UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

Yeah, and since we completely lack verification I guess Wikipedia sums it up nicely:

"Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy."

Wikipedia actually states: “The expression anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence) and it follows that with your (deliberate) misquote (because you left out both the “(1)” and the preceding statement (I just quoted) and what follows immediately after…) thus:

”(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.”​

Note the word “if” in that sentence? (You simply bolded the wrong part…)

Correctly it must be noted that an anecdote is merely a personal account. A personal account may contain narrative points that can be later verified or corroborated as true, thus proving veracity in the anecdote. This then leads us directly into what Wikepedia immediately says next:

“(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable…​

(you simply left that part out huh!) …but then this is where Wikipedia’s muddleheaded incorrectness come in - because it follows that statement by returning to an explanation (?) relating to the first meaning it provided - rather than the second (!) with:

“…used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.”

This is an “explanation” that may be seen to be in line with its first definition (but definitely not the second),and only may be (an explanation) because it actually describes a particular logical fallacy that does not have anything particular or inherently definitional to do with “anecdotal evidence” at all!

Maybe you could report how much weight you put on the different pieces of information presented in the letter and your reasoning behind assigning those weights instead of making sweeping generalizations?

The weight of evidence points toward veracity in the article (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
because there would seem to be many more points in favour of veracity than are against it - and some of those points could (or should) have been able to be verified at the time of publication. Indeed given the status of SciAm it would be rather implausible for it not to have a fact checking procedure in place … of course strange things happen – but that is what I mean by weight of evidence. The weight of evidence would suggest SciAm to have a fact checking procedure to apply before publication, that does not mean that it did in fact check the article over before publication, just the weight of evidence suggests that it probably did. This also does not mean that the article itself is true in every respect, just that the weight of evidence suggests that it probably has veracity.

So you think that the victims were exposed to Alpha, Beta, Gamma as well as ultraviolet and xray radiation and that they recieved both low and very high doses at the same time? Is that correct?

I asked if you could provide any explanation that does not match as closely as some form of radiation poisoning seems to. …and why not multiple types in the one exposure? I have proposed a working hypothesis for the injuries received. The descriptions of radiation poisoning found under the links I provided seem to support that hypothesis. What else you got?

 

[Jocce]

Wikipedia actually states:
<SNIP>

You said:
"anecdotes can be evidence and that the weight we place on them as evidence will be proportional to the amount of verification that can be ascertained for the story contained within. "

Do you have any verification or can we consider the letter to be untrustworthy?

The weight of evidence points toward veracity in the article (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

That is a claim you keep making. However, I asked for specifics.

there would seem to be many more points in favour of veracity than are against it

You still haven't said which points and why they are in favour of veracity.

and some of those points could (or should) have been able to be verified at the time of publication.

Maybe. Were they?

Indeed given the status of SciAm it would be rather implausible for it not to have a fact checking procedure in place

What's the status of SciAm during those days?
Did they check the facts?
You are presenting this as a piece of evidence for UFO's and/or "aliens". I think it's reasonable that you make sure if they checked their facts rather than just believe it's implausible that they didn't. Communications are easy these days, I'm sure you can find a way to ask them.

The weight of evidence would suggest SciAm to have a fact checking procedure to apply before publication

Then please present that evidence.

This also does not mean that the article itself is true in every respect, just that the weight of evidence suggests that it probably has veracity.

You're still very vague, painting with broad strokes and here I am asking for specifics. So I'll repeat:

How much weight do you put on each different piece of information presented in the letter and why?

I asked if you could provide any explanation that does not match as closely as some form of radiation poisoning seems to. …and why not multiple types in the one exposure? I have proposed a working hypothesis for the injuries received. The descriptions of radiation poisoning found under the links I provided seem to support that hypothesis. What else you got?

You still haven't answered my question. I was asking for specifics. What (combination of) radiation matches the described symptoms. You keep replying with general statements using many words but provide very little (if any) substance on my rather specific questions.

