UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[carlitos]

...and right on cue Father Gill is referenced again, helpfully juxtaposed with my noting its similarity to contemporaneous pop-culture depictions of little men in flying saucers. Kudos, Rramjet.

Then, I see that the "Travis Walton abduction" case is still being proffered as a case that Rramjet "stands by." Let's take another walk down memory lane:

"I looked at the vague but reassuring forms of the doctors around me. Abruptly my vision cleared. The sudden horror of what I saw rocked me as I realized I was definitely not in a hospital. I was looking square into the face of a horrible creature . . . with huge, luminous brown eyes the size of quarters! I looked frantically around me. There were three of them! Hysteria overcame me instantly." — Travis Walton

From the book itself:

I ducked into a crouch when a tremendously bright, blue-green ray shot from the bottom of the craft. I saw and heard nothing. All I felt was the numbing force of a blow that felt like a high-voltage electrocution. The intense bolt made a sharp cracking, or popping, sound. The stunning concussion of the foot-wide beam struck me full in the head and chest. My mind sank quickly into unfeeling blackness. I didn't even see what hit me; but from the instant I felt that paralyzing blow, I did not see, hear, or feel anything more.

The men in the truck saw my body arch backward, arms and legs outstretched, as the force of the blow lifted me off the ground. I was hurled backward through the air ten feet. They saw my right shoulder hit the hard rocky earth of the ridgetop. My body landed limply and lay motionless, spread out on the ground.

"It got him!" Steve yelled.

Dwayne screamed: "Let's get out of here!"

"Get this son of a bitch moving!" Allen shrieked hysterically.

Rramjet, Travis Walton is a deluded fantasist. He made up a story, turned it into a book and film, and travels around speaking to credulous UFO people. His book is fiction; his account is fantasy. Here is Travis fantasizing about threatening his "alien abductors" (with illustration!)

I sprang into a fighting stance with my legs spread wide to brace for the attack. I lashed out with the weapon at the advancing creatures, screaming desperate, hysterical threats. The creatures slowed but continued toward me, their hands outstretched.

"Keep back, damn you!" I shrieked menacingly.

They halted. In a snarling crouch I held the tube threateningly back behind my head. I felt hopelessly trapped. I was surrounded, with my back to the wall.

All of this is from "The Walton Experience" website.

Really, you "stand by" this story, eh Rramjet?

 

[RoboTimbo]

And this piglet has been juiced!

Now at this point I am going to concede that you may have demonstrated that “small bits of space debri” is a plausible mundane explanation for the objects seen in the video we have been discussing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related).

So the "process" you used to eliminate all mundane explanations failed? How many fatal flaws is your "process" up to now? And why won't you leave those poor Debri^WP people alone?

 

[Rramjet]

...and right on cue Father Gill is referenced again, helpfully juxtaposed with my noting its similarity to contemporaneous pop-culture depictions of little men in flying saucers. Kudos, Rramjet.

How is an event that occurred in 1959 supposed to be representative of “contemporaneous pop-culture”? According to Father Gill, the “beings” observed were indistinguishable from “human”. In my opinion if you make the link that you do, you have either not studied the evidence in the case (and if past UFO debunker performance in this thread is anything to go by, that should not surprise anyone) or you are being deliberately misleading. Which is it carlitos?

Rramjet, Travis Walton is a deluded fantasist.

How many times must I repeat: Merely stating an unfounded assertion does not make it somehow magically true.

He made up a story…

(It seems more than once…) Merely stating an unfounded assertion does not make it somehow magically true.

…turned it into a book and film…

Obviously his experience affected him profoundly enough that he wanted to publically tell his story. So what? How do you then conclude that this fact must then disqualify personal experience that has been published?

…and travels around speaking to credulous UFO people.

There is no doubt that in his audience there would be people of such character. I have no doubt equally there would be people in his audience who disbelieve his story. The state of mind of his audience however does not disqualify his experiences. Should I really need to point out the logically fallacy of your "argument" here?

His book is fiction…

(And again…) Merely stating an unfounded assertion does not make it somehow magically true.

…his account is fantasy.

(And again…) Merely stating an unfounded assertion does not make it somehow magically true.

Ever heard of the phrase: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (from Shakespeare’s Hamlet)? In my experience when someone belabours a point, especially as you have done here in an unfounded way, by repetitive proclamation, then it usually means they are not telling the truth, either to themselves or their audience.

Here is Travis fantasizing about threatening his "alien abductors" (with illustration!)

Are you actually trying to convince yourself? You could have merely stated “I believe Walton’s story just too incredible to be true.” (or words to that effect) and we would all have gotten your point. The fact you seem to feel the need to belabour it leads us back to the quote from Shakespeare and its attendant meaning (as above).

Some of the fallacies you seem to be falling into here are the argumentum ad hominem (attacking Walton - without foundation - as a “deluded fantasist”) and the cum hoc ergo propter hoc (where you assume a direct correlation between published accounts and their falsehood) and of course you end with another fallacy (reductio ad ridiculum):

Really, you "stand by" this story, eh Rramjet?

But then this has not this last fallacy always been the recourse of those who have nothing substantial in the way of argument or debate to add to the conversation?

 

[Jocce]

the other cases I have presented I do stand by:

We've been over many of these cases already and have clearly shown you that mundane explanations can't be ruled out. Especially, I am curious about why you still keep this fairytale in your list of compelling evidence for UFO's and "aliens":

Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

124 years ago someone wrote a letter to a magazine about what someone else claims to have experienced. Where is the evidence that this is a factual description of events Rramjet?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Here you seem to have departed from the “normal” requirements of evidence. The whole thing revolves around the reliability of the information we have. UFO debunkers dismiss such cases and research above on the basis that we can never be sure the “evidence” presented is 100% reliable. But I simply ask when any information (in any field of study) we have can be considered 100% reliable?

