UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

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?

Sure, no problem. However, that's not the reason I brought it up. You need a dialog with someone who knows the correct answer and you don't have that when applying it on these UFO cases. That's why you fail. It should be very easy to understand.

Q: Is it made of metal or wood?
A: Ehh...I dunno...

 

[RoboTimbo]

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…

Yes, this explains why you think you can do it. So, who is at the other end answering your 20 questions?

*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!’)

Yes, I think we've all seen an example of how children are repetitive in this thread.

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.

You've illustrated succinctly that you can't do it, though. You've never addressed the many problems and failures you've had with it. Remember your Debri^WP Debacle, your total failure to guess the plausible mundane explanation I'm thinking of and your inability to even rise to wollery's challenge when the set was finite and known to you. You still haven't addressed your failures, only crowing about successes that nobody in this thread but you has seen.

So, who is answering your 20 questions? You know, the person who knows what the answer is and can answer your 20 questions?

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?

My hat is off to you. It takes a big man to admit this.

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.

In the case of your Debri^WP Debacle, what was your answer to Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral?

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).

How have I misrepresented your position? You are the only one who has done that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

That seems like a very poor example of determining whether a UFO has a mundane explanation or not. It leaves no room whatsoever for the description being given being wrong, whether because of a mistake or misobservation on the part of the observer, or because of the observer lying.

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).

That's not true. All the answer "no" to the question "does it have wings?" tells you is that the observer didn't see any wings, not that the object didn't have any wings.

 

[Rramjet]

Sure, no problem. However, that's not the reason I brought it up. You need a dialog with someone who knows the correct answer and you don't have that when applying it on these UFO cases. That's why you fail. It should be very easy to understand.

Q: Is it made of metal or wood?
A: Ehh...I dunno...

That’s a strange thing to ask; if a UFO is made of wood – I mean, perhaps they are …seems unlikely, but it is probably not a question we can answer on the available evidence. You are simply asking the wrong questions. I never claimed that you cannot lose a game of Twenty Questions by asking inappropriate questions. Strange also how you can quote a single line from my post, yet seem to miss the whole of the very next paragraph – did you just stop reading at that point? (I have highlighted a few words in that paragraph to help you out):

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.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...“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.

Using your process of elimination, what did you come up with at Campeche? Obviously, oil well fires don't fly or maneuver. What do you think it really was after ruling out all plausible mundane explanations, like oil well fires?

 

[Jocce]

Strange also how you can quote a single line from my post, yet seem to miss the whole of the very next paragraph – did you just stop reading at that point? (I have highlighted a few words in that paragraph to help you out):

Whenever you bring something new to the table I'll reply to it. We have all noted that in your opinion the process of elimination works well in UFO cases and many of us have been patiently explaining to you why your opinion is unfounded. Why don't you adress the critisism instead of repeating your opinion?

The first thing that comes to mind is what others have recently asked "Who is answering the questions in your game?"

 

[Rramjet]

That seems like a very poor example of determining whether a UFO has a mundane explanation or not. It leaves no room whatsoever for the description being given being wrong, whether because of a mistake or misobservation on the part of the observer, or because of the observer lying.

In many of the UFO cases I have presented we have a number of quite detailed observations of the characteristics of the UFO in question – often being able to compare the observations of multiple witnesses, sometimes with radar and photos or film.

You argument here is one of the most basic used (and usually the very first objection put forward) by the debunkers: That the witness (or witnesses) were simply mistaken in their observation(s).

There is no doubt that a majority of cases can be written off in this way. In fact research has indicated that around 80% of all UFO reports can be explained as a misidentification of some mundane object (See for example: http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) – this is including a generally insignificant number of hoaxes etc. However, research also shows us that there is a core of around 20% of cases where the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation.

That's not true. All the answer "no" to the question "does it have wings?" tells you is that the observer didn't see any wings, not that the object didn't have any wings.

This is simply a recasting of the eyewitness error argument and I would refer you to the above research statistics.

Using your process of elimination, what did you come up with at Campeche? Obviously, oil well fires don't fly or maneuver. What do you think it really was after ruling out all plausible mundane explanations, like oil well fires?

I have lost track of the number of times I have answered this question from you RoboT but it surely must be approaching (if not past) double digits by now. Can I ask what you hope to prove by merely reiterating over and over the same old question? The oil well fires are a plausible mundane explanation for the FLIR. What plausible mundane explanation for the radar target do you have (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)? Nooo, don’t tell us …you are thinking of one, but cannot make that public. LOL.

