Sure, in your opinion. Fortunately we don’t have to rely on your veto opinion to be able to present the evidence. A while ago I provided a list of cases where the evidence is in my opinion strong enough to rule out plausible mundane solutions. For example:
You persist in claiming this, but you have yet to demonstrate that it has any veracity whatsoever. HINT: Next time you make the claim, you should begin “Your application of the process of elimination is flawed because… (and then provide the evidence and/or logical argument that would demonstrate that to be – at least potentially - true).
Again, you have not demonstrated, in the context of the cases I am presenting, that the set of potential plausible mundane explanations is “in effect infinite and unknown.” It seems I am wasting my time when I state that to continually present unfounded assertions in the face of calls for evidence in support of those assertions means that you must believe that the mere statement of them must somehow magically confer veracity on them.
Maybe I did miss them, but then maybe they just don’t exist. – at this point who knows? Unless you can demonstrate the evidence in support of your claims then I am entitled to dismiss them as unfounded.
I have provided links to various radiation poisoning symptomatology on numerous occasions. Here they are again for your consideration:
You are simply mischaracterising the injuries - see my above quotes concerning the “blotches” and “swellings” for example. As for the hair falling off, the exact quote was: ”The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred…” (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
An anecdote is not necessarily unreliable. There are factors that make it potentially less reliable when compared with (for example) empirical evidence, but even empirical evidence can be unreliable. In the Venezuela case what we need to do is analyse the document, considering and accounting for factors such as who the source was and the purpose of presentation of the account, whether the writing style suggests exaggeration or deception, whether the account has internal consistency, whether the account has external consistency, whether there might be any potential motivation for the characters in the account to be deceptive, and so on. An assessment of all these factors will go into any rational conclusion about the ultimate reliability of the account and any explanation of the account (in terms of perhaps lying or deception) needs to account for those factors as well. In such a case we need to develop reasoned and plausible explanations – it is simply not adequate to conclude by mere proclamation (such as the account is unreliable, or the witnesses were lying, or that their injuries might be accounted for in a certain way).
Yes, you have already admitted that your standards for evidence are extremely low, and given evidence to that fact. You aren't having much success getting others to lower their standards to match yours. Sagan's truism still applies, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So far, your evidence has fallen woefully short.
Posts 8082 and 8092 spring immediately to mind. The term "disingenuous" is becoming a byword for you. Those two posts, on this same page, demonstrate your falsehood.
Naughty, naughty. YOU haven't demonstrated that the potential plausible mundane explanations is finite or known. You've claimed a "process" which has been proven (by you!) to be fatally flawed. Your unfounded assertion is rejected.
See above about your unfounded assertions and how much weight they carry.
Anecdotes, as a class, are unreliable. They are good enough for creduloids to hang their belief systems on but not good enough for serious scientific enquiry.
If veracity and truth were determined by popular vote, then you might have a point.
You are simply mischaracterising the process of elimination. For the UFO cases I have been presenting we can develop a list of descriptive characteristics which we can then compare with the characteristics inherent in any potential plausible explanations.
Again you simply mischaracterise the case in question. I never claimed it was not debris. All I stated was that the trajectories of some of the objects shown in the video seemed anomalous and called for plausible explanations as to how those trajectories could be produced as observed. The explanation of the trajectories was then the focus of debate and analysis. Anyone who read or participated in that debate will understand that – I thought you had participated …but obviously that is not correct and equally you must not have read the debate, otherwise you would not have mischaracterised it in the manner you did.
You merely repeat things here that I have directly answered on numerous occasions - as if I have not answered… why do you do that? I have told you that the victim’s symptomatology most closely resembles that of radiation poisoning. Sure, some symptoms do not seem to match a specific type of radiation and I have then speculated that a combination of types in various magnitudes might produce the sympromatology. But in the absence of any other plausible mundane explanation, that is the best I can do. I will note that these types of cases (including UFO cases) are anomalous and by definition will not fit with what we think we know about the world. That is why they are so intriguing to us.