That's not what I mean when I say it is impossible to establish the reliability. I mean that it is often impossible to say if the observations are 34% reliable, or 98% reliable.

Sure, our first port of call in UFO cases is to establish the reliability of the information we have. However, to then dismiss that evidence – even if it is found to be reliable...

I can imagine a few factors that would help, but none that are nearly as accurate as repeatability.
For instance, in the case of multiple witnesses, I could point to a video on youtube that a very large amount of people would describe as objects performing inexplicable maneuvers around a certain space station.
So what can we conclude from reports by multiple witnesses? Only that it is probable that there was actually something to be seen there. Not really anything more.
And reliable people (pilots, ATC's, Ph.D's, police officers etc.) may not lie about what they experienced, but certainly also make mistakes, get tired, have biases in areas unrelated to the field they're reliable in, have seizures, etc.

And this is where I disagree. Even if repeatability were not achievable, there are other ways of establishing reliability.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm curious what ways you mean, and especially how well you think they establish reliability, and why.

The best you could have done would have been to reserve judgement until the reliability of such reports was established (or a white crow was presented to you).

Which is what I do. I'm perfectly happy to say that I don't know, and leave the speculating for when better evidence appears.

The characteristics of UFOs also seems to defy mundane explanation. So what does the UFO phenomenon represent? What does it mean? That is the 64 000 dollar question. The answer is not currently forthcoming, but that is no reason to simply throw our hands in the air and deny the existence of the whole thing.

I'm not sure why you keep emphasizing the fact that some UFO's "defy mundane explanation". In what way do they defy mundane explanation that is different from how they defy non-mundane explanation?

 

[carlitos]

How is an event that occurred in 1959 supposed to be representative of “contemporaneous pop-culture”?

con·tem·po·ra·ne·ous (kn-tmp-rn-s)
adj.
Originating, existing, or happening during the same period of time​

How could 1950's popular culture depictions of little men in flying saucers have affected an alleged "flying saucer" sighting in 1959? Hmm, that's a real head-scratcher. Let me get back to you on that.

According to Father Gill, the “beings” observed were indistinguishable from “human”.

There were no beings, or "beings," or humans, or "humans." It's a fairy tale.

You could have merely stated “I believe Walton’s story just too incredible to be true.” (or words to that effect) and we would all have gotten your point.

I believe Walton's story just too incredible to be true.

What is more likely:

A) A human being made up a story, something that has been observed and indeed has happened every day for millennia in every culture known to man,

or

B) Aliens (that again resemble pop culture imagery of the time) violated the physical laws of nature, traveled faster than the speed of light and abducted someone, only to return him unharmed after a while and for no known purpose?

 

[Rramjet]

124 years ago someone wrote a letter to a magazine about what someone else claims to have experienced. Where is the evidence that this is a factual description of events Rramjet?

The Article was submitted to Scientific American magazine who was at the time running a series on electrical phenomena (which at the time relatively little was known about) and was calling for the public to write in to describe their own experiences. The article in question was submitted in that light – as a description of what the author took to be some form of electrical phenomenon and that Scientific American might be interested in. It is merely a simple, matter of factual account. There is nothing to suppose that the article is made up or otherwise does not describe a substantially real event. The bottom line is that some people experienced some sort of phenomena – which the author supposed might be electrical and thus of interest to Scientific American - that obviously frightened them and left them in hospital with what appeared to be radiation burns (blackened, blistering skin and losing hair, etc). There is no reason to suppose the victim’s story was not substantially correct either. At the time that I presented the case there was some talk of explaining the case by claiming the victims ate something poisonous, but if so why would they not say “We ate something and fell terribly ill”? Instead they related a mysterious, encompassing light attended by a humming sound which frightened them so much they all fell to their knees in prayer thinking the end of the world had come.

That's not what I mean when I say it is impossible to establish the reliability. I mean that it is often impossible to say if the observations are 34% reliable, or 98% reliable.

Sure, it is impossible to assign a specific percentage (conventionally expressed as a probability) to the reliability of witnesses and their story in UFO cases. Often all we can do is to is assess some basic factors such as whether the witnesses stories “hang together” both individually and as a group (internal and external reliability), what sort of characters they are (whether it reasonable to assume they are telling the truth), and what the context was (were there any factors that could have lead to perceptual errors and the like). We can also assess external factors (external reliability such as confirming evidence from radar, photos, physical trace evidence and even independent witnesses) to see if they also “hang together”. In making this determination of reliability we also have many cases (past experience to call on) on which to base our assessments. We can then come to a general assessment concernig reliability, stating something like “Given all the factors involved, this case seems reliable (or not)”. What we cannot do is place a specific value on that reliability and it would be meaningless to even try or demand that such a specificity be produced.

I can imagine a few factors that would help, but none that are nearly as accurate as repeatability.

Sure, I have mentioned them above, but again, mere ”repeatability” is no guarantee of reliability (the underlying assumptions may be flawed for example).

For instance, in the case of multiple witnesses, I could point to a video on youtube that a very large amount of people would describe as objects performing inexplicable maneuvers around a certain space station.

And that is what I mean by the possibility of the underlying assumptions being flawed, providing no guarantee of veracity in “repeatability”.

So what can we conclude from reports by multiple witnesses? Only that it is probable that there was actually something to be seen there. Not really anything more.
And reliable people (pilots, ATC's, Ph.D's, police officers etc.) may not lie about what they experienced, but certainly also make mistakes, get tired, have biases in areas unrelated to the field they're reliable in, have seizures, etc.

That is why we must examine all the factors involved, including the underlying assumptions (as above), not just the witness statements.