Whenever you bring something new to the table I'll reply to it. We have all noted that in your opinion the process of elimination works well in UFO cases and many of us have been patiently explaining to you why your opinion is unfounded. Why don't you adress the critisism instead of repeating your opinion?

Actually, you have made the claim that it does not work well. However, the mere statement of the claim does not somehow magically confer veracity on it – as much as the UFO debunkers would like to believe that it does.

The first thing that comes to mind is what others have recently asked "Who is answering the questions in your game?"

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.

Perhaps if you cease asking questions I have already answered I might be able to present some new information. Perhaps if you actually addressed yourself to the substance of my replies, then we might be able to move forward with the debate (Instead of merely replying “No, it does not work”, perhaps you can actually explain why you think it does not so that we have some substance in the debate to work with?).

In the interests of injecting some new material into the debate, lets; try a little process of elimination on this case:

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

Did it have wings? Obviously not an aeroplane then. What about its size? Six to eight feet in diameter! Obviously not a helicopter, hot air balloon, dirigible or blimp… and what about manoeuvrability? Can’t conclude much from that …small military experimental hovercraft perhaps? But then why would this guy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-447317/The-flying-saucer-snapped-US-army.html) win a contract with the US government in 2007 if they already had them in 1971?! (and why the excitement over this little number - http://news.ninemsn.com.au/glanceview/144164/new-firefighting-tool-could-save-lives.glance ?) And what about the brightness of the light… Okay, so what about a hoax? But then you have to account for the physical trace evidence – the “ring” on the ground, the glowing substance… the ring was ”vegetal in nature and belonged to an organism of the order of Actinomycetales…” ” Actinomycetaceae is a family of bacteria in the order that contains the medically important genus Actinomyces.” (http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Bacteria/Actinomycetaceae_Family.asp) and “morphologically Actinomyces colonies form fungus-like branched networks of hyphae (…) Actinomyces are known for causing disease in humans, and for the important role they play in soil ecology” (http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Bacteria/Actinomyces_Genus.asp#cite_note-Holt_1994-0). So rings? And what of the nature of that ring? ” The circle was still very distinct and plain to see. the soil was dried and crusted. The circle or ring was approximately 8 feet across, the center of the ring and the outside area were still muddy from recent rains. The area of the ring that was dried was about a foot across and was very light in color. (…) Further experimentation showed the ground under the ring to be dry to a depth of one foot. The ring itself was composed of a whitish substance, which was sent to a laboratory for analysis.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html), yet ” One of those ingredients turns out to be bacteria with a pretty unpronounceable name - actinomycetes. These bacteria flourish in damp, warm soils. (…) Actinomycetes bacteria mean healthy soil and healthy people. Researchers have isolated several antibiotics from ordinary garden dirt. Something to think about the next time you take a stroll after a rainstorm.” (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12716163). This ring was hardly “healthy soil” and Actinomycetes have never been noted to grow into a ring of dry, hydrophilic soil such as was noted. So very strange indeed.

All this tends to rule our plausible mundane explanations as a cause. Perhaps though I have missed something? If so, I have no doubt someone will be able to inform me…

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There is no doubt that a majority of cases can be written off in this way.

Okay, then.

In fact research has indicated that around 80% of all UFO reports can be explained as a misidentification of some mundane object (See for example: http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) – this is including a generally insignificant number of hoaxes etc. However, research also shows us that there is a core of around 20% of cases where the information is reliable enough that eyewitness error is not a plausible explanation.

Whose research?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have lost track of the number of times I have answered this question from you RoboT but it surely must be approaching (if not past) double digits by now. Can I ask what you hope to prove by merely reiterating over and over the same old question? The oil well fires are a plausible mundane explanation for the FLIR

No, oil well fires don't match the witness observations. You've based your process of elimination on that and concluded that it couldn't have been anything mundane, like oil well fires. This is very similar to your Debri^WP Debacle, where you rushed to your conclusion.

So, what do you think the real answer is for Campeche?

What plausible mundane explanation for the radar target do you have (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)? Nooo, don’t tell us …you are thinking of one, but cannot make that public. LOL.

Good, you acknowledge your failure at using a process of elimination! A step in the right direction for you. You still haven't guessed the one I'm thinking of, despite your most ardent attempts.