 

[Rramjet]

Jocce, I am sorry but you do not seem to have grasped the concept of weight of evidence, but then perhaps this is understandable because it is a difficult concept to grasp. However it is a concept that is critical in our search for knowledge and it forms the very basis of much of our decision making in determining the veracity (or otherwise) of any hypotheses in science we might propose. You are asking questions such as:

Do you have any verification or can we consider the letter to be untrustworthy?

And…

You're still very vague, painting with broad strokes and here I am asking for specifics. So I'll repeat:

How much weight do you put on each different piece of information presented in the letter and why?

The problems you seem to be having are reflected in the following:

“Weight of Evidence (WOE) as described in Krimsky's article in the special seminar series of the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) is something widely used both by scientists in evaluating data and in setting regulations and guidelines in the public policy sphere, and is widely understood but is hard to define. Why? Because it calls upon all of one's expertise, training and experience and it addresses all types of issues concerning data big and small. A definition would probably require pages. It is this very imprecision that causes problems in the courtroom: something that is not clearly defined can be defined any way one likes. And so the court tends to avoid weight of evidence testimony and opinions even though they underpin scientific practice.” (http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

Perhaps the difficulty and objections you are raising in relation to my evidence for the veracity of the article can then be summed up (as the article cited above later continues - and your position would then seem to be summed by the italicised section):

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.”(http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

Thus when you state:

Then please present that evidence.

You are viewing the individual points of evidence I present in favour of the veracity of the article as individually too weak to even be considered as “evidence” (reflecting the sentiment of the first sentence in the above quoted passage), while I am viewing it along the lines of the latter part of that passage (as in how taken together the evidence “fits together” and “compliments” one another to form a “picture larger than themselves”).

That is how and why I am suggesting that the weight of evidence supports the veracity of the article (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) - and some of that evidence I presented HERE.

 

[Rramjet]

I am presenting the following case in response to questions about scientific verification of evidence in UFO cases. The case itself is similar to thousands of others reported worldwide where similar events and circumstances are reported. Despite that however it is a case that exhibits “high strangeness” - in that if we did not have the scientific verification of the evidence, and discounting similar reported cases, it would be all too easy to dismiss as simply too incredible a tale to have occurred during waking life, rather perhaps some manifestation of lucid dreaming.

The importance of the case rests on the scientific evidence. After the events the witness discovered hair samples and had their DNA analysed – the results of that analysis support the witness' story (where did such a hair sample come from if his story is not true?). The witness also passed a lie detector test, and although the assumptions underlying such an analysis might be questionable, the fact remains that he did pass the test.

Hair of the Alien (23 Jul 1992)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html)
(http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)
(http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2005/07/hair-of-alien-ccr5-deletion-factor.html)
(http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/mymumtalkstoaliens)

Lest people get the wrong idea, I am not suddenly doing an about face to now support the ETH. The reason I am presenting the case is that it provides scientifically verified evidence that the witnesses tale might just be true – and if that is the case, then what of all the similar cases reported worldwide? Faced with such evidence, we cannot continue to dismiss these cases out of hand. The evidence suggests that “something” real is occurring. Just what that is is then a question that needs to be answered. Here are your “aliens”. What are we to do with them?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am presenting the following case in response to questions about scientific verification of evidence in UFO cases. The case itself is similar to thousands of others reported worldwide where similar events and circumstances are reported. Despite that however it is a case that exhibits “high strangeness” - in that if we did not have the scientific verification of the evidence, and discounting similar reported cases, it would be all too easy to dismiss as simply too incredible a tale to have occurred during waking life, rather perhaps some manifestation of lucid dreaming.

The importance of the case rests on the scientific evidence. After the events the witness discovered hair samples and had their DNA analysed – the results of that analysis support the witness' story (where did such a hair sample come from if his story is not true?). The witness also passed a lie detector test, and although the assumptions underlying such an analysis might be questionable, the fact remains that he did pass the test.

Hair of the Alien (23 Jul 1992)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html)
(http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)
(http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2005/07/hair-of-alien-ccr5-deletion-factor.html)
(http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/mymumtalkstoaliens)

Lest people get the wrong idea, I am not suddenly doing an about face to now support the ETH. The reason I am presenting the case is that it provides scientifically verified evidence that the witnesses tale might just be true – and if that is the case, then what of all the similar cases reported worldwide? Faced with such evidence, we cannot continue to dismiss these cases out of hand. The evidence suggests that “something” real is occurring. Just what that is is then a question that needs to be answered. Here are your “aliens”. What are we to do with them?

