UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

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

What evidence do you have that the letter actually came from the consulate? Sorry, you can't use the text of the purported letter to prove the veracity of the purported letter.

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?

Wrong question. You made a claim, you provide the evidence to back it up. Your speculation carries no weight as evidence.

Very unusual but if this did occur, then he could only have been motivated by what he had experienced himself.

Your speculation about someone's motivation to write to a national magazine carries no weight as evidence.

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..?

Your speculation about someone's motivation to write to a magazine carries no weight as evidence.

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.

Your opinion of what is a plausible interpretation carries no weight as evidence.

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

It is entirely plausible. Why do you assert as fact that fact checking occurred when you have presented no evidence concerning it.

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

We call hearsay the author of the purported letter relating what someone told him. That is the definition of hearsay. You need to provide evidence that the events described actually occurred at all.

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?

Once you find out whether the events occurred at all, then you may tick whichever box in the rational thinker form you see fit. First, provide evidence that the letter was not made up out of whole cloth. The evidence will need to come from outside of the letter itself. Do you see yet the problem with anecdotes, particularly ones that are over 100 years old?

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.

You're working under the hypothesis that the account is genuine. This is simply antirational and antiscientific.

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.

And you are wrong. You have one piece of evidence, the letter. And to verify the letter, you use the text of the letter itself. Do you not see a problem with that?

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!


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?

And you are wrong. You have one piece of evidence, the letter. And you use the letter to prove the veracity of the letter.

 

[TjW]

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.


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…

”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!

I'm not claiming it came from Khoury's wife. I'm saying the investigation is poorly done.
A competent investigation would have used another sample to unequivocally rule her out.
I also doubt that the hair exists in nature. I suspect it exists in the land of sloppy investigation.
Ordinarily, if you get an anomalous result, you re-run the test. Ideally, you have someone completely independent and with no knowledge or interest in the results re-run the test in a different lab. If there is a way to confirm it using a completely different technique, you do that as well.
That doesn't seem to be the way things are done in UFO investigations, though.

 

[Rramjet]

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.

Apology and explanation accepted – on my part perhaps I could have been more circumspect and thus I also apologise for assuming that you had ignored the evidence in total (the situation reminds me of the aphorism – garbage in, garbage out. LOL).

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

(Congratulations, no sincerely, my own wife is Chinese – Ooo but don’t let her hear that, she is Taiwanese. LOL – and she wants us to produce just such a son) but I can guarantee that if you have his hair analysed it will be Chinese mtDNA all the way through, shaft and root alike. The sample provided in the Khoury case had different mtDNA in the root when compared with the shaft. This simply does not occur in nature (well …as I stated, it is imprudent to claim “impossible” – suffice to say such a situation has never been shown to be naturally occurring).

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.

Now you are talking about a set of 5 markers in the Chinese mtDNA. The combination of which in itself is rare – even among Chinese people. However, couple that fact with a blonde hair …and couple that again with the different types of mtDNA in the one hair …and couple all that with the added bonus of a CCR5 mutation …and the rarity of that hair explodes almost exponentially. Once again “humanly impossible” is imprudent – so let’s just stick with the statement that the very rarity of the hair adds veracity to Khoury’s tale – where did he come by such a hair - especially in combination with his story...? Each on its own might be dismissed, but together, that’s a different thing… it is not as if he decided to invent a story then set out to analyse hair samples until he found one that might support his story… (not forgetting that he also passed a polygraph test in relation to all this).

 

[Jocce]

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

There is a difference between the US Consulate having a subscription and the writer of the letter having a subscription and the fact is that you have not shown that anyone had a subscription. Hypothesizing is not evidence.

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?

Yes, actually I have.

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..?

Fraud? Now I don't follow you.

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.

Again, your hypothesizing does not equal evidence. If you want to maintain that he had a subscription and is a critical thinker you have to provide evidence of that. Your opinion that other possible explanations are less likely means nothing.

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

I believe (but don't know) that they fact checked their articles before publication. Not so sure about letters from readers. Remember, communications were not as good then as it is now so it might not have been so easy to fact check as you imply. If you want to maintain that the facts in the letter were checked before publication, feel free to provide some evidence for that.

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

And he described them as truly horrible. Is your claim now that he personally witnessed them vomiting, hair falling off, loud humming noies and bright lights etc.? If not, then it's hearsay. He's retelling what they told him.

The story was obviously told to him

That's what I said, hearsay.

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?

So we're back to "I can't think of another explanation so it must be true"? I ask again then. Which of the 11 points I wrote down did he personally witness?

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.

Sure, hypothesizing is fine but I asked for evidence.

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

You have one piece of "evidence" (a letter) which basically contains a number of claims, most of them hearsay. You are then hypothesizing about it, but that doesn't magically transform that single letter into many corroborating pieces of evidence.

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!

We can't find any combination of radiation that matches the symptoms but it's still obvious that it was radiation that caused their injuries? Seriously?

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?

Yes, you are the only one who claims that one single hearsay report can transform into multiple pieces of corroborating evidence. You do that by hypothesizing about the content and choosing the "explanation" that best fits your preconcieved ideas. One piece of hearsay that in itself is evidence of it's trutfulness? That's a really strange thing.

 

[Rramjet]

I keep asking myself why you all feel the need to reject the account merely on the grounds that it is an anecdotal account. Surely you must realise that the consequences of your doing that is (for example) that you must also discount the greater portion of human history? No letter ever written by any historical figure could ever have any veracity – because they are all anecdotal tales – mere hearsay! No battlefield account, no political explanation, no account of relations between people and places could then ever be accepted by you …because they are all just hearsay – and no document analysis is possible! Human history is thus wiped from your historical record and all you have left is “the accounts of the bones” – that is the physical archaeological evidence – for it seems that physical evidence is the only evidence you will accept!