And who is answering your 20 questions?

 

[Bad vibe]

If this has been previously mentioned my apologies I didn't see it but one avenue of current investigation that could possibly explain some cases could be Tectonis strain theory? its certainly interesting

 

[Jocce]

Perhaps if you cease asking questions I have already answered I might be able to present some new information. Perhaps if you actually addressed yourself to the substance of my replies, then we might be able to move forward with the debate (Instead of merely replying “No, it does not work”, perhaps you can actually explain why you think it does not so that we have some substance in the debate to work with?).

I have done so on several occasions and will do so again since you obviously missed it the first times I posted it.

If the set of possible solutions contains unknowns, your method breaks down. If you don't have answers to your questions, it breaks down.

You're guessing games are not very scientific and does not work in such a context.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

All this tends to rule our plausible mundane explanations as a cause.

Other than that the family were mistaken, or lying, and that the ring itself is nothing more than a mundane fungus.

 

[Rramjet]

Whose research?

The study I linked to was the Battelle Institute’s Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf). The researchers specifically set out to categorise UFO reports into Known, Insufficient Information and Unknown – where the Unknown category is described:

”This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p.12)​

They also categorised the reliability of the sightings into Doubtful, Poor, Good and Excellent.

While overall, 21.5% of all reports studied were classified as Unknown, it is interesting to note that of the 2199 reports examined, 213 (9.7%) were classified as having an “Excellent” reliability - and of those 71 (33.3%) were classified as “Unknown” (p.24). Thus it can be seen that the more reliable the report, the greater the proportion of unknowns there were!

It is also interesting to note that ten years later the Condon Report (1966) could not indentify 33% of the reports it examined (http://ncas.org/condon/) despite a concerted effort to debunk as many reports as possible.

Of further interest: Sturrock (1994) conducted a survey of the membership of the American Astronomical Society. Each respondent was asked to state his opinion on whether the UFO problem deserves scientific study: 23% replied "certainly", 30% "probably", 27% "possibly", 17% "probably not", and 3% "certainly not". (p.2 – Sturrock, P. (1994) Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem: Part 1. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 8, No. 1. 1-45)

The 1997 “Sturrock Panel” concluded: “The UFO problem is not simple and should receive more attention, with an emphasis on physical evidence; regular contact between UFO investigators and the scientific community would be helpful, as also would institutional support; and the possibility of health risks associated with UFO events should not be ignored.” (p. 210 - Sturrock, P., et al. (1998) Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 - October 4,1997. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 2. 179-229)

 

[Rramjet]

If this has been previously mentioned my apologies I didn't see it but one avenue of current investigation that could possibly explain some cases could be Tectonis strain theory? its certainly interesting

Yes, as you say, interesting. “Earthlights” as assumed to result from tectonic stress (or strain) have been known for some time. While these have been proposed as an explanation for observations of “balls of light” nothing is actually known about whether the theory is actually correct. ” One problem is that the Earth is a good conductor and allows any local build-up of charge to leak rapidly away. This makes it difficult to explain how the charge around an active fault could remain in place long enough to drive a lengthy UFO display on the surface or in the sky above.” (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/earthlight.html)

I have done so on several occasions and will do so again since you obviously missed it the first times I posted it.

If the set of possible solutions contains unknowns, your method breaks down. If you don't have answers to your questions, it breaks down.

You're guessing games are not very scientific and does not work in such a context.

The only possible “unknown” within the potential set of mundane solutions is “secret military technology”. However, as I have explained to you on numerous occasions, this explanation falls apart on a number of fronts. First the history of such “secret” technology shows us that it is rarely secret for long and such technology is invariably put into action at the first opportunity (Stealth fighters in the Gulf War for example). Second the characteristics of the UFOs in question tend to rule out such technology (especially in terms of manoeuvrability, the beings noted in conjunction, the ability to shape shift and split apart and rejoin, etc and so on). So unless you are proposing a giant conspiracy on the part of the government/military to hide “exotic technology” such as antigravity, incredible materials science, etc, then such explanations seem somewhat implausible. Fourth, why would the US (presumably the only country with the resources to carry such a giant conspiracy off), test such technology over countries such as Iran – surely they would not risk something going wrong and the technology falling into the “wrong hands” (the U2 debacle cannot have faded from memory yet surely…) Third, the “explanation” of one unknown by proposing another unknown is no explanation at all.

