UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

No, it's not possible to examine possible motivations after this long time but we all know that people can lie.

My problem is of course that I cannot teach you the principles underlying behavioural science (psychology) within the limits of both my available time and this thread. My point was that people act only if they are motivated to do so. The motivation becomes the reason for action. It is possible to understand what generally motivates people in certain situations. In that context, I can see no motivation for the victims to lie about the method of injury. Perhaps you can? But if so, then you must explicate your proposed motivation for the victims lying in such a situation.

You assume that they tell the truth. I keep an open mind for the possibility that they might be lying.

I assume nothing of the kind. I am merely stating that I can see no plausible motivation for them to have lied. If such a plausible motivation can be demonstrated, then I will conclude accordingly. On the other hand you do assume they are lying. That is not an open mind at all.

No they did not. They described certain symptoms that you claim are consistent with radiation.

I think perhaps you better read the story over again: “…were awakened by a load humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house.” If that is not a description of some form of radiation then I don’t know what is. Further “It is to be noted that the brilliant light was not accompanied by a sensation of heat…”

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 leave out the black blotches turning into virulent sores, the skin peeling off, the hair falling out, no sensation of heat, property uninjured, plant life affected… all consistent with know radiation effects…

I stated:
“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.

No, you stated (exactly and in full):
“Depending on the nature of the claim I will require different levels of evidence.”

You call it context, I call it nature of the claim.

The two are entirely different concepts. Ordinary, extraordinary (big, small, blue, smelly, etc) are all natures of things. The context is something that nature might be placed into. An ordinary claim in the context of a casual conversation might be accepted on mere anecdotal evidence, but placed in the context of a murder investigation perhaps only forensic evidence will do.

English is not my native language so if context is the right term then I learned something new.

I am gratified that you may have.

Either way, this is what I meant and I'm sure you understood that from the further explanation I gave.

The rest of your “explanation” merely states that you accept that Cowgill was a real person and he wrote the letter. That in no way “explains” you initial statement concerning the nature of a claim determining your standard of evidence.

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

Ummm… no, it is a well known principle of, and necessary to, scientific methodology. Within statistics for example we can have internal and external consistency. Anyway, if you don’t believe me just type in “internal justification” into your search engine and observe the results.

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

You merely do not understand the term. That does not mean it is illegitimate. As I stated, type “internal justification” (or even “internal evidence definition”) into your search engine (and you might even learn something else!)

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

You really need to understand internal justification and evidence.

Just contact them and ask.

No need. If you can demonstrate the veracity of your claim that SciAm does not have a fact checking procedure in place I will be satisfied.

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

You claim hearsay therefore it is not true (“false” I believe is a term that may be substituted for “not true”).

He witnessed the end result.

Sure, the hair falling out, the virulent sores, their general “truly horrible” appearance…

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

!(They were hairless not because their hair fell out?)

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.

I assume nothing of the sort. I am merely pointing out that I can see no plausible motivation for them to lie. YOU on the other hand DO assume they are lying.

He doesn't mention it.

A representative of the US government visits a local hospital and does not talk to any of the staff? Yeah, right…

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

: “…were awakened by a load humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house.” If that is not a description of some form of radiation then I don’t know what is. Further “It is to be noted that the brilliant light was not accompanied by a sensation of heat…”

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

Higher than yours it seems because you are discounting the story based merely on the fact that it is an anecdotal account. At least I can point to some evidence that favours veracity. All you have against that is: “It’s hearsay!”.

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

However you want to view it is fine with me. I have stated my reasons for presenting the case. There is nothing more I can add to that.

But what happened to the discussion of this case:

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

And this one:

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)

Discussion on those cases I so recently presented was not concluded - in fact it barely got started when the UFO debunkers suddenly abandoned the conversation – why is that? Why the concentration now on this (as you would term it) “very weak” case? That was presented as an aside to the main game… to make a point within the context of the discussion of the cases above… The Venezuela incident is essentially unimportant in comparison to those cases. Perhaps we can return to them?

Especially in consideration that the "Hair of the Alien" case was presented as a counter to the "no scientifically verified evidence" claim...

