UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

Wait Ramjet is saying that what the witness drew doesn't look like a blimp? Am I reading this correctly?

Yes, that is correct.

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboT … as much as it pains me to respond to you at this point since you are obviously ignoring my substantive replies to your questions (and ignoring the question I pose you in return),

No, you are incorrect. It is the questions that you can't answer that are causing your pain. I suggest that if you find that you can't answer them, then you may want to examine your motives in selectively choosing what you respond to and what causes you pain.

I feel I must reiterate that I am proposing no explanations of any kind for the cases I am presenting. I merely observe that they defy plausible mundane explanation.

You've made two errors in this one phrase. One, you did begin this thread stating that you would show evidence for "aliens". Refer back to your OP. If you've given up from lack of evidence, you may want to ask a mod to change the title of your thread. Two, you've proven time and time again that you have absolutely no ability to eliminate mundane explanations. This is what is causing you the most pain, I think.

Since you have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations and no ability to propose non-mundane explanations, your thread really has no point to it.

As to how I have eliminated plausible mundane explanations in coming to that conclusion, I can inform you it is through the use of a process of elimination. If you do not understand how that process works I suggest two things: First type the term into you search engine and press Enter on your keyboard and follow the suggested links.

Your error here is in thinking that you understand it when clearly you have proven that you do not. Remember your Debri^WP Debacle, Campeche, your Rogue River Blimp, and now your Dismay at Delphos?

I asked if you could point to any of your cases where it was shown that your version of a process of elimination worked. You didn't answer other than re-spamming your links.

Second to see the process in action in regards to the Delphos UFO Landing case:

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)
(http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)
(http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf)​

I did see your version of a process of elimination in action. It failed miserably and now you won't talk about Delphos anymore and you won't reveal what your 20 questions are or who you are asking them of so that we can all see where the failure originated.

I suggest you actually read the relevant post I linked to above. If you have any subsequent questions or concerns about my application of the process of elimination I suggest you outline the reasons why you think my application of the process is erroneous – merely claiming that it is erroneous is unfounded, and may be therefore be legitimately dismissed as an unfounded assertion.

I suggest you actually read the relevant questions I've asked and answer those, rather than the questions you wish I had asked. And address the concerns that exist about your version of a process of elimination.

Merely claiming that you successfully apply some version of a process of elimination is unfounded (as you have handily proven so many times) and may be therefore legitimately dismissed as an unfounded assertion.

You've proven that your version of a process of elimination is fatally flawed.

You've never shown it to have been successful nor answered any pertinent questions about it.

 

[Rramjet]

Jocce – the methods of the UFO debunkers in approaching the research and the evidence have been well documented (eg: http://www.nicap.org/klassvufo.htm). Donald Menzel and Phillip Klass set the stage for what might be termed “hysterical debunking” where misrepresentations, mischaracterisations and outright lies about the research and the evidence and the UFO researchers involved became “normalised” as successful UFO debunking methodology. UFO debunkers have since faithfully followed their methodological precedent – seeming to baulk at no underhand, sneaky, disingenuous or backdoor tactic in order to discredit the research, the evidence and the UFO researchers themselves. Denial, ridicule, distortions and obfuscations became standard operating practice.

In your statements Jocce, no matter how you deny, obfuscate, distort, misrepresent or mischaracterise the evidence, the historical facts listed below will always remain to counter you. Quite simply there were no operational Navy or Navy Reserve airships on the West Coast of the continental US in May 1949.

From the August 1949 edition of the Naval Aviation News we have:

”The Naval Air Reserve Training Unit at NAS Lakehurst has a unique place in the Reserve line-up. Not only is it the only unit which provides lighter-than-air training for Organized Reservists but it is the first Reserve LTA unit ever to be set up either in this country or abroad.” (http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1950s/1950/backissues1950.htm - August - p.27)​

”In addition, Volunteer Air Reservists (LTA) from all over the country, who are interested enough in the program to pay their mown travel costs or hitchhike via government air, come to NARTU Lakehurst for their two week annual training.” (http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1950s/1950/backissues1950.htm - August - p.27)​

”Two airships of the K-type have been assigned for use by Reserves.” (http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1950s/1950/backissues1950.htm - August - p.27)​

I have already provided you with the following from various other sources:

“The reduction in LTA following the war left ZP-12 at NAS Lakehurst and ZP-31 at NAS Santa Ana as the only active squadrons. A detachment of ZP-31 continued at NAS Moffett Field. On November 15, 1946, ZP-12 was redesignated ZP-2 and ZP-31 became ZP-1. In the summer of 1947, ZP-1 made a home port and fleet change from NAS Santa Ana in the Pacific Fleet to NAS Weeksville in the Atlantic. The change was due to the reduction of NAS Santa Ana to a maintenance status and the elimination of the ZP overhaul mission at NAS Moffett Field.” (http://www.history.navy.mil/download/lta-09.pdf)​

“The squadron was relocated to MCAS El Toro in 1948” … ” “Santa Ana NAS was decommissioned by the Navy in 1949” … “For less than 2 years, the huge former Navy blimp airfield was evidently reused as a civilian airport.” … “The civilian use of the airfield ended in 1951, when the property was transferred to the Marine Corps, which renamed it as the Marine Corps Air Facility Santa Ana. According to The California State Military Museum, the station reopened during the Korean War. Blimp operations staged a brief resurrection when the Navy established a 2-blimp Naval Air Reserve Training Unit (NARTU) on April 1, 1951. The Marines arrived the next month establishing a helicopter air facility.” (http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/...rangeCo_SE.htm)​

