UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

So, are you suggesting that we spend money and resources on all of them or just your pet theories? I much prefer if resources are spent combating real problems that we know exist. Antibiotic resistance, global warming, etc.

There are things in this life that we want to do and there are things that we need to do and there are plenty of resources to go around. I assume you say you want to combat poverty, promote healthcare and mitigate against global warming as priorities? Sure, no argument there. But there are other risk factors to our survival as well that should be recognised and debated. For example, is not the potential for an “alien invasion” important to us? I simply called for the US government to release its UFO files and to initiate a peer review process. I hardly think that would “break the budget” or detract from the importance of the issues you mention.

Even a cursory reading of wollerys post should reveal that this is NOT what he said.

Sure, he stated that the government/military should not be involved in investigating “every report” but he also said they should not “publish all their findings” and “Whatever they do they'll be accused of a cover up.” I am not arguing for them to “investigate every report”, that is simply not the function of a government, but they should “publish all their findings” – that is release all their UFO files – and they should set up a peer review structure.

Who are these "people" you are talking about? It might surprise you but most people don't even think about any percived coverup.

Wollery stated: ” Whatever they do they'll be accused of a cover up.” If it is not “people” who will do this, then who..? Aliens?

Which goverment? I'm quite sure that your government is not mine.

I am specifically talking about the US government, but most “allied” governments have been complicit – misguidedly trying to curry favour with an economic superpower – fearing sanction if they don’t comply. One only has to look at the Canadian reaction to US led secrecy to confirm that:

“The present USAF policy is to play down the subject, investigating only when considered necessary by the area commander without any special arrangements for reporting or investigation. It seems that a similar policy on our part would be wise and that it would be undesirable to produce a special questionnaire or make any arrangements for investigation since this would tend to give publicity to the matter. It is suggested therefore that sighting reports should not be solicited…” (Canadian Joint Intelligence Committee Memorandum from G.S. Austin, Director of Air Intelligence August 4, 1950)​

Or, they don't really care about what a few conspiracy theorists think about them and doesn't find the effort worthwhile ?

Conspiracy theorists? You see this is the problem in a nutshell. I present a post which demonstrates that there has been an official policy of secrecy, denial and ridicule (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6794059#post6794059) and you totally ignore that documentary evidence to somehow maintain an unfounded belief in “conspiracy theorists”? …and what “effort”? How much “effort” does it take to release files – a number of other governments have done so. It can’t be that difficult.

OMG! Invaded!

I was talking about “risk factors” and a rational assessment and debate surrounding them. Your “OMG! Invaded!” means that you do not consider it a risk factor (or are using irony to cover a deeper fear of the potential reality) - but that is merely one person’s (your) opinion. All I am stating is that I think it would be wise for us to consider the risk and what our response might be in the eventuality. Even the Boy Scouts know that: “Be prepared”!

But wait...where's the evidence of that? You can't even produce one single undisputed case where "aliens" have visited us.

You are simply missing the nuances of the argument. Of course we have no direct evidence (that we know of) indicating “alien visitation”. However there is a wealth of information and evidence suggesting that whatever is “visiting” us, it is intelligently controlled and often conducted in the presence of “beings”. Sure, that is only circumstantial evidence for ETs (for that is what we mean when we talk about aliens - beings from another planet) but given the options (interdimensional beings, alternate universes, etc) it seems to be the most parsimonious explanation. That of course does not make it the right explanation…

Please start by providing evidence of any "alien" even accidentally visiting. Then we can talk about invasion plans and enslavement.

Again you misunderstand my argument. I am talking about risk factors and the wisdom of accounting for them in planning for humanity’s future. Of course I am assuming that we can rationally plan for humanity’s future – and on current and historical evidence, that assumption is by no means a sure bet…(but that should not stop us pushing for it).

I'd rather not have my tax money spent to protect a few creduloids from irrational fears thank you.

This is precisely the argument mounted by the fossil fuel, mining and chemical giants against global warming. It is in fact representative of the quintessential denialist position – that of ignoring the evidence while characterising your opponents and their ideas in derogatory terms.

…and this denialist position is characterised most eloquently and precisely by wollery’s reply to my post that you have just been responding to.

No, I'm not, which makes most of the rest of your post irrelevant twaddle.

The evidence he denies is his own statements that the government should not: “… publish all their findings…” and ”Whatever they do they'll be accused of a cover up. “ (so yes you are!) and the derogatory term is self-evident. And that constituted the sum total of his reply to all that we have just been discussing...

 

[wollery]

The evidence he denies is his own statements that the government should not: “… publish all their findings…” and ”Whatever they do they'll be accused of a cover up. “ (so yes you are!) and the derogatory term is self-evident. And that constituted the sum total of his reply to all that we have just been discussing...