I also keep asking myself why…

You ignore the evidence outright:

What evidence do you have that the letter actually came from the consulate?

The letter is signed “WARNER COWGILL. U.S. Consulate, Maracaibo, Venezuela, November 17, 1886.” (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) Whatever you might think of it, that is evidence…

You pretend that document analysis is impossible:

Sorry, you can't use the text of the purported letter to prove the veracity of the purported letter.

As if an analysis of internal consistency, writing style, the psychology of the writer, the historical record, etc and so on could not be undertaken in relation to the letter.

You (deliberately?) misconstrue first hand accounts as “hearsay”:

We call hearsay the author of the purported letter relating what someone told him. That is the definition of hearsay.

The author travelled to the hospital and witnessed first hand the victim’s injuries.

You deny the legitimacy of a “working hypothesis”:

You're working under the hypothesis that the account is genuine. This is simply antirational and antiscientific.

..and not only that, in doing so, call into question one of the very foundations of scientific methodology by characterising it as “antirational and antiscientific”?

You deny the logical consequences of your stance against the letter:

Fraud? Now I don't follow you.

If the letter is not genuine, then what else but a fraud could it be?

You deny us the advantage of a plausible inference:

If you want to maintain that the facts in the letter were checked before publication, feel free to provide some evidence for that.

It would be implausible to suggest that SciAm does not have some sort of routine, fact checking procedure that it institutes before publication.

You (deliberately?) confuse the “hearsay” sections (how the injuries were received) with the first hand, eyewitness account sections (the injuries observed at the hospital).

And he described them as truly horrible. Is your claim now that he personally witnessed them vomiting, hair falling off, loud humming noies and bright lights etc.? If not, then it's hearsay. He's retelling what they told him.

You (deliberately?) mischaracterise my position:

So we're back to "I can't think of another explanation so it must be true"?

I am merely providing evidence in support of a “working hypothesis” of mine (that the letter has veracity). Nothing more, nothing less.

You accept the injuries, yet deny the cause:

We can't find any combination of radiation that matches the symptoms but it's still obvious that it was radiation that caused their injuries?

You even listed (paraphrasing the letter) the factors that directly indicate that some form of radiation was the culprit:

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

Interestingly we have another case where the injuries received seem remarkably similar; 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.

You assume that I have some sort of illegitimate agenda:

You do that by hypothesizing about the content and choosing the "explanation" that best fits your preconcieved ideas.

My agenda is not driven by preconceived notions (at least not of the type to which you refer). My agenda is legitimate and it is to show (at least in part - and to borrow a line from the great bard) “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” (Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167).

I could speculate on why you do all that I have pointed to above, but such speculation it seems is beyond the limits of this thread, so I am merely content to leave that speculation to the readers and to contend that the letter I have presented (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) provides just a small piece of evidence to support that contention from Hamlet. I have also provided various reasons as to why I believe the letter has veracity in doing so. I also believe that it is simply not enough (and illegitimate besides) to simply cry "anecdotal" and reject it out of hand merely on that grounds that it is anecdotal (as if no legitimate document analysis were possible).

 

[carlitos]

There are a couple billion people on earth with cameras, and yet we have to rely on a scan of a 100-year-old letter to a magazine for 'evidence.' That says plenty about the state of "UFO Research."

Given the vast numbers of smart phones, why don't we see "crafts" piloted by "beings" on teh youtubes, Rramjet?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I keep asking myself why you all feel the need to reject the account merely on the grounds that it is an anecdotal account. Surely you must realise that the consequences of your doing that is (for example) that you must also discount the greater portion of human history? No letter ever written by any historical figure could ever have any veracity – because they are all anecdotal tales – mere hearsay! No battlefield account, no political explanation, no account of relations between people and places could then ever be accepted by you …because they are all just hearsay – and no document analysis is possible! Human history is thus wiped from your historical record and all you have left is “the accounts of the bones” – that is the physical archaeological evidence – for it seems that physical evidence is the only evidence you will accept!

I also keep asking myself why…

You ignore the evidence outright:

The letter is signed “WARNER COWGILL. U.S. Consulate, Maracaibo, Venezuela, November 17, 1886.” (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) Whatever you might think of it, that is evidence…

Sorry, no. That link doesn't show the actual letter with signature. Try again.

You pretend that document analysis is impossible:

You pretend to have done a document analysis without the actual document.

As if an analysis of internal consistency, writing style, the psychology of the writer, the historical record, etc and so on could not be undertaken in relation to the letter.

And yet hasn't been. Unless you've done it and can provide a link to your methods and procedures. Sorry, your opinions won't suffice.

You (deliberately?) misconstrue first hand accounts as “hearsay”:

You deliberately misconstrued what has been said. Assuming simply for the sake of argument that something occurred and someone visited someone else in hospital, the first person could only take the word of the second person as to what happened and how they got there. That is hearsay. I don't know why you say it isn't, other than you deliberately misconstrue what has been said.

The author travelled to the hospital and witnessed first hand the victim’s injuries.

According to an account in a magazine that cannot now be verified.

You deny the legitimacy of a “working hypothesis”:

I do not, you made that up. I deny the reliability of the evidence you use to support it.

..and not only that, in doing so, call into question one of the very foundations of scientific methodology by characterising it as “antirational and antiscientific”?

Which is also not true now that you have seen that what you said before is not true.


Now, what exactly are you claiming with this 120 year old anecdote? Is this evidence for "aliens" or for UFOs? Thank goodness we have "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This is another example of exactly why.

