Fine, you want me to respond to every point, no problem.
Since when does “largely used in” become ”all”? Straw man argument anyone? Moreover, if you can demonstrate that it is plausible that there was/is an illegal activity involving heavy metals that originated sometime before 1886, then you might have a point – but until you can do that you are merely throwing speculations at the problem that, in the face of evidence to the contrary, we can legitimately dismiss as unfounded.
Thank you for making my point. You dismissed the idea of heavy metal poisoning because heavy metals are "largely used" in mining which isn't present in the Maracaibo area. But "largely used in" as you rightly point out, does not mean "all", so your dismissal on these grounds is erroneous. Heavy metals are used in the production of paints and dyes, as well as many other products, and as Belgian thought has just pointed out, they are often present in Bitumen, which
is mined in the Maracaibo area.
You have a degree in Astrophysics yet seem to fail to understand that radiation is rarely (unless specifically directed) formed of a single type of ionizing particle.
Although natural sources are almost always predominantly of one type, and in this case you are trying to assert that it is both non-natural and directed. So, no.
You also seem to fail to understand that a “Geiger” counter usually can only detect some - but not all - ionizing particles - and that it is limited in the magnitude of the energy of the particles it can detect.
You seem to have missed the point that my point had nothing to do with Geiger counters, it was to do with the inability to detect ionizing radiation without a device of some sort.
…and the victims hair did fall out!
Which is also consistent with all sorts of other sources, including heavy metals and various chemicals.
A bright light with no associated heat describes some form of radiation
Yes, non-ionizing radiation, as I pointed out.
- unless of course you are proposing (speculating on an unfounded basis) that in1886 there was a popular science fiction model already developed along those lines? Perhaps Rontgen in 1895 was not such a pioneer after all?
No, I'm suggesting that
your interpretation of a bright white light with a humming sound as a source of ionizing radiation is informed by science fiction.
”Although ionizing radiation has been present in nature (cosmic rays, naturally occurring radioactive materials) throughout man's history, it remained unnoticed until less than 100 years ago. Man has no specific sense which could have responded to this kind of radiation and it had not been possible for scientific initiative to develop any instruments that would have amplified a human response to that radiation, as was the case for example in the area of visible light waves (optics)” (
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull234/23405043136.pdf)
Thank you for once again making my point.
My interpretation of the burden of proof? That’s a hoot! It seems to me that you are the one making the unfounded assertions here wollery – at least I
try to support my assertions with evidence and/or logical argument. The evidence for some form of radiation is the victim’s description of the phenomenon that ostensibly caused their injuries - and please…don’t come back with “correlation does not equal causation” - the facts of the matter are that the victims described some form of radiation (a “vivid, dazzling light”) accompanied by a humming noise that together awoke them and left them
“completely terror stricken, and believing, as they relate, that the end of the world had come…” (
http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
And yet you still cannot (or refuse to) describe a source of ionizing radiation that appears as a bright white light with a humming noise, or what combination of type and dose of ionizing radiation would produce the injuries they describe.
Trying to support your hypothesis? I think you need to try harder.
I don’t know – though obviously visible radiation in possible combination with some form of ionizing radiation… as for the humming, just a wild guess mind, but perhaps the generating source was emitting the noise?
We're in agreement, it is just a wild guess.
Just because we cannot “positively” explain it, doesn’t mean it does not exist.
It's very funny, but if someone else said that about their hypothesis you'd jump all over them for making unfounded assertions and "replacing one unknown with another".
But you are repeating yourself wollery – perhaps as if you believe that the mere repetition will somehow confer legitimacy or instil belief? Well of course, the latter is possible - and a favoured UFO debunker methodology it seems - but you should at least be aware that mere repetition does not confer legitimacy.
I'm repeating myself because it's an important point, one that you seem unable, or unwilling, to address. The claim that the bright white light indicates a source of ionizing radiation is yours, and yours alone. Back it up with evidence.
Sure, use all the terminology you require (possible, potential…) but it was shown that your satellite hypothesis was implausible, not that it was impossible.
And again, you make my point for me. Before we tested the idea it was a "potential" explanation. It was shown, upon testing, to be wrong.
But the point is - how do you know that you have thought of all "potential" explanations? You claim that your process of elimination is an
iterative process, but that implies that you repeat until
all potential explanations have been eliminated. My question is, how do you know when to stop iterating? How do you
know when all potential explanations have been exhausted?
Remember, you didn't come up with the satellite hypothesis, I did, and you didn't come up with the debris hypothesis either. Until other people thought of them you believed that you had eliminated all potential plausible mundane explanations. You hadn't. And, in fact, you admit that the debris hypothesis is a plausible mundane explanation. This means that after you thought you had finished your iterations two more potential explanations were proposed, and one of them was, by your own admission, plausible. So much for the "power" of your process of elimination.
For your “illegal activity” surrounding “heavy metals” speculation – I have provided the evidence to show the “hypothesis” is implausible. If you have further information that would make it plausible – then feel free to present it.
It's a guess, but then, so is your radiation hypothesis. However, it has some basis in fact, because heavy metals are used in the manufacture of things outside the mining industry, and (see above) bitumen is mined in the Maracaibo area, and bitumen usually contains heavy metals. This means that it is quite likely that there were sources of heavy metals in and around Maracaibo.
You stated:
” 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.”
I replied:
”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)”
Clearly, reading your whole statement, your meaning is that, for some UFOs at least, the reason for a lack of explanation is that we have merely not been able to think of an explanation - and a common interpretation of that would be that you believe that the explanation we have not thought of in that regard is mundane.
For some UFOs, yes.