Where did I say that they should cover up their findings?

Quote what I said. Read it again. Learn how to read for comprehension, because I never said that, and frankly I'm getting sick and tired of you accusing me of saying things that I clearly and unequivocally have not said!

If you continue to do this I shall have to assume that you are doing it on purpose.

 

[Jocce]

Rramjet, you have such a narrowminded interpretation of facts and is so far away from a sceptical mindset as one can possibly be. There are so many alternative interpretations of for example the cover up your talking about.

The first ones that come to mind:

1. Some of the observations are of secret US projects
"We don't want them to know that we are testing these things and rather than classify only observations of those we classify the lot. Otherwise it would be obvious which ones belong to us."

2. Some of the observations are of secret projects from other governments
"We don't want them to know that we know that they are testing these things and rather than classify only observations of those we classify the lot...etc."

Sure, it could be that the US government are negotiating with "aliens" or there could be alien plans to invade us. However, we have seen NO undisputed evidence of any "alien" activity whatsoever on earth and until then, I prefer if our governments work with real problems that we know exist.

 

[Jocce]

You are simply missing the nuances of the argument. Of course we have no direct evidence (that we know of) indicating “alien visitation”. However there is a wealth of information and evidence suggesting that whatever is “visiting” us, it is intelligently controlled and often conducted in the presence of “beings”. Sure, that is only circumstantial evidence for ETs (for that is what we mean when we talk about aliens - beings from another planet) but given the options (interdimensional beings, alternate universes, etc) it seems to be the most parsimonious explanation. That of course does not make it the right explanation…

We have no direct evidence.
Translation: We have no evidence.

a wealth of information and evidence suggesting...etc.
Translation: Lots of unreliable data equals good evidence in your opinion.

 

[Rramjet]

Where did I say that they should cover up their findings?

No, you contended that if they published their investigative findings they would be accused of a cover-up anyway (they “can’t win in this situation”) – the clear implication being that the status quo (secrecy) might as well be maintained.

Actually I have run in to this trouble with you on another recent occasion. You write something with a clear implication and then turn around and deny that implication in subsequent posts! I asked you on that previous occasion to outline precisely what you actually meant if my interpretation was incorrect. You failed to do so then, perhaps you will fail to do so on this occasion as well?

Rramjet, you have such a narrowminded interpretation of facts and is so far away from a sceptical mindset as one can possibly be. There are so many alternative interpretations of for example the cover up your talking about.

This is merely an unfounded assertion that flies in the face of the evidence. I have produced (some of the) the documentary evidence that shows a clear policy of secrecy and denial (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6794059#post6794059). Do you reject that documentary evidence?

Re: “cover-ups”:

The first ones that come to mind:

1. Some of the observations are of secret US projects
"We don't want them to know that we are testing these things and rather than classify only observations of those we classify the lot. Otherwise it would be obvious which ones belong to us."

This is of course the “explanation of an unknown by proposing another unknown” argument. There are two things about that: First, if true, it indicates that the government is perfectly capable of a sustained “cover-up” and secrecy (one of the primary debunker arguments against secrecy is that the government could not have kept such a huge secret for so long), and the second thing about “secret technology” is that it is invariably wheeled out for use at practically the first opportunity (Stealth fighters were used in the Gulf War for example). Besides, what’s the use of a superior technology if no-one knows you have it? No, it is a historical fact that “secret technology” is only secret until it is ready to be used (and most times not even then) – and as soon as it is ready, it is trotted out and used.

2. Some of the observations are of secret projects from other governments
"We don't want them to know that we know that they are testing these things and rather than classify only observations of those we classify the lot...etc."

This is the exact same argument as above and exactly the same response applies – with the addition that no other government has demonstrated the technological capacity of the US – the cost alone is prohibitive – look what happened to the Russians – merely trying to keep up caused them to implode…

Sure, it could be that the US government are negotiating with "aliens" or there could be alien plans to invade us.

I am not contending that the US government is “negotiating with the aliens”, they might be, but it seems a little far fetched (given the calibre of people that make up the “government”...) – perhaps some secret part of intelligence operations might be able to pull it off, but we just don’t know really. The aliens might indeed have “plans” for invasion, but again, we just don’t know – and without a peer review structure to guide research, then all sorts of weird and wonderful speculations are allowed to propagate unfettered. We need to be able to have rational debate about these things and that is just not possible it seems while secrecy and denial remains the official US policy and there is no peer review structure.

However, we have seen NO undisputed evidence of any "alien" activity whatsoever on earth and until then, I prefer if our governments work with real problems that we know exist.