So, we have an anecdote, a polygraph (which you say is questionable) and human hair.

 

[Jocce]

Perhaps the difficulty and objections you are raising in relation to my evidence for the veracity of the article can then be summed up (as the article cited above later continues - and your position would then seem to be summed by the italicised section):

“The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.”(http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

No, that doesn't sum up my objections. My objection is that you have ONE single piece of evidence and that consists of a letter to the editor describing certain events happening to a family more than a hundred years ago. That's it, ONE piece of what I even hesitate to call evidence.

Got anything else or is it time to drop this thing? The description of events and injuries aren't even a first hand account. It's hearsay.

 

[Rramjet]

No, that doesn't sum up my objections. My objection is that you have ONE single piece of evidence and that consists of a letter to the editor describing certain events happening to a family more than a hundred years ago. That's it, ONE piece of what I even hesitate to call evidence.

Perhaps it is my fault in that I perhaps I have not explained clearly enough what I am providing evidence for - and have not provided the theory behind how I draw my conclusions from that evidence in a single post. I will separate it out for you so there can be no mistake:

I am providing evidence for the veracity of the article found here (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG).

The evidence I am providing for that veracity can be summed by the following:

“(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.”​

The concept behind why I believe that evidence to suggest veracity in the article can be summed in the following manner:

““The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.” (http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)​

The reason I presented the article in the first place was in response to claims that such anomalous occurrences (UFOs and UFO sightings) were subject to (and therefore possibly the product of) “popular culture” and must therefore be assessed in that light. I simply pointed out (by presenting the article) that strange things were going on and documented well before “popular culture” could be deemed to be influential in any way (even if this were a valid objection to many cases).

I hope that makes things clearer for you Jocce. I apologise for not previously providing all the detail in a single post.

Oh, and you are simply in error when you state:

Got anything else or is it time to drop this thing? The description of events and injuries aren't even a first hand account. It's hearsay.

The consulate official visited the “sufferers” in hospital and described first hand the injuries he observed.

Finally, returning to the concept of weight of evidence, it is all too easy to take an article such as the SciAm article presented and pick holes in it on an individual case basis. However, when this case is assessed in light of other cases (for example: the Cash/Landrum incident - (http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)) the evidence for the reality of something (whatever that might be) occurring mounts – and just because we cannot plausibly explain what that “something” is, does not mean that we can simply dismiss it on those ground either.

 

[Rramjet]

So, we have an anecdote, a polygraph (which you say is questionable) and human hair.

As you say, a human hair – but with a genetic profile of such an anomalous nature (no human hair displays mitochondrial DNA of two different types: “The biochemists could not explain this strange anomaly.” (http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)) and such rarity of type even if this were possible (“The implications are startling because less than 1 % of the population has this deleted CCR5 factor…” (http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)) that for Khoury to have staged a hoax and presented as evidence such an “impossible” hair is utterly implausible. If his story is not true, then how did he come by that hair?

 

[RoboTimbo]

As you say, a human hair – but with a genetic profile of such an anomalous nature (no human hair displays mitochondrial DNA of two different types: “The biochemists could not explain this strange anomaly.” (http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)) and such rarity of type even if this were possible (“The implications are startling because less than 1 % of the population has this deleted CCR5 factor…” (http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)) that for Khoury to have staged a hoax and presented as evidence such an “impossible” hair is utterly implausible. If his story is not true, then how did he come by that hair?

If it's alien, how did it get human DNA? I can think of a few ways he could come by that hair, mostly involving women who are not his wife. Can you think of any yourself?

 

[TjW]

There's no evidence it isn't from his wife. They took a sample of her hair, but could not successfully believe they extracted DNA from it. Thus, there is no DNA sample from her to rule out the weenie-strangulating hair as being hers.

 

[R.A.F.]

Faced with such evidence, we cannot continue to dismiss these cases out of hand.

