UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

Obviously for you to be convinced that UFOs are of extraterrestrial manufacture (or nature), then you would need to be presented with ordinary physical evidence (such as a "alien raygun" or an "alien spaceship") to believe it.

No, alien raygun or alien spaceship or alien body are some examples of extraordinary evidence that I would accept, if they were properly authenticated by reputable scientists. Obviously UFOlogists won't qualify.

However, it is not being claimed in this thread (by me at least) that the explanation for UFOs is the ETH. You are implying we have only a dichotomous choice in explanation - mundane or alien. This is a mistaken conception. Based on the evidence we simply do not know what UFOs are (or what phenomena they might represent).

That's why nobody is saying you are claiming it. You should instead use that straw for mulch in your garden.

With that in mind, we should be able to therefore discuss the evidence surrounding UFOs (eyewitness anecdotal, expert testimony, radar, film and photograph and physical trace) without the baggage of you automatically assuming that there is only a dichotomous choice in the matter (mundane or alien).

Nope, you're incorrect again. You are the one who claims aliens. I suggested fairies, elves, Santa Claus, leprechauns, and mundane explanations. It wasn't even that long ago. The only dichotomous choice is the one you've presented.

I would however ask you to seriously consider what our choices are when it comes to cases such as Father Gill or Lonnie Zamora (see links in my previous post), where the characteristics of the UFOs defy mundane explanation and at the same time, beings are associated.

Ok, what are our choices and I'll consider them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well no, the statement should read:

In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation that Rramjet can think of.

Fixed it again for you. Remember the fatal flaw in your "process"?

If you disagree with the veracity of the statement then perhaps we could discuss a case where it might be applicable? Perhaps one we have not discussed in this thread? How about:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

What mundane explanations have you thought of for that case?

Obviously it is very plausible, otherwise it could not have happened. Perhaps though you have simply not understood the perceptual and emotional factors involved in the occurrence? May I suggest you read the following?

The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

I have of course explained the occurrence to you previously (on a number of occasions) but on those occasions I was probably remiss in not directly linking you to the information about the case to accompany that explanation. I can see now that without direct access to the case information my explanation of the occurrence might not be as accessible as it could be.

Unfortunately, you've refused to explain its import on your other cases. I've asked numerous times but you always demur.

The explanation is that having been alerted by radar to the presence of (at least one) UFO, the crew were then in a high state of alert and positively looking for external explanations. When they saw the (alleged) lights from the oil well fires, they thought they had found the explanation. A number of perceptual factors then played a role.

After you have read the case information from the above link, I will be happy to explain, clarify or otherwise expand upon that explanation if you wish.

Fantastic! Explain the implications of Campeche for other cases. You never can seem to bring yourself to do that.

Next straw man please.

Right on cue, here it is:

I can only assume you have not been following this thread very closely, nor have you read the OP. Can I suggest you at least read the OP? There you will find that I explicitly deny that, based on the evidence, we can positively conclude that the ETH is the correct explanation. I have also reiterated that position a number of times over the course of this thread. While to many the ETH might seem compelling, the simple fact is, based on the evidence, we actually cannot conclude positively in this regard.

You must have slept through most of this thread. You may not understand the definition of "straw man" but you certainly do make use of them.

Ummm no …just an ordinary sceptic. As such no question should be off limits. If someone states that a particular UFO has a particular mundane explanation, then I am entitled to question the veracity of that explanation.

Skeptics want extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. If you can't remember your extraordinary claim, review your OP. If you can remember the extraordinary evidence you've provided for it, a link would be appreciated. I've read the entire thread as it occurred but you may have gone back and edited one of your posts after I read it and I missed it.

Oh, then perhaps we can discuss the American West flight to see if the statement In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation has any veracity as applied to a particular case (I list this case even though there are probably better examples – but some of those have already been discussed and why rehash old ground when we have new cases to maintain our interest?).

Ok, I've thought of a mundane explanation for it. What is your process for eliminating all mundane explanations and I'll tell you if it eliminates the one I'm thinking of. This is one of the fatal flaws that you haven't overcome. And it seems you've given up any semblance of attempting to address it.

Just the mundane (everyday) observational evidence of the retrograde motion of Mars (which the heliocentric model explains very neatly). Perhaps though you can list this “extraordinary evidence” you believe “they” (I presume you mean Copernicus) were (was) in possession of?


Oh, there is plenty of evidence of beings associated with UFOs. For example :

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)

Just to name two cases. However, the leap to them being alien… (as in the ETH), while seemingly compelling, is perhaps not warranted based purely on the evidence. Sorry to disappoint.

Did you have some leftover straw to bring in ETH again? You're the only one using the term.

“In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation” is an extraordinary claim? Based on the evidence I think not. Perhaps though, in the course of our discussion of the American West case (see link above), that might become more apparent. Of course to anyone who has not researched much UFO case information, the claim might seem extraordinary, but to anyone who has understood the information contained in a variety of cases, based on that evidence, the claim becomes entirely mundane.

Perhaps you've misunderstood. It's a claim of an extraordinary circumstance, now you must provide extraordinary evidence for it having happened.

Well, yes. I have stated that already. As we don’t know what the objects (or phenomena) themselves are, then it can only be the descriptive characteristics that defy mundane explanation. I merely assumed that was implied when stating that UFOs defy mundane explanation – that was a mistake on my behalf, obviously.

Good, we'll work with your claim that the objects are definitely not mundane then. What extraordinary evidence do you have for what they are?

As you apparently have not read my many denials over the course of this thread (and indeed in my OP) that, based on the evidence, we can conclude positively concerning the ETH, I will forgive your comments made here in obvious misunderstanding of my often stated position in this regard.

Good, then you may stop wasting all your straw on denying ETH. Nobody is saying you are claiming it. I will forgive your extravagant waste of straw if you promise not to be such a spendthrift with it in future.

Ummm… a UFO is a UFO … how can something be unidentified and yet (according to you) I am supposed to know “what particular thing they are”?

Then you now admit that you can't know any actual characteristics of things that are unknown. Refer back to Campeche if you need a memory jog.

To reiterate. I can show that UFOs exist.

Cool! So can just about everyone else in this thread!

I can show that often there are associated beings (and indeed intelligent control).

The same would work for mundane explanations.

I can show that UFOs physically affect the environment and can be detected by radar and photographs.

The same would work for mundane explanations.

I can even show that the characteristics of UFOs defy mundane explanation.

You haven't yet.

What I cannot show is that the ETH is the correct explanation. Sorry to disappoint.

Do you buy your straw at a discount?

I think aChosen1 is linking to an alien body (http://www.top10ufo.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=2&pos=1). However, I have not researched this case and cannot vouch for the veracity of the photo. Perhaps either you or he might do some follow up to see what veracity (if any) might be in that case?

You and aChosen1 research it and let me know if you come up with any extraordinary evidence.

 

[Jocce]

it would be utterly implausible that they would not have factored measurement error into their calculations.

This is not an answer to the question "How large is the margin of error". What I want to know is if the objects could have been 140000ft up, 100000ft up, 200000ft up. Only if we know the margin of error in the estimated 150k ft can we start matching against known objects.

When you say “manmade” objects at that altitude then you mean V2 variants (for there was nothing else at the time)

There were also no "alien" flying objects at that altitude during this time (at least I haven't found any such confirmed reports) so I guess we're thinking hallucination is the most plausible explanation now then?

You also seem to be forgetting the research project was initiated because people (including the military personnel involved in the rocket research) did not know what the objects (being observed repeatedly for over at least a year or more prior to the research) were.

You are assuming that all the objects were of the same kind which has not yet been shown. We have ONE single observation where data was gathered. Let's deal with that.

“Certainly information "is gained" when a number of qualified observers simultaneously view unidentified objects from various locations. And more information is gained if some of these observers film these objects through cinetheodolite telescopes. There is useful information even if a "proper triangulation" is not accomplished.