 

[Jocce]

I keep asking myself why you all feel the need to reject the account merely on the grounds that it is an anecdotal account.

Who's talking about rejecting it? I'm not rejecting it, but if you claim that the events described in the letter is a factual description of what really happened, then I'd like to see some corroborating evidence for that. Evidence other than this letter to the editor.

Fwiw, I do belive that the letter is genuine based on the discussions of it and the author in other places. F ex. http://genforum.genealogy.com/cowgill/messages/348.html

Of course, it can still be a hoax but I'm prepared to believe that Warner actually wrote this.

Surely you must realise that the consequences of your doing that is (for example) that you must also discount the greater portion of human history? No letter ever written by any historical figure could ever have any veracity – because they are all anecdotal tales – mere hearsay! No battlefield account, no political explanation, no account of relations between people and places could then ever be accepted by you …because they are all just hearsay

First of all, there are several historical first hand accounts of events. Second, do you really think that archaeologists and historians rely on a single text contaning hearsay when doing their research into events of the past? I thought you would have some insight into how they work.

The letter is signed “WARNER COWGILL. U.S. Consulate, Maracaibo, Venezuela, November 17, 1886.” (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) Whatever you might think of it, that is evidence…

As I said, I am prepared to accept the letter as genuine. However, your inability to realize that anyone can fake a signature is disturbing when it comes from someone who claims to have a scientific background.

As if an analysis of internal consistency, writing style, the psychology of the writer, the historical record, etc and so on could not be undertaken in relation to the letter.

You haven't done a formal analysis. You hypothesize/make guesses based on really weak data.

You (deliberately?) misconstrue first hand accounts as “hearsay”:

The author travelled to the hospital and witnessed first hand the victim’s injuries.

And the only description he gives is that they were truly horrible. You deny that big parts of the story he tells is based on what the victims claim to have experienced. That IS hearsay.

If the letter is not genuine, then what else but a fraud could it be?

The content can be wrong without the letter being a fraud.

You deny us the advantage of a plausible inference:

It would be implausible to suggest that SciAm does not have some sort of routine, fact checking procedure that it institutes before publication.

Did it have that for letters from the readers?

You (deliberately?) confuse the “hearsay” sections (how the injuries were received) with the first hand, eyewitness account sections (the injuries observed at the hospital).

Did he witness the vomiting, the hair falling off, the swelling appearing, the black blotches turning into virulent soars? Just answer the question.

You (deliberately?) mischaracterise my position:

You say it's obviously radiation poisoning, yet can't describe any combination of radiation that matches the combination of symptoms as they are described. What other possible explanations have you considered and how did you rule them out?

I am merely providing evidence in support of a “working hypothesis” of mine (that the letter has veracity). Nothing more, nothing less.

Your hypothesising does NOT equal evidence. Surely you must realize that by now.

You assume that I have some sort of illegitimate agenda

Can you blame me? When someone suggests a mundane explanation in any of the cases you present you demand micrometer precision and multiple, independent pieces of evidence. Even when given that, you only admit that "it can't be ruled out that this mundane explanation is correct, but it's not proven". When it comes to your own pet explanations, you are satisfied with hypothesizing about how plausible something is. Double standards?

I could speculate on why you do all that I have pointed to above

No need to speculate. If you want me to accept the events described in this letter as factually correct, I want corroborating evidence. However, we both know that you can't provide that so just drop this letter as evidence for UFOs and "aliens"

 

[Rramjet]

There are a couple billion people on earth with cameras, and yet we have to rely on a scan of a 100-year-old letter to a magazine for 'evidence.' That says plenty about the state of "UFO Research."

I think you are confusing a specific example I posted for a specific purpose (showing that reports of strange phenomena pre-date "popular culture") with the "evidence" from more recent cases (that I have presented in this thread and exist generally).

Given the vast numbers of smart phones, why don't we see "crafts" piloted by "beings" on teh youtubes, Rramjet?

..but we DO! You just don't accept them as evidence... "Photoshop!" you invariably cry!

 

[Rramjet]

Who's talking about rejecting it? I'm not rejecting it, but if you claim that the events described in the letter is a factual description of what really happened, then I'd like to see some corroborating evidence for that. Evidence other than this letter to the editor.

All I am pointing out is why would the victims make up such a story? Further, what other plausible source for their injuries (other than some form of radiation) could there possibly be?

Fwiw, I do belive that the letter is genuine based on the discussions of it and the author in other places. F ex. http://genforum.genealogy.com/cowgill/messages/348.html

So you accept on this anecdotal evidence that Cowgill was a real person and he was in Venezuela stationed as a “State Department Foreign Service Officer” (and died in Maracaibo - the letter’s place of origin). Thus the source of the letter (at least) seems genuine. But Jocce… that is an anecdotal account… so where do you draw the line? On what basis do you accept some anecdotal accounts and reject others?

Of course, it can still be a hoax but I'm prepared to believe that Warner actually wrote this.

So you accept that anecdotal accounts can be accepted on the weight of evidence.

In reference to historical documents being anecdotal:

First of all, there are several historical first hand accounts of events. Second, do you really think that archaeologists and historians rely on a single text contaning hearsay when doing their research into events of the past? I thought you would have some insight into how they work.

Sure, just as the letter we are referring to does not stand alone but is open to corroborating evidence and verification from both external AND internal sources.

As I said, I am prepared to accept the letter as genuine. However, your inability to realize that anyone can fake a signature is disturbing when it comes from someone who claims to have a scientific background.

Actually, I had researched the letter and there are a number of sites that mention it (including the one you referenced), but I was specifically concentrating on the internal evidence of verification… In that sense, the fact that it was published by SciAm with the signature line meant that signature was evidence (no matter what you might think of the strength of it) of the source.