So when I demonstrated that you had made some false statements about the witnesses injuries, rather than admit your error, you change the argument? Why does that not surprise me? …or perhaps you simply find it “hard to keep up with what people has been saying”?
The problem with Wikipedia is that it often gets things so wrong that I despair for the rational learning of concepts by a whole generation of online users who seem to think it is a reliable source of information. I have described the erroneous nature of this particular Wikipedia entry before… (and it was in direct reply to you!)
It’s only extraordinary to people who don’t know how to approach such a task.
No, you are incorrect. I spent a great deal of time decrying your actual lack of understanding of the burden of proof.
Don't you recall all the times that I had to chide you for attempting to incorrectly switch the burden of proof? Think back. You would make some fantastic claim on the flimsiest of anecdotes and then demand that skeptics provide you with an iron-clad mundane explanation. If they couldn't, you would unilaterally declare your anecdote to be evidence for "aliens" and UFOs. It took thousands of posts but you finally seemed to get the message. If you didn't, forgive me for assuming too much.
To your chagrin, I understand your methods only too well.
I don't think anyone is claiming that veracity and truth are determined by popular vote. The point is that to measure how effective your arguments are, you need to bounce them off people with an opposing argument. If your arguments have any validity at all, it is only shown under critical analysis.
If veracity and truth were determined by your personal opinion, then you might have a point.
There is only one measurement, with no associated error, which yields both the size and altitude of the objects. The best that can be said about the measured altitude and size is that they are uncertain.
And if the altitude is half of what was given, what then? We now have 15ft diameter objects at 75,000 ft.
Except that it relies entirely on trusting a single uncertain measurement.
Only if you believe that everyone is either telling the truth or incapable of error.
And what if there are plausible mundane explanations that we can't think of?
But your objection to the burn hypothesis, which would require them to be lying about how they obtained their injuries, relies on the assumption that they are telling the truth about how they got their injuries. That's a major flaw in your argument.
The only independent evidence for the incident is Cowgill's observations of their injuries, which are consistent with the burn hypothesis. If they are lying about how they got those injuries then you cannot trust their description of what happened, which means that their description is unreliable and cannot be used to verify their story.
But only a qualified forensic psychologists should actually perform such a task, since they are the only ones with the training and experience to properly assess all factors.
Jocce said:
Rramjet said:
Jocce said:
Rramjet said:
Jocce said:
Rramjet said:
Jocce said:
And yet Jocce stated: ”And pretty much noone agrees despite over 8000 posts in this thread alone.” and I do believe you contend something very similar yourself (”In over 8000 posts you have convinced no one…” (see below). The point is that the argument only has force if you believe popularity confers veracity – that is it really does not matter to me whether a tiny minority or a great majority “agree” or are “convinced” – all that matters is whether the evidence has weight and the arguments are valid.
You are correct in that the opinions of others might indeed provide some feedback as to the effectiveness of an argument, but the mere opinions of others (while they might also provide some ideas for consideration) cannot be utilised as determinant in assessing the validity of an argument. One might (for example) have a completely valid argument, but if expressed poorly, might not be at all effective (and vice versa).
Now you are on the right track!
But you just stated … oh never mind …all that is mere “argument by proclamation” anyway. A list comprising mere unfounded assertions. It is in effect your “wish list”. Nothing in what you have said above is supported by any fact (evidence and/or logical argument) whatsoever.
I have never claimed to be conducting “science” here. All I am doing is presenting the evidence for UFOs and the research support in relation to that evidence. What you (or anyone) makes of that evidence is up to you – but if you do want to argue against that evidence, I expect more than mere proclamation or unfounded assertion. I expect a reasoned, critically thought out argument.
I am of course interested in your thoughts and reactions to the evidence I am presenting, but I am under no illusion that I will ever “convince” you (or the mysterious “us” you refer to) of anything.
Just because you cannot see the truth in what I have been presenting, does not mean it is not present.