The information that resulted from those observations is that "something seemed to be flying". Not very useful right? Or do you have anything else?

Then you don’t know how a triangulation is calculated?

A triangulation is not calculated, it's performed. Using the data gathered in the triangulation, one can calculate among other things altitude. I do know how to use trigonometry to solve for unknowns in plane geometry but I don't know how they calculated true altitude from one alt/az and one az and how that affects the error margin.

“Diameter” applies to circular objects. The analysts did not include “cylindrical” (or “rocket shaped”) or any other shape descriptor – just “diameter”. If the objects were anything other than “round” then they would have reported as much.

So not oval? Irregular? You're sure it's circular? Btw, how big were the objects on the film?

 

[Jocce]

The thing is you don’t know the likelihood of “non-mundane” explanations. For example what was the likelihood of the heliocentric model of the solar system being the correct mundane explanation before it became the accepted wisdom? Because it was the correct explanation meant (of course) that it had a 100% probability of being correct, just no-one knew it at the time. Your argument here (if we accepted it a having any weight at all) would mean that the geocentric model had a higher likelihood of being correct that the heliocentric model – and that is patently nonsense.

First if all, probabilities are not applicable in a situation where the answer is known so you're using seriously flawed logic here. Secondly, you now seem to be claiming that all explanations are equally likely (maybe with the exception of mundane objects). Am I understanding you correctly that you think that "aliens", fairies, flying unicorns, the green spagetti monster and godfarts are equally likely explanations then?

 

[Jocce]

Why would you believe that "alien raygun" or "alien spaceship" or "alien body" would be real and not manufactured and hoaxed.

Because real scientists could examine them.

Nothing is more easy than being like an automatic sceptic robot that doesn´t believe anything, not evidence not a phenomena. Nothing. It´s easy. You can always dismiss any evidence as you see fit. You can always dismiss photographs, eyewitness statements etc etc.

It's a lot easier to hold a belief than to reach an answer based on evidence.

 

[Jocce]

Obviously it is very plausible, otherwise it could not have happened.

Yes it could. You're confusing probabilities with certainties.

Oh, there is plenty of evidence of beings associated with UFOs. For example :

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)

You keep repeating that these links contain evidence of "alien" beings when you have been shown repeatedly that this is not the case.

I can show that UFOs exist. I can show that often there are associated beings (and indeed intelligent control). I can show that UFOs physically affect the environment and can be detected by radar and photographs. I can even show that the characteristics of UFOs defy mundane explanation.

Maybe you should go back an reread the thread because it seem to be the general opinion that you haven't been even close to showing these things.

 

[Rramjet]

No, alien raygun or alien spaceship or alien body are some examples of extraordinary evidence that I would accept, if they were properly authenticated by reputable scientists. Obviously UFOlogists won't qualify.

Physical evidence is “extraordinary” evidence? What makes physical evidence extraordinary evidence? Perhaps it is the subject of that evidence – for physical evidence is otherwise quite a mundane form of evidence that is presented in one form or another everyday. But of course if it is the subject of the evidence that makes it “extraordinary”, in that case we can have “extraordinary” anecdotal evidence (if the subject was “alien raygun” for example). And you would then, according to your own criteria (“extraordinary” evidence is sufficient) have to accept anecdotal evidence as definitive… Perhaps you might want to rethink your requirement for “extraordinary” evidence in light of the consequences of that requirement of yours?

I stated:
“However, it is not being claimed in this thread (by me at least) that the explanation for UFOs is the ETH.”

That's why nobody is saying you are claiming it. You should instead use that straw for mulch in your garden.

Oh but you were claiming it. Remember your question: “…then why are you saying they are evidence of aliens and UFAOs?”? Surely you cannot have forgotten you said that already? It was only five posts ago… and yet even while you stated the above, your very next comment is:

Nope, you're incorrect again. You are the one who claims aliens. I suggested fairies, elves, Santa Claus, leprechauns, and mundane explanations. It wasn't even that long ago. The only dichotomous choice is the one you've presented.

Why do I suddenly feel disinclined to converse with you further? Could it be your absolute inconsistency of statement? Let me ask you a question: How am I expected to rationally respond to someone who reverses their own position from one statement to the next?

I stated:
“In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation”.

Then, as an attempt to show a case example of the veracity of that statement I pointed you toward the following case:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

What mundane explanations have you thought of for that case?

I can think of no mundane explanation that explains the case. Perhaps you can? If you cannot it means further support for my claim: “In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation”.

I reference to:
The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

Unfortunately, you've refused to explain its import on your other cases. I've asked numerous times but you always demur.

I must have missed where you asked me that (perhaps I was away at the time). The general applicable principle is of course that if the circumstances and conditions applicable in Campeche are found in another case, then we can use what we have learned from the Campeche incident to inform our assessment of the new case. Why, what other cases do you have in mind? Perhaps we can discuss them to see if similar conditions pertained?

Skeptics want extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.

Ummm, I think you will find that there is no such thing as “extraordinary” evidence…

If you can't remember your extraordinary claim, review your OP.

I honestly don’t know to which claim you are referring. As far as I can tell the claims made in my OP are made frequently (commonly) and routinely by many people and that would make them “ordinary” claims would it not?

If you can remember the extraordinary evidence you've provided for it, a link would be appreciated.

If there is no such thing as “extraordinary” evidence, then how can I have provided it?

I've read the entire thread as it occurred but you may have gone back and edited one of your posts after I read it and I missed it.

Oh, but I see you forgot to preface that statement with: Far be it from me to cast unfounded aspersions… LOL.

I reference to the American West UFO:

Ok, I've thought of a mundane explanation for it.

Jolly good show! Perhaps you can enlighten us?

What is your process for eliminating all mundane explanations and I'll tell you if it eliminates the one I'm thinking of.

I believe it was you who so very recently claimed a “shifting of the burden of proof”. Having alerted us all to the possibility, you now attempt it yourself?

Oh, and if you don’t understand the process of elimination (where the characteristics of one thing are compared with the characteristics of another to see if there is a possible match and therefore a potential identification), then all you have to do is ask and I will be only too happy to explain or clarify it further for you.

This is one of the fatal flaws that you haven't overcome.

I am sorry, I simply don’t understand your reference here. Perhaps you can explain or clarify it for me?

And it seems you've given up any semblance of attempting to address it.

Once again I fear I simply don’t understand reference here. Perhaps I can impose on you one more time to explain or clarify it for me?

Did you have some leftover straw to bring in ETH again? You're the only one using the term.

I apologise, I mistakenly assumed you understood the acronym. ETH: It means the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. That is (in your terms) aliens, or the “little green men in spaceships from another planet” that the UFO debunkers like to assert as an explanation for UFOs.

In reference (again) to American West and my claim “In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation”:

Perhaps you've misunderstood. It's a claim of an extraordinary circumstance, now you must provide extraordinary evidence for it having happened.

An “extraordinary circumstance”? Clearly I don’t understand you use of that term in relation to the case or my claim. Apologies but perhaps you could clarify for me?

Further, what type of evidence is this “extraordinary” evidence you speak of? I mean what do you require here? I simply don’t understand what your requirement entails. Perhaps you could explain it for me?

Good, we'll work with your claim that the objects are definitely not mundane then.

I can only reiterate that I have made no such claim. If I ever have it was obviously a mistake on my part. Perhaps though you can point out where I might have made that claim? No?

What extraordinary evidence do you have for what they are?

“What they are”? What are they? I have no idea. Are they of extraterrestrial origin? Perhaps a compelling explanation - as so many people seem to consider it to be THE explanation… I on the other hand can only judge on the evidence presented, and based on that evidence, I cannot positively conclude that the ETH is the correct explanation.

Good, then you may stop wasting all your straw on denying ETH. Nobody is saying you are claiming it.