I stated:
“As if an analysis of internal consistency, writing style, the psychology of the writer, the historical record, etc and so on could not be undertaken in relation to the letter.”

You haven't done a formal analysis. You hypothesize/make guesses based on really weak data.

A “formal” analysis? You mean my hypotheses (guesses if you like) need a byline such as “This has been certified as conducted by a qualified document analyst…” (or some such)? I would have thought that stating things like SciAm would plausibly have a fact checking procedure in place - and pointing out the other clues in the letter that tend to favour veracity - would have been pretty self-evident. As for “weak data”, sure, but it is the consistency of that “weak data” that adds to a weight of evidence that tends to favour veracity rather than any alternative. Sure (as you say) a hoax (a fraud) can (probably) never be ruled out - being that the occurrence was so long ago and so much information is no longer available to us - but that caveat noted, and based on what we do know, simply, the weight of evidence favours veracity.

And the only description he gives is that they were truly horrible. You deny that big parts of the story he tells is based on what the victims claim to have experienced. That IS hearsay.

I have denied nothing of the sort. In my opinion such misrepresentations of my position are not helpful. I was merely pointing out that you had confused the parts of the letter that were “hearsay” (the method of injury) with those witnessed first hand by the author (the injuries themselves).

The content can be wrong without the letter being a fraud.

Sure, but again you have misconstrued my meaning. I would have thought the meaning of my statement “If the letter is not genuine, then what else but a fraud could it be?” was pretty self-evident.

In reference to SciAm’s fact checking procedures:

Did it have that for letters from the readers?

I think it quite reasonable to assume they would have checked that the letter came from a genuine source at the very least. But who really knows… WE however do have evidence that the source was genuine.

Did he witness the vomiting, the hair falling off, the swelling appearing, the black blotches turning into virulent soars? Just answer the question.

“Just answer the question”? I have answered that on many occasions. He went to the hospital and saw the injuries for himself. Moreover, the fact that he specifies such things as “the ninth day” - and one can reasonably assume that the victims, given the extent of their injuries, would not have presented to hospital after “the ninth day” – meant that he probably spoke to the medical staff about their injuries and gained at least some of the information (like how long have they been here and what was the general course of the symptoms and how did they say they came by their injuries, etc and so on) that way.

You say it's obviously radiation poisoning, yet can't describe any combination of radiation that matches the combination of symptoms as they are described. What other possible explanations have you considered and how did you rule them out?

You keep returning to this. I can only re-iterate: All I am pointing out is why would the victims make up such a story? Further, what other plausible source for their injuries (other than some form of radiation) could there possibly be? Oh, sure, perhaps they could have ingested a radiation source…but why then the story?

Your hypothesising does NOT equal evidence. Surely you must realize that by now.

I have never claimed that it did. All I am doing is making some (what I assume are) plausible assumptions concerning the veracity of the letter (and the statements contained therein) based on the evidence we do have. If you object to any of those assumptions I am sure you will point them out. However, it is entirely legitimate for me to draw those assumptions.

In reference to my purported agenda:

Can you blame me? When someone suggests a mundane explanation in any of the cases you present you demand micrometer precision and multiple, independent pieces of evidence.

I think you will find that when people suggest mundane explanations I merely draw attention to the flaws in those explanations and direct the claimant back to the evidence. It is in fact the UFO debunkers who demand of me “micrometer precision and multiple, independent pieces of evidence” (not the other way round).

Even when given that, you only admit that "it can't be ruled out that this mundane explanation is correct, but it's not proven".

You are simply “putting words in my mouth” indicating something I have neither said nor believe. I have consistently stated that for the UFO cases I have presented (paraphrasing for succinctness) “No plausible mundane explanation can be found” and in many (but not all) cases “The characteristics of the UFO positively defy mundane explanation”.

When it comes to your own pet explanations, you are satisfied with hypothesizing about how plausible something is. Double standards?

First I rarely (if ever) propose (or have proposed) an “explanation” for the cases I have been presenting. I merely present the evidence and variously point to the lack of plausible mundane explanation and the flaws in the arguments (based on the evidence) in those mundane explanations that are proposed. Moreover, I have explained (and it should be quite obvious by now) that I have no “pet” theories whatsoever concerning UFOs. They are a genuine mystery. I have however posted the following:

UFOs as sighted objects can ultimately be classified as:

1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) ET
2) Interdimensional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
4) Jungian consciousness
5) Conscious energy forms
6) Government conspiracy
7) add as you think of one...​

Note the word speculative in the above?

No need to speculate. If you want me to accept the events described in this letter as factually correct, I want corroborating evidence.

Apart from the internal corroborative evidence (such as those points that I have raised and we have discussed and the pointed questions I have asked concerning that evidence – that you have not answered by the way) and the external evidence (such as the website you referenced above), then unless you have a time machine handy, that’s about all we have.

However, we both know that you can't provide that so just drop this letter as evidence for UFOs and "aliens"

No, it is you who characterise and see the letter in such terms. I never have. I merely presented it in response to claims that reports were critically affected (biased) by popular culture. Here is a report that does not even mention, make reference to, or was even composed with such thoughts in mind as “UFOs” or “aliens” (it was couched in terms of a “meteorological eccentricity”), yet it has all the hallmarks of a classic UFO report. That you DO see it in those terms is quite telling – and that was, after all, the point of my presenting it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You are simply “putting words in my mouth” indicating something I have neither said nor believe. I have consistently stated that for the UFO cases I have presented (paraphrasing for succinctness) “No plausible mundane explanation can be found” and in many (but not all) cases “The characteristics of the UFO positively defy mundane explanation”.