Sure. But when those things are also seen by multiple witnesses and captured on radar and captured on film and they interact with us and the environment and they leave physical trace evidence and their characteristics defy plausible mundane explanation – then to dismiss those things with a wave of a hand (as “people see things in the sky”) is simply to ignore the evidence.
You are correct. We have no empirical evidence that the ETH is the correct explanation. The ETH is however a compelling explanation despite that - and you can hardly then blame people for drawing the conclusion. Of course appearances can be deceptive and in the face of a lack of empirical evidence, as a sceptic, I am forced to reserve judgement on the ETH.
It then becomes obvious that to maintain your belief system you either have to ignore the evidence (“…people see things in the sky…”,”…fantastic tales…”, etc ) or deny the evidence has any weight (“…from the past”, “…the fog of time”, “…mythologised”, etc). Incongruously you seem to do both… seeming to argue that There is no evidence, but even if there were, it would not be convincing.
This is merely a repackaging of the “there is no evidence” argument. Patently the evidence exists and it is the explanation of that evidence that gives us trouble.
No, there was only “one measurement” that was reported that yielded those measurements. This is a critical point to note. Other measurements were taken but not reported) and those measurements were not reported because the error margins were such that the mathematicians could not be absolutely confident of the results. Remember these were highly qualified analysts employed by the US military analysing the data from rocket tests where precision and accuracy would have been absolutely critical, so for those same analysts to put, in writing, their name to any “measurement” (especially one of such a nature as this), they would have had to be absolutely confident in the result.
In the White Sands case it is absolutely implausible to suppose that the engineers and mathematicians were not telling the truth – and so it is with most (if not all) the other cases I have presented in this thread. As for “error”, in the White Sands case, it is also implausible to suppose that such highly trained researchers would report any measurement that they did not have absolute confidence in. As for the other cases I have presented, such absolute precision is not necessary to explore the extant evidence.
If there are such explanations, then you should put them forward… no, wait… “we” cannot think of them …so do they exist? …and how can they be “plausible” if we don’t even know if they exist or not? This line of argument simply does not make sense. Do we deny existence merely because we cannot explain something? What about “Dark Energy” and “Dark Matter”? Did the sun not exist before there was an explanation for it?
I cannot follow the logic of that argument... The argument was put forward that the injuries could have been caused by a “burn” and I merely pointed out that the document states: ”The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred…” and that this is simply inconsistent with the “burn” hypothesis.
I have just demonstrated the inconsistency in the “burns” hypothesis (”The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred…”)
As I keep pointing out, the mere assertion that ”they could have been lying” is simply not a plausible explanation in the face of the evidence. It is merely an unfounded assertion.
I think you will find that such as tasks as I outlined above could be conducted by many people other than “qualified forensic psychologists”. Of course having a qualified forensic psychologist on hand may be helpful, but not necessary.
No again you mischaracterise the process. If you cannot understand my explanations of it can I suggest you actually research it for yourself, there are plenty of sources available on the internet that would enable you to conduct such an exercise.
Sure, some form of radiation poisoning seems to fit with the injuries, but of course that is speculative. The fact that a brilliant light without heat accompanied by a humming sound was apparent at the time of injury might add weight to that speculation. Still, such hypothesising will remain speculative until we can discover the true cause of the light and humming and how specifically they relate to the injuries.
Jocce, you claimed the injuries were consistent with a “burn” and stated “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?”
This seems not to make a great deal of sense. I present the evidence. I argue the case. At least when I do argue my case I support that case with evidence and/or logical argument (as above). I don’t see that “methodology” (which is after all “scientific” and “logical”) being reciprocated by you.
You already stated that it was your opinion that the cases you presented were sufficiently evidenced, so I fail to see what argument you are trying to make. Other people disagree with you, and you opinion means no more than anyone else's.