 

[wollery]

My problem is of course that I cannot teach you the principles underlying behavioural science (psychology) within the limits of both my available time and this thread. My point was that people act only if they are motivated to do so. The motivation becomes the reason for action. It is possible to understand what generally motivates people in certain situations. In that context, I can see no motivation for the victims to lie about the method of injury. Perhaps you can? But if so, then you must explicate your proposed motivation for the victims lying in such a situation.

They became ill whilst doing something highly illegal.

There you go, that's a very good motivation for making up a fantastic story to explain their injuries.

 

[Jocce]

But what happened to the discussion of this case:

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

And this one:

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)

Discussion on those cases I so recently presented was not concluded - in fact it barely got started when the UFO debunkers suddenly abandoned the conversation – why is that?

Why do you feel the need to present a new case each time the weaknesses in your argumentation are exposed?

Why the concentration now on this (as you would term it) “very weak” case? That was presented as an aside to the main game… to make a point within the context of the discussion of the cases above… The Venezuela incident is essentially unimportant in comparison to those cases. Perhaps we can return to them?

I've said many times that we should drop this case because it doesn't lead anywhere. So that is fine by me. I'll look at them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But what happened to the discussion of this case:

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

And this one:

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)

Discussion on those cases I so recently presented was not concluded - in fact it barely got started when the UFO debunkers suddenly abandoned the conversation – why is that? Why the concentration now on this (as you would term it) “very weak” case? That was presented as an aside to the main game… to make a point within the context of the discussion of the cases above… The Venezuela incident is essentially unimportant in comparison to those cases. Perhaps we can return to them?

Especially in consideration that the "Hair of the Alien" case was presented as a counter to the "no scientifically verified evidence" claim...

The first was unidentified, unless you have evidence that it is some particular thing? Your process of elimination of all mundane explanations is fatally flawed so since you can't eliminate all mundane explanations, what do you have evidence for?

The second was a human hair. Is it going to be evidence of UFOs or of "aliens"?

You seemed to have abandoned them after you had no evidence of the first being of any particular thing and couldn't eliminate all mundane explanations other than the "Rramjet Seven" and the second was admitted to be a human hair. Then you seemed to go off topic with another 120 year old anecdote that you said you weren't presenting as evidence for "aliens" or UFOs.

 

[Rramjet]

They became ill whilst doing something highly illegal.

There you go, that's a very good motivation for making up a fantastic story to explain their injuries.

Sorry but that is not a plausibly delineated motivation for them lying about how they became ill, for it begs the question: What could possibly have been a “highly illegal” activity in 1886 Venezuela that could have caused the observed symptoms? Moreover, legal or illegal, we are looking for any activity - other than some form of radiation (for we know radiation can cause the symptoms observed) - that could cause the victim’s symptoms.

Why do you feel the need to present a new case each time the weaknesses in your argumentation are exposed?

Actually I presented the American West case back on the 6th of Nov, well prior to any mention of the Venezuela case. Then, on the 17th Nov. I posted a list of 18 case studies (which included the Venezuela case, but did not highlight it in any way). It was then UFO debunkers who then leapt onto that case, singling it out for special attention. Then on 4th Dec., in response to some general comments concerning the lack of verified scientific evidence I presented the Hair of the Alien case.

I am happy to continue to discuss the Venezuela case, I was merely pointing out that it seemed to me that the American West and Hair of the Alien cases were not being discussed by the UFO debunkers, perhaps, in my opinion, because the UFO debunkers thought they could not argue effectively against those cases and were concentrating inordinately on an inherently “weak” case to distract from that.

I've said many times that we should drop this case because it doesn't lead anywhere. So that is fine by me. I'll look at them.

Doesn’t lead anywhere? It constitutes evidence for a number of things including that such reporting of anomalous phenomena was going on well before it became “popular” to do so. It also echoes the Cash Landrum case over 100 years later, where a UFO was seen to be the source of the radiation.

In reference to the American West case:

The first was unidentified, unless you have evidence that it is some particular thing? Your process of elimination of all mundane explanations is fatally flawed so since you can't eliminate all mundane explanations, what do you have evidence for?

I have no evidence that it was any particular thing but a UFO and that the characteristics of that UFO defy plausible mundane explanation. To conclude that I don’t have to eliminate all mundane explanations – only the plausible ones.

In reference to the Hair of the Alien case:

The second was a human hair. Is it going to be evidence of UFOs or of "aliens"?