Oh how soon we forget (Your quotes this page and this post):

...why are you saying they are evidence of aliens and UFAOs?

You are the one who claims aliens

I will forgive your extravagant waste of straw if you promise not to be such a spendthrift with it in future.

I am sorry, I must apologise again. I simply do not understand your reference here

Then you now admit that you can't know any actual characteristics of things that are unknown.

I am sorry. Clearly I have failed to adequately explain myself. Let me try to rephrase: Even though we don’t know what an object is (or more precisely what it represents), we may describe its characteristics (dimension, colour, direction of motion, sound, speed, etc and so on). I hope that is clearer for you now?

Refer back to Campeche if you need a memory jog.

I don’t seem to be doing very well today do I? I really must apologise again. I simply don’t understand the reference.

In reference to my statement:
“To reiterate. I can show that UFOs exist. I can show that often there are associated beings (and indeed intelligent control). I can show that UFOs physically affect the environment and can be detected by radar and photographs. I can even show that the characteristics of UFOs defy mundane explanation. What I cannot show is that the ETH is the correct explanation. Sorry to disappoint.”

You then stated in reference to the “beings” and the environmental effects and detection:

The same would work for mundane explanations.

Oh, then please do propose some …you did claim you were thinking of some after all:

Ok, I've thought of a mundane explanation for it.

Clearly as I cannot think of any plausible mundane explanations you will have to provide them for me. For your convenience the cases specifically referenced in this context were:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)

You and aChosen1 research it and let me know if you come up with any extraordinary evidence.

As I have absolutely no idea what “extraordinary” evidence entails (looks like, would be) then I am afraid I must again disappoint you.

Now …as I have answered all your questions, let me point out a couple of questions of mine - addressed to you in my previous reply to you - that you have failed to answer:

Perhaps though you can list this “extraordinary evidence” you believe “they” (I presume you mean Copernicus) were (was) in possession of?

How can something be unidentified and yet (according to you) I am supposed to know “what particular thing they are”?

Cheers RoboT. I look forward to your answers.

(Oh, I must mention that I will probably be (again…) indisposed for a week or two – you will have to get on without me in the meantime. I am sure you will cope but apologies for any inconvenience.)

 

[H'ethetheth]

I should have stated that in many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation.

As others have said: This is not something you can establish. Since non-mundane hypotheses are by their very nature very unlikely, we can dig pretty deep for unlikely mundane explanations. You keep simply waving away this rather obvious objection to your method of evaluating explanations.

You may have put in some effort, but clearly you did not demonstrate that at all. Where we left it you had a hypothesis that (whatever the object was) its trajectory was something that could have been caused (and affected) by the shuttle’s RCS. I then posted a series of charts from a movement analysis on the principle objects in the film to see if we could match the RCS firings to the observed trajectory changes of the object. It was obvious from the charts that the RCS was in intermittent (but practically continual) use - adjusting the “orbit” of the shuttle around MIR. At first glance I could not see any obvious relation between the movements of the principle objects (indicating RCS firings) and our POV as measured from the stars, MIR or the object that also corresponded to the observed trajectory (and velocity) changes in the object. That is where the subject was left.

I will grant you that your “ice crystal” hypothesis is more plausible than wollery’s “satellite” hypotheisis, but I do not concede that you have “demonstrated” its veracity. We came into it with observed anomalous trajectory changes in one of the objects in the film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related object appears @ 6:17 bottom right). The RCS system firings acting on an ice crystal might seem plausible, but it remains difficult to match that to the actual trajectory observed (and the fact that no other objects were similarly affected).

If you think this, then you did not read my last post on the subject.
In that post, I observed that at some point, there are two particles in view, during several of the course changes of the object under discussion. The second object followed the every acceleration of the first synchonously. This makes it extremely unlikely that they are anything other than small pieces of debris close to the camera, originating from either MIR or the shuttle.

The fact that me being a sceptic who is questioning the validity of a “mundane” explanation disturbs you - or causes you to assign particular motivations to me – says more about your own biases surrounding the topic than it does my motivations. No questions should be barred from sceptical inquiry – yet you write as if some kinds of inquiry should be off limits.

It's not off limits, but you're going about skepticism the wrong way. You discount one or two mundane hypotheses and then proclaim that plausible mundane explanations do not exist. That's not how skeptical inquiry works.

Besides, what other mundane explanations are there? We only have small pieces of “debri” (such as ice crystals) close to the shuttle so that the trajectory can be affected by the shuttle’s RCS, or a larger object further away (such as a satellite) that then must have independent motivational power. What else is there?

Whether or not you or I can come up with more mundane explanations doesn't mean that there aren't any. This is exactly the error in your thought process that everyone is pointing out all the time. You can't discount mundane explanations you haven't thought of.
The "small debris" hypothesis was apparently one mundane, very plausible hypothesis which you hadn't thought of.

The thing is you don’t know the likelihood of “non-mundane” explanations. For example what was the likelihood of the heliocentric model of the solar system being the correct mundane explanation before it became the accepted wisdom? Because it was the correct explanation meant (of course) that it had a 100% probability of being correct, just no-one knew it at the time. Your argument here (if we accepted it a having any weight at all) would mean that the geocentric model had a higher likelihood of being correct that the heliocentric model – and that is patently nonsense.

That is true, but you do know that an explanation is more likely to be true if it fits with current scientific knowledge. Any explanation that contradicts current scientific knowledge requires evidence that cannot possibly be taken as resulting from mundane phenomena, which is something very difficult to establish.

Besides, you simply forget that the characteristics of many UFOs simply rule out most (if not all) plausible mundane explanations.

I don't forget it; I reject it, because it's simply not true.
You're assuming yourself omniscient, if you assume there can be no plausible mundane explanations.

An inertia defying turn? There goes your mundane explanations right there. “Impossible” accelerations? There goes your mundane explanations right there.

Observational error, false assumptions about the distance and size of the object, or number of objects, personal incredulity, coincidence, rare equipment error, poor understanding of equipment error types, hallucination, stress, lying, confirmation bias, and that's not even really trying.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Physical evidence is “extraordinary” evidence? What makes physical evidence extraordinary evidence? Perhaps it is the subject of that evidence – for physical evidence is otherwise quite a mundane form of evidence that is presented in one form or another everyday. But of course if it is the subject of the evidence that makes it “extraordinary”, in that case we can have “extraordinary” anecdotal evidence (if the subject was “alien raygun” for example). And you would then, according to your own criteria (“extraordinary” evidence is sufficient) have to accept anecdotal evidence as definitive… Perhaps you might want to rethink your requirement for “extraordinary” evidence in light of the consequences of that requirement of yours?

Nope, you're incorrect. Unless you actually have an alien raygun or an alien body or an alien spaceship and they have suddenly become mundane, they will continue to be referred to as extraordinary. So do you have any extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claim?

As for your own mental construct of "extraordinary anecdotal evidence", I've patiently explained to you time and again that it is silly. Here's why:
An example of your "extraordinary anecdotal evidence" - "I've seen an alien!"
My reply - "That sounds like an extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary evidence for it?"
Do you see now where you've got it wrong? Your mental construct is circular. Surely now with all the explanation with examples given to you, you can see that your mental construct is outright silly?

I stated:
“However, it is not being claimed in this thread (by me at least) that the explanation for UFOs is the ETH.”

Oh but you were claiming it. Remember your question: “…then why are you saying they are evidence of aliens and UFAOs?”? Surely you cannot have forgotten you said that already? It was only five posts ago… and yet even while you stated the above, your very next comment is:

Nope, I don't see where I've substituted ETH for alien there. Can you bold my own words for me please? Otherwise, I can only assume that you are now trying to positively strawman me again.

Why do I suddenly feel disinclined to converse with you further? Could it be your absolute inconsistency of statement? Let me ask you a question: How am I expected to rationally respond to someone who reverses their own position from one statement to the next?