Wow, what a memory lapse. We have only one piece of evidence in this case, the summary report, and that does not mention error anywhere. The other measurements weren't included because the analysts couldn't be sure that they had filmed the same objects. That's a very different thing than having large errors.
This is the same argument you made at the time and it didn't impress me then.
In reference to the White Sands case, I know lots of highly trained researchers who publish results with large errors. It's better to publish a result with a large error than to not publish any results at all, particularly if you're under pressure to publish some sort of result.
You've already admitted that there may be plausible mundane explanations that you can't think of. Do you think that the rest of us are better at thinking up explanations than you are?
I would never suggest such a line of reasoning. In fact, you make my point for me. These were things that for a long time had no plausible mundane explanations. For thousands of years people assumed that the Sun was magically put there just for our benefit by the gods. When it was realised that it was a physical thing, subject to the laws of physics people came up with all sorts of explanations, none of which were plausible, until Einstein published relativity. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean that it doesn't have a plausible mundane explanation.
And the mere assertion that it is implausible that they weren't telling the truth is just that, a mere assertion.
Yes, they can be, but the results will be less accurate, and sometimes just plain wrong.
And here we are in a 203 page thread that has so far not shown any of your evidence to have any weight. This is not a proclamation, it's proof is derived by anyone reading the thread.
The detailed research that others have done on this thread that counter your assertions of the veracity of the evidence you have provided show that you are meeting with a lot more than mere opinions here, though I grant that opinions are liberally splatted through the thread from you and everyone else. However, all the empirical evidence you have supplied has been shown (empirically) to be at best inconclusive and the worst total hogwash.
203 pages of verification of my assertion precede this post... and it's not about the number of pages, it's about the information contained on those pages.
Yes, it's clear you are not conducting 'science'. You are however dressing up a 'belief' (whether yours or the UFOlogists you choose to quote) as science.
Why do you think you couldn't convince me (or the mysterious us)?
Again, 203 pages show your standard of evidence. 203 pages show how they are empirically refuted.
It's not that I can't see the truth, it's that the information you provide can not be validated to reach the conclusions you regularly reach.
Which in each case you have presented has been shown empirically to be an inaccurate picture of the actual events.
Only if you're carefully selecting what constitutes a 'plausible mundane explanation' and conveniently neglecting all the plausible mundane explanations that you either didn't think of or in typical circular logic, don't fit with your unreliable anecdotal evidence.
203 pages of people ignoring the evidence and merely handwaving it away... sometimes in great detail with graphs, pictures, diagrams and scientifically validated methodology.
No one who understands science can reach a conclusion based upon such disparate (and sometime despirate) 'evidence' so yes I can blame people for doing such a thing if they are claiming some scientific proof (which is so in all the cases you have tried to argue even though apparenlty you are claiming you are not doing science).
The thing is, I don't ignore the evidence, I examine it and find it to be unconvincing. The only conclusion I can reach based solely on the evidence is that sometimes people see stuff, they can not identify.
203 pages of people dismissing evidence out of hand?
Setting aside your Darwin strawman, I'm not saying that evidence loses it's power over time. I'm suggesting that over time evidence is distorted by the UFOlogists who misinterpret it. Therefore when you read about Maccabee's regurgitation of an event that happened 20 odd years prior, 10 years after Maccabee looked at it, it's hardly likely to be as accurate as the original report. In many cases, when you actually look at the evidence from the actual time of the report, it is not as sensational as it is subsequently written up. Roswell being one case in point (probably the most famous UFO case in the world), which was reported as it happened at the time and then completely forgotten about for over 20 years (even UFOlogists didn't put it forward for Condon because it wasn't deemed good enough).
As has been shown, you don't use the process effectively. Remember that you used your version of the "process" to rule out debris and had to back pedal later and grudgingly admit that debris was a likely explanation.
"Aliens" is an implausible explanation. Please show your work in how you determined that "aliens" is less implausible than error or other mundane explanations which you can't think of.
Naughty naughty! No naughty switching the burden of proof! You still haven't come up with the mundane explanation that I'm thinking of, try as you might.