No, once again you leap to an erroneous conclusion that is not based in the evidence. The mtDNA in the hair was human, but it was in a combination that is just not seen in nature. That means the hair was “alien”.

You seemed to have abandoned them after you had no evidence of the first being of any particular thing and couldn't eliminate all mundane explanations other than the "Rramjet Seven" and the second was admitted to be a human hair. Then you seemed to go off topic with another 120 year old anecdote that you said you weren't presenting as evidence for "aliens" or UFOs.

LOL. The late great Phillip Klass would be proud of you RoboT. You have learned his lessons well. I’ll simply let your statements on the matter stand without further comment and let the readers judge the veracity of them for themselves.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

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).

Here's the thing, Polygraphs are not reliable no court of law uses them due to the unreliable nature of them. Of course when believers use them and get the wrong results they usually rubbish the results saying such as, "he wasn't in a trance like state like he was when he was abducted" Which was uttered by the Lady in the documentary.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have no evidence that it was any particular thing but a UFO and that the characteristics of that UFO defy plausible mundane explanation. To conclude that I don’t have to eliminate all mundane explanations – only the plausible ones.

No, you are incorrect. Why do you believe that you only have to eliminate the plausible ones? It remains a UFO using the definition of UFO that everyone but you uses. Remember your error in using your "process" in the NASA video case and then having to go back and admit that it could have been "debri^WP"?

In reference to the Hair of the Alien case:

No, once again you leap to an erroneous conclusion that is not based in the evidence. The mtDNA in the hair was human, but it was in a combination that is just not seen in nature. That means the hair was “alien”.

Nope, I'll be charitable and just refer to it as "disingenuous". Here's a quote from your first link:

Instead, though human, the hair showed five distinctive DNA markers that are characteristic of a rare sub-group of the Chinese Mongoloid racial type.

I bolded the relevant parts for your ease of use and as a memory aid in the future. You simply made up your belief that it doesn't appear in nature. So, is the extraordinary anecdote and the ordinary human hair evidence of "aliens" or of UFOs?

LOL. The late great Phillip Klass would be proud of you RoboT. You have learned his lessons well. I’ll simply let your statements on the matter stand without further comment and let the readers judge the veracity of them for themselves.

Fortunately, you don't have a choice in the matter. My statements, as well as yours, are there for the readers to judge. LOL indeed!

So, you still haven't been able to overcome the fatal flaws in your arguments?

 

[TjW]

In reference to the Hair of the Alien case:

No, once again you leap to an erroneous conclusion that is not based in the evidence. The mtDNA in the hair was human, but it was in a combination that is just not seen in nature. That means the hair was “alien”.

Or the hair was Dynel, and the only human DNA came from contamination during the collection or the preparation of the sample.

There's any number of ways to get bad results from PCR.

 

[carlitos]

What's a "UFO Debunker?"

 

[R.A.F.]

Here's the thing, Polygraphs are not reliable no court of law uses them due to the unreliable nature of them.

Rramjet...do you accept that the polygraph is not accurate?...yes or no?

 

[R.A.F.]

...

I can see no plausible motivation for them to have lied. If such a plausible motivation can be demonstrated, then I will conclude accordingly.[/quote]

So because you can't see it, it doesn't exist? Lets just say that we don't necessarily agree on what is plausible and what is not...ok??

Also, why do you think that we have any burden of proving motive?? Why don't you prove that they didn't have a motive for lying??

..or better yet, why don't you prove that they weren't simply mistaken???

 

[Rramjet]

Here's the thing, Polygraphs are not reliable no court of law uses them due to the unreliable nature of them. Of course when believers use them and get the wrong results they usually rubbish the results saying such as, "he wasn't in a trance like state like he was when he was abducted" Which was uttered by the Lady in the documentary.

LOL. When UFO debunkers consider polygraphs they contend that if someone fails a test - then that is irrefutable evidence for them lying, committing a fraud, etc, and so on (consider for example the arguments surrounding the Walton case where he initially failed a polygraph – but later passed), but when someone actually passes a test, then it is the polygraph that is unreliable!

In fact I tend to agree with you – polygraphs (and the use of hypnotism for example) are inherently unreliable as evidence – however in true UFO debunker fashion you seem to have turned what actually occurs in the real world on its head!