My guess is because you don't have a good answer to my pointing out the fatal flaws in your argument and are chagrined that I've pointed out your strawmanning me. If your only choices are to strawman me or to not converse at all....

I stated:
“In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation”.

Then, as an attempt to show a case example of the veracity of that statement I pointed you toward the following case:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)



I can think of no mundane explanation that explains the case. Perhaps you can? If you cannot it means further support for my claim: “In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation”.

So me correcting your statement to "...mundane explanations that Rramjet can't think of." was factually correct then. Thank you.

I reference to:
The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

I must have missed where you asked me that (perhaps I was away at the time). The general applicable principle is of course that if the circumstances and conditions applicable in Campeche are found in another case, then we can use what we have learned from the Campeche incident to inform our assessment of the new case. Why, what other cases do you have in mind? Perhaps we can discuss them to see if similar conditions pertained?

Ok, here's a test for you. What lessons can we learn from Campeche and apply to other UFO cases?

Ummm, I think you will find that there is no such thing as “extraordinary” evidence…

Ummm, the reality is that you have been educated that there is actually extraordinary evidence. It's the type that is used to prove extraordinary claims. You've made an extraordinary claim, you have yet to produce any extraordinary evidence.

I honestly don’t know to which claim you are referring. As far as I can tell the claims made in my OP are made frequently (commonly) and routinely by many people and that would make them “ordinary” claims would it not?

Very well, if you wish it that way. Please provide a mundane alien raygun or a mundane alien body or a mundane alien spaceship to prove your mundane claim. Your "extraordinary anecdotal evidence" isn't good enough.

If there is no such thing as “extraordinary” evidence, then how can I have provided it?

Whether there is or not, you haven't provided it.

Oh, but I see you forgot to preface that statement with: Far be it from me to cast unfounded aspersions… LOL.

It is assumed since I never have anyway.

I reference to the American West UFO:

Jolly good show! Perhaps you can enlighten us?

Naughty naughty! Enlighten us as to your process to eliminate it and I'll tell you when you've struck it. If you can't, then you can see the fatal flaw in your argument.

I believe it was you who so very recently claimed a “shifting of the burden of proof”. Having alerted us all to the possibility, you now attempt it yourself?

Nope, you're incorrect. You have the burden of proof. You claimed a process to eliminate all mundane explanations. You haven't proven it yet. Get cracking.

Oh, and if you don’t understand the process of elimination (where the characteristics of one thing are compared with the characteristics of another to see if there is a possible match and therefore a potential identification), then all you have to do is ask and I will be only too happy to explain or clarify it further for you.

Ok, clarify your process of elimination. So far it hasn't eliminated the mundane explanation I'm thinking of. Keep trying. You still have the burden of proof.

I am sorry, I simply don’t understand your reference here. Perhaps you can explain or clarify it for me?


Once again I fear I simply don’t understand reference here. Perhaps I can impose on you one more time to explain or clarify it for me?

I've shown you two fatal flaws in your argument. Reread my post where I've explained it.

I apologise, I mistakenly assumed you understood the acronym. ETH: It means the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. That is (in your terms) aliens, or the “little green men in spaceships from another planet” that the UFO debunkers like to assert as an explanation for UFOs.

Well, for once you aren't mistaken. You assumed correctly that I do understand the acronym ETH. Now if you will just point out (perhaps by bolding my words rather than your own) a post of mine where I've said that's what you're claiming we can eliminate the confusion that one of us has.

In reference (again) to American West and my claim “In many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation”:

An “extraordinary circumstance”? Clearly I don’t understand you use of that term in relation to the case or my claim. Apologies but perhaps you could clarify for me?

"Extraordinary" means outside of the ordinary. You may see it in conjunction with the term "evidence" a lot. Circumstance means "condition affecting a situation". So "extraordinary circumstance" means outside of an ordinary copndition affecting a situation. An example of that might be someone claiming to have seen an alien spaceship. Since we don't know that alien spaceships are traversing our skies, that would be an extraordinary situation. I can try to explain further but if you can't understand it the way I've already done, you may have to seek help elsewhere.

Further, what type of evidence is this “extraordinary” evidence you speak of? I mean what do you require here? I simply don’t understand what your requirement entails. Perhaps you could explain it for me?

LOL. Alien spaceship, alien raygun, alien body.

I can only reiterate that I have made no such claim. If I ever have it was obviously a mistake on my part. Perhaps though you can point out where I might have made that claim? No?

Your OP.

“What they are”? What are they? I have no idea. Are they of extraterrestrial origin? Perhaps a compelling explanation - as so many people seem to consider it to be THE explanation… I on the other hand can only judge on the evidence presented, and based on that evidence, I cannot positively conclude that the ETH is the correct explanation.

We agree that people who conclude that on such scant evidence are deluded?

Oh how soon we forget (Your quotes this page and this post):

Again, you'll have to bold my words rather than the ones you've typed in their place.

I am sorry, I must apologise again. I simply do not understand your reference here

You keep saying I'm accusing you of claiming ETH. Nowhere have I. Yet you keep saying it. Maybe if you weren't so lax with your definitions?

I am sorry. Clearly I have failed to adequately explain myself. Let me try to rephrase: Even though we don’t know what an object is (or more precisely what it represents), we may describe its characteristics (dimension, colour, direction of motion, sound, speed, etc and so on). I hope that is clearer for you now?

What isn't clear is how you've ascertained that what is reported is correct.

I don’t seem to be doing very well today do I? I really must apologise again. I simply don’t understand the reference.

In reference to my statement:
“To reiterate. I can show that UFOs exist. I can show that often there are associated beings (and indeed intelligent control). I can show that UFOs physically affect the environment and can be detected by radar and photographs. I can even show that the characteristics of UFOs defy mundane explanation. What I cannot show is that the ETH is the correct explanation. Sorry to disappoint.”

You then stated in reference to the “beings” and the environmental effects and detection:

Oh, then please do propose some …you did claim you were thinking of some after all:

Naughty naughty!

Clearly as I cannot think of any plausible mundane explanations you will have to provide them for me. For your convenience the cases specifically referenced in this context were:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamorareport.html)


As I have absolutely no idea what “extraordinary” evidence entails (looks like, would be) then I am afraid I must again disappoint you.

I assure you, there was no disappointment on my part. In fact, it was absolutely what was expected.

Now …as I have answered all your questions, let me point out a couple of questions of mine - addressed to you in my previous reply to you - that you have failed to answer:

Perhaps though you can list this “extraordinary evidence” you believe “they” (I presume you mean Copernicus) were (was) in possession of?

How can something be unidentified and yet (according to you) I am supposed to know “what particular thing they are”?

I think where I made the mistake is in assuming that you knew for certain that any reported traits of UFOs were exactly as they were reported and not somehow mischaracterised. I see now that you don't know those things for certain and are making some assumptions of your own that don't seem warranted.

Cheers RoboT. I look forward to your answers.

(Oh, I must mention that I will probably be (again…) indisposed for a week or two – you will have to get on without me in the meantime. I am sure you will cope but apologies for any inconvenience.)

Toodles. Perhaps you could have corbin posting in your stead during your absence.

 

[Rramjet]

Couple of quick points and I’ll be on my way:

H’ethetheth:

By the process of elimination we most definitely can establish that in many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation. If for example however (for the cases I have recently pointed to) you can come up with any plausible mundane explanation, please do go ahead. If you cannot, then that lends veracity to the statement does it not?

In reference to the video there was not any other particle that reacted like the one appearing at 6:17 in the lower right. Either you are observing the wrong video or you are simply making things up.

RoboT:

Physical evidence is mundane evidence. If physical evidence is mundane evidence then the only thing that can confer “extraordinariness” on it is the subject of that evidence. However, if it is the subject of the evidence that confers extraordinariness on evidence, then that means we can have extraordinary anecdotal evidence. This is a direct consequence of your definition of “extraordinary” evidence. I am afraid that is your problem. Not mine.