How did you determine that it is implausible for someone to lie? Especially when all we have it hearsay evidence to what they related? How did you determine that it was implausible for them to be involved in an illegal enterprise for which they would make up an alibi?
Here is an unfounded assertion: "He obviously had a subscription to Scientific American". Please learn the difference.
Your ability to conduct document analysis can go in the same bin as your ability to use a process of elimination. You hear the phrase, it sounds good, and you claim it as your own.
No, you are incorrect. What many people would do is the same as you have done. Make a conclusion and then retrofit everything into their conclusion.
No, Rramjet, you mischaracterise the process. You have proven that you don't have any idea how it works and when you made your one attempt with it, you failed utterly. Remember the DebriWP people?
And you just proved it again. You see a spherical object and don't realize you are looking head on at a blimp. Thank you.
Rramjet said:
As I stated, this is simply a repackaged “denial of the evidence” argument. If you want to ignore and dismiss multiple witnesses, radar, film and physical trace evidence then you are entitled to do so. But if you want to positively contribute to this thread, then merely restating and repackaging the proclamation that “there is no evidence” (no matter how you word it) is, on any definition of the concept, not a rational argument.
Interesting that you should contend that we have “only one piece of evidence in this case” yet go on to indicate that the researchers filmed the objects on other occasions as well - and didn’t report the other measurements merely because they could not be confident that (among a group of small objects travelling at high altitude and high speed) the focus was on the same object. Can you not see that this fact is also another piece of evidence (of repeatability if nothing else). You also fail to appreciate that the very fact that the research project was even initiated by the military - in order to find out what was going on (was it the Russians flying things around their top secret nuclear facilities?) - is also evidence. I could go on but I think I have made my point that to characterise this case as resting solely on a “single piece of evidence” is simply o mischaracterise it.
You seem to have a particularly low regard for the professionalism of the researchers involved. Is there any reason for this? Or is this just your general opinion of mathematicians and engineers in general?
Oh, I see now where your get your low regard for research professionals... But if your contentions were true, then you should definitely report the researchers involved to the relevant journal’s editorial board. The researchers seem to be (on the face of your statements) committing fraud - for no peer reviewed journal will knowingly publish data with “large errors” in it. Such actions as you cite here have at least the potential to bring the researchers and journals involved, not to mention science itself, into disrepute.
In 1950, groups of objects of 30ft diameter were repeatedly filmed travelling at high speed at an altitude of 150,000 feet. Given that we did not have the technological capability at the time - and given that the observations do not match any known astronomical phenomena - then the objects are UFOs. The next step of course is to determine what these UFOs represent – or rather, given the passage of time – what phenomenon or phenomena the White Sands observations are an example of. It is not enough to merely dismiss them as non-existent on the basis of unfounded assertions contending the scientists involved might have been in some sort of measurement error. Clearly, on the evidence, they were not.
(Setting aside the general historical inaccuracies) Your original argument was that we should dismiss these things because we don’t have an explanation for them. The argument you put here is conceptually different and hopelessly circular. Once something has an explanation, then by definition it will have been explained (you just miss that it perhaps might even be in terms of ET!).
I have provided a number of reasons supporting the contention that they were telling the truth – not the least of which is a complete lack of plausible motivation for them to have lied.
You seem to have expressed a somewhat distorted view of the burden of proof here wollery. Simply, if we assume they were telling the truth about the method of injury (for there can be no real argument that they were not injured – we have a first hand account testifying to that fact) then the “burns” hypothesis is just not viable. To render the burns hypothesis plausible, then you have to account for, not only the observed injuries (blotches?), but also come up with a plausible explanation as to why they would possibly lie about the method of injury. Consider also that the story they told concerning the method of injury is so unique that to make it up out of whole cloth would itself be implausible.
I think that perhaps that you simply underestimate the power of logical inference and the process of elimination.