And yet you've never been able to eliminate all mundane explanations, despite the many, many opportunities you've had. Remember that you haven't eliminated the mundane explanation that I'm still thinking of, despite your numerous attempts. Remember also that this is one of the fatal flaws to your arguments.

First I rarely (if ever) propose (or have proposed) an “explanation” for the cases I have been presenting. I merely present the evidence and variously point to the lack of plausible mundane explanation and the flaws in the arguments (based on the evidence) in those mundane explanations that are proposed. Moreover, I have explained (and it should be quite obvious by now) that I have no “pet” theories whatsoever concerning UFOs. They are a genuine mystery. I have however posted the following:

UFOs as sighted objects can ultimately be classified as:

1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible) (ie; UFO)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)​

​

I fixed the above for you (in bold).

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) ET
2) Interdimensional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
4) Jungian consciousness
5) Conscious energy forms
6) Government conspiracy
7) add as you think of one...​

Note the word speculative in the above?


Apart from the internal corroborative evidence (such as those points that I have raised and we have discussed and the pointed questions I have asked concerning that evidence – that you have not answered by the way) and the external evidence (such as the website you referenced above), then unless you have a time machine handy, that’s about all we have.

If you would like to see some pointed questions that you haven't answered yet, search for the term "fatal flaw".

No, it is you who characterise and see the letter in such terms. I never have. I merely presented it in response to claims that reports were critically affected (biased) by popular culture. Here is a report that does not even mention, make reference to, or was even composed with such thoughts in mind as “UFOs” or “aliens” (it was couched in terms of a “meteorological eccentricity”), yet it has all the hallmarks of a classic UFO report. That you DO see it in those terms is quite telling – and that was, after all, the point of my presenting it.

So this entire aside about the letter to Scientific American is off topic for this thread if you weren't presenting it as evidence for "aliens" or "UFOs" or UFOs or aliens.

 

[TjW]

All I am pointing out is why would the victims make up such a story? Further, what other plausible source for their injuries (other than some form of radiation) could there possibly be?

I don't know. It's not my claim, so it's not my problem. It's enough to know that people have made up bizarre stories and hoaxed things. We know that happens. So it needs to be ruled out by something other than "Well, I don't think they'd do that."

I don't know. It's not my claim. It isn't consistent with radiation, either.

 

[Jocce]

All I am pointing out is why would the victims make up such a story?

Yeah, I often wonder the same thing when people make up or exaggerate stories.

Further, what other plausible source for their injuries (other than some form of radiation) could there possibly be?

I know you can't think of something else. That doesn't mean it IS radiation.

So you accept on this anecdotal evidence that Cowgill was a real person and he was in Venezuela stationed as a “State Department Foreign Service Officer” (and died in Maracaibo - the letter’s place of origin). Thus the source of the letter (at least) seems genuine. But Jocce… that is an anecdotal account… so where do you draw the line? On what basis do you accept some anecdotal accounts and reject others?

Depending on the nature of the claim I will require different levels of evidence. Rember ECREE. Claiming that a US official wrote a letter to scientific american surely doesn't contradict any scientific principle and thus I am reasonably satisfied that Warner was a real person and that he in fact wrote this letter. I base that as I said on what information I can find about him on the internet. Sure, weak evidence, but it's also a very mundane claim. I can still be wrong of course and it's all fake.

So you accept that anecdotal accounts can be accepted on the weight of evidence.

I have verified to MY satisfaction that Warner is a real person and that he most likely wrote the letter.

In reference to historical documents being anecdotal:

the letter we are referring to does not stand alone but is open to corroborating evidence and verification from both external AND internal sources.

The content in the letter has not been verified by neither external, nor internal, sources.

Actually, I had researched the letter and there are a number of sites that mention it (including the one you referenced), but I was specifically concentrating on the internal evidence of verification…

Internal evidence of verification? Did you make that term up?

the fact that it was published by SciAm with the signature line meant that signature was evidence (no matter what you might think of the strength of it) of the source.

As I said, I am prepared to believe that Warner wrote it. That however, doesn't mean that the events described in the letter is a factual description of what really happened.

I stated:
“As if an analysis of internal consistency, writing style, the psychology of the writer, the historical record, etc and so on could not be undertaken in relation to the letter.”

A “formal” analysis? You mean my hypotheses (guesses if you like) need a byline such as “This has been certified as conducted by a qualified document analyst…” (or some such)?

Yes, your guesses. If you want to do a formal analysis then do it by following the scientific method and present detailed information on your methods, findings, how competing explanations can be ruled out etc.

I would have thought that stating things like SciAm would plausibly have a fact checking procedure in place - and pointing out the other clues in the letter that tend to favour veracity - would have been pretty self-evident.

You claim SciAM would plausably have a fact checking procedure in place.

I claim SciAM would probably not have a thorough fact checking procedure in place for letters from the readers.

Did you mail them that question yet?

As for “weak data”, sure, but it is the consistency of that “weak data” that adds to a weight of evidence that tends to favour veracity rather than any alternative. Sure (as you say) a hoax (a fraud) can (probably) never be ruled out - being that the occurrence was so long ago and so much information is no longer available to us - but that caveat noted, and based on what we do know, simply, the weight of evidence favours veracity.

In my opinion it does not. It seems likely that all description of symptoms are pure hearsay. It also seems plausible that the victims did not go to the hospital before all the described symptoms had appeared (i.e. after 9 days) since Warner ends byt saying "The victims are NOW in hospital". It then sounds plausible that Warner could only witness first hand the end result ("truly horrible").

Re. denying that the letter mainly contains hearsay:

I have denied nothing of the sort. In my opinion such misrepresentations of my position are not helpful. I was merely pointing out that you had confused the parts of the letter that were “hearsay” (the method of injury) with those witnessed first hand by the author (the injuries themselves).