“In January 1944, the last airship arrived at Moffett for assembly. Two months later, Moffett graduated its last training class for pilots and crew. And in August 1947, a blimp went down off the Cape of Mendocino. No lives were lost, but it would be the last flight for the LTA program at Moffett. That same month, the last blimp at Moffett Field was deflated.” (http://www.moffettfieldmuseum.org/history.html)​

“Blimp operations ended forever at Moffett in August 1947.” (http://www.militarymuseum.org/NASMoffettFld.html)​

And the clincher of course:

“Following the war, all blimp squadrons decommissioned except two which included Santa Ana's ZP 31 renamed ZP-1. Santa Ana also became an aircraft storage facility in November 1945. Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended. On June 6, 1949, Santa Ana decommissioned becoming an OLF. For a time, the hangars were used by advertising blimps.” (http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html)​

In your statements Jocce, no matter how you deny, obfuscate, distort, misrepresent or mischaracterise the evidence, the above listed historical facts will always remain to counter you. Quite simply there were no operational Navy or Navy Reserve airships on the West Coast of the continental US in May 1949.

 

[Rramjet]

Wait Ramjet is saying that what the witness drew doesn't look like a blimp? Am I reading this correctly?

Yes, that is correct.

Remembering that the object drawn was a three-dimensional representation of a (relatively flat) circular object (like a coin or a pancake) This is what the witnesses drew (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) (The uppermost drawing represents the object crossing at right angles to our line of sight seen from below and the lower drawing represents the object (seen directly edge on) heading at an angle away from us (into the page), with the upright rear fo the "fin" actually flush with the edge of the disc):

 

[TjW]

Remembering that the object drawn was a three-dimensional representation of a (relatively flat) circular object (like a coin or a pancake) This is what the witnesses drew (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) (The uppermost drawing represents the object crossing at right angles to our line of sight seen from below and the lower drawing represents the object (seen directly edge on) heading at an angle away from us (into the page), with the upright rear fo the "fin" actually flush with the edge of the disc):
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=427&pictureid=2691[/qimg]

It was in fact a two-dimensional representation of the interpretation into three dimensions of a two dimensional image from the binoculars.

 

[Rramjet]

It was in fact a two-dimensional representation of the interpretation into three dimensions of a two dimensional image from the binoculars.

You mean you see things in two dimensions? I am sorry, I hate to be the one to break it to you but most of the rest of us (with healthy eyes) observe three dimensions - something to do with having two eyes creating binocular vision I think.

So the drawing is a three dimensionsal representation of a three dimensional observation rendered onto a two dimensional surface - indeed, quite a technically profficient artistry is apparent in the accomplishment.

 

[EHocking]

It was in fact a two-dimensional representation of the interpretation into three dimensions of a two dimensional image from the binoculars.

Which would have looked something like this in the binoculars.

 

[TjW]

You mean you see things in two dimensions? I am sorry, I hate to be the one to break it to you but most of the rest of us (with healthy eyes) observe three dimensions - something to do with having two eyes creating binocular vision I think.

So the drawing is a three dimensionsal representation of a three dimensional observation rendered onto a two dimensional surface - indeed, quite a technically profficient artistry is apparent in the accomplishment.

Beyond about thirty feet or so, your eyes are not far enough apart for the parallax to give you useful information about the z-plane distance. So, yes. Beyond about thirty feet, I see in 2D. So does everyone else.

 

[wollery]

You mean you see things in two dimensions? I am sorry, I hate to be the one to break it to you but most of the rest of us (with healthy eyes) observe three dimensions - something to do with having two eyes creating binocular vision I think.

So the drawing is a three dimensionsal representation of a three dimensional observation rendered onto a two dimensional surface - indeed, quite a technically profficient artistry is apparent in the accomplishment.

Assuming that the binoculars were good enough quality (properly collimated etc.), there was no heat haze and the boat was rock steady.

Of course, that still wouldn't allow for 3D viewing. A normal pair of binoculars provide apertures that are ~10cm (~4 inches) apart, and the object was estimated to be either 1 mile or 4 miles away. At that distance both eyes would be seeing the same aspect and the image would effectively be 2D.

 

[wollery]

wollery – I really don’t think getting into a subjective and interpretive “He said, no I didn’t, yes you did” type argument is really helpful at this point.

Of course you don't, because the record shows that your version of the exchanges was wrong, whilst mine was accurate.

In fact it merely distracts from the substantial issues at hand (and I suspect this may be – at least in part – your underlying purpose).

My underlying purpose is to exonerate myself from your unfounded accusations of making false or misleading statements and highlight your dishonesty or inability to do even the most basic fact checking, whichever it is that causes you to post such inaccurate garbage.

Further, we rely at least in part, on the evidence that is selected for us to review, which relies on the honesty and analytical ability of people such as Dr. MacCabee, and I have shown that in at least one case he was either lazy, incompetent, or dishonest. That means that we should be cautious when using his analyses. If he can be that wrong in analysing such a simple case then what else can he get wrong?

What's your underlying purpose in misrepresenting the course of previous exchanges that are on the record? Because this isn't the first time you've done it.

I have accused you of making false and misleading statements,

Which I showed, definitively, to be completely incorrect.

you have accused me in turn.

No, I've shown definitively that your statements were false and misleading.

Do you see the difference?

As you state, the record is there for all to see,

Yes, I suggest everyone look at it. Please do. Let us know what you think.

so I propose we leave it at that and get back to the discussing research and the evidence.

Well, given the circumstances, you would propose that.

And, as predicted, no apology and not even an acknowledgement that you were wrong. I don't know about anybody else, but for me, any credibility you had as an honest debater has just vanished.