Which is what I do. I'm perfectly happy to say that I don't know, and leave the speculating for when better evidence appears.

Which is what I also do. However, in many cases we can also make a determination that the characteristics of the observed object do not fit with any plausible mundane explanation.

I'm not sure why you keep emphasizing the fact that some UFO's "defy mundane explanation". In what way do they defy mundane explanation that is different from how they defy non-mundane explanation?

Your question is a fallacious. It places two thing in conjunction that are incompatible and asks for a comparison between them.

We know what plausible mundane explanations are available to us (or at least through research we can make that determination). We can then compare the characteristics of the observed object with those of the potential explanations to see if a match and subsequent identification might be possible. If no matches are found then we can state that the characteristics of the UFO (not the UFO itself) defies mundane explanation.

However, when it comes to non-mundane explanations, we simply don’t have enough information on the characteristics of those to be able to make a valid comparison between them. The characteristics of a UFO cannot[ be said to “defy” the characteristics of non-mundane explanations because we don’t know how to relate the two or even what the characteristics of potential non-mundane explanations actually are. We cannot even define non-mundane in the context. *

* Critically, we cannot even determine if the explanation really will turn out to be mundane. In this respect, “mundane” or “non-mundane” is a misleading and inappropriate dichotomy. For example if it turns out to be a government conspiracy, then we can say the explanation was mundane (in terms of it being of this earth) but also not mundane (in terms of it not being typical or “in the ordinary course of events”). That is what I meant by your question being fallacious.

We can of course speculate: It looks like what I imagine the ETH might entail, or it looks like what I imagine a “government” conspiracy might entail, but because we don’t know what the ETH or a government conspiracy actually is in relation to UFOs, then we cannot say their characteristics “defy” these potential explanations.

How could 1950's popular culture depictions of little men in flying saucers have affected an alleged "flying saucer" sighting in 1959? Hmm, that's a real head-scratcher. Let me get back to you on that.

This goes to the reliability of the witnesses (all 30 odd of them). Your contention is that somehow Father Gill (and the others) had access (in the wilds of Papua New Guinea) to one particular edition of a an obscure comic book and then shaped his (their) story accordingly. You also illegitimately (falsely) support your contention in this regard of a resemblance to popular culture with an artists impression of the sighting (having nothing to do with Father Gill at all).

It is interesting to note that in a letter written just the day before his own sighting he expressed his doubts about a colleague on the mission having sighted a UFO.

“That Stephen should actually make out a saucer could be the work of the unconscious mind as it is very likely that at some time he has seen illustrations of some kind in a magazine, or it is very possible that saucers do exist, but it is only a 50/50 chance that they are not earth made, still less that they should carry men (more likely radio controlled), and it is still unproven that they are solids.

It is all too difficult to understand for me; I prefer to wait for some bright boy to catch one to be exhibited in Martin Square. Please return this report as I have no copy and I want Nor, (Rev. Norman Crutwell) to have it. Yours, Doubting William Anglican Mission, Boianai. 27/6/59'” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)​

Ahhh …so the penny drops! THAT is where you got your “popular culture” accusation: From Father Gill’s own expression of doubt about a colleague in relation to that very thing! Father Gill’s statements also indicate that he was perfectly aware of the possibility of the influence of “popular culture” and of the potential role that could play. Interesting to note the letter he sent the next day then:

“Dear David,
Life is strange, isn't it? Yesterday I wrote you a letter, (which I still intend sending you) expressing opinions re: The UFOs. Now, less than twenty-four hours later I have changed my views somewhat. Last night we at Boianai experienced about four hours of UFO activity, and there is no doubt whatsoever that they are handled by beings of some kind. At times it was absolutely breathtaking. Here is the report. Please pass it round, but great care must be taken as I have no other, and this, like the one I made out re: Stephen, will be sent to Nor. I would appreciate it if you could send the lot back as soon as poss.

Cheers,
Convinced Bill'( http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)​

You are also falling for a logical fallacy. That is you post hoc you search for a resemblance in popular culture, then you find what you suppose is such a resemblance on the front cover of an obscure comic book, and leap to the conclusion that you have found an explanation for the events.

There were no beings, or "beings," or humans, or "humans." It's a fairy tale.

Yeah, right. I must note however that merely stating an unfounded assertion will not somehow magically make it true.

I believe Walton's story just too incredible to be true.

There now, that was not so difficult was it? But you base your belief on a logical fallacy:

What is more likely:

A) A human being made up a story, something that has been observed and indeed has happened every day for millennia in every culture known to man,

or

B) Aliens (that again resemble pop culture imagery of the time) violated the physical laws of nature, traveled faster than the speed of light and abducted someone, only to return him unharmed after a while and for no known purpose?

Given that we have absolutely no idea what the likelihood of aliens or their technological prowess actually is (or that there is any necessity for them to travel “faster than the speed of light” – thus no “violation” of the laws of physics is necessary – and interestingly, given that “more earthlike” planets are now being discovered almost regularly – the potential is obviously growing, albeit unquantifiable as yet), then a comparison between the likelihood of a possible “made up” story and aliens is simply not possible.

If you want to base your beliefs on a logical fallacy, then that is your prerogative, can I suggest however that a logical fallacy is not a sound basis for any belief?

 

[Jocce]

The Article was submitted to Scientific American magazine who was at the time running a series on electrical phenomena (which at the time relatively little was known about) and was calling for the public to write in to describe their own experiences. The article in question was submitted in that light – as a description of what the author took to be some form of electrical phenomenon and that Scientific American might be interested in. It is merely a simple, matter of factual account. There is nothing to suppose that the article is made up or otherwise does not describe a substantially real event. The bottom line is that some people experienced some sort of phenomena – which the author supposed might be electrical and thus of interest to Scientific American - that obviously frightened them and left them in hospital with what appeared to be radiation burns (blackened, blistering skin and losing hair, etc). There is no reason to suppose the victim’s story was not substantially correct either. At the time that I presented the case there was some talk of explaining the case by claiming the victims ate something poisonous, but if so why would they not say “We ate something and fell terribly ill”? Instead they related a mysterious, encompassing light attended by a humming sound which frightened them so much they all fell to their knees in prayer thinking the end of the world had come.