Why can't you just answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. I repeat:

Which of the following things did Warner witness first hand and which are hearsay:

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. The swellings subsiding the next morning, leaving black blotches

7. The skin peeling off on the 9th day leaving virulent raw sores

8. The hair falling 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

12. The trees suddenly withering on the 9th day

Sure, but again you have misconstrued my meaning. I would have thought the meaning of my statement “If the letter is not genuine, then what else but a fraud could it be?” was pretty self-evident.

Fraud would be Warner deliberately lying when he describes the events. The victims could have been lying and/or exaggerated their experience. The could have forgotten details and embelished others.

“Just answer the question”? I have answered that on many occasions. He went to the hospital and saw the injuries for himself.

You have not answered my question on which of the many mentioned symptoms he witnessed first hand. Did all the symnptoms suddenly appear when he was standing next to their beds? Of course not. Answer my question above on which of the 12 "facts" he witnessed first hand.

Moreover, the fact that he specifies such things as “the ninth day” - and one can reasonably assume that the victims, given the extent of their injuries, would not have presented to hospital after “the ninth day”

Why not? They were pretty much feeling fine until the 9th day. Some black blotches but nothing else.

– meant that he probably spoke to the medical staff about their injuries and gained at least some of the information (like how long have they been here and what was the general course of the symptoms and how did they say they came by their injuries, etc and so on) that way.

And yet Warner, a rational thinker interested in science and scientific methodology whose language in relating the story is very matter of fact, doesn't mention talking to hospital staff? You're guessing again.

You keep returning to this. I can only re-iterate: All I am pointing out is why would the victims make up such a story? Further, what other plausible source for their injuries (other than some form of radiation) could there possibly be? Oh, sure, perhaps they could have ingested a radiation source…but why then the story?

Of course I keep returning to this when you don't answer the question. Show me what combination of radiation matches the symptoms.

Re. hypothesising does NOT equal evidence

I have never claimed that it did. All I am doing is making some (what I assume are) plausible assumptions concerning the veracity of the letter (and the statements contained therein) based on the evidence we do have. If you object to any of those assumptions I am sure you will point them out. However, it is entirely legitimate for me to draw those assumptions.

Yes, you have claimed that your hypothesising is evidence and you call it "Internal evidence of verification".

In reference to my purported agenda:

I think you will find that when people suggest mundane explanations I merely draw attention to the flaws in those explanations and direct the claimant back to the evidence. It is in fact the UFO debunkers who demand of me “micrometer precision and multiple, independent pieces of evidence” (not the other way round).

I think that you will find that everyone else draws attention to the flaws in your reasoning and direct you back to the evidence (which in this case are pretty much non existant).

I rarely (if ever) propose (or have proposed) an “explanation” for the cases I have been presenting.

But you claim "radiation" in this case.

Apart from the internal corroborative evidence (such as those points that I have raised and we have discussed and the pointed questions I have asked concerning that evidence – that you have not answered by the way) and the external evidence (such as the website you referenced above), then unless you have a time machine handy, that’s about all we have.

That's what I said. You don't have any corroborating evidence and will therefore never be able to verify that the description of events and injuries is correct.

No, it is you who characterise and see the letter in such terms. I never have. I merely presented it in response to claims that reports were critically affected (biased) by popular culture. Here is a report that does not even mention, make reference to, or was even composed with such thoughts in mind as “UFOs” or “aliens” (it was couched in terms of a “meteorological eccentricity”), yet it has all the hallmarks of a classic UFO report. That you DO see it in those terms is quite telling – and that was, after all, the point of my presenting it.

This whole thread is about evidence for UFOs and/or "aliens" and you present this case. Of course you then feel it is evidence for UFOs and /or "aliens".

 

[Rramjet]

I fixed the above for you (in bold).

You have then claimed that the “insufficient information” category in…

UFOs as sighted objects can ultimately be classified as:

1) Known (ie; natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) ET
2) Interdimensional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
4) Jungian consciousness
5) Conscious energy forms
6) Government conspiracy
7) add as you think of one...​

…also covers UFOs. In fact that category is specifically reserved for cases where there is not enough information to allow the ruling out of plausible mundane explanations. You would perhaps be better informed and served if your read over the definitions contained in The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) (p. 12) - which is where those three categories (Known, Insufficient information and Unknown) were sourced.

 

[carlitos]

I think you are confusing a specific example I posted for a specific purpose (showing that reports of strange phenomena pre-date "popular culture") with the "evidence" from more recent cases (that I have presented in this thread and exist generally).


..but we DO! You just don't accept them as evidence... "Photoshop!" you invariably cry!

Please post your BEST SINGLE CASE for proof of beings piloting a craft. Just one.

 

[Rramjet]

Yeah, I often wonder the same thing when people make up or exaggerate stories.

Ummm…no… I asked “Why would the victims make up such a story?” That is, can you (or anyone) think of a plausible motive for them to have done so?

I know you can't think of something else. That doesn't mean it IS radiation.

The victims described radiation affecting them. Do you know (can you quantify) the effects of radiation on human beings from all the particles currently known to physics (separately and/or in combination)? We also have another case where the symptoms were remarkably similar: The Case/Landrum case (http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm) – and in that case a UFO was observed as the source of the radiation.

Depending on the nature of the claim I will require different levels of evidence. Rember ECREE. Claiming that a US official wrote a letter to scientific american surely doesn't contradict any scientific principle and thus I am reasonably satisfied that Warner was a real person and that he in fact wrote this letter. I base that as I said on what information I can find about him on the internet. Sure, weak evidence, but it's also a very mundane claim. I can still be wrong of course and it's all fake.