 

[Rramjet]

In reference to Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) EHocking presents an image that purports to be a representation of what the witnesses saw ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_26614adc7dd50d502.jpg[/qimg]). The problem with that image is that it assumes that in 1949 eyewitnesses saw the world in monochrome (plus yellow) … and that people also saw things as mere sketches in outline …and that the sky was a dull yellow in 1949 …and that K-class blimps had no fins …and that GoodYear mysteriously failed to stencil their logo onto the sides of their active blimps – or if they did, the logos only mysteriously appeared whenever a blimp stopped to have its photo taken …and that the eyewitnesses were able to precisely report the distance between themselves and the UFO in a clear blue sky …wait, did I say blue? …sorry, yellow …and that binoculars produced blurry images in those days …and that both the binoculars and the UFO were somehow fixed in space and time...

According to Tjw it seems also in 1949 humans somehow did not possess the capacity for binocular vision, nor were they able to use parallax (” Beyond about thirty feet, I see in 2D. So does everyone else.”).

RoboTimbo implied that there are different versions of the process of elimination (“your version” he states). But there is only one version of such a process: as ” a way of finding an answer or solution by first deciding which answers or solutions are not possible” and the way we do that is an iterative, logical, process of comparing observational characteristics with potential explanations and seeing if they match. If they do not, then the explanation is ruled out (eliminated), if they do, the explanation remains plausible.

RoboT also stated he was asking relevant questions (“I suggest you actually read the relevant questions I've asked”). But I cannot seem to find any. He implied that evidence of existence constitutes an explanation of existence (”…you did begin this thread stating that you would show evidence … Since you have … no ability to propose non-mundane explanations, your thread really has no point to it”). But of course this is nonsense. Just because we can describe the characteristics of phenomena, does not mean we can explain their cause. He also stated that an inability to understand on my behalf was proved (”Your error here is in thinking that you understand it when clearly you have proven that you do not.” – but that is merely an unfounded assertion and we may legitimately dismiss it as such.

One hopes that Jocce, in the face of the irrefutable evidence (HERE), will cease claiming the existence of operational Navy (or Naval Reserve) airships on the west coast in 1949 (eg; HERE) - and will cease misrepresenting my statements about the eyewitness drawings ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=427&pictureid=2691[/qimg]) (eg; HERE) – it remains to be seen whether he will or not.

wollery accused me of “dishonesty or inability to do even the most basic fact checking” and accused Dr Maccabee of being “lazy, incompetent or dishonest”. However, I believe my own and Dr Maccabee’s records can speak for themselves.

Meanwhile of course they all completely ignore the following new case I have presented as evidence of UFOs that defy mundane explanation. That is The Hudson Valley Triangle Sightings (1982 - 1995) (links in THIS post).

 

[EHocking]

In reference to Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) EHocking presents an image that purports to be a representation of what the witnesses saw

This is a complete and utter misrepresentation and distortion of my post.

The problem with that image is that it assumes that in 1949 eyewitnesses saw the world in monochrome (plus yellow)

And that everything people saw in 1949 through binoculars had subtitles explaining what they were looking at.

As you well know, this image was first presented in 2009 as;

How about resizing them so they represent the relative sizes at 1 mile through the binoculars?
Can't make out any wrtiting[sic] on that K Class and can barely make out the top and bottom fins.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_26614adc7dd50d502.jpg
With the naked eye, these would be merely dots.

… and that people also saw things as mere sketches in outline …and that the sky was a dull yellow in 1949 …

Oh, please.

and that K-class blimps had no fins …

There are definitely fins on the representation of the K-class blimp. That you cannot see them was, indeed, the point of the post.

and that GoodYear mysteriously failed to stencil their logo onto the sides of their active blimps

Nowhere in the series of my posts on field of view of the nautical binoculars that might have been available in 1949 do I represent a Goodyear blimp. This is most disingenous of you to misrepresent my posts by inventing "facts" that were never presented by me in this discussion.

– or if they did, the logos only mysteriously appeared whenever a blimp stopped to have its photo taken …and that the eyewitnesses were able to precisely report the distance between themselves and the UFO

Here is why the FOV at 1 mile was being discussed, from post 745,

Here's some inconsistency on the observation of Mr.C, for example,

All witnesses were looking NE to ENE at a point on the river near Elephant Rock.

Here's that position in Google Maps. Turn on the "terrain" feature and you will see that in that position, they were looking directly at a ridge, 1 mile away, that rises to 650ft. Further on (3 miles) they would have seen a peak of 800ft. At 4 miles away in that line of sight there is a peak of 1,400ft which would have been directly underneath the UFO and slightly to the right. Behind this, at a distance of 6 miles is another peak that is 2,160ft in height. All visible in that line of sight.

So, the accuracy of the description of this area as "..at that point, was at sea level or approximately so" is wildly different to the actual terrain in the area and makes one doubt the accuracy of the other observations if these witnesses can describe the steeply hilly surroundings of Rogue River as "at sea leavel or approximately so".

To pretend it was otherwise is disingenous.

in a clear blue sky …wait, did I say blue? …sorry, yellow

Please this is lame.

…and that binoculars produced blurry images in those days

They did and still do

…and that both the binoculars and the UFO were somehow fixed in space and time...

Uh, we are discussing a particular point, fixed in space and time, in the example discussing the FOV of 8x56 binoculars and the relative size of a 30ft diameter object in same.

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboTimbo implied that there are different versions of the process of elimination (“your version” he states). But there is only one version of such a process: as ” a way of finding an answer or solution by first deciding which answers or solutions are not possible” and the way we do that is an iterative, logical, process of comparing observational characteristics with potential explanations and seeing if they match. If they do not, then the explanation is ruled out (eliminated), if they do, the explanation remains plausible.

RoboT also stated he was asking relevant questions (“I suggest you actually read the relevant questions I've asked”). But I cannot seem to find any.