Actually, faced with such evidence is the best reason I've heard to dismiss the ETH "hypothesis" entirely.

..also, the available evidence is not dismissed "out of hand"...the absolute only other time I've heard such a mis-characterization of facts is from believers.

These inconsistencies of opinion are troubling.

 

[Rramjet]

If it's alien, how did it get human DNA?

It is a pity you do not seem to have read any of my previous posts in this thread … but wait, you actually do quote some of then …then how does one characterise your statements in ignorance of my and your own previous posts? This is the sequence of events:

So, we have (…) human hair.

As you say, a human hair …

If it's alien, how did it get human DNA?

I think perhaps it best left to the readers to judge this latter statement from you now that the context has been revealed…

I can think of a few ways he could come by that hair, mostly involving women who are not his wife. Can you think of any yourself?

I think you will find that the DNA evidence, while it shows human DNA, also shows that there are two distinct types of mitochondrial DNA on the one, single hair sample (the DNA in the shaft is different from that in the root). This just does not happen in nature…

There's no evidence it isn't from his wife. They took a sample of her hair, but could not successfully believe they extracted DNA from it. Thus, there is no DNA sample from her to rule out the weenie-strangulating hair as being hers.

First: See (http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/mymumtalkstoaliens - “My Mum Talks To Aliens Full Ep”). Khoury’s first hand story begins from about 38:00 and the DNA analysis discussion and results from about 41:00 and a picture of his wife – Vivian – appears at about 41:30 (The polygraph evidence begins at about 41:20). Having a picture of Khoury’s wife shows us immediately she is not the person the hair came from. But if that were not enough…

Second: from (http://www.ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html) we have the statement that “DNA was successfully extracted from Peter's hair, but no usable DNA was recovered from Vivian's hair, possibly because of chemical treatment.”

On my reading of that statement, “usable” DNA could not be extracted from his wife’s hair. That is, if the “alien” hair sample, came from his wife no usable DNA would have been present. Thus the “alien” hair could not have come from his wife.

FYI: Another section on the DNA evidence can be found on the SBS site under “My Mum Talks to Aliens – Alien Hair”.

Actually, faced with such evidence is the best reason I've heard to dismiss the ETH "hypothesis" entirely.

Unfortunately my brain is working too slowly today for me to understand how you drew that conclusion. Perhaps, for those of us who are a little slow on the uptake today, you might kindly explain it?

..also, the available evidence is not dismissed "out of hand"...the absolute only other time I've heard such a mis-characterization of facts is from believers.

Again, I have not had breakfast and my brain is perhaps having trouble processing. Perhaps you could explain to me how you have not just dismissed the evidence out of hand?

..These inconsistencies of opinion are troubling.

Wow, my brain really is on a downer today. I just don’t see where you got this conclusion from – it is looking to me like a mere unfounded assertion in relation to nothing in particular that I can discern – but that cannot be right can it? Perhaps then if I could just borrow some of your time and have you explain it to me, I would be extremely grateful.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It is a pity you do not seem to have read any of my previous posts in this thread … but wait, you actually do quote some of then …then how does one characterise your statements in ignorance of my and your own previous posts? This is the sequence of events:





I think perhaps it best left to the readers to judge this latter statement from you now that the context has been revealed…

Then you are claiming it is evidence of UFOs if you aren't claiming it is evidence of aliens? Reread your OP if you need a reminder what the thread is about. Perhaps the readers already know.

I think you will find that the DNA evidence, while it shows human DNA, also shows that there are two distinct types of mitochondrial DNA on the one, single hair sample (the DNA in the shaft is different from that in the root). This just does not happen in nature…

So are you claiming that it is impossible for that hair to come from a human? What exactly are you claiming?

 

[wollery]

I think you will find that the DNA evidence, while it shows human DNA, also shows that there are two distinct types of mitochondrial DNA on the one, single hair sample (the DNA in the shaft is different from that in the root). This just does not happen in nature…

You're right, it doesn't happen in nature. That's because hair shafts don't contain DNA, only the root does, so it's impossible to have different DNA on the shaft and root, because it's impossible to have DNA on the shaft.