There is NO evidence for anything that is “undisputed”, and it is a nonsense to claim anything else, so you have not told us anything we don’t know already about scientific theories.

However, when it comes to evidence for “aliens” and UFOs, we have an almost overwhelming weight of it. Just look back at all the cases I have presented in this thread for example – and if that was not enough, here are a couple more cases for your consideration:

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)

Belgian UFO Sightings (1989 - 1990)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/belgium.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Belgium.html)
F-16 radar (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm)
Report concerning the observation of UFOs in the night from March 30 to March 31, 1990 (Full Report) (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm)

We have no direct evidence.
Translation: We have no evidence.

We have no direct evidence for ET as the cause of UFOs (and UFO reports). Of course we have a wealth of evidence that suggests ET and a great deal of evidence for UFOs themselves as non-mundane objects. So what do you make of the evidence in the cases above then?

a wealth of information and evidence suggesting...etc.
Translation: Lots of unreliable data equals good evidence in your opinion.

No, we have lots of reliable data. I am not sure I would characterise it as constituting “good” or “bad” (or any adjective at all) evidence - it is just evidence… and lots of it.

 

[wollery]

No, you contended that if they published their investigative findings they would be accused of a cover-up anyway (they “can’t win in this situation”) – the clear implication being that the status quo (secrecy) might as well be maintained.

Actually I have run in to this trouble with you on another recent occasion. You write something with a clear implication and then turn around and deny that implication in subsequent posts! I asked you on that previous occasion to outline precisely what you actually meant if my interpretation was incorrect. You failed to do so then, perhaps you will fail to do so on this occasion as well?

There was no intended implication. I very rarely imply things, I just come out and say them, which is why it is so annoying when you interpret my statements and act as though nobody could possibly take any other meaning from them. And what's even more annoying is that when I say that I didn't imply anything, you act as though I'm lying. It is extremely disrespectful behaviour, suggesting that you think I am lying about my meaning and intent. What may be a "clear" implication to you is utterly irrelevant. If I don't actually say it then I haven't "said" it as you stated I had.

The evidence he denies is his own statements that the government should not: “… publish all their findings…” and ”Whatever they do they'll be accused of a cover up. “ (so yes you are!)

You are claiming here that I made statements that the government "should not" do something. None of my statements contained any words that could be construed as "should" or "should not", so your statement above is untruthful. You have added your own incorrect interpretation of my statements and then represented it as though it were my original statement. That is not only disrespectful, but also dishonest.

Stop doing it.

As I said earlier, I say what I mean, and very rarely imply anything. If I don't actually say it, I don't mean it, and I'm not implying it.

Interpreting and extrapolating my statements is disrespectful, and adding your own interpretation and then claiming it is something I stated is dishonest. The quote of yours above is a lie.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...However, when it comes to evidence for “aliens” and UFOs, we have an almost overwhelming weight of it. Just look back at all the cases I have presented in this thread for example – and if that was not enough, here are a couple more cases for your consideration:

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)

Belgian UFO Sightings (1989 - 1990)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/belgium.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Belgium.html)
F-16 radar (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm)
Report concerning the observation of UFOs in the night from March 30 to March 31, 1990 (Full Report) (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm)


We have no direct evidence for ET as the cause of UFOs (and UFO reports). Of course we have a wealth of evidence that suggests ET and a great deal of evidence for UFOs themselves as non-mundane objects. So what do you make of the evidence in the cases above then?

Nope. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary claims require a great weight of evidence is nonsense. The creduloids would be trying to get lots of anecdotes to equal evidence, which of course they don't.

 

[Rramjet]

There was no intended implication. I very rarely imply things, I just come out and say them, which is why it is so annoying when you interpret my statements and act as though nobody could possibly take any other meaning from them. And what's even more annoying is that when I say that I didn't imply anything, you act as though I'm lying. It is extremely disrespectful behaviour, suggesting that you think I am lying about my meaning and intent. What may be a "clear" implication to you is utterly irrelevant. If I don't actually say it then I haven't "said" it as you stated I had.

Oh, so it is okay for you to interpret implications arising from my statements (your perception that the implication of my statements is that you are lying) but I am not able to follow up on the implications of your statements? Every statement made has implications beyond the mere statement. I will say it again, if my interpretation of the implications of your statements is incorrect or flawed in any way, then all you have to do is point that out and explain why.

For example, your contention that my implication was that you are lying is incorrect. I merely stated that I had run into this problem with you on a previous occasion and on that occasion you contended I had interpreted your statement incorrectly but did not explain what you actually meant if my interpretation was incorrect. I simply gave you the chance to correct the record but you did not take it. That does not imply that you are (or were) lying.