Your dishonesty is showing. They are at the very top of page 212 if you are using the default 40 posts per page. I'll post them for you again:

Rramjet, I'll make it simple for you.

How did you eliminate "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation for Delphos Kansas?

What are your 20 questions?

Who were you asking them of and who was answering them?

Since your version of a process of elimination is demonstrably deeply, if not fatally, flawed, these are pertinent questions that would need to be answered before you can legitimately claim to use your version of a process of elimination on any of the cases you've presented.

And I'll also ask again:

Can you point to any of your cases where it was confirmed that "aliens" were the answer?

He implied that evidence of existence constitutes an explanation of existence (”…you did begin this thread stating that you would show evidence … Since you have … no ability to propose non-mundane explanations, your thread really has no point to it”). But of course this is nonsense.

Your assertion that it is nonsense is demonstrably an unfounded assertion and we may legitimately dismiss it as such. I'll say it again and maybe you will make an attempt at an actual refutation.

You have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations.
You have stated that you aren't proposing non-mundane explanations (even that assertion of yours is dishonest. You are proposing "aliens".)

So what is the point of this thread?

Just because we can describe the characteristics of phenomena, does not mean we can explain their cause. He also stated that an inability to understand on my behalf was proved (”Your error here is in thinking that you understand it when clearly you have proven that you do not.” – but that is merely an unfounded assertion and we may legitimately dismiss it as such.

Your assertion is, again, demonstrably incorrect to the point of being dishonestly incorrect. Your error in thinking continues unabated. You do not understand any version of a process of elimination and your version has been proven to be fatally flawed.

wollery accused me of “dishonesty or inability to do even the most basic fact checking” and accused Dr Maccabee of being “lazy, incompetent or dishonest”. However, I believe my own and Dr Maccabee’s records can speak for themselves.

Indeed, they do. Volumes.

 

[SOdhner]

Oh, hey, the UFO thread is back!

Rramjet, now that this conversation is back on the front page I'd like to remind you that you have repeatedly ignored my posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6931455&postcount=8408

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6935927&postcount=8418

I would appreciate a reply when you get the time.

 

[Rramjet]

This is a complete and utter misrepresentation and distortion of my post.

As I explained, your post was a distortion of reality. The image you presented was in no way representative of what the observers saw.

In a clear blue sky with the sun low at their backs in near perfect viewing conditions, with the naked eye they could make out a circular shape (like a coin). Using binoculars two of them could see an upper fin (singular) but no other large external features (like other fins, a gondola, engines or a GoodYear logo – and make no mistake – GoodYear were the only people with blimps anywhere near the area). One must also remember that the UFO was first seen coming toward them. It then turned across their field of view to then head, at an angle, away from them. The witnesses would thus have obtained a good view of many aspects of the object. With binoculars they could also make out that the skin of the object looked wrinkled and dirty. So to claim as you did that with the naked eye all that could be seen would be “merely dots” is on the evidence incorrect and then to make out that the use of binoculars would have produced “blurry” images is also, on the evidence, incorrect. (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

Your post was thus misrepresentative because it ignored the evidence. Moreover, you have merely taken what is probably the single most error prone observation of the whole series of observations – an estimate of distance in a clear blue sky – and used that as the most accurate in order to make out that the rest of the observations were inaccurate!

How did you eliminate "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation for Delphos Kansas?

I did not “eliminate” a hoax, I merely ascertained that, given all that we know about the case, a hoax was not a plausible explanation. (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)

What are your 20 questions?

I used the children’s game of twenty questions as an analogical example to demonstrate to you how powerful the process of elimination actually is. It does not mean that when assessing UFO cases we literally play the game…

Who were you asking them of and who was answering them?

…rather, we “ask questions” of the evidence. That is we compare the characteristics of the evidence with proposed mundane explanations to see if they match. If the observed characteristics do not match the proposed explanation then we rule out the explanation from being plausible. If they do match, the explanation becomes plausible. We use this process in a logical, iterative fashion, often being able to rule out whole classes of explanation in one iteration.

Can you point to any of your cases where it was confirmed that "aliens" were the answer?

I am not sure what you mean by that. It seems to show a misunderstanding of my position in all this. I have used “alien” (in quotation marks) to mean foreign to our understanding of the natural and technological world - and in that sense have contended that the cases I have been presenting defy mundane explanation. I have certainly not proposed ET as an explanation. Even though the circumstantial evidence for such a conclusion might seem compelling, I am fully aware that looks can be deceiving.

You have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations.

That is an unfounded assertion that may be legitimately dismissed as such.

You have stated that you aren't proposing non-mundane explanations (even that assertion of yours is dishonest. You are proposing "aliens".)

I am proposing NO explanations. I am merely pointing out that the cases I have been presenting defy mundane explanation.

So what is the point of this thread?

To present the research and the evidence that demonstrates that there are a percentage of UFO cases (according to the Battelle study more than 20% of all cases) that defy mundane explanation.


As SOdhner points out I stated:
” It is a misrepresentation because I have NEVER contended ET was a plausible explanatory hypothesis. I keep repeating that we have no direct evince for it:”

I also stated:
” it is certainly plausible to imagine that if an advanced ET civilisation existed, then they could visit earth.”

I’ll grant you those two statements seem incompatible. I must therefore clarify.

While there is nothing in our scientific knowledge that would rule out ET as an explanation for UFOs and while the circumstantial evidence points toward ET as an explanation, we still have no direct evidence that ET is the explanation – and while ever that situation remains I am not going to claim that ET is the explanation for UFOs. What is certain is that something strange is going on that presents as if it were ET - but is it really?