 

[TjW]

No DNA sample from Vivian was tested. Therefore the DNA evidence does not rule her out.
The fact that the hair dye -- excuse me, chemical treatment -- she was using the day her known hair sample was taken is surmised to have interfered with whatever extraction method was used does not in any way imply that a hair sample taken at some other time would not be extractable.
If she had changed her hair color, the different treatments might be expected to use different formulations and have different effects on the extraction process. Your DNA is your DNA. A sample of Vivian's DNA would not have to come from her hair.
According to Mrs TjW, who uses PCR professionally, the usual method of screwing up PCR results is cross-contamination, due to its extreme amplification.

 

[Jocce]

Perhaps it is my fault in that I perhaps I have not explained clearly enough what I am providing evidence for

Yes you have. It's in your OP. Evidence for UFO's and "aliens". That is perfectly clear.

- and have not provided the theory behind how I draw my conclusions from that evidence in a single post. I will separate it out for you so there can be no mistake:

Thank you.

I am providing evidence for the veracity of the article found here (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG).

The evidence I am providing for that veracity can be summed by the following:
“(The author of the article) obviously had a subscription to Scientific American, suggesting a rational thinker interested in science and scientific methodology.

It is truly interesting that you once again repeat a claim that you haven't been able to provide evidence for as if it was the Truth(TM). Noone knows if he had a subscription so it is certainly not obvious. If you want to persist making this claim, then provide evidence for it. Furthermore, a subscription in a popular science mag doesn't lead to the conclusion that the person is a rational thinker and interested in scientific methodology. How do you know that he didn't just happen to pick up a copy of SciMag during his lunch one day and notice the article series? How do you know it wasn't a collegue who told him about it?

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).

Maybe they could have verified it but you have failed to produce any evidence that it really was verified and how it was verified.

The story is not about him

That is correct. It's him relating what someone else told him happened. We call that hearsay.

- 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

What of the following did he witness:

1. A loud humming noise and a vivid dazling light

2. The victims violent vomiting

3. Extensive swellings appearing on the upper part of their bodies (especially around the face and lips)

4. That the light wasn't accompanied of a sensation of heat

5. A smoky appearance and peculiar smell

6. That the swellings had subsided the next morning, leaving black blotches

7. That the skin peeled off on the 9th day leaving virulent raw sores

8. That their hair fell off on the side that was underneath at the time of the event.

9. That the house was uninjured

10. That all doors and windows were closed at the time

11. That the trees showed no sign of injury until the 9th day when they suddenly withered

I ask because the only obvious first hand description that he gives is that their appearance was truly horrible when he visited them in the hospital.

- 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]

Some of the symptoms mentioned are indicative of very severe doses of radiation, others of mild doses. It doesn't add up. Unless you can provide evidence of what combination of radiation exactly matches the symptoms, you have nothing of substance.

The concept behind why I believe that evidence to suggest veracity in the article can be summed in the following manner:
““The argument has been made that weight of five pieces of weak data cannot be turned into a whole of strong data. That mistates the practice and point. 'Weight of Evidence' is somewhat of a misnomer; more accurately it's the fit of evidence that is key rather than its weight. It is how pieces of evidence fit together, complement one another, create a picture larger than themselves that is the determinant, rather than the weight.” (http://www.toxicologysource.com/law/daubert/judgingthejudges/weightofevidence.html)

Yes, I have seen this. However, you don't even have several pieces of weak data. You have ONE piece of very weak "data".

The reason I presented the article in the first place was in response to claims that such anomalous occurrences (UFOs and UFO sightings) were subject to (and therefore possibly the product of) “popular culture” and must therefore be assessed in that light. I simply pointed out (by presenting the article) that strange things were going on and documented well before “popular culture” could be deemed to be influential in any way (even if this were a valid objection to many cases).

Strange things happen all the time. That doesn't mean that they are in any way related causally.

I hope that makes things clearer for you Jocce. I apologise for not previously providing all the detail in a single post.

It as perfectly clear even before. No need to appologise.

The consulate official visited the “sufferers” in hospital and described first hand the injuries he observed.

As I said, the only obvious first hand description is "truly horrible" appearence.