You are claiming here that I made statements that the government "should not" do something. None of my statements contained any words that could be construed as "should" or "should not", so your statement above is untruthful. You have added your own incorrect interpretation of my statements and then represented it as though it were my original statement. That is not only disrespectful, but also dishonest.

Oh my… here is your original statement:

The US government and military can't win in this situation. If they investigate every report and publish all their findings then the conspiracy theorists will loudly proclaim that, "The US are interested in this, so there must be something to it, but they aren't telling us the whole story. It must be a serious threat to National Security!", and if they don't investigate every report, and make some findings secret then, "They know something, what aren't they telling us?"

Whatever they do they'll be accused of a cover up.

This was in reply to my argument showing that the US government has an official policy of secrecy and denial toward the subject of UFOs and that a first step toward resolving this problem would be to actually recognise it as a problem.

You statement in reply to that argument then has, in my opinion, clear implications concerning what, in your opinion, the government should or should not do concerning the release of its secret UFO files. Your statement essentially contends that the government is damned if they do, damned if they don’t (release their secret UFO files) but you DID NOT state in conclusion (in consideration of the debate) “Therefore… (they should or should not release the files)”. In consideration of the argument at hand, THAT left your statement open to interpretation. Considering that you have a generally negative attitude toward the subject of UFOs, it was not unreasonable of me to then interpret your statement to mean that you thought that the government should not release its files.

If that is a misinterpretation of your statement, then you can clear it up instantly by indicating whether you think the government should release its files (thus showing my interpretation to be incorrect), or stating that you think the government should not release its files (thus showing my interpretation to be correct).

 

[Rramjet]

Nope. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary claims require a great weight of evidence is nonsense.

Ummm… where are the “extraordinary claims”? No-one has mentioned anything about such claims. Claims of UFOs it seems are ubiquitous to humanity. They are ordinary, usual, routinely-made, every-day claims. They are not unusual or out of the ordinary as far as claims go. As for the evidence …well, the evidence is the evidence. Obviously, in your opinion it is not sufficient (but for what you do not say), but that is merely your opinion. Perhaps you can describe why you think the evidence in the two cases I pointed to recently is not, in your opinion, sufficient… (and perhaps you can also outline what it is not sufficient for)?

For your convenience:

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)

Belgian UFO Sightings (1989 - 1990)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/belgium.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Belgium.html)
F-16 radar (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm)
Report concerning the observation of UFOs in the night from March 30 to March 31, 1990 (Full Report)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm)

 

[Jocce]

This is merely an unfounded assertion that flies in the face of the evidence. I have produced (some of the) the documentary evidence that shows a clear policy of secrecy and denial (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6794059#post6794059). Do you reject that documentary evidence?

No, I just point out that alternative reasons exist for a cover up.

Re: “cover-ups”:

This is of course the “explanation of an unknown by proposing another unknown” argument.

If I had said that this IS the reason then you would be correct. However, I didn't do that. The fact is that there is and has been a cover up but we can only speculate about the reasons but that kind of guessing is not fruitful.

it is a historical fact that “secret technology” is only secret until it is ready to be used (and most times not even then) – and as soon as it is ready, it is trotted out and used.

You can't possibly know if any secret technological developments that has been tested has in the end not been used because it was impractical or too expensive or whatever.

without a peer review structure to guide research, then all sorts of weird and wonderful speculations are allowed to propagate unfettered. We need to be able to have rational debate about these things and that is just not possible it seems while secrecy and denial remains the official US policy and there is no peer review structure.

Peer review structures and research projects are initiated by people, not governments, universities or other organisations. There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from setting up a scientific study of the phenomena.

There is NO evidence for anything that is “undisputed”, and it is a nonsense to claim anything else, so you have not told us anything we don’t know already about scientific theories.

Then I have to say that you have no evidence. The only thing you have is a few real facts and you stretch imagination as far as possible in the interpretation of those facts.

However, when it comes to evidence for “aliens” and UFOs, we have an almost overwhelming weight of it. Just look back at all the cases I have presented in this thread for example

No you don't have that and this very thread is the evidence of that.

We have no direct evidence for ET as the cause of UFOs (and UFO reports). Of course we have a wealth of evidence that suggests ET and a great deal of evidence for UFOs themselves as non-mundane objects. So what do you make of the evidence in the cases above then?

I have said before and I say again. My position is that there is not enough reliable facts available in any of the cases you have presented to identify the objects. That's why they remain UFOs.

No, we have lots of reliable data. I am not sure I would characterise it as constituting “good” or “bad” (or any adjective at all) evidence - it is just evidence… and lots of it.

This is an unfounded assertion.