In the end though, while it may be considered that some sightings can be put down to secret military technology, a great many of them cannot be written off so easily.

The process of elimination is a very powerful scientific tool. Without it science could not progress at all. If there was no way to eliminate possibilities, then we would still be floundering in caves staring at the fire waiting for the bogey men to come and get us (in fact we would not even be able to have fire – it would be a cold, dark, bleak world full of irrational fear - much like the world of the UFO debunkers I imagine…)

Other than that the family were mistaken, or lying, and that the ring itself is nothing more than a mundane fungus.

The thing is anyone can claim that another person is lying or that there is some possible explanation. But there are two things to note about that. First the mere statement of an unfounded assertion does not magically confer veracity on that assertion, and second, the explanation has to be plausible. In the latter respect, the “ring” noted in this case:

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

Is certainly not the result of a natural outgrowth of a mundane fungus (actually if you had bothered to investigate, Actinomycetaceae, is not a fungus… and in fact there is a direct quote from the research literature in my previous post that tells you that…). Have you ever considered that your less than careful reading of the evidence might lead you to develop incorrect conclusions in such instances as this?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The study I linked to was the Battelle Institute’s Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf).

404 error with both links.

The researchers specifically set out to categorise UFO reports into Known, Insufficient Information and Unknown – where the Unknown category is described:

”This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p.12)​

They also categorised the reliability of the sightings into Doubtful, Poor, Good and Excellent.

While overall, 21.5% of all reports studied were classified as Unknown, it is interesting to note that of the 2199 reports examined, 213 (9.7%) were classified as having an “Excellent” reliability - and of those 71 (33.3%) were classified as “Unknown” (p.24). Thus it can be seen that the more reliable the report, the greater the proportion of unknowns there were!

It is also interesting to note that ten years later the Condon Report (1966) could not indentify 33% of the reports it examined (http://ncas.org/condon/) despite a concerted effort to debunk as many reports as possible.

Of further interest: Sturrock (1994) conducted a survey of the membership of the American Astronomical Society. Each respondent was asked to state his opinion on whether the UFO problem deserves scientific study: 23% replied "certainly", 30% "probably", 27% "possibly", 17% "probably not", and 3% "certainly not". (p.2 – Sturrock, P. (1994) Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem: Part 1. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 8, No. 1. 1-45)

The 1997 “Sturrock Panel” concluded: “The UFO problem is not simple and should receive more attention, with an emphasis on physical evidence; regular contact between UFO investigators and the scientific community would be helpful, as also would institutional support; and the possibility of health risks associated with UFO events should not be ignored.” (p. 210 - Sturrock, P., et al. (1998) Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 - October 4,1997. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 2. 179-229)

None of this backs up the claim you made.

 

[Jocce]

The only possible “unknown” within the potential set of mundane solutions is “secret military technology”. However, as I have explained to you on numerous occasions...

What you call an explanation is a statement of opinion that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever so I will be forced yet again to dismiss it as unfounded.

The process of elimination is a very powerful scientific tool. Without it science could not progress at all.

I know no scientists who play guessing games when trying to explain phenomena. What they do is that they start by validating the data available before trying to draw conclusions or form theories. You have failed to do that.

The thing is anyone can claim that another person is lying or that there is some possible explanation. But there are two things to note about that. First the mere statement of an unfounded assertion does not magically confer veracity on that assertion, and second, the explanation has to be plausible.

You mean like "aliens" roaming around earth? How is that plausible?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The only possible “unknown” within the potential set of mundane solutions is “secret military technology”.

This is an unsupported assertion. The actual range of unknows to you is nearly infinite. The rest of this...

However, as I have explained to you on numerous occasions, this explanation falls apart on a number of fronts. First the history of such “secret” technology shows us that it is rarely secret for long and such technology is invariably put into action at the first opportunity (Stealth fighters in the Gulf War for example). Second the characteristics of the UFOs in question tend to rule out such technology (especially in terms of manoeuvrability, the beings noted in conjunction, the ability to shape shift and split apart and rejoin, etc and so on). So unless you are proposing a giant conspiracy on the part of the government/military to hide “exotic technology” such as antigravity, incredible materials science, etc, then such explanations seem somewhat implausible. Fourth, why would the US (presumably the only country with the resources to carry such a giant conspiracy off), test such technology over countries such as Iran – surely they would not risk something going wrong and the technology falling into the “wrong hands” (the U2 debacle cannot have faded from memory yet surely…) Third, the “explanation” of one unknown by proposing another unknown is no explanation at all.