If you believe that the ETH does not imply aliens then you are obviously using a definition of “alien” that differs from the common conception. Perhaps you would care to explain it?

I am sorry you still do not understand the process of elimination. When I return I will try to explain it to you more fully.

You claimed you knew a mundane explanation, yet you refuse to put that explanation forward. We can only assume that you do not know of any such explanation.

I have absolutely no idea what “outside of an ordinary copndition affecting a situation” means…

In reference to your persistent erroneous claims that I believe UFOs = aliens:

Again, you'll have to bold my words rather than the ones you've typed in their place.

I quoted you directly as anyone who clicks on the links I provided can ascertain. I have no wish to engage further with someone who cannot even acknowledge their own statements – even when directly quoted! Goodbye.

H’ethetheth, I will provide a fuller reply to your post on my return.

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboT:

Physical evidence is mundane evidence. If physical evidence is mundane evidence then the only thing that can confer “extraordinariness” on it is the subject of that evidence. However, if it is the subject of the evidence that confers extraordinariness on evidence, then that means we can have extraordinary anecdotal evidence. This is a direct consequence of your definition of “extraordinary” evidence. I am afraid that is your problem. Not mine.

It actually seems to be a problem for you. Your problem is your circular mental construct that seems to only make sense in your world. An alien raygun or an alien body or an alien spaceship would definitely be extraordinary, your protestations nothwithstanding. I'll make a deal with you. You produce one and we'll call it extraordinary. All the ones after that we'll call ordinary. Deal?

If you believe that the ETH does not imply aliens then you are obviously using a definition of “alien” that differs from the common conception. Perhaps you would care to explain it?

I see I have to be extra careful when giving you direction. I meant for you to quote my exact words where I said "ETH". When I asked you to quote me, I didn't mean for you to pick the handiest random phrase that said nothing about "ETH".

I am sorry you still do not understand the process of elimination. When I return I will try to explain it to you more fully.

You've promised that before. You have yet to do it.

You claimed you knew a mundane explanation, yet you refuse to put that explanation forward. We can only assume that you do not know of any such explanation.

You claimed you had a "process" that eliminated all mundane explanations. So far, you haven't demonstrated that. If you have overstated what you actually do, just admit it and we can move forward.

I have absolutely no idea what “outside of an ordinary copndition affecting a situation” means…

Then as I stated, you will have to seek elsewhere for some definitional assistance. I suggest your favorite online reference work.

In reference to your persistent erroneous claims that I believe UFOs = aliens:

I quoted you directly as anyone who clicks on the links I provided can ascertain. I have no wish to engage further with someone who cannot even acknowledge their own statements – even when directly quoted! Goodbye.

It's a pity that you are incensed that I won't allow you to attribute words to me that I don't use. Let me know when you're prepared to quote me honestly.

In the meantime, you still have the burden of proof to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims of aliens and UFAOs nor have you overcome the fatal flaw of your process since you haven't eliminated the one I am thinking of. Keep trying.

 

[wollery]

Rramjet, you are the one who redefined alien to mean "outside of Human understanding", rather than "beings from a different planet". RoboTimbo has been using it in this context, and using the term ETH to differentiate between the two concepts. You claim that "alien" does not mean ETH, and then complain about RoboTimbo using the term alien, apparently missing the fact that he is using it in the way you define it.

Are you now saying that you aren't claiming that UFOs are "alien" as you define the term? Or are you simply confused by the fact that RoboTimbo is using the term as you defined it?

Personally I think you owe RoboTimbo an apology.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Couple of quick points and I’ll be on my way:

H’ethetheth:

By the process of elimination we most definitely can establish that in many cases the characteristics of UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation. If for example however (for the cases I have recently pointed to) you can come up with any plausible mundane explanation, please do go ahead. If you cannot, then that lends veracity to the statement does it not?

Yes, it does, in that it makes non-mundane explanations a tiny bit more likely. However, it's extremely arrogant to presume that a non-mundane explanation you were able to come up with is more likely than any of the mundane ones you couldn't come up with.

In reference to the video there was not any other particle that reacted like the one appearing at 6:17 in the lower right. Either you are observing the wrong video or you are simply making things up.

So now you're just going to deny it?

Allow me to rub your nose in it:

At 7:17 an object enters view from the lower left. Look at how it accelerates, and when. I count 3 changes in direction that are synchronous with the changes in direction of your object, and in the same direction every time (note: the accelerations are in the same direction, not the velocity.)

Namely:
7:17
Object 1 is moving almost horizontally towards the left
Object 2 enters view at about a 30° angle toward the upper right

~7:30
Object 1 accelerates downward to below the three stars in a row at the right
Object 2 accelerates downward toward an almost horizontal trajectory

~8:00
Object 1 becomes stationary and starts moving slightly upward, i.e. accelerates toward the upper right.
Object 2 turns to the upper right again

~8:20
Object 1 accelerates vertically downward
Object 2 turns to the lower right

 

[H'ethetheth]

I see I mixed up left and right in the 7:30 object 1 case. I mean the three stars closely set in a row in the left of the view.

Sorry about that.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated (#7910):

Physical evidence is mundane evidence. If physical evidence is mundane evidence then the only thing that can confer “extraordinariness” on it is the subject of that evidence. However, if it is the subject of the evidence that confers extraordinariness on evidence, then that means we can have extraordinary anecdotal evidence. This is a direct consequence of your definition of “extraordinary” evidence. I am afraid that is your problem. Not mine.

It actually seems to be a problem for you. Your problem is your circular mental construct that seems to only make sense in your world.

No, my problem is that you do not seem to understand a sound logical argument when you see it. As follows:

RoboT contends that to uphold (believe in) certain claims he would require “extraordinary evidence” to be presented. He then claims an “alien raygun” would be just such extraordinary evidence (no logical argument, just the bald statement). However, while an alien raygun might be an extraordinary object, can it really be considered to be extraordinary evidence? It would seem not:

P1: An alien raygun is physical evidence
P2: Physical evidence is mundane evidence (usual or ordinary evidence).
C1: An alien raygun is mundane physical evidence.

But RoboT is insistent. How then can we accommodate his desire for an alien raygun to represent “extraordinary evidence”? For the sake of argument then, let us allow that an alien raygun does constitute extraordinary evidence.

P1a: An alien raygun is extraordinary physical evidence

P2 (above) is now in direct conflict with this alternative to P1. How then are we to reconcile the argument so it maintains sound logic? We must then ensure that P2 (asserting physical evidence – of which type the alien raygun is) is not in conflict with P1a. We must ask what might confer “extraordinariness” on what is ordinarily (usually) considered to be mundane evidence (that is, physical evidence). The only thing that can do this is the subject of the evidence (the alien raygun), as follows:

P1: An alien raygun is physical evidence
P3: The extraordinary subject of evidence confers the status of “extraordinary” on the evidence.
P4: An alien raygun is an extraordinary subject.
C2: An alien raygun is extraordinary physical evidence.

Okay, now we have a sound logical construct of the type that allows RoboT to justify an alien raygun as “extraordinary physical evidence”. However, are there any consequences of that logical construct that are unforseen or unwanted? Yes there are:

P6: An anecdote constitutes evidence*.
P3: The extraordinary subject of evidence confers the status of “extraordinary” on evidence.
P4: An alien raygun is an extraordinary subject.
C3: An anecdote whose subject is an alien raygun is extraordinary evidence.

P7: RoboT requires “extraordinary evidence” for belief.
C4: RoboT must accept extraordinary anecdotes as fulfilling his requirements for belief.