 

[Stray Cat]

We only have the summary report – not the original full report. Neither do we have the film that was taken using the Cinetheodolites… Of course that leads one to wonder why these have not been publically released… especially if the official line on this case is that no information was gained. Why not then release the original report and the films and settle the matter once and for all?

Of course this goes to the heart of “conspiracy theories” and questions concerning whether there exists a government cover-up. This is a topic that has not been formally discussed in this thread – but there does exist some documentary information to inform us. Apart from the elephant in the room – that is that most official investigative reports have included a statement in conclusion to the effect that UFOs represent no threat to national security (eg; the Robertson Panel), yet UFO documents remain classified to this day, with many FOI requests being rejected on the grounds of national security!

Have you or anyone tried a FoI request in relation to the data collected at White Sands?
It seems to me that if the military have already published details in a summary report, they maybe wouldn't be adverse to releasing the whole of the data (if not the film).
If no one has asked, then I would have to assume that no one really cares to challenge their assumptions which have been based upon the summary report.

 

[wollery]

Oh, so it is okay for you to interpret implications arising from my statements (your perception that the implication of my statements is that you are lying

You said that I had denied my own statements. There's no implication or interpretation needed. That is a direct accusation of lying. If someone denies "their own statements" then either their statement must be a lie, or their denial must be a lie. Of course, it was your statement that was a lie, because I never made any statement about what the Government should or should not do

but I am not able to follow up on the implications of your statements?

Of course you can, but you should be clear that it is your interpretation, and not my statement.

Every statement made has implications beyond the mere statement. I will say it again, if my interpretation of the implications of your statements is incorrect or flawed in any way, then all you have to do is point that out and explain why.

I did point it out, and your reaction was to say

Sure, he stated that the government/military should not be involved in investigating “every report” but he also said they should not “publish all their findings” and “Whatever they do they'll be accused of a cover up.”

In response to Jocce pointing out that you were wrong. This is untrue, because I made no statement about whether or not they should investigate every report or whether or not they should publish their reports. So that was a lie about what I had said. If you had said "I understand his post to mean that he thinks..." then I would have no problem with it, and would simply correct your interpretation.

For example, your contention that my implication was that you are lying is incorrect. I merely stated that I had run into this problem with you on a previous occasion and on that occasion you contended I had interpreted your statement incorrectly but did not explain what you actually meant if my interpretation was incorrect. I simply gave you the chance to correct the record but you did not take it. That does not imply that you are (or were) lying.

No, that part of your post doesn't suggest that I lied, but the other part of your post does.

The evidence he denies is his own statements that the government should not: “… publish all their findings…” and ”Whatever they do they'll be accused of a cover up. “ (so yes you are!)

You say that I deny my own statement, which is a direct accusation that I lied, either in my original statement or by denying it. So yet again you are using a quote mine to misrepresent the argument. In this case you quotemine your own post to make it seem that you hadn't said something that you had.

This contains two lies, the first that I had made statements about what the government should do, and the second that I denied my own statements. Since I hadn't made any such statement I can't possibly have denied making it. What I denied was your interpretation of my statement.

In the process you also quote mine my post, rather than quote it in context, which is dishonest in itself.

Oh my… here is your original statement:

The US government and military can't win in this situation. If they investigate every report and publish all their findings then the conspiracy theorists will loudly proclaim that, "The US are interested in this, so there must be something to it, but they aren't telling us the whole story. It must be a serious threat to National Security!", and if they don't investigate every report, and make some findings secret then, "They know something, what aren't they telling us?"

Whatever they do they'll be accused of a cover up.

Which is simply pointing out that releasing all of their data would not make everyone happy. This is a simple statement of fact. The implication that you draw was not intended, and certainly was never stated, as you try to make it appear in that post.

This was in reply to my argument showing that the US government has an official policy of secrecy and denial toward the subject of UFOs and that a first step toward resolving this problem would be to actually recognise it as a problem.

I agree that it would solve some of the problems, but there would still be some people who would assume that what they released was not their actual findings. That was the only point I was making in my post. In my opinion they should release their findings, but I don't think that they should investigate every single report, since that would be expensive and unnessecarry. I also think that my opinion is irrelevant, since the US government is hardly likely to pay heed to the opinions of a British citizen living in China.

You statement in reply to that argument then has, in my opinion, clear implications concerning what, in your opinion, the government should or should not do concerning the release of its secret UFO files.

See, there you go. In your opinion. I have no problem with this statement, because it is clear that it is your interpretation of my statement. My response to this would simply be to correct your interpretation and clarify that it wasn't what I meant. Why couldn't you say that in the first place?

