to this debate above and my reply to that post for further explanation on this point.

You're just looking at videos and claim that it doesn't look right without providing any real evidence whatsoever.

Observation, hypothesis formation, experimental research, conclusions. What more do you want?

 

[Rramjet]

Whether you redefine the term alien or not is moot.

I did redefine alien for my purposes – is that fact really open to debate or somehow irrelevant?

You have yet to provide compelling evidence for aliens or "aliens"

That is your opinion (an unfounded assertion too). By the way, what happened to the explanations for the NASA videos showing the anomalous debris trajectories you claimed were available?

Yes, exactly. You haven't provided evidence for anything outside our common understanding of reality.

Again, merely your opinion. How DO you explain those trajectories?

The problem is UFO creduloids' value judgment is to always lean towards the fantastic.

I tend to agree (except for the categorical “always”).

Actual compelling evidence shouldn't require judging at all.

Really? Then there should be no debate in science at all then? So, why is it we see arguments about what the evidence of research shows in practically every scientific research project whose results were ever published?

What do you make of Wollery's points? My guess is that you will handwave them away.

See my reply to Wollery above.

I stated:
“Then I simply ask: If not the shuttle’s thrusters, then what? Use your imagination. Come up with a hypothetical explanation (which should be easy for you as you DO claim to have already put one – or more - forward) and I will research it for you. That requires little if any work on your part – just a little thinking. How could I be more fair?”

This is the typical UFO creduloid's attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

How so? You claimed that you already had explanations – I am simply asking you to put them forward so we can analyse their veracity.

I give you credit for being consistent.

Thank you.

You name seven things that it can't be and then challenge others to provide an explanation.

That many? But no “challenge” involved at all – merely a search for information on the subject – it’s called research by the way.

Your OP, your claim, your burden of proof.

What claim?

You are saying debris with an apparent curving trajectory is outside of our understanding of reality. Now give compelling evidence that that is so.

I have shown that the shuttle’s thrusters could not be the cause. What other motive force for the debri is left considering a weightless environment in the vacuum of space?

This is just bizarre.

You’ve just noticed?

My "claim" is that a UFO is a UFO unless you, Rramjet, can provide compelling evidence otherwise, therefore I have the burden of proof to prove the status quo?

What “status quo”? I am contending there is no mundane force that could have caused the debris’ trajectory. I have shown the shuttle could not have provided that force. What else are we left with?

I'm going with YES, it's the typical UFO creduloid's bait and switch.

You have made this claim before – yet have not explained it. I asked you to explain it. Will you now do so?

If you aren't claiming something is outside of what we normally comprehend reality to be, why did you bring it into the thread?

But that is what I am claiming…

Perhaps you should read your OP. You stated your would provide evidence for aliens. Whether you put it in quotes or not, you haven't done so.

Explain the beings in the Father Gill UFO case then (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(or the Lonnie Zamora case (http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)).