UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[wollery]

As for the manifestation and progression of the specific clinical symptoms would you argue with the Mayo Clinic? (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/radiation-sickness/DS00432/DSECTION=symptoms)

Interesting link, thank you for that.

I see no mention on that list of swollen skin, blisters, sloughing of the skin, blackened skin.....

This is 1886, Venezuala we are talking about here wollery, not New York city. Besides, you have not demonstrated a plausible source for you unfounded assertions concerning “heavy metal poisoning”. You have also not demonstrated that it is plausible that the victims would make up such a story as they related. To what end would they do so? And if you contend that they were covering an illegal activity, you have not demonstrated that an illegal activity even exists concerning heavy metals.

I never said that the illegal activity had to concern heavy metals. Unless you can show otherwise, please stop misrepresenting my argument.

On the MIR case:

Again your misrepresentation of the conduct of that debate is expected. However, as I stated before, the record of that debate stands for itself.

Indeed, I invite people to go and reread it for themselves.

That is what research is for wollery. The process of elimination is both iterative and logical and each step in that process may require research to determine the plausibility of any proposed explanations. No-one stated the process was either simple or short.

Are you now saying that we do have to investigate all potential explanations? I'm not clear what you're saying here.

How do you know that everything you think you know is not merely an illusion? There is simply no definitive answer to such questions as you pose. We can only be guided by what we do know based the knowledge of the natural and technological world that we do have. We simply cannot base our decision making on what we don’t know, and it would be a nonsense to even try. We can of course speculate that there are things we don’t know, but we cannot “explain” things in terms of the unknown and we certainly cannot reject current knowledge on the basis of a mere possibility that we might be wrong.

And since no one person has perfect knowledge of technology or science we cannot say that there are no plausible mundane explanations that have yet to be thought of.

It is finished when we run out of plausible mundane explanations that fit the characteristics of the observed object.

And when is that? How do you know when you've run out of them?

Do you think that there are any UFOs for which there are plausible mundane explanations that just haven't been thought of yet?

No. A UFO is by definition unidentified – even after extensive and exhaustive research.

And there we have it. Rramjet has stated that he doesn't believe there are any UFOs for which a plausible mundane explanation exists that just hasn't been thought of.

I only have one question to follow on that. If you don't think that there are any undiscovered plausible mundane explanations then what the hell are we doing here?

I cannot begin to tell you... for if I so much as comment about such things (or even make comments even remotely approaching the nature of those you have made recently) my posts will be deleted.

Why wasn't my post deleted? Do you think that the mods are biased?

It is as simple as that. I don’t object by the way, deleting all posts containing such comments as I might be tempted to make in that direction (and such as those you have made) focuses my argument and forces me to stay on track – and ultimately that is a good thing.

Then can I please ask you to take your own advice above because the things you state are untrue and thus are offensive.

Which ones are untrue? Please, give specific examples.

Believe me, if I stated anything remotely offensive in my posts, the whole post would be deleted forthwith – and rightly so. Can we then please just stick to the arguments wollery?

I was trying to, and trying to keep the debate civil and on topic, but you made it personal by projecting an underhanded reason for me not responding to every point of your post and suggesting that I had lied about it. It was both untrue and offensive, yet your post wasn't deleted.

If you have a problem with anything I've said, or can show that I have been dishonest or offensive then please, report my post, show what lies I've told, point out what was offensive, cite specific examples.

You can't point to any lies I've told, because I haven't told any. All of the points I made can be backed up with specific examples.

 

[RoboTimbo]

One can easily imagine a scenario where a combination of types of radiation in various dosages could cause the symptoms experienced by the victims. I have neither the time nor the inclination to conduct the research necessary to definitely provide a specific combination and dosage – all I am pointing out is that this scenario is plausible. Moreover, you have not demonstrated a plausible alternative.

Perhaps you could list the plausible sources of radiation in 1886 Venezuela then?

What “evidence” have you provided? All I can see is mere unfounded assertion. Moreover, in light of the evidence I have provided already (demonstrating no source for the things you assert in 1886 in a remote hut “leagues” from Maracaibo in Venezuela), those unfounded assertion are implausible.

No, you are incorrect. Wollery has provided a plausible mundane explanation. You have demonstrated no source for ionizing radiation in 1886 Venezuela.

This is 1886, Venezuala we are talking about here wollery, not New York city. Besides, you have not demonstrated a plausible source for you unfounded assertions concerning “heavy metal poisoning”. You have also not demonstrated that it is plausible that the victims would make up such a story as they related. To what end would they do so? And if you contend that they were covering an illegal activity, you have not demonstrated that an illegal activity even exists concerning heavy metals.