Your statement essentially contends that the government is damned if they do, damned if they don’t (release their secret UFO files) but you DID NOT state in conclusion (in consideration of the debate) “Therefore… (they should or should not release the files)”. In consideration of the argument at hand, THAT left your statement open to interpretation.

An interpretation that you got wrong, because that was not what I meant to imply. In fact, I didn't mean to imply anything.

Considering that you have a generally negative attitude toward the subject of UFOs, it was not unreasonable of me to then interpret your statement to mean that you thought that the government should not release its files.

I don't have a negative attitude to the subject of UFOs, I have a negative attitude to poor evidence being touted as good evidence, or even proof. I'd like to see some good evidence. Im sure that you'll respond that you've shown us good evidence, but in fact that is just your opinion again.

If that is a misinterpretation of your statement, then you can clear it up instantly by indicating whether you think the government should release its files (thus showing my interpretation to be incorrect), or stating that you think the government should not release its files (thus showing my interpretation to be correct).

And you can remove any need for me to get annoyed by properly representing your interpretations as such, rather than stating that I said things that I hadn't stated.

Of course, I did clear it up by saying that you were wrong, to which you responded by accusing me of lying, whilst lying about what I had or hadn't said.

 

[Rramjet]

Jocce –

The UFO phenomenon is a strange beast. Contained within it are elements of many things, including secret government/military test operations, government/military misinformation and disinformation campaigns, simple misidentification of mundane objects, a small proportion of hoaxes, anomalous “experiential” phenomena and finally the cases that defy mundane explanation.

To the best of our knowledge about 80% of all sightings turn out to be explicable in mundane terms. However, there remains that core 20% of sightings that simply defies mundane explanation - and often where the ETH seems the most parsimonious explanation.

Your contention that a cover-up exists because some of the UFO observations might be secret military operations is incorrect in the way you mean it - that some UFO observations can be explained by secret technology and the government does not want to give away its secrets (while the rest can be explained as misidentifications of otherwise mundane objects). That would be a reason for covering up and keeping secret those sightings related to military technology, but not a reason to keep secret the rest of the sightings. Instead you may be correct in another way – that the government is using the UFO phenomenon as a cover for its secret operations.

Have you or anyone tried a FoI request in relation to the data collected at White Sands?
It seems to me that if the military have already published details in a summary report, they maybe wouldn't be adverse to releasing the whole of the data (if not the film).
If no one has asked, then I would have to assume that no one really cares to challenge their assumptions which have been based upon the summary report.

We only have documentary information we do because Dr Maccabee made the original FoI request (”… they were released to me under the Freedom of Information Act in the spring of 1977.” - http://brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)

You said that I had denied my own statements. There's no implication or interpretation needed. That is a direct accusation of lying. If someone denies "their own statements" then either their statement must be a lie, or their denial must be a lie.

Not at all, one can unintentionally state things in opposition to one’s previous statements (without realising that one has done so). Merely pointing out that opposition does not constitute an accusation of lying.

You Of course, I did clear it up by saying that you were wrong, to which you responded by accusing me of lying, whilst lying about what I had or hadn't said.

I think you will find it was you who accused me of lying… (and more besides), not the other way round… For example:

(…) That is not only disrespectful, but also dishonest. (…) The quote of yours above is a lie.

and

(…) Of course, it was your statement that was a lie (…) So that was a lie about what I had said (…) This contains two lies (…) which is dishonest in itself (…) whilst lying about what I had or hadn't said.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Jocce –

The UFO phenomenon is a strange beast. Contained within it are elements of many things, including secret government/military test operations, government/military misinformation and disinformation campaigns, simple misidentification of mundane objects, a small proportion of hoaxes, anomalous “experiential” phenomena and finally the cases that defy mundane explanation.

To the best of our knowledge about 80% of all sightings turn out to be explicable in mundane terms. However, there remains that core 20% of sightings that simply defies mundane explanation - and often where the ETH seems the most parsimonious explanation.

No, you've been a failure at eliminating all mundane explanations as has been shown numerous times. Remember your inability to come up with the mundane explanation I am still thinking of, despite your most ardent attempts, your inability to even guess at wollery's challenge when the set was finite and known to you, the Rramjet Seven, your Debri^WP Debacle, and your NASA video admission?

Maybe you've found some other method of eliminating mundane explanations since your previous misuse of a process of elimination let you down?

 

[Rramjet]

No, you've been a failure at eliminating all mundane explanations as has been shown numerous times. Remember your inability to come up with the mundane explanation I am still thinking of, despite your most ardent attempts, your inability to even guess at wollery's challenge when the set was finite and known to you, the Rramjet Seven, your Debri^WP Debacle, and your NASA video admission?