Returning now to Venezuela (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG):

Maybe he liked the attention. Maybe he believed the story but actually heard it from someone ELSE who made it up, and he was merely passing it off as his own. Maybe it was part of a wager over whether or not Scientific American would fact-check it. Maybe he thought it was funny.

We have been through all this in some detail in this thread. Of course we can never rule out a hoax, however, given all the evidence available to us, a hoax would seem implausible in this instance. That is, all the evidence points toward the letter being genuine and none points toward a hoax. Of course people can claim anything that they can think of – and unfortunately for science and the search for truth, such claims will be made by people – especially if they are intent on muddying the waters. Of course the people who make such claims will also claim they are putting forward legitimate explanatory hypotheses. There are many debates in society where this occurs – a topical one is anthropomorphic global warming, where well over 90% of all the world’s scientists are in agreement that the evidence shows that by the industrial emission of CO2 into the atmosphere we are warming the planet and risking catastrophic climate change in the process – yet to read the media one might get the impression that there is actually a scientific debate about that conclusion and that scientists are divided over the issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue. The same with the Venezuelan case – the overwhelming consensus from all who have studied the case is that the letter is not a hoax. The unfortunate reality for any such debate is that there will always remain a hard core of detractors, no matter what the evidence shows.

Now when you turn to discuss the radiation hypothesis, that is a different matter. There is genuine contention about that hypothesis.

It has already been pointed out that while many of the symptoms are similar to radiation sickness, it doesn't match any specific TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation. There are, in fact, a number of problems with this theory. If I were to make up a random list of medical side-effects, it wouldn't be unlikely for it to match something. Radiation, heavy metal poisoning, some rare disease.

The evidence (in my opinion) is clear. The symptoms most closely resemble those of radiation poisoning. We have the brilliant light source (without heat), the “immediate” effects of vomiting and skin damage, then a latency period, then hospitalisation and the manifestation of virulent sores and the loss of hair and a general “truly horrible” appearance, so bad that it was hoped that none of the victims would die. No other cause (not heavy metal poisoning, not a “rare” disease) matches the symptomatology so precisely.

It was supposed to be a meteorological incident.

It was assumed by Cowgill to be a meteorological incident. Remember in 1856 ionizing radiation had not yet been discovered – and of course that makes the radiation hypothesis even more compelling – that without knowing the course of radiation sickness, or that it even existed, he was able to describe something that so closely resembled it.

Those are often associated with a bright light, and rarely with heat.

“Meteorological incidents”? I think you will find the temperature of light emitting “meteorological incidents” extremely high. Of course there are other phenomena such as plasma balls and St Elmo’s Fire where heat is not a factor – but then they are not brilliant lights associated with no heat and a loud humming.

Also, there's no reason that radiation needs to be associated with a bright light.

Bright light is radiation! However what we are talking about here is ionising radiation. There was obviously a source of radiation, and the symptomatology resembles ionising radiation. It requires no great leap of the imagination to associate the two. There was also an associated “ loud humming” sound.

Also, there's no reason it needs to be devoid of heat.

…but nevertheless it was… ”the brilliant light was not accompanied by a sensation of heat”.

Also, what about the smoke?

There was a ”smoky appearances and a peculiar smell”.

This still sounds like a random list.

To you, maybe…

Again, if I'm making up a story I would include some random sounds, or lights, or whatever.

Perhaps you would. But in 1886, before ionizing radiation was discovered, it would be an implausible coincidence to (as you would have it, randomly) describe the symptomatology of ionising radiation so closely.

I always include details like that when telling ghost stories. That doesn't make them real.

Ah, so you admit to hoaxing and deception? Why does that not surprise me?

Why not heavy metal poisoning? That doesn't quite fit either, but it fits at least as well as radiation does.

It does not fit at all. (see for example http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/C15891.html) Besides, what possible source for heavy metals could there be in 1886 Venezuela?

 

[wollery]

In reference to Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) EHocking presents an image that purports to be a representation of what the witnesses saw ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_26614adc7dd50d502.jpg[/qimg]). The problem with that image is that it assumes that in 1949 eyewitnesses saw the world in monochrome (plus yellow) … and that people also saw things as mere sketches in outline …and that the sky was a dull yellow in 1949 …and that K-class blimps had no fins …and that GoodYear mysteriously failed to stencil their logo onto the sides of their active blimps – or if they did, the logos only mysteriously appeared whenever a blimp stopped to have its photo taken …and that the eyewitnesses were able to precisely report the distance between themselves and the UFO in a clear blue sky …wait, did I say blue? …sorry, yellow …and that binoculars produced blurry images in those days …and that both the binoculars and the UFO were somehow fixed in space and time...

Misrepresentation. His image is a diagram to show the relative sizes and shapes of objects at the estimated distance with the magnifying power of the binoculars as described. What it patently isn't meant to be is a faithful representation of what the observers actually saw. If you are aware of this fact then you are intentionally misrepresenting his image. If you are not aware of this fact.......

According to Tjw it seems also in 1949 humans somehow did not possess the capacity for binocular vision, nor were they able to use parallax (” Beyond about thirty feet, I see in 2D. So does everyone else.”).

Misrepresentation. This one is particularly heinous, because you include Tjw's quote where he explain about the distance beyond which human binocular vision fails to give parallax information. If you really want to, why don't you find some evidence to contradict him? Then you might be able to demonstrate that his post is wrong, instead of just trying to cast aspersions.

RoboTimbo implied that there are different versions of the process of elimination (“your version” he states). But there is only one version of such a process: as ” a way of finding an answer or solution by first deciding which answers or solutions are not possible” and the way we do that is an iterative, logical, process of comparing observational characteristics with potential explanations and seeing if they match. If they do not, then the explanation is ruled out (eliminated), if they do, the explanation remains plausible.