Rramjet, you have not demonstrated a plausible source of ionizing radiation in 1886 Venezuela. You have not demonstrated that the story is at all true. You have not shown that the magazine checked their facts. You have simply claimed some things to be implausible because they interfere with your beliefs. Your claims are unfounded assertions. You see aliens or "aliens" and UFOs as "alien" spaceships under every rock and around every corner. To you, everything is evidence for aliens and UFOs as alien spaceships.

On the MIR case:

Again your misrepresentation of the conduct of that debate is expected. However, as I stated before, the record of that debate stands for itself.


That is what research is for wollery. The process of elimination is both iterative and logical and each step in that process may require research to determine the plausibility of any proposed explanations. No-one stated the process was either simple or short.

Then you're doing it wrong. That's why you had to back pedal and admit that "Debri" (as you call debris) was the likely explanation, after you had applied your iterative and logical "process". I assumed everyone could recognize a fatal flaw when it stared them in the face. Forgive me for assuming too much.

I have assumed that everyone would understand what the process of elimination is - and what it entails (or would at the very least least make some effort to determine what it entails if they wanted to participate in this debate). I sincerely apologise for that being presumptuous on my behalf.

Your presumption that you understood it is perhaps understandable. I assume you will not incorrectly state that you use a logical iterative process in the future since you have conclusively shown that it isn't working for you.

It is finished when we run out of plausible mundane explanations that fit the characteristics of the observed object.

Ok, let me know as soon as you do run out of plausible mundane explanations. Remember, you haven't got to the one I'm thinking of yet.

No. A UFO is by definition unidentified – even after extensive and exhaustive research.

Good, we agree. You don't know what they are and you clearly can't eliminate mundane explanations.

 

[TjW]

You forgot to mention that there are mant different types of radiation – some of which could be of high magnitude and some low.


There is no direct evidence – all we have is the account from the US consulate. But we still must account for that account in plausible terms.

And that's what we're waiting for you to do. What types of radiation, in what combinations of dosages, result in the described symptoms? This isn't the first time you've been asked to be specific.

 

[Rramjet]

Interesting link, thank you for that.

You’re welcome.

I see no mention on that list of swollen skin, blisters, sloughing of the skin, blackened skin.....

I see no mention of such things in the Sci Am article either… There were “extensive swellings” and there were “large black blotches” ((http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) – but as for the rest of it – it seems not only are you mischaracterising the symptoms that were described but you are also making things up that were not described…

I never said that the illegal activity had to concern heavy metals. Unless you can show otherwise, please stop misrepresenting my argument.

I don’t understand then

They became ill whilst doing something highly illegal.

Heavy metal toxicity can cause all of those symptoms.
(…)

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.

…if heavy metals were not “concerned” …how did they come into contact with them then? But just in case you are making a point that heavy metals might not have been the specific target of your “illegal activity” – how about telling us about a plausible illegal activity that would involveextensive and ingestive (for ingestion is the only way to produce anything like the sypmtomatology claimed – if even that could…) contact with “heavy metals” then?

I stated:
”No. A UFO is by definition unidentified – even after extensive and exhaustive research.”

And there we have it. Rramjet has stated that he doesn't believe there are any UFOs for which a plausible mundane explanation exists that just hasn't been thought of.

Actually I can see where I might have given you the wrong impression there. I had in mind the correct definition of a UFO - that is a case where there is sufficient information to allow extensive and exhaustive research (a process of elimination) and still come to a determination that the characteristics of the object defies mundane explanation – that is a UFO. I don’t consider hoaxes and delusions and insufficient information cases to be (strictly speaking) UFO cases.

I only have one question to follow on that. If you don't think that there are any undiscovered plausible mundane explanations then what the hell are we doing here?

To show that there exist UFO cases which defy plausible mundane explanation – even after extensive and exhaustive research.

As for the rest of it: You asked and I concurred that it would be a good idea to cease being personal and offensive and stick to the arguments - yet you persist in your misrepresentations (which I - and I suspect many others - do find offensive). Patently you misrepresent and make things up (for example see your first statement in this post and compare that with the article – oh and please tell me when I have stated that you were lying – have you considered that perception could merely be an unconscious projection onto my statements?). Besides, if you do such things I have every right to call you out on them (as I did at the head of this post – but note I did not call you a liar even then, though it your statements could be construed in that way…).

You can't point to any lies I've told, because I haven't told any.

What did I just say..?

All of the points I made can be backed up with specific examples.

Patently untrue. For example you have not supported your “heavy metals” explanation with specific examples at all – you have merely made the unfounded assertion. Do I call you a liar because of that? No, I have merely and repeatedly called for you to support your point about “heavy metals” with evidence.