That's a very longwinded way of saying "No, I don't have any evidence". So you suggest that we accept this as a factually correct description of the event based on just hearsay then? I thought that such an extraordinary claim would require a greater weight of evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

We know what plausible mundane explanations are available to us (or at least through research we can make that determination). We can then compare the characteristics of the observed object with those of the potential explanations to see if a match and subsequent identification might be possible. If no matches are found then we can state that the characteristics of the UFO (not the UFO itself) defies mundane explanation.

But you must remember that your "process" of eliminating mundane objects and explanations is fatally flawed. You had used your "process" to eliminate all mundane explanations in one case that you had presented only to turn around and grudgingly admit that the answer could actually have been space debris. Your "process" also has not uncovered the mundane explanation I'm thinking of, try as you might.

A fatally flawed "process" isn't a sound basis for belief in UFAOs, is it? Might I suggest rather than bringing forth anecdotes, try looking for some extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims.

 

[carlitos]

"flying saucers" in the 1950's

This goes to the reliability of the witnesses (all 30 odd of them). Your contention is that somehow Father Gill (and the others) had access (in the wilds of Papua New Guinea) to one particular edition of a an obscure comic book and then shaped his (their) story accordingly.

That is a lie. At this point, I can't give you the benefit of the doubt. You are lying. There is no way that someone with your interest in UFOs can be unaware of the cultural icon that is the flying saucer, and how it appeared in the 1950's. It's not possible. Therefore you are lying. Here is the trailer for the 1950 film "Flying Saucer":



Here is what wikipedia says about flying saucers:

The flying saucer is now considered largely an icon of the 1950s and of B-movies in particular, and is a popular subject in comic science fiction.[2]​

Flying saucers are iconic. They were ubiquitous in the 1950's. They were not relegated to "one particular edition of an obscure comic book." To suggest that they were is a lie. It's not true.

You also illegitimately (falsely) support your contention in this regard of a resemblance to popular culture with an artists impression of the sighting (having nothing to do with Father Gill at all).

From your link:

Summary: William B. Gill, an Anglican priest with a mission in Bosinai, Papas New Guinea, observed craft-like UFOs -- one with Humanoid figures on top -- on two consecutive evenings, June 26-27, 1959. About twenty-five natives, including teachers and medical technicians, also observed the phenomena. They "signaled" the humanoids and received an apparent response. This was one of sixty UFO sightings within a few weeks in the New Guinea area.

A convertible UFO with the top down. Kewl! Sounds like the drawing I linked to me.

It is interesting to note that in a letter written just the day before his own sighting he expressed his doubts about a colleague on the mission having sighted a UFO.

Not really, no.

Ahhh …so the penny drops! THAT is where you got your “popular culture” accusation: From Father Gill’s own expression of doubt about a colleague in relation to that very thing!

Are you insane? Do you really claim to be unaware of the flying saucer and its place in 1950's pop culture? Really? Millions of Americans, British, Australians, Canadians and Japanese saw films depicting aliens in flying saucers. They didn't have to read Father Gill's journal or "obscure" comic books. These images were ubiquitous in the 1950's. You know this, and are disingenuously suggesting that I'm posting an "obscure" comic book as if no one who hadn't read it would be aware of this phenomenon.

Father Gill’s statements also indicate that he was perfectly aware of the possibility of the influence of “popular culture” and of the potential role that could play. Interesting to note the letter he sent the next day then:

Would you like a list of the many, many things that Father Gill also believes without evidence? Resurrection perhaps? Miracles and saints? Let's not give the man any credibility at all, shall we?

You are also falling for a logical fallacy. That is you post hoc you search for a resemblance in popular culture, then you find what you suppose is such a resemblance on the front cover of an obscure comic book, and leap to the conclusion that you have found an explanation for the events.

I will add post hoc ergo propter hoc to the long list of things that you fail to understand.

Given that we have absolutely no idea what the likelihood of EVIDENCE FOR aliens or their technological prowess actually is (or that there is any necessity for them to travel “faster than the speed of light” – thus no “violation” of the laws of physics is necessary – and interestingly, given that “more earthlike” planets are now being discovered almost regularly – the potential is obviously growing, albeit unquantifiable as yet), then a comparison between the likelihood of a possible “made up” story and aliens is simply not possible.

I fixed that for you. No, we shouldn't be discussing the specifics of the many made up stores about "aliens" or "flying saucers," but some people just can't let it go. Some other people like to discuss made up stories about Jesus or Bigfoot or the chupacabra or ghosts. Those made up stories aren't any different that your personal selection of made up stories, complete with links.

News for you - Some other people actually profit from these stories, by preying on the gullible who attend UFO seminars, church services, and buy books about bigfoot.

 

[Rramjet]

That's a very longwinded way of saying "No, I don't have any evidence". So you suggest that we accept this as a factually correct description of the event based on just hearsay then? I thought that such an extraordinary claim would require a greater weight of evidence.