Finally, returning to the concept of weight of evidence, it is all too easy to take an article such as the SciAm article presented and pick holes in it on an individual case basis. However, when this case is assessed in light of other cases (for example: the Cash/Landrum incident - (http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)) the evidence for the reality of something (whatever that might be) occurring mounts – and just because we cannot plausibly explain what that “something” is, does not mean that we can simply dismiss it on those ground either.

I repeat. Strange things happen all the time. That doesn't mean that they are in any way related causally.

 

[Rramjet]

Then you are claiming it is evidence of UFOs if you aren't claiming it is evidence of aliens? Reread your OP if you need a reminder what the thread is about. Perhaps the readers already know.

I shall quote my OP again for you shall I?

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

(…)

I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality. “They” could be from “out there”, they could be from “precisely here”, they could be extra- or intra-dimensional, they could be, well, anything at all…we just do not know…

So are you claiming that it is impossible for that hair to come from a human? What exactly are you claiming?

Again, please read my OP – and specifically the section I just quoted, then read my reply to TjW below.

You're right, it doesn't happen in nature. That's because hair shafts don't contain DNA, only the root does, so it's impossible to have different DNA on the shaft and root, because it's impossible to have DNA on the shaft.

You are 100% wrong. I am not sure what to make of your post here. It shows two things: The first that you have not reviewed the evidence I presented (because it was mitochondrial DNA analysed) and second you have not even conducted a check of the evidence for the veracity of even your own statement. That a UFO debunker should ignore the evidence in toto in such an instance of course no longer surprises me.

“Ancient hair gives up its DNA secrets
Until now, scientists had thought analysing the hair shaft was of relatively little use as it contained so little DNA.”
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1135104.htm)

”Mitochondrial DNA in human hair shafts--existence of intra-individual differences?”
(http://www.mitochondrial.net/showabstract.php?pmid=10335880)

…In fact just type “DNA in hair shaft” into your search engine and see what happens…

No DNA sample from Vivian was tested. Therefore the DNA evidence does not rule her out.
The fact that the hair dye -- excuse me, chemical treatment -- she was using the day her known hair sample was taken is surmised to have interfered with whatever extraction method was used does not in any way imply that a hair sample taken at some other time would not be extractable.
If she had changed her hair color, the different treatments might be expected to use different formulations and have different effects on the extraction process. Your DNA is your DNA. A sample of Vivian's DNA would not have to come from her hair.
According to Mrs TjW, who uses PCR professionally, the usual method of screwing up PCR results is cross-contamination, due to its extreme amplification.

”The blonde alien hair revealed an extraordinary anomaly. Depending on whether we analyzed the hard hair shaft or the soft root, its mitochondrial DNA appeared to be of two different kinds. From the lower hair shaft we again obtained a rare Chinese mitochondrial DNA substitution. But from soft root tissue, we obtained a novel Basque/Gaelic type mitochondrial DNA (…) In any normal human DNA, we should obtain consistent DNA irrespective of where the sample comes from, be it hair, blood, or other tissue. The biochemists could not explain this strange anomaly.” (http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)​

“After thorough testing of the hair samples, the scientists of the Anomaly Physical Evidence Group arrived at a startling conclusion. The thin blond hair, which appeared to have come from a light-skinned caucasian-type woman, could not have come from a normal human of that racial type. Instead, though human, the hair showed five distinctive DNA markers that are characteristic of a rare sub-group of the Chinese Mongoloid racial type.

A detailed survey of the literature on variations in mitochondrial DNA, comprising tens of thousands of samples, showed only four other people on record with all five of the distinctive markers in the blond hair. All four were Chinese, with black hair. (…) It seems likely that no person with blond hair and an exact DNA match to Khoury's blonde could be found in the city of Sydney, nor on the continent of Australia, nor -- probably -- anywhere in the world.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html)​

Now while it is never prudent to state things like “impossible”, it would seem extremely unlikely that such a hair could even exist in nature, let alone have come from Khoury’s wife!