You are simply misperceiving that the nature of the claim has something to do with the standard of evidence that we require. The standard of evidence we require is actually entirely determined by context. For example “I ate toast for breakfast” would normally be accepted on the anecdotal evidence (anecdotal evidence is sufficient for belief). However, if an alibi for murder rode on the veracity of that claim, perhaps we might not then be surprised at the need for forensic evidence. Thus it is the context of the claim, and not the nature of the claim, that determines the standard of evidence we require.

The content in the letter has not been verified by neither external, nor internal, sources.

No-one said it has been. I am merely pointing to a number of pieces of internal evidence that supports the veracity of the content. All you have against that is that the account is anecdotal.

Internal evidence of verification? Did you make that term up?

It is merely descriptive of the type of evidence I have been presenting, that is, evidence drawn from within the document itself.

Yes, your guesses. If you want to do a formal analysis then do it by following the scientific method and present detailed information on your methods, findings, how competing explanations can be ruled out etc.

And here was I under the impression that you thought that I (and I quote) “…demand micrometer precision and multiple, independent pieces of evidence.” - as if I did that - and that it would be a bad thing if I did! LOL. If the evidence I am presenting is not self-explanatory, perhaps you can indicate which in particular you find not so and I will attempt to clarify it for you (and where possible in the terms you require).

You claim SciAM would plausably have a fact checking procedure in place.

I claim SciAM would probably not have a thorough fact checking procedure in place for letters from the readers.

Did you mail them that question yet?

No. I merely contend that it is plausible that they would have a fact checking procedure in place before publication and implausible to suggest otherwise. If you think it plausible that SciAm would not fact check before publication, then perhaps you can reveal and clarify the reasons for taking that line of thinking? Of course the whole thing turns on your use of the term “thorough”…) but the argument has become redundant because it was the legitimacy of the source that was originally being argued over in this context and you have already accepted that Cowgill was a real person attached to the consulate at the time.

In reference to my claim:
”… simply, the weight of evidence favours veracity.”

In my opinion it does not. It seems likely that all description of symptoms are pure hearsay.

It is a logical fallacy and not within the common accepted definition to characterise hearsay evidence as false evidence.

It also seems plausible that the victims did not go to the hospital before all the described symptoms had appeared (i.e. after 9 days) since Warner ends byt saying "The victims are NOW in hospital". It then sounds plausible that Warner could only witness first hand the end result ("truly horrible").

Okay, I misread and I note your correction that the larger portions of the symptoms did not appear until after the ninth day. Then they obviously went to hospital where Warner observed the symptoms.

Why can't you just answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. I repeat:

Which of the following things did Warner witness first hand and which are hearsay:

Obviously most of the symptoms (except the black blotches and vomiting) he would have been able to observe for himself, the method of injury and property affects is of course anecdotal.

Fraud would be Warner deliberately lying when he describes the events. The victims could have been lying and/or exaggerated their experience. The could have forgotten details and embelished others.

Sure, given human nature in such situations, embellishment is possible, just as is the probable leaving out (not remembering at the time of telling) some critical detail or other. As for lying, I ask again: What plausible motive for lying could they possibly have?

Why not? They were pretty much feeling fine until the 9th day. Some black blotches but nothing else.

Sure, I have conceded that the black blotches and vomiting he would not have observed, but the other symptoms yes.

And yet Warner, a rational thinker interested in science and scientific methodology whose language in relating the story is very matter of fact, doesn't mention talking to hospital staff? You're guessing again.

Is it plausible to suppose that he did not talk to the hospital staff about the case?

Of course I keep returning to this when you don't answer the question. Show me what combination of radiation matches the symptoms.

...and I will keep returning to: The victims described radiation affecting them. Do you know (can you quantify) the effects of radiation on human beings from all the particles currently known to physics (separately and/or in combination)?

I think that you will find that everyone else draws attention to the flaws in your reasoning and direct you back to the evidence (which in this case are pretty much non existant).

How can they direct me “back to the evidence” if the evidence is “pretty much non existent”?

That's what I said. You don't have any corroborating evidence and will therefore never be able to verify that the description of events and injuries is correct.

Internal consistency and weight of evidence…

This whole thread is about evidence for UFOs and/or "aliens" and you present this case. Of course you then feel it is evidence for UFOs and /or "aliens".

No, I merely presented the case (in its most recent incantation) as evidence that plausible mundane explanations cannot be found for some reports and in response to claims that reports were biased by popular culture. I can only reiterate my position. If you don’t even believe me when I state my position, then I don’t know what else you want from me – or even how I am supposed to rationally respond to you…

 

[tomi71]

To prove something one must provide evidence. I still think that how can a person do it even it the most mundane things (if not extraordinary). It is always a social acceptance before than can be achieved. For example: It´s easy to prove that people see dreams since we all know it to be true. However to really prove it would be a very difficult job. Since if we would accept the true sceptic reasoning and attitude for example to this we surely could demand many things:

1. How can you see dreams eyes closed? Everybody know that people´s seeings are untrustworthy.
2. So you prove you are dreaming by saying that many people are experiencing the same thing? So are the abductees saying.
3. Brainscanning or EEG. Well. I still can´t understand what that does have to do with experiencing or even seeing things while you are unconscious.

If only 1 percent of population would dream there could be a lot of sceptical speculation if it´s true at all etc.

My point is. Providing evidence even in the most mundane things could be a very difficult thing if the "sceptic movement" decided to test it.

 

[Marcus]

Please post your BEST SINGLE CASE for proof of beings piloting a craft. Just one.