Oh, and BTW, Khoury passed the polygraph… so if the “Lady” in the video uttered that phrase, then it could not have had the meaning you place it!

I stated:
I have no evidence that it was any particular thing but a UFO and that the characteristics of that UFO defy plausible mundane explanation. To conclude that I don’t have to eliminate all mundane explanations – only the plausible ones.

No, you are incorrect. Why do you believe that you only have to eliminate the plausible ones?

Oh so perhaps you believe the American West UFO could have been (for example) page 347 from War and Peace? Or perhaps you think it was a telephone? Or my great aunt Mary? Perhaps it was my left big toe? I think though you may simply misunderstand what the process of elimination entails – and perhaps then I misstated in the above because (once again) I incorrectly assumed a certain knowledge among the readership... All these implausible things are eliminated by the process, it is just that, on logical and practical grounds, we do not feel it necessary to list that they have been eliminated. That is it is not logical to assume “my left big toe” as a cause and it would be impractical besides to list all such illogical considerations.

No It remains a UFO using the definition of UFO that everyone but you uses.

How is it that you don’t seem to know my position even after the many thousands of posts I have made to this thread? It would seem implausible that you don’t. So how then are we to characterise such a statement from you? …Unless of course you believe that the mere statement of an unfounded assertion somehow magically confers a veracity on that assertion that overrides all past evidence to the contrary?

Remember your error in using your "process" in the NASA video case and then having to go back and admit that it could have been "debriWP"?

There was of course no such “error” - but that aside, do you really believe that I should be infallible? Or perhaps that every argument I have ever put in the thousands of posts I have made to this thread should have been infallible also?

Nope, I'll be charitable and just refer to it as "disingenuous". Here's a quote from your first link:

Sure, and I could just as easily take quotes of yours out of their context to show a range of things about your position also. That does (and would not) not mean that either yours or my own original or subsequent statements lacked veracity.

I bolded the relevant parts for your ease of use and as a memory aid in the future.

Why thank you – I would add that your emphasising certain parts in that way serves also to change my original meaning – but of course you know that already – which is perhaps another reason why you do it?

You simply made up your belief that it doesn't appear in nature.

But this is a merely an unfounded assertion (and contrary to the evidence I might add). Am I to take it as evidence that you believe that the mere statement of an unfounded assertion somehow magically confers veracity on it?

So, is the extraordinary anecdote and the ordinary human hair evidence of "aliens" or of UFOs?

You will have to explain what on earth an “extraordinary anecdote” might be - and of course your denial of the evidence concerning the nature of hair does not surprise me in the least.

Fortunately, you don't have a choice in the matter. My statements, as well as yours, are there for the readers to judge. LOL indeed!

Leaving out the distortions, if you keep repeating the statements I have made to you back at me in this way - then you might find we actually come to an agreement!

So, you still haven't been able to overcome the fatal flaws in your arguments?

You have yet to demonstrate there are any “fatal flaws”... Or am I to simply take it as further evidence that you believe that the mere statement of an unfounded assertion somehow magically confers veracity on that statement?

Or the hair was Dynel, and the only human DNA came from contamination during the collection or the preparation of the sample.

There's any number of ways to get bad results from PCR.

Sure, contamination is possible – but contamination with such a combination of extremely rare mtDNA could have come from..?

What's a "UFO Debunker?"

Debunk: “To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debunk)

So do you object to my use of the term?

Rramjet...do you accept that the polygraph is not accurate?...yes or no?

I have no idea whether the polygraph was accurate or not. It might have been, it might not have been. I therefore consider it as perhaps indicative but ultimately unreliable, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[wollery]

Sorry but that is not a plausibly delineated motivation for them lying about how they became ill, for it begs the question: What could possibly have been a “highly illegal” activity in 1886 Venezuela that could have caused the observed symptoms? Moreover, legal or illegal, we are looking for any activity - other than some form of radiation (for we know radiation can cause the symptoms observed) - that could cause the victim’s symptoms.

Heavy metal toxicity can cause all of those symptoms. Did you know that Venezuela is rich in Gold, Bauxite, and several other minerals, including Selenium. Excessive exposure to some of these minerals can lead to all of the listed symptoms that they exhibited.

