On the face of it that seems like a perfectly reasonable objection.
Perhaps that is because it
is a
“reasonable” objection..?
However, you are suggesting that in a country rich in mineral resources no such minerals, or their products could move from one part of that country to another, say by trade.
Furthermore your radiation hypothesis suffers from the problem that some of the symptoms are typical of low dose exposure, whilst others are typical of high dose exposure, and unless you know of a way for someone to suffer from both low and high dose exposure at the same time then your hypothesis has a serious problem.
The heavy metal toxicity hypothesis does not suffer from the same problem. Of course, no single heavy metal can produce all of the symptoms, but any company that stores chemicals or minerals of one type will most likely store chemicals or minerals of several types, so that exposure to more than one such heavy metal is quite possible in one location.
LOL. This is the UFO debunker “blimp defence” all over again. You are taking advantage of a logical paradox. In an infinite universe
anything is possible, paradoxically however, it is practically impossible to prove that one of those possibilities has
not occurred – no matter how unlikely. The best we can
ever do is make such decisions based on the
plausibility of occurrence.
What you also seem to fail to grasp is that my original objection:
…has weight against your above argument too. That is, it is implausible that such heavy metals would be stored in or around Maricaibo in 1886 – simply because such metals as you mention are largely used in and are by products of certain mining operations of a kind that simply did not exist in or around Maracaibo - or even at the time, globally – and even if they did, if such were considered valuable enough to support an “illegal” activity by the general citizenry, then again, this would have been a global problem and we should have seen many more cases.
As for the your objection to “radiation” – clearly the victims described some form of radiation (brilliant light without heat accompanied by a humming sound) as the source of their injury. My question to you would be: Do you know (or can you describe) the effects of radiation “poisoning” for all of the particles known to physics (either singly or in combination)? We also have another case (Cash/Landrum: (
http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)) where the symptoms were remarkably similar and where a UFO
was observed as the source of a remarkably similar type of radiation.
The main point is that you stated that there was no known source other than radiation that could cause all of these symptoms, and that there was no plausible reason for them to lie about the source of their sickness. I provided both.
If I stated that it was a mistake. I have always at least attempted to maintain that there is no other
plausible source. You have merely demonstrated an extremely unlikely
possibility (bordering on, if not outright, impossible). What is required is
plausibility in any alternative to radiation.
In reference to the (universally accepted - except in UFO debunker world) process of elimination:
This method still suffers from the problem that in order for you to eliminate all possible known explanations you must have knowledge of all possible explanations. You have been shown, over and over again, that you do not have such knowledge. Neither do we.
Not only do you not seem to have grasped the
power of the process of elimination to do
precisely as you imply (to rule out all
potential mundane and illogical explanations), but you are also taking advantage linguistic sleight of hand. If an explanation were
possible, then
by definition it cannot be ruled out. However, if there
was a
possible explanation, then you must show that it is also a
plausible explanation (as distinct from a mere possibility in an infinite universe).
So the fact that some UFOs lack a mundane explanation does not mean that no such explanation exists, merely that, if such an explanation does exist, we haven't been able to think of it.
This statement presupposes first that the process of elimination is unable to be successfully applied and second that it is somehow logical to “explain” one unknown (UFO) in terms of another unknown (UFMO*). This is again a linguistic sleight of hand. (* Unidentified Flying Mundane Object)
That isn't to say that all UFOs necessarily have a mundane explanation. But it does mean that simply eliminating all the mundane explanations that we can come up with doesn't go far enough. You need to provide a positive explanation of what UFOs are, rather than eliminate what they aren't.
This merely turns scientific methodology on its head. We do not know what “ball lighting” is for example. Do we then suppose it does not exist merely because we cannot explain it? Do we cease hypothesising and exploring merely because we cannot explain it? Do we require people who study ball lighting to come up with a “positive explanation” for it before we accept it as real phenomenon? The history of science is replete with examples of things that we could not initially “positively explain”, yet by diligence and scientific analysis (in which the process of elimination plays a critical and pivotal role) we were able to come to an understanding.
In reference to the Hair of the Alien case:
I don't have to know who contaminated the sample or how to know that it's possible. PCR is vulnerable to contamination.
Again, in an infinite universe
anything is “possible”, but you need to demonstrate that the mere “possibility” is
plausible as an explanation. Moreover, throwing unfounded assertions at something does not constitute an explanation – anyone can do that.
There's no reason to suppose a biochemist would have any more idea than anyone else as to how to differentiate a human hair from a fiber used in a wig.
I already pointed out that many wigs are composed of human hair. However, even if the hair in question
did originate from a wig, then you
still have to explain the results of analysis.
Is there any evidence a biochemist was involved at all? Molecular biologists design PCR tests, lab techs and microbiologists routinely perform them.
You mean apart from the photographs and reports produced? What you are suggesting of course is that the whole thing is some sort of elaborate hoax. While of course there is always that possibility, do you really think that is a
plausible explanation for the case?
A forensic specialist would probably be able to differentiate a human hair from something else, but what would it matter? If it didn't look like a human hair, that would be just one more anomaly, right?
Patently it
did “look like a human hair”.