Maybe you've found some other method of eliminating mundane explanations since your previous misuse of a process of elimination let you down?

I have replied to your contentions in this regard on numerous occasions. The following is a good example of the replies I have been providing in this context:

wollery, I am not about to embark with you on a RoboT-esque “mindgame” of “Guess what I am thinking of” and then, no matter what I say, you will reply “Nope, try again”. I’ll simply wait until you explicitly name “what you are thinking of” - as you have promised to do - thank you (I have my doubts that you will, RoboT never did).

Moreover, I am sure you are familiar with the child’s game of “Twenty Questions” (sometimes called “Animal, Mineral, Vegetable”)? This game illustrates the process of elimination admirably. In fact you could say the process works so well that even a child can understand and carry it out. It is a rare occurrence indeed if the “thing that is being thought of” has not been identified within twenty questions. It is a simple matter of the direct application of the process of elimination that allows this to happen. Yet here we have a group of self proclaimed academics (wollery, Jocce, Stray cat) who, it seems, claim that they cannot apply the process in the real world. Why is that I wonder? If a child can do it…

wollery actually made good on his promise but I suppose I can now add your name to that list of illustrious names who seem to find the application of the process of elimination beyond them. So why don't you (at least attempt to) address yourself to the substance of my reply - instead of waiting a page or two to repeat your same, tired old contentions over and over, as if you somehow believed that the mere repetition of them them will magically confer veracity on them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have replied to your contentions in this regard on numerous occasions. The following is a good example of the replies I have been providing in this context:

wollery actually made good on his promise but I suppose I can now add your name to that list of illustrious names who seem to find the application of the process of elimination beyond them. So why don't you (at least attempt to) address yourself to the substance of my reply - instead of waiting a page or two to repeat your same, tired old contentions over and over, as if you somehow believed that the mere repetition of them them will magically confer veracity on them.

How about if you actually respond to the substance of my question rather than what you wish I had asked? Here it is again:

You've proven that you are incapable of implementing a process of elimination. I understand that you have looked up a Wiki definition of it. You have completely and utterly failed at using what you looked up. Refer back to your Debri^WP Debacle. To refresh your memory of what must have been a painful event for you, you had to grudgingly admit that debris (what you incorreclty called Debri^WP) was the likely explanation. You. Failed. And yet we are supposed to take your word for it that you are a master at using a process of elimination and that you have skillfully applied your masterful ability to all those other cases that you threw against the wall.

I am thinking of a plausible mundane explanation for the Venezuela incident. Use your process of elimination to eliminate it. If you can't, that should prove even to you that you can't eliminate all mundane explanations. You've said you eliminated all of them, now show your work. You claim to have used your process of elimination on many of the cases you've thrown up in this thread. You may take this ONE case and illustrate how the process works. When you get to the mundane explanation I'm thinking of I'll tell you to stop.

but I suppose I can now add your name to that list of illustrious names who seem to find the application of the process of elimination beyond them.

As of now, yours is the only name on that list. LOL

 

[wollery]

Not at all, one can unintentionally state things in opposition to one’s previous statements (without realising that one has done so). Merely pointing out that opposition does not constitute an accusation of lying.

I think you will find it was you who accused me of lying… (and more besides), not the other way round… For example:

That's it?

That's the sum of your response to my post?

You ignore the vast majority of my points in favour of a semantic, and frankly implausible answer? You said I had "denied" making a statement. Not that my second statement was in contradiction to my first statement, but that I denied it. Of course, the statement you claimed I denied was not a statement I had made, nor was it one anyone had yet suggested I had made, so I fail to see how it's possible for me to have denied making it. In other words, I couldn't possibly have done what you claimed I had done.

Do you feel no remorse for misrepresenting my position, and making factually inaccurate statements about what I said? You even admitted in your previous post that I hadn't stated what you previously claimed I had.

 

[Jocce]

I suppose I can now add your name to that list of illustrious names who seem to find the application of the process of elimination beyond them.

The process of elimination breaks down in a context where the set of possible solutions is infinite and contains unknowns. It's very easy to understand why it breaks down.

Also, your game of 20 questions is a really bad analogy because it assumes that you have someone who can provide an honest answer to all your questions, i.e. someone who knows the correct answer. This is not the situation in any case you have presented so far.

All this has been said before but you have failed to adress this substantive criticism of your process of elimination. Care to do that now?

 

[Stray Cat]

We only have documentary information we do because Dr Maccabee made the original FoI request (”… they were released to me under the Freedom of Information Act in the spring of 1977.” - http://brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)

This would imply that this is all the information held?

You seemed to be saying that the disputed figures were in a summary report and that another (as yet unseen) full report would probably answer all the doubts raised.