So maybe they were trying to steal something from a factory or warehouse that stored such materials and became exposed to high levels of toxic minerals.

Wild speculation, but it's possible, and also provides a motivation for creating a fabulous tale.

 

[Marcus]

What's a "UFO Debunker?"

It's a term which brings comfort to those who desire to believe that "UFO" and "alien" are synonymous.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I stated:
I have no evidence that it was any particular thing but a UFO and that the characteristics of that UFO defy plausible mundane explanation. To conclude that I don’t have to eliminate all mundane explanations – only the plausible ones.

Oh so perhaps you believe the American West UFO could have been (for example) page 347 from War and Peace? Or perhaps you think it was a telephone? Or my great aunt Mary? Perhaps it was my left big toe? I think though you may simply misunderstand what the process of elimination entails – and perhaps then I misstated in the above because (once again) I incorrectly assumed a certain knowledge among the readership... All these implausible things are eliminated by the process, it is just that, on logical and practical grounds, we do not feel it necessary to list that they have been eliminated. That is it is not logical to assume “my left big toe” as a cause and it would be impractical besides to list all such illogical considerations.

Yes, everyone has seen you eliminate the "Rramjet Seven". What nobody has seen is you eliminating all mundane explanations nor have you given up the secret to the process. You've simply claimed that it worked but have yet to show evidence that it does. You've shown quite the opposite, in fact. The level of knowledge you've incorretly assumed then, is your own.

How is it that you don’t seem to know my position even after the many thousands of posts I have made to this thread? It would seem implausible that you don’t. So how then are we to characterise such a statement from you? …Unless of course you believe that the mere statement of an unfounded assertion somehow magically confers a veracity on that assertion that overrides all past evidence to the contrary?

Your position has been quite clear. I feel I've been instrumental in the dramatic reduction in your attempts to switch the burden of proof, for example.

There was of course no such “error” - but that aside, do you really believe that I should be infallible? Or perhaps that every argument I have ever put in the thousands of posts I have made to this thread should have been infallible also?

Yes, there was such an error. I described it for you and your posts are there for all to see. You gleefully claim to have an iterative process that eliminates all mundane explanations and then the evidence shows that your process doesn't work. That is a fatal flaw. To answer your second question, I credit you with being far from infallible, doubly so for your arguments in this thread.

Sure, and I could just as easily take quotes of yours out of their context to show a range of things about your position also. That does (and would not) not mean that either yours or my own original or subsequent statements lacked veracity.

You are the one who brought up the case and claimed that the hair wasn't found in nature as evidence for... well, you never would actually commit to anything. It was more of your flinging things against the wall to see what stuck. But you were overly enthusiastic about it in your rush to claim evidence of... something. And were wrong. Admit you were wrong and move on.

Why thank you – I would add that your emphasising certain parts in that way serves also to change my original meaning – but of course you know that already – which is perhaps another reason why you do it?

No, emphasizing certain parts showed how disingenuous you were in claiming the hair wasn't found in nature so that you could claim it was evidence of... something. Admit it and move on.

But this is a merely an unfounded assertion (and contrary to the evidence I might add). Am I to take it as evidence that you believe that the mere statement of an unfounded assertion somehow magically confers veracity on it?

No, I give no veracity to your unfounded assertions.

You will have to explain what on earth an “extraordinary anecdote” might be - and of course your denial of the evidence concerning the nature of hair does not surprise me in the least.

That would be an anecdote of an extraordinary occurrence. Pretty typical English sentence, easily understood by people who "I assume possess a certain level of knowledge". Now, answer the question. What were you trying to show the human hair and extraordinary anecdote to be evidence of?

Leaving out the distortions, if you keep repeating the statements I have made to you back at me in this way - then you might find we actually come to an agreement!

Stop distorting things and I'll be glad to leave them out of my direct quotes of you.

You have yet to demonstrate there are any “fatal flaws”... Or am I to simply take it as further evidence that you believe that the mere statement of an unfounded assertion somehow magically confers veracity on that statement?

Other than the fatal flaws I've pointed out to you numerous times. And no, I still don't give any veracity to your unfounded assertions.

Sure, contamination is possible – but contamination with such a combination of extremely rare mtDNA could have come from..?