Is there any answer you could get that couldn't be spun to make it mysterious and strange?
I am not sure I understand you objection here. The evidence is the evidence. Are you contending that the finding of different and rare types of mtDNA in the root and shaft respectively is
not “mysterious and strange”?
Each PCR test has starter sequences in it, so that it will only amplify the DNA type of interest. If you're identifying microorganisms, you don't want to amplify human DNA , and vice versa.
The quantitative tests can literally show a result from a single DNA strand. Think about that for a moment.
A. Single. Strand.
It is incredibly sensitive, and therefore incredibly subject to contamination. There are whole books devoted to troubleshooting PCR tests.
Again I don’t understand your objection. Are you saying that PCR analysis is somehow invalid?
But you seem to miss my point. UFO investigations are cargo cult science. They only go as far as getting the answers they want --- oooh! Look! An anomaly! Must be alien!! Then they stop.
Ah, now we get to it! You are frustrated that the UFO “cultists” actually
don’t have the answers - and that many of them then
do (illegitimately) turn to the ETH as an explanation! It’s not that “anomalies” don’t exist – for clearly they do – it is just that you are decrying the lack of rational
methodology in the investigation of them! Well you and me both brother! You and me both.
Real science says "Hmm. That's interesting. I wonder how I screwed up?" , and goes on to find out how it screwed up, or what it did to eliminate the possibility of a screwup.
This is in effect the “It cannot be, therefore it isn’t” argument. I have presented some “hard” scientific data and all you can think is that there
must have been a screw-up. Well perhaps if there were more
resources available to us (for I certainly don’t have them) then we would be able to investigate your hypothesis more fully. If people really
were interested (and all that you stated above was not merely rhetoric for the sake of argument) then they would attempt to procure resources to explore and investigate. But of course that is never going to happen in a case like this one because the critical mass is “Hair of an alien? It cannot be, don’t waste my time!”.
It would be impossible to here describe and contextualise the “culture of denial and ridicule” that prevents an adequate resourcing to investigate the problem. But one thing is certain – rather than attempting to procure resources to “settle the problem once and for all” (to find
answers) the UFO debunkers seem to be doing their utmost to
maintain a cultural zeitgeist of denial and ridicule. If I was an alien visiting earth, that is
precisely the cultural zeitgeist I would be promoting! Are you sure you are not all merely the alien’s patsy’s in all this? Wouldn’t that be a hoot if
that were true!? But it would be only funny if it were not potentially so serious… I often ask myself considering the numerous “problems” humanity now faces – where is there a rational consideration of risk management?
None of the obvious follow ups to eliminate screwing up has been reported.
What “obvious follow-ups” would you suggest then?
Personally, I find contamination screwing up a sensitive test that is known to be susceptible to contamination to be completely plausible.
But this is your merely “contamination” argument rephrased, for
no DNA test is immune from “contamination.” However, your objection begs the question: Where did such a
rare combination of mtDNA
come from?
I'm not sure why the revenue stream of a self-described "leading UFO investigator" is my concern.
No, Khoury is nothing of the sort (neither self described or otherwise). And I was merely pointing out that inadequate resourcing is a
fact, what you make of that fact is up to you.
And it hasn't been verified. That would involve replication of the results by an independent and disinterested party. As far as I can tell, an amateur applied (or had applied) tests he apparently doesn't understand and misinterpreted the results.
No, you have to do the normal controls you do when results are anomalous. Is "alien" hair more plausible than for examle contamination of the sample?
Several plausible explanations has been suggested and no tests have been done to confirm if one is true. Very unscientific.
The anomalous results are not evidence of "aliens" since there are possible other explanations that hasn't been examined.
The evidence we do have:
“Together, two distinct phases of DNA analyses undertaken on the hair sample recovered from Khoury’s bizarre experience provide a striking array of genetic findings. (…)The testing methodology meant that prosaic explanations such as contamina-tion or laboratory error were ruled out. (…) The hair sample PCR DNA study was conducted by Ph.D. biochemists, well established in their field, with well regarded peer reviewed publications and research in mainstream biochemistry. Their study was conducted in a professional private biochemistry laboratory. Other DNA studies conducted by the same team on other evidence, such as samples from encounter cases on the midnorth coast of New South Wales and Queensland, an alleged alien claw from California, and the dress worn by Betty Hill during her famous 1961 abduction in New Hampshire, have not uncovered evidence as interesting as that found in the Khoury study. Independent scientists associated with the research on some of this other evidence were confident and impressed with the quality of the biochemists’ work in those studies and the original Khoury research.” (
http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)
Back to the Venezuela case:
There are also no historical records I am aware of that is showing heavy radiation sources in or around Maracaibo and yet you can claim radiation?
The victims
described a brilliant white light without heat associated with a humming sound as the cause of their problems.
On the process of elimination:
And yet, one prerequisite is that you know the characteristics of all manmade objects. Do you claim to do that? The sad fact is that you can only eliminate the objects you can think of and that might not be enough.
What manmade object has characteristics that match the 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…"
That doesn't mean they are "alien".
If they defy mundane explanation then how would you characterise them?