You are in essence asking me to prove that the author could not have “made up” the incident (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG). That is of course an impossible requirement. All we have to go on is the evidence as presented. We can ask such things as “What possible motivation would the author have for making it up”? He obviously had a subscription to Scientific American, suggesting a rational thinker interested in science and scientific methodology. The story contains specific details that at the time Scientific American (or anyone) could have easily verified (though more than 120 years later such verification becomes practically impossible). The story is not about him - and his language in relating the story is very matter of fact – very few embellishments – and he even states that some of the causes and effects might be a “mere coincidence” (in other words he does not make any claims about anything – let alone those of an “extraordinary” nature). He just relates the story as a matter of interest (“The following brief account of a recent strange meteorological occurrence may be of interest to your readers as an addition to the list of electrical eccentricities:”). Even if we were to consider that he is relating the story as told to him (ie; it is second hand by the time we read it), he did visit the “sufferers” in hospital first hand and was able to note their condition as “truly horrible” – and so something untoward happened to them to cause their injuries - and the victim’s story of how they received their injuries matches very closely with the manifestation of those injuries in accord what we now know to be some form of radiation burn – although the author could not have known that at the time. I could go on pointing out all the things that support the article as having veracity and noting that there is nothing whatsoever to suggest the opposite, but to cut a long story short, all the evidence that we do have suggests it is substantially, factually correct. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
"This goes to the reliability of the witnesses (all 30 odd of them). Your contention is that somehow Father Gill (and the others) had access (in the wilds of Papua New Guinea) to one particular edition of a an obscure comic book and then shaped his (their) story accordingly.”

That is a lie. At this point, I can't give you the benefit of the doubt. You are lying. There is no way that someone with your interest in UFOs can be unaware of the cultural icon that is the flying saucer, and how it appeared in the 1950's. It's not possible. Therefore you are lying.

You simply misrepresent and misconstrue my statements. I stand by my statement that you presented an “obscure” comic book cover as proof of your allegation that Father Gill’s succumbed to popular culture – because that is what you DID – not because I am somehow lying about it (You also presented as proof an artist’s impression that had nothing to do with Father Gill at all!).

I stated:
“Ahhh …so the penny drops! THAT is where you got your “popular culture” accusation: From Father Gill’s own expression of doubt about a colleague in relation to that very thing!”

Are you insane? Do you really claim to be unaware of the flying saucer and its place in 1950's pop culture? Really? Millions of Americans, British, Australians, Canadians and Japanese saw

Again you simply misrepresent and misconsture my statements. My point was that because Father Gill recognised the influence of popular culture, by directly stating as much in a letter, then that was the inspiration for your accusation against him. I draw that conclusion because (as far as I can tell) it is the ONLY case in which you have made such an accusation, while (according to you) ALL cases should be subject.

These images were ubiquitous in the 1950's. You know this, and are disingenuously suggesting that I'm posting an "obscure" comic book as if no one who hadn't read it would be aware of this phenomenon.

You have absolutely no idea of the extent to which Father Gill was exposed to “popular culture” - aside from his own statements. As a missionary in the wilds of Paua New Guinea it is reasonable to assume he would not have had access to, nor according to his own statements would he have had any interest in viewing even if he did, the films and obscure comic books you suggest had such a great influence.

Would you like a list of the many, many things that Father Gill also believes without evidence? Resurrection perhaps? Miracles and saints? Let's not give the man any credibility at all, shall we?

To attack me personally is one thing but to also impugn, using ridicule, Father Gill’s credibility merely because he is a man of the cloth and (presumably) holds theistic beliefs is - in my opinion - a downright ugly tactic. Perhaps you have not considered that he might actually be more honest than the average accordingly?

News for you - Some other people actually profit from these stories, by preying on the gullible who attend UFO seminars, church services, and buy books about bigfoot.

To suggest or imply that Father Gill somehow profited financially from his experience is directly counter to the objective facts in the case. Are you lying here or simply ignorant of the facts?

 

[RoboTimbo]

You are in essence asking me to prove that the author could not have “made up” the incident (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG). That is of course an impossible requirement.

Why do you believe that the incident occurred at all as written?

All we have to go on is the evidence as presented. We can ask such things as “What possible motivation would the author have for making it up”?

So what are some motivations people have for making things up? List the ones you can think of and then the "process" you went through to eliminate them.

He obviously had a subscription to Scientific American, suggesting a rational thinker interested in science and scientific methodology.

No, you're making that up. What is your motivation? Nothing in the text indicated that the author had a subscription to Scientific American. From making that up, you jump to the equally made up assumption that he is a "rational thinker interested in science and scientific methodology."

The story contains specific details that at the time Scientific American (or anyone) could have easily verified (though more than 120 years later such verification becomes practically impossible).

Where in the text does it say that they verified them at the time?

The story is not about him - and his language in relating the story is very matter of fact – very few embellishments – and he even states that some of the causes and effects might be a “mere coincidence” (in other words he does not make any claims about anything – let alone those of an “extraordinary” nature). He just relates the story as a matter of interest (“The following brief account of a recent strange meteorological occurrence may be of interest to your readers as an addition to the list of electrical eccentricities:”). Even if we were to consider that he is relating the story as told to him (ie; it is second hand by the time we read it),

You're assuming that his story is true.

he did visit the “sufferers” in hospital first hand and was able to note their condition as “truly horrible”

How do you know his story is true? If that is true, how do you know that the "sufferers'" story is true?

– and so something untoward happened to them to cause their injuries - and the victim’s story of how they received their injuries matches very closely with the manifestation of those injuries in accord what we now know to be some form of radiation burn – although the author could not have known that at the time. I could go on pointing out all the things that support the article as having veracity and noting that there is nothing whatsoever to suggest the opposite, but to cut a long story short, all the evidence that we do have suggests it is substantially, factually correct. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

So your default position is it's true until someone can prove it wrong? And not only true, but points to aliens or "aliens"?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Sure, I have mentioned them above, but again, mere ”repeatability” is no guarantee of reliability (the underlying assumptions may be flawed for example).