So, have you definitely eliminated all mundane explanations using your "process"?

 

[TjW]

Or the hair was Dynel, and the only human DNA came from contamination during the collection or the preparation of the sample.

There's any number of ways to get bad results from PCR.

Sure, contamination is possible – but contamination with such a combination of extremely rare mtDNA could have come from..?

I have no idea, nor is it necessary for me to know. A competent investigation would do a chemical investigation of the filament to show from structure and chemical composition that it was, in fact, hair.
A competent investigation would do a quantitative PCR (like the techniques used to monitor viral loads for HIV patients) to get an idea of how much DNA was in the sample. A competent investigation would have taken a mouth swab from the wife to rule her out. A competent investigation might have wondered if the wife (or girlfriend) wore wigs.

Those are just a few of the things I can think of, and I don't consider myself to be a competent investigator.

But the key thing is, a competent investigation wouldn't be satisfied with an anomaly. That's really just saying "Gee, I dunno, but isn't it weird?"

 

[Rramjet]

Heavy metal toxicity can cause all of those symptoms. Did you know that Venezuela is rich in Gold, Bauxite, and several other minerals, including Selenium. Excessive exposure to some of these minerals can lead to all of the listed symptoms that they exhibited.

So maybe they were trying to steal something from a factory or warehouse that stored such materials and became exposed to high levels of toxic minerals.

Wild speculation, but it's possible, and also provides a motivation for creating a fabulous tale.

There is absolutely no historical evidence of any such mining in or around Maracaibo. The only historical activity would be oil (http://www.fundinguniverse.com/comp...ute;LEOS-DE-VENEZUELA-SA-Company-History.html) and if such heavy metal toxicity as you propose could result from the oil industry, then the problem would be global and there would have been many more cases on a global scale. So there is absolutely no need for “wild speculation”, we only need to examine the evidence.

Yes, everyone has seen you eliminate the "Rramjet Seven". What nobody has seen is you eliminating all mundane explanations nor have you given up the secret to the process. You've simply claimed that it worked but have yet to show evidence that it does. You've shown quite the opposite, in fact.

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

Characteristics of the observed object: "At 30,000 feet", “…dark, cigar shaped object between 300 and 500 feet in length”, “…there's a strobe that starts … going on counter- clockwise…"

Matching characteristics of known objects: (nothing known matches the observed characteristics).

You are the one who brought up the case and claimed that the hair wasn't found in nature as evidence for... well, you never would actually commit to anything.

I do not pretend to have definitive answers for the cases I am presenting. They are true mysteries because the characteristics of those cases defy mundane explanation.

It was more of your flinging things against the wall to see what stuck.

I am providing evidence for UFOs and ‘aliens”, just as I stated I would in my OP.

No, emphasizing certain parts showed how disingenuous you were in claiming the hair wasn't found in nature so that you could claim it was evidence of... something. Admit it and move on.

“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)

That would be an anecdote of an extraordinary occurrence. Pretty typical English sentence, easily understood by people who "I assume possess a certain level of knowledge". Now, answer the question. What were you trying to show the human hair and extraordinary anecdote to be evidence of?

Right, so then at last you provide us with an example of an “extraordinary anecdote”. As anecdotes can be evidence, then Sagan’s “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE: A phrase which I believe to be pure nonsense by the way) can be fulfilled by “extraordinary anecdotes”! Then, since you do believe in ECREE, then your “extraordinary anecdote” is evidence of the claim that the hair was not human.

Of course the evidence is however scientific as the anomalous nature of it was discovered under DNA analysis.

I stated:
“You have yet to demonstrate there are any “fatal flaws”…”

Other than the fatal flaws I've pointed out to you numerous times. And no, I still don't give any veracity to your unfounded assertions.

I stated “You have yet to demonstrate there are any “fatal flaws”…. Your mere statement of the unfounded assertion that you have does not somehow magically confer veracity on that statement (though I could have sworn I have pointed that out to you…)

So, have you definitely eliminated all mundane explanations using your "process"?

“Definitely”? …and my “process”? Nooo … neither characterisation is a correct representation my position. I would (and have) never contended “definitely” in that regard – and I am flattered that you regard my abilities so highly as to imagine that I might have invented the process of elimination, but with regret I must inform you that it was not I who originally formalised it.