However, RoboT’s only stated criteria for belief is that the evidence be “extraordinary” and the above has demonstrated that - following through on the logic of what could possibly make evidence extraordinary - we can have extraordinary anecdotal evidence. This is of course a consequence that RoboT does not like, but he cannot have it both ways. He can maintain his “extraordinary evidence” as a requirement for belief only at the expense of allowing there to be extraordinary anecdotal evidence fulfilling his requirements for belief.

* Some may argue that P6 is not true. However, we accept anecdotes as evidence daily. That is we do accept them as evidence – the only argument is about what evidential weight they carry. This will obviously vary according to how important the claim is to us. If the claim is not important (“I ate toast for breakfast”) we will allow the anecdote to carry 100% weight (that is we will usually believe it as true because it is not important to us whether it is true or not). If however the anecdote is important (say an alibi for a murder charge rests on its veracity) then we assign the anecdote practically zero weight and demand better (perhaps forensic) evidence.

I stated (#7907):

I apologise, I mistakenly assumed you understood the acronym. ETH: It means the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. That is (in your terms) aliens, or the “little green men in spaceships from another planet” that the UFO debunkers like to assert as an explanation for UFOs.

You replied (#7909):

Well, for once you aren't mistaken. You assumed correctly that I do understand the acronym ETH. Now if you will just point out (perhaps by bolding my words rather than your own) a post of mine where I've said that's what you're claiming we can eliminate the confusion that one of us has.

In that very post I pointed to your statements (direct quotes mind you) (#7909):

“...why are you saying they are evidence of aliens and UFAOs?”

And in a previous post (#7901):

You are the one who claims aliens.

So there are TWO posts on this page where you claim that (let alone me remembering that this is not the first time you have done so)!

You then stated (#7909):

“Nope, I don't see where I've substituted ETH for alien there. Can you bold my own words for me please? Otherwise, I can only assume that you are now trying to positively strawman me again.”

(If you look to your quotes above you will see that you acknowledged the link between the ETH and your meaning of alien with “Well, for once you aren't mistaken. You assumed correctly that I do understand the acronym ETH”).

Even though you did acknowledge that (in not quite believing you) I then stated in an attempt at clarification (#7910):

“If you believe that the ETH does not imply aliens then you are obviously using a definition of “alien” that differs from the common conception. Perhaps you would care to explain it?

To which you replied (#7911):

“I see I have to be extra careful when giving you direction. I meant for you to quote my exact words where I said "ETH". When I asked you to quote me, I didn't mean for you to pick the handiest random phrase that said nothing about "ETH".

I think you can see in the above sequence of posts and replies that I have quoted you precisely and with a post from you containing your “exact words” where you said “ETH”. That is why I stated (#7910):

I quoted you directly as anyone who clicks on the links I provided can ascertain. I have no wish to engage further with someone who cannot even acknowledge their own statements – even when directly quoted!

Now the situation is even worse that I first considered when I wrote that and I have perceived the record did need to be corrected.

I stated (#7910):

I am sorry you still do not understand the process of elimination. When I return I will try to explain it to you more fully.

You've promised that before. You have yet to do it.

This statement from you again represents a direct falsehood. Not only have I promised, but I have done so (on numerous occasion). For example I stated in direct reply to you (# 7907):

…the characteristics of one thing are compared with the characteristics of another to see if there is a possible match and therefore a potential identification…

That, RoboT is an explanation of the process of elimination. Elsewhere in this thread I have explained the process to you on a number of occasions by example (Could it have been page 364 from War and Peace? Was it my Great Aunt Mary? Was it a telephone? A 747? A meteor? Etc and so on).

I stated (#7910):

You claimed you knew a mundane explanation, yet you refuse to put that explanation forward. We can only assume that you do not know of any such explanation.

You claimed you had a "process" that eliminated all mundane explanations. So far, you haven't demonstrated that. If you have overstated what you actually do, just admit it and we can move forward.

Clearly I have described and explained the process of elimination for you. Clearly however you have not provided evidential support for your claim to know of a mundane explanation. That is (#7902):

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

Ok, I've thought of a mundane explanation for it.

I questioned what your statement “outside of an ordinary copndition affecting a situation” (#7909) actually meant.

Then as I stated, you will have to seek elsewhere for some definitional assistance. I suggest your favorite online reference work.

First, there is no “…as I stated…” and as such your statement again represents an untruth… Second, if you cannot explain your own statements then I can only assume (that strangely) you do not understand them.

I stated:

I quoted you directly as anyone who clicks on the links I provided can ascertain. I have no wish to engage further with someone who cannot even acknowledge their own statements – even when directly quoted! Goodbye.

It's a pity that you are incensed that I won't allow you to attribute words to me that I don't use. Let me know when you're prepared to quote me honestly.

I’ll admit that the “Goodbye” was perhaps premature, but it would be a mistake on your behalf to conclude from that I was “incensed” – even by your false claims that I have falsely attributed words to you. That this from you is also patently a false statement has necessitated a correction of the record by me (see your quotes above). I have never done anything other than to quote you directly and have provided the links to the posts in question whenever I have done so. You on the other hand…

In the meantime, you still have the burden of proof to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims of aliens and UFAOs nor have you overcome the fatal flaw of your process since you haven't eliminated the one I am thinking of. Keep trying.

Once again, you have falsely claimed I am proposing aliens. Considering my repeated refutations of that contention - including pointing you to my statements in my OP

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.

coupled with the fact that you are obviously reading my replies specifically directed to you (as you do quote from them – albeit without proper links) the only conclusion I can now draw is that your false statements here represent a scurrilous and unwarranted attempt to discredit my position.

Rramjet, you are the one who redefined alien to mean "outside of Human understanding", rather than "beings from a different planet". RoboTimbo has been using it in this context, and using the term ETH to differentiate between the two concepts. You claim that "alien" does not mean ETH, and then complain about RoboTimbo using the term alien, apparently missing the fact that he is using it in the way you define it.

Are you now saying that you aren't claiming that UFOs are "alien" as you define the term? Or are you simply confused by the fact that RoboTimbo is using the term as you defined it?

Personally I think you owe RoboTimbo an apology.

“Personally”, I think you are attempting to ride the same train as RoboT. Unfortunately for you I have shown above that train is going nowhere.

Moreover, “personally” I think it is he (and now you) who owe me the apology.

You specifically owe me an apology because you also misrepresent my statements on the matter (although I cannot at this point in time be absolutely certain as to whether that is deliberate or not). That is, I have contended (clearly and on many, many occasions) that UFOs are “alien” because they lie “outside our common understanding of reality”. This only has a bearing on the ETH insofar as we cannot conclude from that statement (or the evidence) that UFOs represent “aliens in spaceships from another planet”.

RoboT was clearly referring to the latter and continues to do so despite my refutations.

Clearly, in my opinion, all this from both yourself and RoboT is merely an attempt, not only to discredit my position by falsely attributing statements and motivations I do not hold, but also to avoid talking about the actual evidence as presented in cases such as:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

Perhaps you (or RoboT) might care to enlighten us with some plausible mundane explanations for that case?

 

[Rramjet]

Yes, it does, in that it makes non-mundane explanations a tiny bit more likely. However, it's extremely arrogant to presume that a non-mundane explanation you were able to come up with is more likely than any of the mundane ones you couldn't come up with.

How can I be presumed “arrogant” if I am proposing no “non-mundane” explanations whatsoever – merely noting the fact that there does not seem to be any plausible mundane explanation?

In my opinion it is actually quite arrogant of you to presume such a thing seemingly without bothering to determine what my specific stance on the matter actually is.

Allow me to rub your nose in it:

At 7:17 an object enters view from the lower left. Look at how it accelerates, and when. I count 3 changes in direction that are synchronous with the changes in direction of your object, and in the same direction every time (note: the accelerations are in the same direction, not the velocity.)

“Allow me to rub your nose in it”? What happened to the civility of “I believe you are mistaken. Allow me to demonstrate”?