You likened the process of elimination to a game of 20 questions, and have repeatedly failed to respond to the enquiries put to you about who is answering your questions. In 20 questions there is someone who knows the answer, in all of the cases we are discussing there is nobody who knows the answer.

RoboT also stated he was asking relevant questions (“I suggest you actually read the relevant questions I've asked”). But I cannot seem to find any. He implied that evidence of existence constitutes an explanation of existence (”…you did begin this thread stating that you would show evidence … Since you have … no ability to propose non-mundane explanations, your thread really has no point to it”). But of course this is nonsense. Just because we can describe the characteristics of phenomena, does not mean we can explain their cause. He also stated that an inability to understand on my behalf was proved (”Your error here is in thinking that you understand it when clearly you have proven that you do not.” – but that is merely an unfounded assertion and we may legitimately dismiss it as such.

Talking of unfounded assertions, you've made loads. Should we start just dismissing your unevidenced statements out of hand?

One hopes that Jocce, in the face of the irrefutable evidence (HERE), will cease claiming the existence of operational Navy (or Naval Reserve) airships on the west coast in 1949 (eg; HERE) - and will cease misrepresenting my statements about the eyewitness drawings ([qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=427&pictureid=2691[/qimg]) (eg; HERE) – it remains to be seen whether he will or not.

Given that there is evidence both ways, and you continue to misrepresent his statements on the drawings, I don't see why he should.

wollery accused me of “dishonesty or inability to do even the most basic fact checking” and accused Dr Maccabee of being “lazy, incompetent or dishonest”.

No, I demonstrated your failure to get even your own posting history correct, as well as your inability to fact check and/or your dishonesty. I've also demonstrated Dr. MacCabee's errors, and if it wasn't dishonesty on his part then it must have been either incompetence or laziness.

However, I believe my own and Dr Maccabee’s records can speak for themselves.

They do. Just not in the way you want them to.

Oh look, ignoring your attempt to shift the focus away from the salient points that continue to be raised by myself and others.

 

[SOdhner]

given all the evidence available to us, a hoax would seem implausible in this instance. That is, all the evidence points toward the letter being genuine and none points toward a hoax.

You've said this over and over and over, and you have yet to actually present any such evidence. I've been asking for several months.

That's not correct. I could absolutely be convinced, if you provided any evidence. You've speculated about his reputation, his intentions, and his job security but you have not provided anything to back these assumptions up. You haven't given any actual reasons that it isn't plausible for the letter to be factually inaccurate, and you haven't actually responded to a single one of my reasons why it IS plausible - you've just dismissed me without ever giving a reason.

The symptoms most closely resemble those of radiation poisoning.

You keep saying that, but you refuse to say what TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation you think this matches. This should be easy for you, since different types and different dosages cause different reactions. What TYPE and DOSAGE, Rramjet?

We have the brilliant light source (without heat),

Not a symptom of radiation poisoning, nor is "bright light" or "lack of heat" a cause of radiation.

the “immediate” effects of vomiting and skin damage, then a latency period, then hospitalisation and the manifestation of virulent sores and the loss of hair and a general “truly horrible” appearance, so bad that it was hoped that none of the victims would die.

This doesn't match any specific TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation. Feel free to try and prove me wrong by specifying what particular TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation you think fits.

No other cause (not heavy metal poisoning, not a “rare” disease) matches the symptomatology so precisely.

I disagree, but obviously we can't compare the two side-by-side until you specify the TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation that you think fits.

It was assumed by Cowgill to be a meteorological incident.

Right. In fact, this isn't a UFO account at all because there is no Object, Flying or otherwise.

Remember in 1856 ionizing radiation had not yet been discovered – and of course that makes the radiation hypothesis even more compelling – that without knowing the course of radiation sickness, or that it even existed, he was able to describe something that so closely resembled it.

It has already been pointed out that while many of the symptoms are similar to radiation sickness, it doesn't match any specific TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation. There are, in fact, a number of problems with this theory. If I were to make up a random list of medical side-effects, it wouldn't be unlikely for it to match something. Radiation, heavy metal poisoning, some rare disease.

This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy you're using. He lists a bunch of symptoms, you pick something that kinda sorta fits most of them, and act as if that was what he was describing. If he had listed different symptoms, maybe you would have latched onto heavy metal poisoning and then declared "It MUST be, because what are the odds he would have been able to describe the symptoms of heavy metal poisoning so closely!". The same goes for Zebra Pox or whatever else.

I think you will find the temperature of light emitting “meteorological incidents” extremely high.

The light from, say, a bolt of lightning travels much farther than the heat from it. I've seen the whole room lit up brilliantly by a lightning strike miles away.

Bright light is radiation!

Obviously not what we're discussing. The fact remains that a light source is in no way evidence for or against radiation poisoning.

There was obviously a source of radiation, and the symptomatology resembles ionising radiation. It requires no great leap of the imagination to associate the two.

That's incredibly circular reasoning. If it wasn't radiation poisoning, there wasn't a radiation source.

There was a hum, and a light, and some smoke. None of that is evidence for or against radiation poisoning.

Ah, so you admit to hoaxing and deception? Why does that not surprise me?

If you count messing with kids around a camp fire as "hoaxing and deception" then yeah, sure. It probably doesn't surprise you because you know for a fact that we've discussed this before. Is there a point? Does this in any way change my objections towards your arguments?

Besides, what possible source for heavy metals could there be in 1886 Venezuela?