I have no idea, nor is it necessary for me to know.

But you claimed that there could have been contamination of the hair sample. How could you claim that if you have no idea if this is even possible?

A competent investigation would do a chemical investigation of the filament to show from structure and chemical composition that it was, in fact, hair.

Yeah right… the biochemists conducting the DNA analysis could not recognise a hair… but perhaps the “filament” you are contemplating has a root also?

A competent investigation would do a quantitative PCR (like the techniques used to monitor viral loads for HIV patients) to get an idea of how much DNA was in the sample.

How much? Oh no! The DNA seems to have fallen off the sample… someone, anyone, quick …help look for it! …wait …is that it? … down there …Oh Bob (sigh) …you seem to have stepped on it…

A competent investigation would have taken a mouth swab from the wife to rule her out.

The fact that there was two different kinds of mtDNA in the sample pretty much rules everyone out TjW.

A competent investigation might have wondered if the wife (or girlfriend) wore wigs

Yes, many wigs are of human hair, however that still does not explain the two different mtDNA results from the shaft and the root.

Those are just a few of the things I can think of, and I don't consider myself to be a competent investigator.

Yes, you can think of those things, but you have to ask if they are plausible things to think of and also if there are not plausible answers to your cogitations in that regard.

But the key thing is, a competent investigation wouldn't be satisfied with an anomaly. That's really just saying "Gee, I dunno, but isn't it weird?"

Say for example you are being paid to analyse the hair sample and report the results. Where is the income to support you in further analysis if you are not “satisfied” with the anomaly? Sure there results were ”weird”, but many people have been trying to point that out to the world. Just because it is weird, does not mean we have the answer to it. That is the meaning of anomaly. What we have here is an anomaly that defies plausible mundane explanation and it is an anomaly that has been scientifically verified as anomalous. Scientifically verified evidence has been called for by the UFO debunkers. Here then, in the "Hair of the Alien" case, is an example of that very thing.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

LOL. When UFO debunkers consider polygraphs they contend that if someone fails a test - then that is irrefutable evidence for them lying, committing a fraud, etc, and so on (consider for example the arguments surrounding the Walton case where he initially failed a polygraph – but later passed), but when someone actually passes a test, then it is the polygraph that is unreliable!

More "unfounded assertions"? I can't be surprised but I do find it funny that you have a my quote in full and yet decide to make a strawman up instead of replying to my quote. I'll say it again my argument is that POLYGRAPHS ARE UNRELIABLE, Regardless of the outcome.

In fact I tend to agree with you – polygraphs (and the use of hypnotism for example) are inherently unreliable as evidence – however in true UFO debunker fashion you seem to have turned what actually occurs in the real world on its head!

What are you going about? First you straw man my argument about polygraphs, then you agree with me on Polygraphs. Then you say I'm turning something that occurs in the real world on it's head.

I guess my first question is, What am I turning on it head? Polygraphs?

Oh, and BTW, Khoury passed the polygraph… so if the “Lady” in the video uttered that phrase, then it could not have had the meaning you place it!

Who? I'm talking about the first guy to go under the polygraph. I don't think it's a leap, saying, that you just forgot the first 2/3 of that documentary?

 

[R.A.F.]

I have no idea whether the polygraph was accurate or not.

Well, you should. It is generally accepted that the polygraph simply is not accurate. The most famous recent case involving a top secret security clearance. A "spy" who lied on numerous polygraph tests and was never "caught" by it.

It might have been, it might not have been. I therefore consider it as perhaps indicative but ultimately unreliable, nothing more, nothing less.

I asked a "yes or no" question, but for some reason you can't seem to reply with a "yes or no".

Anyone who decides to "hitch" their UFO "wagon" to the results of a polygraph test only demonstrates their ignorance regarding the subject.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“LOL. When UFO debunkers consider polygraphs they contend that if someone fails a test - then that is irrefutable evidence for them lying, committing a fraud, etc, and so on (consider for example the arguments surrounding the Walton case where he initially failed a polygraph – but later passed), but when someone actually passes a test, then it is the polygraph that is unreliable!”

More "unfounded assertions"?

Not at all, see here for example (http://www.nicap.org/klassvufo.htm).