And that is what I mean by the possibility of the underlying assumptions being flawed, providing no guarantee of veracity in “repeatability”.

Ah, but that's only true if you're not allowed, or able, to modify the observation. For instance, if I were so impressed by these objects around MIR, I could take a second camera, placed close to the first.

Which is what I also do. However, in many cases we can also make a determination that the characteristics of the observed object do not fit with any plausible mundane explanation.

Okay, I guess I'll have to ask then, as many have done before, how one can possibly establish this.

Your question is a fallacious. It places two thing in conjunction that are incompatible and asks for a comparison between them.

We know what plausible mundane explanations are available to us (or at least through research we can make that determination).

Yes, that would be the mundane explanations we caome up with. Now, what about the ones we didn't come up with?

We can then compare the characteristics of the observed object with those of the potential explanations to see if a match and subsequent identification might be possible. If no matches are found then we can state that the characteristics of the UFO (not the UFO itself) defies mundane explanation.

However, when it comes to non-mundane explanations, we simply don’t have enough information on the characteristics of those to be able to make a valid comparison between them. The characteristics of a UFO cannot[ be said to “defy” the characteristics of non-mundane explanations because we don’t know how to relate the two or even what the characteristics of potential non-mundane explanations actually are. We cannot even define non-mundane in the context. *

* Critically, we cannot even determine if the explanation really will turn out to be mundane. In this respect, “mundane” or “non-mundane” is a misleading and inappropriate dichotomy. For example if it turns out to be a government conspiracy, then we can say the explanation was mundane (in terms of it being of this earth) but also not mundane (in terms of it not being typical or “in the ordinary course of events”). That is what I meant by your question being fallacious.

We can of course speculate: It looks like what I imagine the ETH might entail, or it looks like what I imagine a “government” conspiracy might entail, but because we don’t know what the ETH or a government conspiracy actually is in relation to UFOs, then we cannot say their characteristics “defy” these potential explanations.

What I meant by the question is this: We have found some of the infinite number of mundane explanations. Unfortunately, none of those work.
What is left, in terms of potential answers, is an infintude of mundane explanations, and an infinitude of non-mundane explanations.

Firstly, where do you think we should continue looking first?

Secondly, do the non-mundane answers bring you closer to an answer? Not in my opinion. So in that respect, you have no idea what non-mundane explanation you can use. So basically, where we are now, is that the observation defies any and all explanation, which automatically includes the non-mundane ones.

 

[Jocce]

You are in essence asking me to prove that the author could not have “made up” the incident (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG).

That's a start. Then continue by proving that the people who he claims experienced this gave a factual description of events. What you have is someone who tells a story about what someone else claims to have experienced. So yeah, I'd like to see some evidence.

That is of course an impossible requirement.

Exactly. Therefor this article is useless. It's a claim, not evidence for anything. Btw, what is it evidence for in your opinion? UFOs or "aliens"?

All we have to go on is the evidence as presented.

We don't have any evidence at all. We got hearsay.

We can ask such things as ...<snip>

Sure, questions can be asked but no answers can be reached.

to cut a long story short, all the evidence that we do have suggests it is substantially, factually correct.

We DO NOT have any evidence. We have a claim.

Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

Wow, I thought you would have learned by now to not try and shift the burden of proof. Your claim is that this is a factually correct description of an event, you back it up with evidence of more weight than "I don't believe anyone involved is lying about this".

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“…mere ”repeatability” is no guarantee of reliability (the underlying assumptions may be flawed for example).”

Ah, but that's only true if you're not allowed, or able, to modify the observation. For instance, if I were so impressed by these objects around MIR, I could take a second camera, placed close to the first.

I believe we need a clarification between repetition (in terms of having multiple witnesses view that same data), replicability (in terms of an independent rerun of the same experiment – using data from the second camera from essentially the same viewpoint) and external reliability (in terms of an independent verification using different experimental parameters – in this case two cameras instead of one providing binocular vision).

In the case of repetition and replication, if the underlying assumptions are flawed, then the same potentially erroneous conclusions might be reached (because the data viewed and produced is the same in each case). It is possible however that binocular vision might dispel some of the potentially flawed assumptions (because the experimental parameter has changed providing different data).

I stated:
“Which is what I also do. However, in many cases we can also make a determination that the characteristics of the observed object do not fit with any plausible mundane explanation.”

Okay, I guess I'll have to ask then, as many have done before, how one can possibly establish this.

By the process of elimination: An iterative and logical process where the characteristics of one (unidentified) thing (object or phenomena) are compared with the characteristics of another (identified thing) in order to determine if an identification of the first is possible. If the characteristics do not match, then we can logically eliminate the known object as an explanation (and perhaps even a whole group or class of known objects).

For example in case of the:

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)

The characteristics of the observed object in terms of size and shape rule out any conventional aircraft, weather balloon, meteor, and so on. It is also implausible (for reasons I have already stated) that “the Russians” did it. So what are we left with? A UFO of course.

Yes, that would be the mundane explanations we caome up with. Now, what about the ones we didn't come up with?

Okay, …so then what are these plausible mundane explanations of yours that “we didn’t come up with”? Can you imagine any procedure (or scientific experiment or investigation) where a conclusion has been reached and the criticism of that conclusion was “Perhaps there were things you have not thought of”, but when the person criticising the conclusions is then asked “Like what for example?” the answer is merely “I’m not going to tell you!”.

You asked:
“In what way do they defy mundane explanation that is different from how they defy non-mundane explanation?”

I replied (paraphrasing) that we can use the process of elimination to determine if there are any plausible mundane explanations that fit the data. However we cannot use the same methodology to eliminate non-mundane explanations because we do not know the characteristics of these class of “explanations”. As such we cannot compare “mundane” with “non-mundane”.