 

[Jocce]

As for the manifestation and progression of the specific clinical symptoms would you argue with the Mayo Clinic? (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/radiation-sickness/DS00432/DSECTION=symptoms)

You have also not considered other types of radiation that could combine (proton beams for example – which are being used currently to treat cancers). In reality all one has to do is explore the symptoms of radiation poisoning or toxicity and you will variously and generally find descriptions of the symptoms experienced by the victims in Venezuela. That is a fact wollery, not some figment of anyone’s imagination.

One can easily imagine a scenario where a combination of types of radiation in various dosages could cause the symptoms experienced by the victims. I have neither the time nor the inclination to conduct the research necessary to definitely provide a specific combination and dosage – all I am pointing out is that this scenario is plausible. Moreover, you have not demonstrated a plausible alternative.

Where have you found that radiation affects primarily one side of the body. And, in this case specifically if the victims are to be believed, only the side that was underneath (i.e. facing down towards the ground? Just asking...

 

[Jocce]

the correct definition of a UFO - that is a case where there is sufficient information to allow extensive and exhaustive research (a process of elimination) and still come to a determination that the characteristics of the object defies mundane explanation – that is a UFO.

Ths might be your definition of UFO but that doesn't make it "correct". Your process of elimination is flawed as has been pointed out to you several times. It does not lead to an exhaustive elimination of possible mundane explanations.

you have not supported your “heavy metals” explanation with specific examples at all – you have merely made the unfounded assertion.

You have been provided links to pages that describe the symptoms just as well (or bad) as radiation exposure.

I think they just got burned doing something they don't want to tell about. The witnessed symptoms are consistent with that (i.e. hair that has fallen off on one side of the head, blackened blotches on the body that has turned into sores when the skin peeled off on the same side of the body as the hair was missing on).

 

[RoboTimbo]

I see no mention of such things in the Sci Am article either…

Did you see such things as "He obviously had a subscription to Scientific American" or he was a "rational thinker interested in science and scientific methodology"?

You might ask yourself why people accuse you of hypocrisy, and pay attention to the answer.

 

[Rramjet]

Where have you found that radiation affects primarily one side of the body. And, in this case specifically if the victims are to be believed, only the side that was underneath (i.e. facing down towards the ground? Just asking...

The nature of an anomalous occurrence is that it just does not seem to fit in with anything we currently know. It positively defies mundane explanation! The symptomatology seems to closely resemble some form of radiation poisoning - and yet the fit is not precise - it is however, at the same time, also a lesser fit fit with explanations such as "heavy metal poisoning" or (in your example) some form of direct burn ... it is in essence an anomalous occurence - and that is what makes it so intriguing to us.

 

[Jocce]

The nature of an anomalous occurrence is that it just does not seem to fit in with anything we currently know.

Yeah, I can agree with that. Then we have two possible explanations

1. There's something wrong with the story
2. "Alien" technology

Why do you immediately jump to the second explanation and exclaim:

It positively defies mundane explanation!

The truth of the matter is that we can't know because we don't have any reliable evidence to examine. Not very scicentific to jump to conclusions based on such unreliable data.

 

[tomi71]

It´s way too easy to just say that the data is always unreliable when the only alternative would be an alien explanation. It´s like a conclusion based on the fact you seem to know that aliens are not here therefore it must be something else. Always.

That is not very sceptical thinking. It only shows debunking.

 

[Rramjet]

Ths might be your definition of UFO but that doesn't make it "correct".

Okay, I accept that my “correct” was probably an overreach. The definition of a UFO has been widely interpreted in various ways by “believers” and “debunkers” alike – but usually such definitions are, in my opinion, just too loose. For example J A Hynek once defined a UFO as ”any aerial phenomenon or sighting that remains unexplained to the viewer at least long enough for him to write a report about it.” (Hynek, J. A., (1953) Unusual Aerial Phenomena. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 43 (4). 311-314)

My objection to such a definition would be to note that a “genuine” UFO is surely much more than something that is merely unidentified by the observer at the time of the sighting. That is, ideally, in a “correct” definition of a UFO, we should also want to account for subsequent research; something like the Battelle Study (1955) definition, which defined a “flying disk” (UFO) as ”a novel, airborne phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily explainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by the Free World.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)

Now of course the term “Free World” is a bit dated in a modern context, nevertheless the essence of what I believe should be contained within a “correct” definition of a UFO is presented within the Battelle Study’s definition. That is a UFO remains a UFO, even after we have researched the case, bringing to bear the “fund of scientific knowledge” available to us.