...is then a moot point.

In the end though, while it may be considered that some sightings can be put down to secret military technology, a great many of them cannot be written off so easily.

The process of elimination is a very powerful scientific tool. Without it science could not progress at all. If there was no way to eliminate possibilities, then we would still be floundering in caves staring at the fire waiting for the bogey men to come and get us (in fact we would not even be able to have fire – it would be a cold, dark, bleak world full of irrational fear - much like the world of the UFO debunkers I imagine…)

You've got it the wrong way round. If science continued to use your God of the gaps argument, we'd never have come down from the trees.

No doubt the process of elimination is a very powerful tool. If only there were some way to be able to use it when the set is infinite and unknown to you.

The thing is anyone can claim that another person is lying or that there is some possible explanation. But there are two things to note about that. First the mere statement of an unfounded assertion does not magically confer veracity on that assertion

Good. Take note of your unfounded assertions above and below.

, and second, the explanation has to be plausible.

Unfounded assertion. You've never explained what it was at Campeche after using your version of a process of elimination on the FLIR video and the witness statements. Oil well fires are not a plausible explanation. And, of course, the spectre of your Debri^WP Debacle still hangs like a cloud over your process of elimination.

 

[SOdhner]

Rramjet, I took the time to read about this case with the glowing ring on both sites you linked and a few others as well. I have some thoughts on it that I would like to share with you.

First, however, can you acknowledge that I provided a plausible explanation for the Venezuela case? I don't want to get ahead of myself.

 

[Rramjet]

404 error with both links.

Oh ...apologies …they seem to have shifted the document. The updated link for Blue Book Special Report No. 14 is (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf).

However, I am not sure what you mean by “both links”… The link to the Condon Report is working… ((http://ncas.org/condon/).

None of this backs up the claim you made.

I claimed that about 20% of all UFO cases remain unexplained in mundane terms and the research literature suggest that might even be an underestimate of the actual figure. What more do you want?

What you call an explanation is a statement of opinion that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever so I will be forced yet again to dismiss it as unfounded.

Oh, so you think it plausible that in 1976 the US would (for example) test this “secret technology” in a dogfight with a couple of F-4s over Iran (http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)?

I know no scientists who play guessing games when trying to explain phenomena. What they do is that they start by validating the data available before trying to draw conclusions or form theories. You have failed to do that.

Oh, now I see the problem you are having. You view the process of elimination as a mere guessing game!

Perhaps some eminent mathematicians might be able to help you out ” Elimination of potential hypotheses is a fundamental component of many learning processes.” (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=637320) or perhaps from the world of PC troubleshooting ” Using the process of elimination, however, you can usually narrow the problem down rather quickly by making small logical changes and observing the impact on the problem.” (http://www.pcguide.com/ts/gen/diagElimination-c.html) or maybe even the dictionary definition ”a way of finding an answer or solution by first deciding which answers or solutions are not possible” (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/process-of-elimination) or genetics (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-48985.html) or here’s a powerful example showing why Gold is the standard for the world’s currency (http://www.advisoranalyst.com/glablog/tag/process-of-elimination/) or here it is used in neuroscience (http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v4/n9/full/nrn1208.html) or in winemaking (http://books.google.com.au/books?id...esnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAjge#v=onepage&q&f=false) or here is a humorous example of people’s inability to apply the process of elimination! (http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11155) or here is an acronym finder entry showing that “POE” is found in “Science, medicine, engineering…” (http://www.acronymfinder.com/Process-of-Elimination-(POE).html) or perhaps used in psychology (http://books.google.com.au/books?id...page&q=process of elimination science&f=false) or in multiple choice tests (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...A2UDKQ&sig=AHIEtbStra21NcjFCdsUNdO4UM-gochnMg) or in career choice (http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...rticles/2006_06_02/noDOI.15919105902975749699) or in allergy determination (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Food-Safety-Issues-767/Mold-Ingestion.htm) or in science itself (http://www.ssr.org/Induction.shtml) where it forms the very basis of induction (for example http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&sou...on+process+of+elimination&fp=4a5f839db8859e99). I could go on for a very long time showing you how the process of elimination is a fundamental basis for decisions we take in just about every walk of life – but I am sure you get the picture by now? Surely..?