What I meant by the question is this: We have found some of the infinite number of mundane explanations. Unfortunately, none of those work.
What is left, in terms of potential answers, is an infintude of mundane explanations, and an infinitude of non-mundane explanations.

There are not an “infinite” number of plausible mundane explanations. I mean, could the American West UFO have been a telephone? A page from War and Peace? My great aunt Mary? Of course not. We must therefore restrict ourselves to plausible mundane explanations (things that could plausibly have been at that place in that space and at that time).

Moreover, we cannot really conclude anything about non-mundane explanations because we have no data/evidence that directly implicates such an explanation. The ETH for example. We can assume (or speculate) that the non-mundane explanation will have certain characteristics that might match the observation, but we don’t really know.

Secondly, do the non-mundane answers bring you closer to an answer? Not in my opinion. So in that respect, you have no idea what non-mundane explanation you can use.

I agree, that is why I do not propose any (we can always speculate however, but mere speculation does not directly provide us with knowledge).

So basically, where we are now, is that the observation defies any and all explanation, which automatically includes the non-mundane ones.

I don’t follow the logic of this at all. First, as I pointed out above, the observation defies plausible mundane explanation. Second, that fact says absolutely nothing about potential non-mundane explanations.

 

[Rramjet]

That's a start. Then continue by proving that the people who he claims experienced this gave a factual description of events. What you have is someone who tells a story about what someone else claims to have experienced. So yeah, I'd like to see some evidence.

Jocce, you have clipped mere snippets of my reply to you out of their context and seem to have therefore missed the substance of my argument.

My basic argument was that there is circumstantial evidence contained within the article (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) that suggests its veracity. I then outlined some of that circumstantial evidence for you. In your reply to me, you have ignored that evidence in its entirety. This of course does not surprise me in the least – in fact – in my opinion – it is par for the course: I present evidence in this thread that is then completely ignored by the UFO debunkers. The evidence for the article’s veracity that I presented was this:

“(The author of the article) obviously had a subscription to Scientific American, suggesting a rational thinker interested in science and scientific methodology. The story contains specific details that at the time Scientific American (or anyone) could have easily verified (though more than 120 years later such verification becomes practically impossible). The story is not about him - and his language in relating the story is very matter of fact – very few embellishments – and he even states that some of the causes and effects might be a “mere coincidence” (in other words he does not make any claims about anything – let alone those of an “extraordinary” nature). He just relates the story as a matter of interest (“The following brief account of a recent strange meteorological occurrence may be of interest to your readers as an addition to the list of electrical eccentricities:”). Even if we were to consider that he is relating the story as told to him (ie; it is second hand by the time we read it), he did visit the “sufferers” in hospital first hand and was able to note their condition as “truly horrible” – and so something untoward happened to them to cause their injuries - and the victim’s story of how they received their injuries matches very closely with the manifestation of those injuries in accord what we now know to be some form of radiation burn – although the author could not have known that at the time.”​

If you somehow disagree that this circumstantial evidence provides evidence for the veracity of the article, then please point out how and why. Merely stating such things as “We don't have any evidence at all. We got hearsay.” and “We DO NOT have any evidence. We have a claim.” is erroneous on two levels. First because the article provides us with anecdotal evidence for the occurrence of a particular event and second, because we are actually talking about the circumstantial evidence contained within the article itself that (allegedly) indicates veracity of the article (or the anecdotal evidence).

Wow, I thought you would have learned by now to not try and shift the burden of proof. Your claim is that this is a factually correct description of an event, you back it up with evidence of more weight than "I don't believe anyone involved is lying about this".

My “claim” is that the circumstantial evidence suggests the article has veracity – nothing more, nothing less. I have provided you with a list of that evidence. If you wish to refute that evidence, then please do so. That is why I asked “Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? “. Your “evidence” could consist of a logical refutation of the circumstantial evidence I have presented. Simply, I have presented evidence in support of my “claim”. If you wish to refute that evidence, then that is your “burden of proof”, not mine.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Jocce, you have clipped mere snippets of my reply to you out of their context and seem to have therefore missed the substance of my argument.

My basic argument was that there is circumstantial evidence contained within the article (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) that suggests its veracity. I then outlined some of that circumstantial evidence for you. In your reply to me, you have ignored that evidence in its entirety. This of course does not surprise me in the least – in fact – in my opinion – it is par for the course: I present evidence in this thread that is then completely ignored by the UFO debunkers.

That's rich, coming from you! I refuted all of your points and you simply repeated all of them without addressing anything. Therefore, all of your argument is still refuted. The ball is in your court, burden of proof-wise.

The evidence for the article’s veracity that I presented was this:

“(The author of the article) obviously had a subscription to Scientific American, suggesting a rational thinker interested in science and scientific methodology. The story contains specific details that at the time Scientific American (or anyone) could have easily verified (though more than 120 years later such verification becomes practically impossible). The story is not about him - and his language in relating the story is very matter of fact – very few embellishments – and he even states that some of the causes and effects might be a “mere coincidence” (in other words he does not make any claims about anything – let alone those of an “extraordinary” nature). He just relates the story as a matter of interest (“The following brief account of a recent strange meteorological occurrence may be of interest to your readers as an addition to the list of electrical eccentricities:”). Even if we were to consider that he is relating the story as told to him (ie; it is second hand by the time we read it), he did visit the “sufferers” in hospital first hand and was able to note their condition as “truly horrible” – and so something untoward happened to them to cause their injuries - and the victim’s story of how they received their injuries matches very closely with the manifestation of those injuries in accord what we now know to be some form of radiation burn – although the author could not have known that at the time.”​

Why did you simply repeat what you had fabricated out of whole cloth before?