The same source as there is for radiation in that time and place. Aliens, obviously.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
”In reference to Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) EHocking presents an image that purports to be a representation of what the witnesses saw (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_26614adc7dd50d502.jpg). The problem with that image is that it assumes that in 1949 eyewitnesses saw the world in monochrome (plus yellow) … and that people also saw things as mere sketches in outline …and that the sky was a dull yellow in 1949 …and that K-class blimps had no fins …and that GoodYear mysteriously failed to stencil their logo onto the sides of their active blimps – or if they did, the logos only mysteriously appeared whenever a blimp stopped to have its photo taken …and that the eyewitnesses were able to precisely report the distance between themselves and the UFO in a clear blue sky …wait, did I say blue? …sorry, yellow …and that binoculars produced blurry images in those days …and that both the binoculars and the UFO were somehow fixed in space and time...”

Misrepresentation. His image is a diagram to show the relative sizes and shapes of objects at the estimated distance with the magnifying power of the binoculars as described. What it patently isn't meant to be is a faithful representation of what the observers actually saw. If you are aware of this fact then you are intentionally misrepresenting his image. If you are not aware of this fact.......

A yellow sky? Monochrome images? An assumption that the eyewitnesses were able to accurately estimate the distance in a clear blue sky with no reference points? A discounting of motion? A discounting of the eyewitness evidence in everything but their distance estimates? A “faithful representation”? I think not.

I stated:
”According to Tjw it seems also in 1949 humans somehow did not possess the capacity for binocular vision, nor were they able to use parallax (” Beyond about thirty feet, I see in 2D. So does everyone else.”).

Misrepresentation. This one is particularly heinous, because you include Tjw's quote where he explain about the distance beyond which human binocular vision fails to give parallax information. If you really want to, why don't you find some evidence to contradict him? Then you might be able to demonstrate that his post is wrong, instead of just trying to cast aspersions.

“Particularly heinous”? I quoted him directly. The object turned in front of the witnesses, if that did not provide parallax information about it then I don’t know what would.

You likened the process of elimination to a game of 20 questions…

No, I provided the game as an example of how powerful the process of elimination could be.

…and have repeatedly failed to respond to the enquiries put to you about who is answering your questions.

I have, but to reiterate in case you missed it: We compare the characteristics of the evidence with the characteristics mundane explanations and ask: “Do they match”? If they do match, the mundane explanation becomes a potentially plausible explanation. If not, then we eliminate the explanation as implausible.

In 20 questions there is someone who knows the answer, in all of the cases we are discussing there is nobody who knows the answer.

Then perhaps you simpy don’t understand how the process of elimination works? It can only supply us with potentially plausible mundane explanations. Nothing more. Nothing less. Just because we cannot explain an observation does not mean we cannot describe its characteristics and compare those characteristics to see if they match any potential mundane explanations.

I stated:
” RoboT also stated he was asking relevant questions (“I suggest you actually read the relevant questions I've asked”). But I cannot seem to find any. He implied that evidence of existence constitutes an explanation of existence (”…you did begin this thread stating that you would show evidence … Since you have … no ability to propose non-mundane explanations, your thread really has no point to it”). But of course this is nonsense. Just because we can describe the characteristics of phenomena, does not mean we can explain their cause. He also stated that an inability to understand on my behalf was proved (”Your error here is in thinking that you understand it when clearly you have proven that you do not.” – but that is merely an unfounded assertion and we may legitimately dismiss it as such.”

Talking of unfounded assertions, you've made loads.

Actually, I directly quoted RoboT and detailed some logical conclusions one could draw from his statements – so perhaps you can point to which of my statements above are unfounded? (or we may legitimately dismiss your assertions in this regard as unfounded).

Should we start just dismissing your unevidenced statements out of hand?

Where I make claims that are unevidenced then you would be perfectly entitled to do so.

Given that there is evidence both ways, and you continue to misrepresent his statements on the drawings, I don't see why he should.

You see, this is an unfounded assertion and may therefore be legitimately dismissed as such.

No, I demonstrated your failure to get even your own posting history correct, as well as your inability to fact check and/or your dishonesty. I've also demonstrated Dr. MacCabee's errors, and if it wasn't dishonesty on his part then it must have been either incompetence or laziness.

As I stated before, you may accuse me of “dishonesty” (etc) and Dr Maccabee of “dishonesty” or “incompetence or laziness” all you like – but I will merely respond that both mine and his records speak for themselves.

 

[RoboTimbo]

How did you eliminate "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation for Delphos Kansas?

I did not “eliminate” a hoax, I merely ascertained that, given all that we know about the case, a hoax was not a plausible explanation. (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)

What do you think of your version of a process of elimination now that you have been shown that HOAX is the most likely explanation? Do you now concede that you have no ability whatsoever to eliminate mundane explanations?

What are your 20 questions?

I used the children’s game of twenty questions as an analogical example to demonstrate to you how powerful the process of elimination actually is. It does not mean that when assessing UFO cases we literally play the game…

So your analogy is fatally flawed then, along with your version of a process of elimination.

Who were you asking them of and who was answering them?

…rather, we “ask questions” of the evidence. That is we compare the characteristics of the evidence with proposed mundane explanations to see if they match. If the observed characteristics do not match the proposed explanation then we rule out the explanation from being plausible. If they do match, the explanation becomes plausible. We use this process in a logical, iterative fashion, often being able to rule out whole classes of explanation in one iteration.

No, that is an unfounded assertion and we may legitimately dismiss it as such. You have never demonstrated that your version of a process of elimination is logical nor iterative. In fact, you have proven quite the opposite, that your version is fatally flawed and useless.

Can you point to any of your cases where it was confirmed that "aliens" were the answer?

I am not sure what you mean by that. It seems to show a misunderstanding of my position in all this. I have used “alien” (in quotation marks) to mean foreign to our understanding of the natural and technological world - and in that sense have contended that the cases I have been presenting defy mundane explanation. I have certainly not proposed ET as an explanation. Even though the circumstantial evidence for such a conclusion might seem compelling, I am fully aware that looks can be deceiving.