That would be the Rogue River case, where the aliens were piloting a blimp,

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

To prove something one must provide evidence. I still think that how can a person do it even it the most mundane things (if not extraordinary). It is always a social acceptance before than can be achieved. For example: It´s easy to prove that people see dreams since we all know it to be true. However to really prove it would be a very difficult job. Since if we would accept the true sceptic reasoning and attitude for example to this we surely could demand many things:

Only if you ignore all the research behind it.

1. How can you see dreams eyes closed? Everybody know that people´s seeings are untrustworthy.

I see you are straw manning the skeptic's position on witness testimonies. Here's a good starting place to start Research

2. So you prove you are dreaming by saying that many people are experiencing the same thing? So are the abductees saying.

Some abductees are also talking about things that happen in dreams as well such as the carpet on the floor of the craft or the Gnomes piloting the craft.

3. Brainscanning or EEG. Well. I still can´t understand what that does have to do with experiencing or even seeing things while you are unconscious.

Plenty, when we dream our brain activity changes. Rapid eye movements

If only 1 percent of population would dream there could be a lot of sceptical speculation if it´s true at all etc.

Yes, but then we do the research and the testing and blamo the Skepticism is relaxed.

My point is. Providing evidence even in the most mundane things could be a very difficult thing if the "sceptic movement" decided to test it.

Only if you strawman everything.

The facts are, Dreams are testable viewable(not the visions) but the brain functions. Aliens abducting people can be but however isn't, since it's baloney.

 

[Jocce]

Ummm…no… I asked “Why would the victims make up such a story?” That is, can you (or anyone) think of a plausible motive for them to have done so?

No, it's not possible to examine possible motivations after this long time but we all know that people can lie. You assume that they tell the truth. I keep an open mind for the possibility that they might be lying.

The victims described radiation affecting them.

No they did not. They described certain symptoms that you claim are consistent with radiation. However, they are not. Some of the symptoms are indicative of very severe doses of radiation (immediate vomiting) but other symptoms for that are absent (ie. bloody vomit and stools etc.) Some symptoms are indicative of low doses (f ex 9 days period before hair falling off). It just doesn't add up. If you want to maintain that it was radiation then present what combination of radiation posisoning matches the symptoms.

You are simply misperceiving that the nature of the claim has something to do with the standard of evidence that we require. The standard of evidence we require is actually entirely determined by context. For example “I ate toast for breakfast” would normally be accepted on the anecdotal evidence (anecdotal evidence is sufficient for belief). However, if an alibi for murder rode on the veracity of that claim, perhaps we might not then be surprised at the need for forensic evidence. Thus it is the context of the claim, and not the nature of the claim, that determines the standard of evidence we require.

This is exactly what I said. You call it context, I call it nature of the claim. English is not my native language so if context is the right term then I learned something new. Either way, this is what I meant and I'm sure you understood that from the further explanation I gave.

No-one said it has been. I am merely pointing to a number of pieces of internal evidence that supports the veracity of the content. All you have against that is that the account is anecdotal.

Internal evidence is still a term you just made up. You are guessing and try to draw conclusions from very weak data. Very unscientific.

It is merely descriptive of the type of evidence I have been presenting, that is, evidence drawn from within the document itself.

There is no evidence in the letter. The term "internal evidence" is simply misleading.

And here was I under the impression that you thought that I (and I quote) “…demand micrometer precision and multiple, independent pieces of evidence.” - as if I did that - and that it would be a bad thing if I did! LOL. If the evidence I am presenting is not self-explanatory, perhaps you can indicate which in particular you find not so and I will attempt to clarify it for you (and where possible in the terms you require).

I guess this means that you haven't done any formal analysis then. You're guessing.

No. I merely contend that it is plausible that they would have a fact checking procedure in place before publication and implausible to suggest otherwise. If you think it plausible that SciAm would not fact check before publication, then perhaps you can reveal and clarify the reasons for taking that line of thinking? Of course the whole thing turns on your use of the term “thorough”…) but the argument has become redundant because it was the legitimacy of the source that was originally being argued over in this context and you have already accepted that Cowgill was a real person attached to the consulate at the time.

Just contact them and ask.

In reference to my claim:
”… simply, the weight of evidence favours veracity.”

It is a logical fallacy and not within the common accepted definition to characterise hearsay evidence as false evidence.

Who callled it false evidence? I said most of the things in the letter is hearsay.

Okay, I misread and I note your correction that the larger portions of the symptoms did not appear until after the ninth day. Then they obviously went to hospital where Warner observed the symptoms.

He witnessed the end result.

Obviously most of the symptoms (except the black blotches and vomiting) he would have been able to observe for himself, the method of injury and property affects is of course anecdotal.

He didn't watch the hair falling off. He saw them hairless.

Sure, given human nature in such situations, embellishment is possible, just as is the probable leaving out (not remembering at the time of telling) some critical detail or other. As for lying, I ask again: What plausible motive for lying could they possibly have?

I don't know, but people do weird things. You assume they tell the truth, I am open to the possibility they might be lying.

Is it plausible to suppose that he did not talk to the hospital staff about the case?

He doesn't mention it.

...and I will keep returning to: The victims described radiation affecting them.

No they did not. They said nothing about radiation. You claim, based on hearsay, that the symptoms can only be from radiation.

Internal consistency and weight of evidence

Light feather weight. You seem to have very low standards of evidence.

No, I merely presented the case (in its most recent incantation) as evidence that plausible mundane explanations cannot be found for some reports and in response to claims that reports were biased by popular culture. I can only reiterate my position. If you don’t even believe me when I state my position, then I don’t know what else you want from me – or even how I am supposed to rationally respond to you…

If it's not evidence for UFOs or "aliens" then it's a derail of your own thread.