Are you suggesting that there are
no UFOs for which plausible mundane explanations exist, but nobody has yet thought of them?
Further, in your statement you also mischaracterise my position - you build another straw man in other words - in an attempt to knock that down as a refutation of my position. My actual position is that many UFOs defy mundane explanation. That is a much stronger position than merely contending that “no explanation exists”. It contends that no mundane explanation exists!
What's different between those two statements? Oh, yes, I forgot to use the term mundane, and you use the term "defy". Wow, talk about playing word games.
Moreover, you again underestimate the power of the process of elimination and you have not “demonstrated” that process to lack the power to eliminate all plausible mundane explanations.
It's funny, because you haven't shown that it can.
As in the MIR case, you thought you had eliminated all of the plausible mundane explanations, but you hadn't.
…and here again you build yet another straw man! It is not “all potential mundane explanations” (or all possible mundane explanations) that are being ruled out, it is all plausible mundane explanations that are being ruled out.
How do you know if a
potential explanation is
implausible until you test it and find it wanting? In order to do that you must test
all potential explanations. Or do you think that you can just hand-wave away some explanations because they sound far fetched before you even examine them? Now
that would be unscientific.
If that is your claim, then for the cases I have been presenting, put forward a plausible mundane explanation (you could start with the Venezuela case perhaps?).
I have. The "victims" were engaged in an illegal activity in a building or warehouse where products containing heavy metals were stored and accidentally came into contact with these products. It explains both their injuries and provides a motive for lying about the source of their injuries.
When have I ever stated that I had “explained” any of the cases I have been presenting? Once again you build your straw man (how many is that now?). Besides - when has the lack of an explanation ever meant that we must somehow therefore require a “positive explanation” before we can hypothesise, explore and analyse?
Where did I say that you claimed that you
had explained any of the cases. My point is that you haven't!
And if all you have is what they aren't then you have no predictive power, and all you end up with are UFOs that are still unidentified.
(in fact) I stated:
“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.”
Actually, the people who study ball lightning do have positive theories about what it is, and have even created ball lightning in the lab. The only problem is in confirming the theories with naturally occurring ball lightning, because it is an extremely rare and unpredictable phenomenon. Maybe you might want to pick a different example.
Well this is the trouble isn’t it - you stated:
“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.”
The general tone of all your statements here (logically they don’t really hang together) suggest that you do not believe in UFOs as having no mundane explanation, rather you believe that UFOs are actually Unidentified Flying Mundane Objects (UFMOs) and that therefore UFOs as non-mundane objects do not exist – but of course getting a UFO debunker to actually admit to their own beliefs in this regard is impossible. We all know they believe in UFMOs rather than UFOs per se, but will they state it directly? No. The UFO debunker, rather than admit to their own belief in that regard, will sidestep the issue and turn defence into attack to claim “Well you believe in Unidentified Flying Alien Objects (UFAOs).” Of course when I categorically deny any such belief, the UFO debunker will ignore that and simply move on to another issue – presumably satisfied that their mere statement of UFAO has muddied the waters sufficiently.
I have always been clear that I do not hold that all UFOs necessarily have mundane explanations. That may be some people's position, but it isn't mine, and never will be.
Also, I have never said that you maintain that all UFOs are alien, although you do propose that some (at least) are "alien".
Please stop using your responses to
my posts to make generalisations that
do not apply to me.
Perhaps Bishop Berkeley would not entirely disagree with you. (Apocryphally) The positive predictive theory was that if he hit the rock with his toe it would cause pain (and this could be replicated), (and to cut a long story short) therefore the rock exists.
However, you are confusing what it means to observe a phenomenon and to come to some conclusion about the reality of its existence with how we go about explaining (or determining) what the nature of that existence is.
No, I'm not. The simple observation that something exists is
not science. Science is observing that something exists and then attempting to explain that existence with testable replicable theories.
Clearly UFOs exist – they are an often (repeatedly) observed phenomenon. You acknowledge that much at least. The difficulty comes (as you correctly observe) in designing scientific tests of potential hypotheses concerning their nature – but I strongly suspect currently that this is merely because there has been no adequate funding nor a peer review structure through which ideas could be properly developed. The only systematic “research” that has been funded (as far as I know) is that of the “Skinwalker Ranch” (
http://www.skinwalkerranch.org/) and most recently the San Luis Valley (
http://ourstrangeplanet.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1) but the trouble with
those of course is a lack of peer review process. Nevertheless, someone has to start somewhere…
The Skinwalker Ranch site is little more than a conspiracy theory, and the San Luis Valley site is just hysterically funny. Have you looked at the photo page?
In future, please don't project any meanings onto my statements, you're not very good at it. When I said I wasn't responding to every point because I thought we were talking past each other I meant it. If I thought you made a valid point or successfully countered one of my points I'd say so.
Second, don't try to infer meanings from my statements, you're almost always wrong when you do it, and you're very quick to chide others for doing it, which just makes you look like a hypocrite.
Third, don't use your replies to my posts to make points about things that I don't do. If you're responding to me then please respond to
me, and
me alone. Making general points like that makes it seem that you are trying to cast aspersions on my character, and imply that my stated points of view are lies.
Fourth, the standards that you would hold others to you should apply to yourself. If you make a claim you should back it up with more than supposition and guesses, and when challenged to provide evidence of a claim you should back it up or retract it, or at least admit that it's just a guess.
Last, stop making it personal. Stop using the strawmen "UFO debunkers say", and "Typical UFO debunker tactic". Respond to specific points and specific people, and stop casting aspersions on the "group". It's nothing more than childish point scoring, and it doesn't help your case in any way.