If you somehow disagree that this circumstantial evidence provides evidence for the veracity of the article, then please point out how and why. Merely stating such things as “We don't have any evidence at all. We got hearsay.” and “We DO NOT have any evidence. We have a claim.” is erroneous on two levels. First because the article provides us with anecdotal evidence for the occurrence of a particular event and second, because we are actually talking about the circumstantial evidence contained within the article itself that (allegedly) indicates veracity of the article (or the anecdotal evidence).

You've been shown that anecdotes are claims, not evidence. Do you have any actual evidence to back up the claims?

My “claim” is that the circumstantial evidence suggests the article has veracity – nothing more, nothing less. I have provided you with a list of that evidence. If you wish to refute that evidence, then please do so. That is why I asked “Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? “. Your “evidence” could consist of a logical refutation of the circumstantial evidence I have presented. Simply, I have presented evidence in support of my “claim”. If you wish to refute that evidence, then that is your “burden of proof”, not mine.

Nope, you're wrong again. If your claim is that this 120 year old anecdote is evidence of aliens, you still have the burden of proof. As always.

 

[H'ethetheth]

For example in case of the:


Okay, …so then what are these plausible mundane explanations of yours that “we didn’t come up with”?

I'm not sure how you can still doubt the ability of people to come up with mundane explanations you couldn't come up with.
In the case of Flight 564, where, according to you:

The characteristics of the observed object in terms of size and shape rule out any conventional aircraft, weather balloon, meteor, and so on. It is also implausible (for reasons I have already stated) that “the Russians” did it. So what are we left with? A UFO of course.

So the pilot saw something 300-400 ft long, 9000 feet below his flight level, i.e. smaller than the size of a cigarette butt on the ground viewed from head height. Apparently he mostly saw strobe lights, and the outline when the clouds were lit by thunder. No other aircraft saw the thing, and no corroborated radar contact.
I can think of a mundane explanation right off the top of my head.
For instance, there might have been a small cigar shaped hole in the clouds, through which lights on the ground were seen.
Did you think of this mundane explanation? Does it contradict any of the available information?

There are not an “infinite” number of plausible mundane explanations. I mean, could the American West UFO have been a telephone? A page from War and Peace? My great aunt Mary? Of course not. We must therefore restrict ourselves to plausible mundane explanations (things that could plausibly have been at that place in that space and at that time).

Firstly, the examples you come up with as plausible mundane explanations aren't very plausible, so they're not part of the infinitude.

And secondly, there's already an assumtion inherent in the parethesised statement that will make you exclude droves and droves of mundane explanations. I'll let you figure out what that assumption is.

 

[Rramjet]

So the pilot saw something 300-400 ft long, 9000 feet below his flight level, i.e. smaller than the size of a cigarette butt on the ground viewed from head height. Apparently he mostly saw strobe lights, and the outline when the clouds were lit by thunder. No other aircraft saw the thing, and no corroborated radar contact.

“…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)​

“America West Flight 564 was cruising at 39,000 feet near Bovina, Texas (…) First Officer John J. Waller and a flight attendant saw, off to their right and somewhat below their altitude, a row of bright white lights which sequenced on and off from left to right (…) Then they observed the phenomenon against a background of dark thunderclouds. When the background clouds pulsed with lightning, they could see the silhouette of a dark, wingless, elongated cigar-like object around the strobing lights. (…)the pilot and co-pilot estimated its length to be 300-400 feet. (…) Next morning the controller said he had checked with NORAD again and was told that they had tracked another, very unusual target in the same general area a short time after the first something that at first was stationary, then accelerated rapidly and stopped abruptly, repeating this sequence several times. The bursts of speed were computed to be between 1,000 and 1,400 m.p.h. (…) 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)

I stated:
“There are not an “infinite” number of plausible mundane explanations. I mean, could the American West UFO have been a telephone? A page from War and Peace? My great aunt Mary? Of course not. We must therefore restrict ourselves to plausible mundane explanations (things that could plausibly have been at that place in that space and at that time).

Firstly, the examples you come up with as plausible mundane explanations aren't very plausible, so they're not part of the infinitude.

Huh? Those “explanations” were definitely implausible, so in that sense you are correct. But then why do I get the impression that you have totally missed the point?

And secondly, there's already an assumtion inherent in the parethesised statement that will make you exclude droves and droves of mundane explanations. I'll let you figure out what that assumption is.

LOL. Yes, when I wrote that statement I had an inkling that someone would raise such an issue… I should have taken the time to reword it to more precisely reflect my meaning. I simply meant that such things as a “telephone”, a “page from War and Peace” and “my great aunt Mary” would obviously be things that it would not be plausible to hypothesise to be in the particular place at the time – and that there are a great many of these types of things (perhaps an almost infinite number), but that it would be pointless to conduct any comparative analysis on them or to include them in a process of elimination because they are so implausible.

However, I do take your point. Such an assessment will not always be so readily apparent. There will be “grey” areas where we need to actively ask whether something is plausible or not. In that sense however your “hole in the clouds” hypothesis might be truly seen as a plausible explanation worthy of examination because such a thing could have plausibly been there at the time and place. The question we then need to ask is “Do the characteristics of a hole in the clouds match those of what was observed?” I don’t believe they do.

I can think of a mundane explanation right off the top of my head.
For instance, there might have been a small cigar shaped hole in the clouds, through which lights on the ground were seen.
Did you think of this mundane explanation? Does it contradict any of the available information?

Well for starters…

“9:29pm...

AW-564: "Cactus 564...off to our 3:00, got some strobes out there.
Could you tell us what it is?"

9:30pm... (…)

AW-564: "I don't know, probably right around 30,000 or so. And it's
uh...there's a strobe that starts..um, going on counter-
clockwise, and uh...the length is unbelievable." (http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=265 )​