Your process of elimination is flawed as has been pointed out to you several times. It does not lead to an exhaustive elimination of possible mundane explanations.

The “process of elimination” is not “flawed” (as you term it) – rather you are merely claiming that it is inadequate for the task of investigating UFOs - and that this claim has been made repeatedly by others (including yourself). However you have never demonstrated (by example and or/ logical argument) that your conclusion in this regard has any weight at all.

In reference to the Venezuela case (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG):

You have been provided links to pages that describe the symptoms just as well (or bad) as radiation exposure.

You see, this is your (consistent and persistent) problem: You say these things, but never support them with evidence.

I think they just got burned doing something they don't want to tell about. The witnessed symptoms are consistent with that (i.e. hair that has fallen off on one side of the head, blackened blotches on the body that has turned into sores when the skin peeled off on the same side of the body as the hair was missing on).

Sure, you can think such things. Many people think all sorts of weird and wonderful things – but for us to take such thoughts seriously, we need to have the evidential support for such thoughts. In this case you need to inform us as to why your thoughts in this regard should be taken seriously as a plausible explanation – rather than merely an unfounded part of your speculative imagination.

I stated:
” The nature of an anomalous occurrence is that it just does not seem to fit in with anything we currently know.”

Yeah, I can agree with that. Then we have two possible explanations

1. There's something wrong with the story
2. "Alien" technology

I don’t see that leaping to such conclusions is at all helpful. You have not demonstrated that there is “something wrong with the story” and taking a leap to assuming that there is a “technology” (of any sort) behind the occurrence is (on the evidence) unwarranted. You are of course free to speculate in any way you want, however, limiting the range of such speculation to just the two you can immediately bring to mind is not (as you term it) “scientific”.

Why do you immediately jump to the second explanation and exclaim: ” It positively defies mundane explanation!”

First, I have never “jumped” to the “second explanation” and moreover, the occurrence does positively defy mundane explanation (I will note however that I probably should have inserted the word plausible – that is: ”positively defies plausible mundane explanation”)

The truth of the matter is that we can't know because we don't have any reliable evidence to examine. Not very scicentific to jump to conclusions based on such unreliable data.

As with any investigation into anything we can only explore the evidence that we have available to us. However, just because the evidence in this case is (at least in part) anecdotal, does not necessarily mean it is unreliable. To leap to such an unfounded conclusion is unscientific…

 

[RoboTimbo]

The “process of elimination” is not “flawed” (as you term it) – rather you are merely claiming that it is inadequate for the task of investigating UFOs - and that this claim has been made repeatedly by others (including yourself). However you have never demonstrated (by example and or/ logical argument) that your conclusion in this regard has any weight at all.

You have. You demonstrated it when you had to back pedal on your Debri claim, remember? You claimed to have used your version of a "process of elimination" to eliminate all plausible mundane explanations. Then later you had to grudgingly admit that your "aliens" could have been Debri (as you term debris). A process of elimination may not be flawed, it is just your implementation of it that is fatally flawed, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

It is disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise.

 

[tomi71]

http://books.google.fi/books?id=eT5...&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here is more info about the aliens in Betty´s dream and experience (hypnotic regression).

They are different.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

It´s way too easy to just say that the data is always unreliable when the only alternative would be an alien explanation. It´s like a conclusion based on the fact you seem to know that aliens are not here therefore it must be something else. Always.

That is not very sceptical thinking. It only shows debunking.

Which cases would that have the only alternative explanation would be Aliens did it? It's easy for you and RR to stand here and shout proclamations about UFOs sightings and claim they are alien. While having no evidence for them, yet calling anyone that dares to ask questions on the strength of the evidence debunkers.

http://books.google.fi/books?id=eT5J...page&q&f=false

Here is more info about the aliens in Betty´s dream and experience (hypnotic regression).

They are different.

In what way? Also who are you addressing this to?

 

[Jocce]

It´s way too easy to just say that the data is always unreliable when the only alternative would be an alien explanation. It´s like a conclusion based on the fact you seem to know that aliens are not here therefore it must be something else. Always.

That is not very sceptical thinking. It only shows debunking.

Maybe you should read my post more thoroughly then. I haven't said that data is always unreliable and I have drawn no conclusions. I wrote:

The truth of the matter is that we can't know because we don't have any reliable evidence to examine.

That's not a conclusion and it has nothing to do with debunking.

 

[Jocce]

That is a UFO remains a UFO, even after we have researched the case, bringing to bear the “fund of scientific knowledge” available to us.

The sad thing is that no case exist, as far as I know, where the available evidence is of such a standard as to make elimination of plausible mundane explanations possible. You can research as much as you like but if the data available is unreliable and/or incomplete any true sceptic should realize that imo.