I can't be surprised but I do find it funny that you have a my quote in full and yet decide to make a strawman up instead of replying to my quote.

Not a “strawman”. A straw-man argument is ”an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-man_argument). Clearly I have not misrepresented your position – in fact I ultimately agreed with you.

I'll say it again my argument is that POLYGRAPHS ARE UNRELIABLE, Regardless of the outcome.

You cannot have been unaware of the following little exchange surely?

Rramjet...do you accept that the polygraph is not accurate?...yes or no?

I have no idea whether the polygraph was accurate or not. It might have been, it might not have been. I therefore consider it as perhaps indicative but ultimately unreliable, nothing more, nothing less.

What are you going about? First you straw man my argument about polygraphs, then you agree with me on Polygraphs. Then you say I'm turning something that occurs in the real world on it's head.

That is what happens when you mischaracterise my position Frying D. You were so concentrated on building me a “strawman” for my first statement (see the head of this post) that you missed that it was actually a description of the real world of UFO debunking (perhaps originally unfounded but since supported). Then when I agreed with your statements concerning the unreliability of polygraphs you were simply no longer able to reconcile the two.

I’d also like you to think for a minute. What if I was a UFO debunker in this thread and Khoury had failed the polygraph and I had pointed that out in argument against his and Rramjet’s position? Would you then have proposed and posted the same objection to polygraphs in this thread against that UFO debunker position?

I guess my first question is, What am I turning on it head? Polygraphs?

No, you accused UFO believers of UFO debunker behaviour. That is a failed polygraph is presented as proof of untruth in a story (a la the Walton case) while a passed polygraph is argued away describing the inherent unreliability of polygraphs. So your accusation “turns” things on their head.

Who? I'm talking about the first guy to go under the polygraph. I don't think it's a leap, saying, that you just forgot the first 2/3 of that documentary?

We were specifically discussing the Hair of the Alien case. If you now want to bring in another case (from earlier in the Doco.) and NOW want to use a failed polygraph of evidence of anything then…(shrugs) …then see above. However the fact that the lady attempted to brush off the failed test with some nonsense or other, then that is a point in your favour.

Perhaps we can then resolve this disagreement between us by observing that we are indeed in agreement that polygraphs are inherently unreliable and that perhaps neither of us should “generalise” the behaviour of some individuals to cover a whole class of people (believers and debunkers alike). Although I would add that many UFO debunkers do seem to take on board much of the late P. Klass’ methodology and do seem to treat his pronouncements on the matter of UFOs pretty much as gospel…


I stated:
”I have no idea whether the polygraph was accurate or not.”

Well, you should. It is generally accepted that the polygraph simply is not accurate. The most famous recent case involving a top secret security clearance. A "spy" who lied on numerous polygraph tests and was never "caught" by it.

You are committing a logical fallacy here. Just because something is unreliable does not mean it cannot be accurate. A broken clock is unreliable, yet it is assuredly accurate, without fail, twice a day.

I asked a "yes or no" question, but for some reason you can't seem to reply with a "yes or no".

If the answer to your question does not lend itself to a “yes or no” answer, then I am not going to reply with a “yes or no”. Consider: If I answered your question (“Do you accept that the polygraph is not accurate”?) with a “no”, because clearly a polygraph can be accurate – then you would have assumed that I believed polygraphs to be reliable and would most likely have launched into a spiel concerning the unreliability of polygraphs and probably also commenting on my (assumed) naivety in believing them to be reliable. That is why I did not simply answer “no” to your question. Even as it was you attempted to do the very thing I just mentioned.

Anyone who decides to "hitch" their UFO "wagon" to the results of a polygraph test only demonstrates their ignorance regarding the subject.

If only things were as simple and “black and white” as you make out you might have a point. The difficulty we have with polygraphs is not whether they are accurate or not – clearly they can be – but in being able to discern when they are and when they are not. We must then draw on other factors as determinants of lying. That is we must consider the “weight of evidence’ in that regard. If we have only a polygraph to go on, then we would be unwise to draw firm conclusions merely on that basis. We need to consider all the factors involved - not only those surrounding the context of a particular polygraph test itself – but the broader circumstances of the case and the person taking the test also. It is an extremely complex issue that does not lend itself to “black and white” or “yes or no” statements.