 

[Rramjet]

It is truly interesting that you once again repeat a claim that you haven't been able to provide evidence for as if it was the Truth(TM). Noone knows if he had a subscription so it is certainly not obvious. If you want to persist making this claim, then provide evidence for it. Furthermore, a subscription in a popular science mag doesn't lead to the conclusion that the person is a rational thinker and interested in scientific methodology. How do you know that he didn't just happen to pick up a copy of SciMag during his lunch one day and notice the article series? How do you know it wasn't a collegue who told him about it?

Okay, sure, Venezuala, 1886, a SciAm magazine just “happens” to be in the possession of the US Consulate without a subscription. Plausible?

Have you ever known anyone without an interest to have casually picked up a magazine (or after a colleague referred) and then are motivated to write to the editors? Very unusual but if this did occur, then he could only have been motivated by what he had experienced himself. That is, it would be utterly implausible for him to have picked up the magazine “in passing” and then suddenly have been motivated to commit a fraud …the US Consulate..?

As for the “rational thinker interested in science”, that is a plausible interpretation of someone who has a subscription to SciAm, is motivated to inform, and writes as clearly and succinctly as the author of the article does.

Maybe they could have verified it but you have failed to produce any evidence that it really was verified and how it was verified.

Is it really plausible to suggest that SciAm would not do some fact checking before the publication of its stories and articles?

It's him relating what someone else told him happened. We call that hearsay.

He went to the hospital and personally witnessed the injuries and symptoms. We call that a first hand, eyewitness account.

What of the following did he witness:

1. A loud humming noise and a vivid dazling light

2. The victims violent vomiting

3. Extensive swellings appearing on the upper part of their bodies (especially around the face and lips)

4. That the light wasn't accompanied of a sensation of heat

5. A smoky appearance and peculiar smell

6. That the swellings had subsided the next morning, leaving black blotches

7. That the skin peeled off on the 9th day leaving virulent raw sores

8. That their hair fell off on the side that was underneath at the time of the event.

9. That the house was uninjured

10. That all doors and windows were closed at the time

11. That the trees showed no sign of injury until the 9th day when they suddenly withered

I ask because the only obvious first hand description that he gives is that their appearance was truly horrible when he visited them in the hospital.

The story was obviously told to him and it was such a startling tale that he was motivated to go to the hospital to see for himself (another tick in the rational thinker interested in scientific methodology box). Further, what possible motivation could such severely injured people (as he witnessed, so severely that he hoped that no deaths would result) have to lie about how they received their injuries? More: What possible source could explain their injuries if they were not telling the truth?

Some of the symptoms mentioned are indicative of very severe doses of radiation, others of mild doses. It doesn't add up. Unless you can provide evidence of what combination of radiation exactly matches the symptoms, you have nothing of substance.

As the writer of the article states: “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:” (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) Do you think we know all there is to know about such “eccentricities” and how they might affect biological entities? The symptoms so obviously resemble some form of radiation poisoning that in discovering or investigating one would simply have to hypothesise accordingly. You seem to be working under the hypothesis that just because we don’t know the detailed mechanism – then it is pointless even hypothesising. That is simply antirational and antiscientific.

Yes, I have seen this. However, you don't even have several pieces of weak data. You have ONE piece of very weak "data".

I can only reiterate: The veracity of the article is indicated by the confluence of a number of pieces of evidence that I have outlined for you – some of which you write about and are explored above.

Strange things happen all the time. That doesn't mean that they are in any way related causally.

Indeed, and I have often stated my opinion in this thread that the “UFO phenomenon” will probably turn out to be representative of a number of different phenomena. But to understand and explore that concept we must first understand the evidence. In this case, for example, the injuries received seem remarkably similar to those received in the 1980 Cash/Landrum incident (http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm) and in that case a UFO was observed as the source of the radiation. However, when that case was discussed in this thread the very same “no distinct radiation type will cause the specific injuries” objection was also raised. My answer remains the same: Just because we don’t know what specific radiation caused the injuries, does not mean the injuries were not radiation related – clearly on the evidence (eyewitness and symptom) they are!

It as perfectly clear even before. No need to appologise.