No, your statement that this thread has ”so far not shown any of your evidence to have any weight” is an official announcement (a proclamation) made by you concerning the status of the evidence presented in this thread. Your announcement is not supported by any evidence and/or logical argument. It is merely an unfounded assertion, proclaimed by you to be true. We are then entitled to dismiss it as mere unfounded assertion.
Again mere “argument by proclamation”. None of your statements here have any foundation in evidence and/or logical argument and we are again entitled to dismiss them as such.
Your problem seems to be that when you make such assertions, you do not provide any evidence and/or logical argument in support of them. You “proclaim” a “truth” - yet it seems you cannot support such proclamations with evidence of veracity. We are then entitled to dismiss your “proclamations” as unfounded.
I almost don’t have to comment here, but given the proclivities of people to deny evidence in general, perhaps I could provide just one example: “creationists”…
…funny how you can say one thing yet argue the opposite…
If this is not merely (once again) to be dismissed as yet more unfounded assertion, then perhaps you can describe what you find unconvincing about the (for example) White Sands case (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)?
“Strawman”? If you imply that evidence dates, then Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” (1859) should be practically worthless by now in comparison the mere 50 years and less for the UFO cases I have been presenting.
“Misinterpret”? Pretty hard to misinterpret:
“Regurgitiation”? You see, here is your problem. You claim that Ufologists “misinterpret”, yet on the evidence it is actually the UFO debunkers who seem to do so. Your use of the term “regurgitation” for example - instead of the more neutral “reports on” or “examines the evidence for” or “researches the case” - represents a biased mindset which is then likely to misinterpret to an even greater extent.
See, here you go again. Even after claiming that evidence does not date, you proclaim as if it does (and as you may note, your “regurgitation” has biased you toward an unwarranted conclusion).
Are you accusing Dr Maccabee of ‘sensationalism” in his report on the case? Perhaps you could back up this claim with evidence?
(actually I would suggest that Kenneth Arnold’s is the “most famous” – but of course opinions vary and there are many other cases that might “fit the bill”)
At the time the media reported that the US Army had captured a crashed saucer! You could hardly get more sensational that that!
No, just not researched or reported on…
This is merely a wild and speculative unfounded assertion.
No, I have merely noted that there is no plausible motivation for the victim’s to have lied and that the story they told (if they wanted to lie) is unbelievable in itself (in other words, if they wanted to “cover” for something they would have at least come up with something more plausible).
People are generally motivated by the same things. We don’t have to know the individual to understand human motivation.
It is beyond the scope of this thread for me to provide you lessons in behavioural science and human motivation. I have however provided my general reasoning for reaching the conclusions I have.
There are 203 pages of evidence supporting my assertion in this thread.
Yes, well I could equate you to a creationist. You deny sound scientific reasoning and prefer misrepresented, anecdotal accounts, sometimes backed up with error filled or incomplete evidence. And before you say it, the evidence for my assertion is contained within the 203 pages preceding this post.
It's not about the number of pages, it's about the information contained on those pages.
I'm not getting back on your merry-go-round of denial. People have shown how the data is not shown with error margins. Without error margins you have no way of telling how accurate it is. Without accuracy, you can not be accurate about any conclusion.
Yes, Strawman.
And what error margins are they working to?
We uncovered a lot of misinterpretation in the Rogue River, Trent, Iran and Sicorro cases, usually as result of the intervention of a UFOlogist or World Weekly News. (as evidenced in the 203 pages of this thread)
You know why myths don't happen today don't you?
He makes it out to be more than it is. The evidence is in his report when compared to the documentation that supposedly supports it.
So people all over the world would recognise Arnolds' name?
And the day after retracted the statement having had time to examine what it really was. But my point is that the story seed was sown.
And yet the Army had retrieved a crashed saucer, the UFOlogists holy grail.
Another misdirection here?
The proof of this assertion is that it was not put forward by UFOlogists who were asked to present their best cases. Therefore we must conclude that the UFOlogists didn't consider it to be one of their best cases.