Namely:
7:17
Object 1 is moving almost horizontally towards the left
Object 2 enters view at about a 30° angle toward the upper right

Object 2 enters from the lower left heading upward at an angle of about 30 degrees? If so then we are in broad agreement.

~7:30
Object 1 accelerates downward to below the three stars in a row at the right
Object 2 accelerates downward toward an almost horizontal trajectory

No, according to my movement analyses, object 1 does not accelerate, merely changes direction (its velocity remains constant).

Object 2 also does not accelerate, but does change direction to a slightly more horizontal one. In fact between 7:30 and about 7: 40, it follows a distinctly curved trajectory, even while object 1 transcribes a straight line trajectory!

~8:00
Object 1 becomes stationary and starts moving slightly upward, i.e. accelerates toward the upper right.
Object 2 turns to the upper right again

Object two maintains a straight line trajectory!

~8:20
Object 1 accelerates vertically downward
Object 2 turns to the lower right

Object two maintains a straight line trajectory!

And what of object three? Appearing at about 7:40 from the mid-left of screen and continuing in a straight line toward the bottom centre of frame, all through the alleged trajectory “changes” you describe for object 2 and ostensibly passing in front of object 1?

No, there are simply no “synchronous” changes in either acceleration or direction such as you describe. Perhaps you better view the video with a more critical eye? Can I suggest you download it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) and view it with a video editor that allows you to examine it in a finer grain detail than you are obviously getting via your current viewing methodology?

There are a couple of points in your previos post I should address, I apologise but I don't have the time right now.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I stated (#7910):


No, my problem is that you do not seem to understand a sound logical argument when you see it. As follows:

No, your problem is the circular nature of you silly mental construct that only makes sense in your world. You don't seem to be able to understand when your illogic is pointed out to you with detailed explanations.

RoboT contends that to uphold (believe in) certain claims he would require “extraordinary evidence” to be presented. He then claims an “alien raygun” would be just such extraordinary evidence (no logical argument, just the bald statement). However, while an alien raygun might be an extraordinary object, can it really be considered to be extraordinary evidence? It would seem not:

P1: An alien raygun is physical evidence
P2: Physical evidence is mundane evidence (usual or ordinary evidence). Unless it's of an extraordinary nature.C1: An alien raygun is mundane physical evidence.

FTFY the bolded part is what I added to make it more clear for you.

But RoboT is insistent. How then can we accommodate his desire for an alien raygun to represent “extraordinary evidence”? For the sake of argument then, let us allow that an alien raygun does constitute extraordinary evidence.

Ah good, you finally seem to understand.

P1a: An alien raygun is extraordinary physical evidence

P2 (above) is now in direct conflict with this alternative to P1.

Not now that I've fixed it for you. So the rest of your argument is now null and void and may be snipped.

<snip what is now shown to be silly nonsense.>

Okay, now we have a sound logical construct of the type that allows RoboT to justify an alien raygun as “extraordinary physical evidence”. However, are there any consequences of that logical construct that are unforseen or unwanted? Yes there are:

Great! You DO see that an alien raygun is extraordinary evidence!

But somehow, Rramjet manages to convince himself that more silly mental construct is an argument.

P6: An anecdote constitutes evidence*.
P3: The extraordinary subject of evidence confers the status of “extraordinary” on evidence.
P4: An alien raygun is an extraordinary subject.
C3: An anecdote whose subject is an alien raygun is extraordinary evidence.

And can you see now why that is a silly thing to say? Here, let me give you an example:
Rramjet - "I saw an alien raygun!" (Rramjet thinks this is evidence)
RoboTimbo - "That sounds like an extraordinary claim, do you have evidence for it?"
What you've mistakenly thought was evidence is actually a claim! Do you understand now? If not, why not?

P7: RoboT requires “extraordinary evidence” for belief.
C4: RoboT must accept extraordinary anecdotes as fulfilling his requirements for belief.

Nope, I won't accept your extraordinary claim as evidence. That's the problem UFO creduloids have. I hope you don't make that mistake.

However, RoboT’s only stated criteria for belief is that the evidence be “extraordinary”

No, extraordinary evidence. Not another extraordinary claim.

and the above has demonstrated that

You should realize your mistake now.

following through on the logic

Which you now realize isn't logical at all.

of what could possibly make evidence extraordinary - we can have extraordinary anecdotal evidence.

You should now be able to see why there is no such thing. Unless you can come up with an example of it?

This is of course a consequence that RoboT does not like, but he cannot have it both ways.

Which you now realize, as much as I don't like it, you've been shown to be wrong.

He can maintain his “extraordinary evidence” as a requirement for belief

Why thank you.

only at the expense of allowing there to be extraordinary anecdotal evidence fulfilling his requirements for belief.

Which you now see is ridiculous to claim. If you don't understand, why not?

* Some may argue that P6 is not true. However, we accept anecdotes as evidence daily. That is we do accept them as evidence – the only argument is about what evidential weight they carry. This will obviously vary according to how important the claim is to us. If the claim is not important (“I ate toast for breakfast”) we will allow the anecdote to carry 100% weight (that is we will usually believe it as true because it is not important to us whether it is true or not). If however the anecdote is important (say an alibi for a murder charge rests on its veracity) then we assign the anecdote practically zero weight and demand better (perhaps forensic) evidence.

You've never explained why in practice you do exactly the opposite. This thread is full of anecdotes to shore up your belief in aliens and UFAOs.

I stated (#7907):

You replied (#7909):


In that very post I pointed to your statements (direct quotes mind you) (#7909):


And in a previous post (#7901):

So there are TWO posts on this page where you claim that (let alone me remembering that this is not the first time you have done so)!

You then stated (#7909):

(If you look to your quotes above you will see that you acknowledged the link between the ETH and your meaning of alien with “Well, for once you aren't mistaken. You assumed correctly that I do understand the acronym ETH”).

Even though you did acknowledge that (in not quite believing you) I then stated in an attempt at clarification (#7910):


To which you replied (#7911):

I think you can see in the above sequence of posts and replies that I have quoted you precisely and with a post from you containing your “exact words” where you said “ETH”. That is why I stated (#7910):

Now the situation is even worse that I first considered when I wrote that and I have perceived the record did need to be corrected.

I stated (#7910):

Since you've now proven again that I never stated that you were claiming ETH, you may apologize in your next post. I was using your definition of aliens in your OP and have been carefully avoiding saying anything about ETH since your explanation. You have been practicing the textbook definition of strawmanning. YOU are the one who reintroduced the subject of ETH, not me. This is your typical bait and switch, playing fast and loose with definitions. You may also apologize to wollery for misrepresenting his position.

This statement from you again represents a direct falsehood. Not only have I promised, but I have done so (on numerous occasion). For example I stated in direct reply to you (# 7907):

Your statement is an outright falsehood. I've explained to you on numerous occasions why your "process" is fatally flawed. Your "explanation" falls short. Keep trying.

That, RoboT is an explanation of the process of elimination. Elsewhere in this thread I have explained the process to you on a number of occasions by example (Could it have been page 364 from War and Peace? Was it my Great Aunt Mary? Was it a telephone? A 747? A meteor? Etc and so on).

Yes, your "process" is to list seven things and, by extension somehow, eliminate anything else mundane. Fatally flawed.

I stated (#7910):

Clearly I have described and explained the process of elimination for you. Clearly however you have not provided evidential support for your claim to know of a mundane explanation. That is (#7902):

Nope, you clearly have not. Your process didn't eliminate the mundane explanation I am thinking of. That is the fatal flaw of your "process".

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)



I questioned what your statement “outside of an ordinary copndition affecting a situation” (#7909) actually meant.

Then as I stated, you will have to seek elsewhere for some definitional assistance.

First, there is no “…as I stated…” and as such your statement again represents an untruth… Second, if you cannot explain your own statements then I can only assume (that strangely) you do not understand them.