If it was so “perfectly clear” to you, then why did you misconstrue that (and I quote) “My objection is that you have ONE single piece of evidence and that consists of a letter to the editor describing certain events happening to a family more than a hundred years ago. That's it, ONE piece of what I even hesitate to call evidence.” when you knew (by your own admission) that I was actually presenting (and the argument between you and I to that point was specifically about) a number of pieces of evidence indicating the veracity of the article?

 

[wollery]

You are 100% wrong. I am not sure what to make of your post here. It shows two things: The first that you have not reviewed the evidence I presented (because it was mitochondrial DNA analysed) and second you have not even conducted a check of the evidence for the veracity of even your own statement. That a UFO debunker should ignore the evidence in toto in such an instance of course no longer surprises me.

“Ancient hair gives up its DNA secrets
Until now, scientists had thought analysing the hair shaft was of relatively little use as it contained so little DNA.”
(http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1135104.htm)

”Mitochondrial DNA in human hair shafts--existence of intra-individual differences?”
(http://www.mitochondrial.net/showabstract.php?pmid=10335880)

…In fact just type “DNA in hair shaft” into your search engine and see what happens…

First off, my apologies, I did do a search, but obviously I used the wrong search terms, as I only turned up forensics sites that stated that DNA was not present at all in hair shafts. It would appear that these sites were wrong, and mtDNA can be present in small, but sufficient, quantities in hair shafts.

”The blonde alien hair revealed an extraordinary anomaly. Depending on whether we analyzed the hard hair shaft or the soft root, its mitochondrial DNA appeared to be of two different kinds. From the lower hair shaft we again obtained a rare Chinese mitochondrial DNA substitution. But from soft root tissue, we obtained a novel Basque/Gaelic type mitochondrial DNA (…) In any normal human DNA, we should obtain consistent DNA irrespective of where the sample comes from, be it hair, blood, or other tissue. The biochemists could not explain this strange anomaly.” (http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)​

“After thorough testing of the hair samples, the scientists of the Anomaly Physical Evidence Group arrived at a startling conclusion. The thin blond hair, which appeared to have come from a light-skinned caucasian-type woman, could not have come from a normal human of that racial type. Instead, though human, the hair showed five distinctive DNA markers that are characteristic of a rare sub-group of the Chinese Mongoloid racial type.

A detailed survey of the literature on variations in mitochondrial DNA, comprising tens of thousands of samples, showed only four other people on record with all five of the distinctive markers in the blond hair. All four were Chinese, with black hair. (…) It seems likely that no person with blond hair and an exact DNA match to Khoury's blonde could be found in the city of Sydney, nor on the continent of Australia, nor -- probably -- anywhere in the world.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html)​

I know someone with blonde hair and Chinese mtDNA. My son.

So let's take a closer look at those numbers. Only 4 people out of "tens of thousands" of those tested had those particular mtDNA markers, and all of them were Chinese with black hair. That sounds pretty conclusive! Well, let's assume that tens of thousands could be as much as 100,000 people (it isn't that much, but it makes the numbers easier to work out). 4 out of 100,000 is 0.004%, which is pretty rare. However, that's from a total world population of about 6 billion, which means that about 240,000 people worldwide would have that set of mtDNA markers, and the vast majority of them would be in China. Now, while that would account for only about 0.016% of the Chinese population it's still not an insignificant number, and remember that I was being generous with the 100,000, it's probably more like 30,000, which would make it nearer 0.05% of the Chinese population, or 720,000 people.

Okay, so most of them will have black hair, but not all. Try reading up on the Uyghur people of North-western China, they typically have Chinese features, but it's not uncommon for them to have fair skin and light coloured hair. I have a colleague who's mother is a blonde haired Uyghur.

And then, of course, there's people like my son, with a western father and a Chinese mother, with blonde hair and Chinese mtDNA.

Does that mean that any of them have blonde hair and that particular set of mtDNA? I don't know, but although it's definitely rare, it's certainly not impossible.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I shall quote my OP again for you shall I?

Again, please read my OP – and specifically the section I just quoted, then read my reply to TjW below.

Ok, I read it. Now let me quote my last post, shall I?

So are you claiming that it is impossible for that hair to come from a human? What exactly are you claiming?

So again, what are you claiming this hair to be from?