If you are claiming that the military still hold more information, then try another FoI request. The classifications of documents available for release have changed a lot since 1977, due to pressure groups and changes in administration.

 

[Rramjet]

I am thinking of a plausible mundane explanation for the Venezuela incident. Use your process of elimination to eliminate it.

It seems you have yet to understand the mechanism by which the process of elimination is so powerfully effective.

The process is logical, iterative and comparative. As applied to UFOs we iteratively compare the described characteristics of the observed object with those of mundane objects to determine if a plausible match can be found. If one can be found, then we consider there to exist a plausible mundane explanation. If no match can be found, then we can legitimately state that the characteristics of the UFO defy plausible mundane explanation.

When it comes to mind games such as your “guess what I am thinking”, then the process is so powerfully effective that a children’s game called “Twenty Questions” (Animal, Mineral, Vegetable) has developed on the basis of it. This game illustrates the process of elimination admirably. In fact you could say the process works so well* that even a child can understand and carry it out. It is a rare occurrence indeed if the “thing that is being thought of” has not been identified within twenty questions. It is a simple matter of the direct application of the process of elimination that allows this to happen. Yet in this thread we have a group of self proclaimed academics (wollery, Jocce, Stray cat) and others (RoboT ) who, it seems, claim that they cannot apply the process in the real world. Why is that I wonder? If a child can do it…

*One must note that to play it requires the actual involvement of the person who is doing the “thinking” (in that to each question they must reply with either a “yes” or a “no” exclusively). In a thread such as this, to play such a game, would undoubtedly lead to a derail of the thread and in consideration of the fact that it can also take 24 hours or so for a reply to appear - somewhat impractical. Fortunately however I am not inclined to play such a game with you – nor have I need to. I have adequately shown the process of elimination to be a powerfully effective tool and if, as you claim, you are “thinking of something” - some plausible mundane explanation – for the Venezuela case, then you can either put it forward for the consideration of others or risk appearing to be petulantly obstructive (those of us with children will, I am sure, have experienced the following . ‘Do you know where the (X is/are)?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Can you please tell us where it is then?’ ‘No!’)

The process of elimination breaks down in a context where the set of possible solutions is infinite and contains unknowns. It's very easy to understand why it breaks down.

The beauty of the process of elimination is that it is so powerful that even where the “possibilities are infinite” it works! The game of Twenty Questions illustrates that succinctly.

Also, your game of 20 questions is a really bad analogy because it assumes that you have someone who can provide an honest answer to all your questions, i.e. someone who knows the correct answer. This is not the situation in any case you have presented so far.

Yes indeed it does require honesty! Perhaps then you can also understand another reason why I might be reluctant to enter into such a game in this thread?

The game however illustrates that, beginning with a set of “infinite possibilities”, using the process of elimination, one can narrow the possibilities down to just one within less that twenty questions. In that process, one begins with very broad questions (the first three are usually drawn from either ‘Animal?’, ‘Mineral?’ or ‘Vegetable?' - three are necessary in case “Fire” or “a vacuum” or some such are being thought of) and in this way one can logically eliminate whole classes of object up front. This process is then iteratively conducted, narrowing the possibilities (and classes of object) with each question until only a single possibility remains. When it comes to UFOs, the questions become a comparison of descriptive characteristics (for example the answer to the question “Does it have wings” can potentially rule out the whole class of objects called “aeroplane” – remembering also the fact that it is “Flying” also rules out an enormous range of many classes of object that cannot fly). Questions about size and speed may then rule out many other classes of object. Questions about manoeuvrability may then rule out other whole classes of object. In fact using just those three or four questions we will have narrowed the potential list of possibilities down to very few indeed! If we have any plausible candidates left by this stage (and often we do not) we can then continue to examine other descriptive characteristics to narrow the field even further.

All this has been said before but you have failed to adress this substantive criticism of your process of elimination. Care to do that now?

Perhaps then you would care to address the substance of my replies in this regard?

Do you feel no remorse for misrepresenting my position, and making factually inaccurate statements about what I said? You even admitted in your previous post that I hadn't stated what you previously claimed I had.

Remorse? No. I have never set out to deliberately misrepresent anyone’s position (unless in ironic jest). My opponents in this (and other) threads however seem to think absolutely nothing of outrageously misrepresenting my position (just look to RoboT’s post above for example). If however you perceive that I have misrepresented your position, then perhaps it would be wiser to simply correct and explain your position rather than simply leaping in to call me a liar? I do note that twice now (on separate issues) I have drawn your attention to the substantive solution but that also twice you have failed to avail yourself of that opportunity to correct and explain.