You mean like "aliens" roaming around earth? How is that plausible?

Perhaps you have not noted SETI and the Drake Equation (http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html) and perhaps you no longer believe Stephen Hawking (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36769422/ns/technology_and_science-space/) but you most certainly are ignoring the evidence I have been presenting in this thread!

No doubt the process of elimination is a very powerful tool. If only there were some way to be able to use it when the set is infinite and unknown to you.

It is very fortunate for us that the mundane world is finite then isn’t it? In fact the universe is finite enough to allow the process of elimination to form the basis of the child’s game of Twenty Questions and for that game to be able to reach a successful conclusion no matter what the protagonist is thinking of…

You've never explained what it was at Campeche after using your version of a process of elimination on the FLIR video and the witness statements. Oil well fires are not a plausible explanation.

First I think you are confusing an “explanation” with the process of elimination. The process does not “explain” what things are, it merely eliminates explanations that cannot (plausibly) be. What is left does not necessarily constitute an “explanation”.

Second, in regard to Campeche if you do not think the FLIR can be plausibly explained as oil well fires then perhaps you have an alternate plausible explanation? No? I did not think so… then why state ” Oil well fires are not a plausible explanation.” if you have no plausible alternative – unless of course you believe that the FLIR actually did show UFO activity… in which case you should just come out and say so.

Interestingly there does seem to be a UFO involved in the Campeche incident. ” The first object detected on radar was quite close to the airplane, yet remains unexplained.” (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

Rramjet, I took the time to read about this case with the glowing ring on both sites you linked and a few others as well. I have some thoughts on it that I would like to share with you.

First, however, can you acknowledge that I provided a plausible explanation for the Venezuela case? I don't want to get ahead of myself.

If by that you mean your express admission that you find amusement in deliberately setting out to hoax peer reviewed scientific journals

I'd like to put it out there that there have been times in my life where I would have found it highly amusing to send such a letter in as a prank.

- then no, you have not provided a plausible explanation for the Venezuela case. Perhaps you would like to review the numerous posts on the matter contained in the last three (or more) pages in this thread - where quite a number of points were raised and explored indicating the veracity of the article (that it was not a hoax). The consensus was then that the article is clearly not a hoax and the argument then became one of how to interpret the injuries received by the victims. Given all the evidence, it is simply not plausible to consider the article a hoax.

Not sure however what the Venezuela case has to do with the case you reference:

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

…but I am sure you will enlighten us as to your thoughts on the matter?

 

[RoboTimbo]

It is very fortunate for us that the mundane world is finite then isn’t it? In fact the universe is finite enough to allow the process of elimination to form the basis of the child’s game of Twenty Questions and for that game to be able to reach a successful conclusion no matter what the protagonist is thinking of…

And yet you've proven that you can't do it, time and time again. You've been asked several times and have refused to answer, "Who is answering your 20 questions?"

First I think you are confusing an “explanation” with the process of elimination. The process does not “explain” what things are, it merely eliminates explanations that cannot (plausibly) be. What is left does not necessarily constitute an “explanation”.

Yet you've proven that you haven't been able to eliminate all mundane explanations. Remember your Debri^WP Debacle, your inability to even rise to wollery's challenge when the set was finite and known to you and you still haven't guess the mundane explanation I'm thinkiing of despite your most ardent attempts.

But, you can prove me wrong. What were the 20 questions you asked in your Debri^WP Debacle and what were the answers and who was providing the answers?

Second, in regard to Campeche if you do not think the FLIR can be plausibly explained as oil well fires then perhaps you have an alternate plausible explanation?

Naughty naught! No naughty switching the burden of proof!

No? I did not think so… then why state ” Oil well fires are not a plausible explanation.” if you have no plausible alternative – unless of course you believe that the FLIR actually did show UFO activity… in which case you should just come out and say so.

Oops! It seems that you've misread the statement. Here it is again: You've never explained what it was at Campeche after using your version of a process of elimination on the FLIR video and the witness statements. Oil well fires are not a plausible explanation (after using your version of a process of elimination). And, of course, the spectre of your Debri^WP Debacle still hangs like a cloud over your process of elimination.

I've added some text and bolding to help eliminate confusion.

Interestingly there does seem to be a UFO involved in the Campeche incident. ” The first object detected on radar was quite close to the airplane, yet remains unexplained.” (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

What are your 20 questions for that and what are the answers and who is providing those answers?