This is another outright falsehood on your part.

I can try to explain further but if you can't understand it the way I've already done, you may have to seek help elsewhere.

I stated:




I’ll admit that the “Goodbye” was perhaps premature, but it would be a mistake on your behalf to conclude from that I was “incensed” – even by your false claims that I have falsely attributed words to you. That this from you is also patently a false statement has necessitated a correction of the record by me (see your quotes above). I have never done anything other than to quote you directly and have provided the links to the posts in question whenever I have done so. You on the other hand…

You, on the other hand, misrepresent what I say. Please don't do so again.

Once again, you have falsely claimed I am proposing aliens. Considering my repeated refutations of that contention - including pointing you to my statements in my OP coupled with the fact that you are obviously reading my replies specifically directed to you (as you do quote from them – albeit without proper links) the only conclusion I can now draw is that your false statements here represent a scurrilous and unwarranted attempt to discredit my position.

As shown above, do not misrepresent what I say.

“Personally”, I think you are attempting to ride the same train as RoboT. Unfortunately for you I have shown above that train is going nowhere.

Moreover, “personally” I think it is he (and now you) who owe me the apology.

You specifically owe me an apology because you also misrepresent my statements on the matter (although I cannot at this point in time be absolutely certain as to whether that is deliberate or not). That is, I have contended (clearly and on many, many occasions) that UFOs are “alien” because they lie “outside our common understanding of reality”. This only has a bearing on the ETH insofar as we cannot conclude from that statement (or the evidence) that UFOs represent “aliens in spaceships from another planet”.

RoboT was clearly referring to the latter and continues to do so despite my refutations.

I was clearly not. Where have I said "from another planet"? You still owe wollery and myself an apology.

Clearly, in my opinion, all this from both yourself and RoboT is merely an attempt, not only to discredit my position by falsely attributing statements and motivations I do not hold, but also to avoid talking about the actual evidence as presented in cases such as:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

Perhaps you (or RoboT) might care to enlighten us with some plausible mundane explanations for that case?

Naughty naughty!
You still have not overcome the fatal flaw of your "process". You haven't eliminated the mundane explanation I'm thinking of.

 

[wollery]

“Personally”, I think you are attempting to ride the same train as RoboT. Unfortunately for you I have shown above that train is going nowhere.

Moreover, “personally” I think it is he (and now you) who owe me the apology.

You specifically owe me an apology because you also misrepresent my statements on the matter (although I cannot at this point in time be absolutely certain as to whether that is deliberate or not). That is, I have contended (clearly and on many, many occasions) that UFOs are “alien” because they lie “outside our common understanding of reality”. This only has a bearing on the ETH insofar as we cannot conclude from that statement (or the evidence) that UFOs represent “aliens in spaceships from another planet”.

RoboT was clearly referring to the latter and continues to do so despite my refutations.

Clearly, in my opinion, all this from both yourself and RoboT is merely an attempt, not only to discredit my position by falsely attributing statements and motivations I do not hold, but also to avoid talking about the actual evidence as presented in cases such as:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

Perhaps you (or RoboT) might care to enlighten us with some plausible mundane explanations for that case?

Nope, sorry, I've read through the statements by both RoboTimbo and you again and I still think that you are wrong. He has stated several times that he's using "alien" as you define it, although he does sometimes use "aliens", which might be confusing you somewhat. His point, however, still stands.

If I have misrepresented your statements on the matter then I fail to see where, or how. I may have paraphrased you, but I believe that my statement was essentially a correct assessment of your position. Please feel free to point out, clearly, exactly what I have said that is incorrect.

 

[Rramjet]

RoboT …returning to the substantive case before us:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwY0szAQOc)

You still have not overcome the fatal flaw of your "process". You haven't eliminated the mundane explanation I'm thinking of.

No, I am sorry, but I am not about to begin speculating on what might or might not be going on in your mind, especially on the back of your blatantly illegitimate attempt to shift the burden of proof. You made the claim, it is up to you to support that claim with evidence.

In my opinion, if you really did have a plausible mundane explanation, you would put it forward. The fact that you do not put forward a plausible mundane explanation merely suggests that you actually don’t have one.

“…seconds later an Airforce F117A Nighthawk from the 49th Fighter Wing at Hollowman Airforce Base was alerted by airtraffic control. The stealth fighter saw something.

ABQ: In the next 2-3 minutes. Be looking off your
right side, if you see anything about 30000 feet, we had
one aircraft reporting something, it wasn't a weather
balloon or anything. It was a long white looking thing with
a strobe on. Let me know if you see anything out there.

HAWKE85: You got any traffic off my left wing right now?

ABQ: I’ve got something passing off your 9:00 in about 12 at 31 westbound.

HAWKE85: It actually looks like something a little lower than us just off my left wing.​

The Nighthawke reported an object passing off its left wing. America West 564 had the same experience moments later. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwY0szAQOc: 2:55 - 3:50)​

“A Boeing 757 piloted by Captain Eugene Tollefson and First Officer John J. Waller, was passing near Bovina, Texas. Captain Tollefson left his seat to look [at a line of regularly flashing lights]. As the lightning flashed behind the lights, it silhouetted something that to the observers appeared to be a large, dark, cigar shaped object between 300 and 500 feet in length.

(…)

No satisfactory explanation has ever been found for the Flight 564 sighting.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)

“There was nothing that could explain the sighting of America West Flight 564, and until another explanation can be found for the unusual object, we must assume that a UFO was seen that night.

The case of America West 564 is a good example of a confirmed UFO by an experienced crew, with confirmation by radar.”
(http://aliencasebook.blogspot.com/2008/10/norads-involvement-with-ufo-sighting.html)

“Webb later filed Freedom of Information Act requests for Government information about the case, and also checked military installations for any activities that might explain the sighting, but no known object or phenomenon could be found that correlated with the sighting.” (http://ufologie.net/htm/texas95.htm)

“This incident remains unresolved with no satisfactory explanation provided by any of the agencies involved. In fact the incident has essentially been dismissed as never having occurred.” (http://www.zuko.com/inexplicable/UFO_Encounters.asp#The_America_West_Flt_564_Incident)

If I have misrepresented your statements on the matter then I fail to see where, or how. I may have paraphrased you, but I believe that my statement was essentially a correct assessment of your position. Please feel free to point out, clearly, exactly what I have said that is incorrect.

Your phrase “Outside of human understanding” is in no way reflective of my statement “outside our common understanding of reality”. Your statement implies that I believe UFOs are not understandable (being outside our understanding), whereas my statement implies that we can understand them - we just need to reassess our “common” understanding of what “reality” is (to think “outside the box” or apply some lateral thinking to the problem).

Elsewhere I have stated that UFOs lie beyond the limits of what we take to be boundaries of our understanding of science and technology (or words to that effect). The meaning of both my phrases is that we have a concept of what we think we know (the limits of our understanding), but UFOs are indicating to us that there is actually more that we don’t know (beyond what we think we know) awaiting discovery.

Thus your statement “paraphrasing” my position actually misrepresented that position. As I said, I was not sure that it was a deliberate misrepresentation on your behalf, and you seem to have confirmed that it was not, rather it was merely a misunderstanding of my position. I hope then now to have clarified it for you.

 

[Jocce]

RoboT …returning to the substantive case before us:

The American West, Flight 564, UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwY0szAQOc)

No, I am sorry, but I am not about to begin speculating on what might or might not be going on in your mind, especially on the back of your blatantly illegitimate attempt to shift the burden of proof. You made the claim, it is up to you to support that claim with evidence.

In my opinion, if you really did have a plausible mundane explanation, you would put it forward. The fact that you do not put forward a plausible mundane explanation merely suggests that you actually don’t have one.

In my opinion it suggests that your process of elimination is flawed since you haven't even thought about the mundane explanation RT is thinking about. Just what people has been pointing out for several months now.