The “process of elimination” is not “flawed” (as you term it) – rather you are merely claiming that it is inadequate for the task of investigating UFOs

Ok, your application of the process of elimination is flawed which has been shown before. And yeah, it's inadequate for the task. It doesn't work well in a context where the solutions are in effect infinite and unknown.

- and that this claim has been made repeatedly by others (including yourself). However you have never demonstrated (by example and or/ logical argument) that your conclusion in this regard has any weight at all.

See RoboTimbos reply. It has been shown.

You see, this is your (consistent and persistent) problem: You say these things, but never support them with evidence.

Maybe you missed the links to those pages. Go back and find them. The symptoms fits just as well (bad) as your radiation guess.

You can't even provide a combination of radiation that would cause the symptoms and yet you complain that others don't provide evidence? That's a bit funny.

Sure, you can think such things. Many people think all sorts of weird and wonderful things – but for us to take such thoughts seriously, we need to have the evidential support for such thoughts. In this case you need to inform us as to why your thoughts in this regard should be taken seriously as a plausible explanation – rather than merely an unfounded part of your speculative imagination.

Blackened skin turning into sores, mainly on one side of the body. Hairless on that same side of the body. Are you claiming that this is not consistent with burn wounds?

I stated:
” The nature of an anomalous occurrence is that it just does not seem to fit in with anything we currently know.”

I don’t see that leaping to such conclusions is at all helpful. You have not demonstrated that there is “something wrong with the story” and taking a leap to assuming that there is a “technology” (of any sort) behind the occurrence is (on the evidence) unwarranted.

If you say so, give me a third alternative explanation then.

First, I have never “jumped” to the “second explanation” and moreover, the occurrence does positively defy mundane explanation (I will note however that I probably should have inserted the word plausible – that is: ”positively defies plausible mundane explanation”)

Lying is a plausible mundane explanation.

As with any investigation into anything we can only explore the evidence that we have available to us. However, just because the evidence in this case is (at least in part) anecdotal, does not necessarily mean it is unreliable. To leap to such an unfounded conclusion is unscientific…

Anecdotal evidence IS unreliable. That's the reason you need to back it up with something more reliable. It doesn't mean that the anecdote is not a factually correct description of events though. Just that it's unreliable.

 

[tomi71]

Maybe you should read my post more thoroughly then. I haven't said that data is always unreliable and I have drawn no conclusions. I wrote:

The truth of the matter is that we can't know because we don't have any reliable evidence to examine.

That's not a conclusion and it has nothing to do with debunking.

This was not an answer directly to you. I only summarized my experience when debating ufos since the "sceptics" answer has always been just as I said it to be. If the only results would be a) ET or b) evidence is unreliable then the sceptics always pick b) because a) is impossible even though b) would not be unreliable. It just then has to be because a) is impossible.

This is the "sceptics" mind set. Always.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

This was not an answer directly to you. I only summarized my experience when debating ufos since the "sceptics" answer has always been just as I said it to be. If the only results would be a) ET or b) evidence is unreliable then the sceptics always pick b) because a) is impossible even though b) would not be unreliable. It just then has to be because a) is impossible.

This is the "sceptics" mind set. Always.

Sorry Tomi71 but that's just dumb. Which cases have either been unreliable or alien? and lets see why the evidence is unreliable or leads to aliens.

 

[Akhenaten]

The “process of elimination” is not “flawed” (as you term it) – rather you are merely claiming that it is inadequate for the task of investigating UFOs

Ok, your application of the process of elimination is flawed which has been shown before. And yeah, it's inadequate for the task. It doesn't work well in a context where the solutions are in effect infinite and unknown.

I think I'd go a step further and say that it could never work in such circumstances. The whole idea of applying a process of elimination to an infinite number of possibilities in order to arrive at a definitive conclusion isn't just flawed or inadequate - it's patently absurd.

 

[Akhenaten]

This was not an answer directly to you. I only summarized my experience when debating ufos since the "sceptics" answer has always been just as I said it to be. If the only results would be a) ET or b) evidence is unreliable then the sceptics always pick b) because a) is impossible even though b) would not be unreliable. It just then has to be because a) is impossible.

This is the "sceptics" mind set. Always.

A better summary of your experience would seem to be:

1. Create an over-generalised simplification of the thoughts of an undefined "goup of perceived opponents".
   
   
2. Create a false dilemma based on 1.
   
   
3. State 2. twice in a tortured, run-on sentence.
   
   
4. Create a dramatic-looking combination of 1. and 2. in the form of a bare assertion to serve as a conclusion.

Debating???