Yes, your ET strawman argument again. I'll ask again to see if you can attempt to honestly answer it: Can you point to any of your cases where it was confirmed that "aliens" were the answer? A yes or no will be fine. If the answer is yes, a link to the confirming case would be convenient.

You have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations.

That is an unfounded assertion that may be legitimately dismissed as such.

Well, no. It is thoroughly founded by you. Remember Campeche, your Debri^WP Debacle, and your most recent Delphos Dilemma?

You have stated that you aren't proposing non-mundane explanations (even that assertion of yours is dishonest. You are proposing "aliens".)

I am proposing NO explanations. I am merely pointing out that the cases I have been presenting defy mundane explanation.

You've only proven that you have absolutely no ability to do so. See above.

So what is the point of this thread?

To present the research and the evidence that demonstrates that there are a percentage of UFO cases (according to the Battelle study more than 20% of all cases) that defy mundane explanation.

When are you going to start?

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
”I did not “eliminate” a hoax, I merely ascertained that, given all that we know about the case, a hoax was not a plausible explanation. (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)”

What do you think of your version of a process of elimination now that you have been shown that HOAX is the most likely explanation? Do you now concede that you have no ability whatsoever to eliminate mundane explanations?

RoboT, we have been through this argument already. See for example my post HERE and you’re your reply to that HERE and my response to your reply HERE and your response to that HERE followed by my post HERE.

Now, after all that, you return to merely stating unfounded assertions about a hoax being “shown” to be the “most likely” explanation. In essence what you are doing is claiming “hoax”, then when I state “not hoax – and here is the evidence on which I base that conclusion”, you reply “hoax”, and if I follow up with “here is the evidence that shows that conclusion is not warranted” and you merely say “hoax” …so where is your evidence in support of your claim that a hoax is “the most likely explanation” RoboT?

I stated:
” I used the children’s game of twenty questions as an analogical example to demonstrate to you how powerful the process of elimination actually is. It does not mean that when assessing UFO cases we literally play the game…”

So your analogy is fatally flawed then…

So with what evidence do you support your “fatally flawed” claims here RoboT?

… along with your version of a process of elimination.

I have already explained the process of elimination to you at some length. There is no “my” version – the process of elimination is a logical and iterative method of eliminating potential explanations by comparing the characteristics of the observation with those of any potential explanations and determining if a match can be found. If a match is found, the explanation becomes plausible. If no match is found, the explanation is eliminated. The process of elimination lies at the very heart of science RoboT. Without it, science could not progress. You cannot attack the process of elimination without attacking the very foundations of science itself.

I stated:
” I am not sure what you mean by that. It seems to show a misunderstanding of my position in all this. I have used “alien” (in quotation marks) to mean foreign to our understanding of the natural and technological world - and in that sense have contended that the cases I have been presenting defy mundane explanation. I have certainly not proposed ET as an explanation. Even though the circumstantial evidence for such a conclusion might seem compelling, I am fully aware that looks can be deceiving.”

Yes, your ET strawman argument again. I'll ask again to see if you can attempt to honestly answer it: Can you point to any of your cases where it was confirmed that "aliens" were the answer? A yes or no will be fine. If the answer is yes, a link to the confirming case would be convenient.

(bolding added for clarity. Rr)
Ask and you shall receive. Here then is a selection of cases where the answer is “yes” (the cases defy plausible mundane explanation in that they seem to be “alien”- that is, foreign to our understanding of the natural and technological world).

Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)

The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)

The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)

Skylab 3 (Launch 28 Jul 1973)
(http://brumac.8k.com/Skylab3/SL3.html)

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5kT2OE1i1Q&feature=related)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

The New Zealand (Kaikoura) UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)

Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters UFO Incident (25–27 Dec 1980)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/RendleshamForest.htm)

Val Jonhson - Minnesota Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug. 1979)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)

The Cash/Landrum Incident (29 Dec 1980)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlandir.htm)

The Hudson Valley Triangle Sightings (1982)
1: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbszKTB5eBc)
2: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZD7cm7Duog&feature=related)

JAL Flight 1628 UFO Encounter (17 Nov 1986)
(http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html)

Hair of the Alien (23 Jul 1992)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html)

The American West Flight 564 UFO Sighting (25 May 1995)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/americanwest564.html)

Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm)

Illinois Triangle UFO Sighting (by multiple police officers) (5 Jan 2000)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case277.htm)

O’Hare – Chicago International Airport UFO Sighting (7 Nov 2006)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting)

Remember Campeche, your DebriWP Debacle, and your most recent Delphos Dilemma?

Oh yes, Campeche:

The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)

Interestingly a process of elimination could not rule out “oil well fires” as a plausible mundane explanation for the FLIR - and so it has been accepted by all that it is a plausible mundane explanation for the FLIR. However, no plausible mundane explanation could be found for the original radar contact.

I think you also refer to this case:

STS-74 Atlantis (Launch 12 Nov 1995)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related)

Where after much discussion I conceded that debris could not be ruled out as a plausible mundane explanation. Interesting however that you would term it a “debacle”, considering that a plausible mundane explanation remains.

The Delphos case has been addressed above.

I stated:
” I am proposing NO explanations. I am merely pointing out that the cases I have been presenting defy mundane explanation.”

You've only proven that you have absolutely no ability to do so. See above.

All I can say is that is merely an unfounded assertion and we may therefore legitimately dismiss it as such.

You asked:
” So what is the point of this thread?”
I replied:
” To present the research and the evidence that demonstrates that there are a percentage of UFO cases (according to the Battelle study more than 20% of all cases) that defy mundane explanation.”

When are you going to start?

Oh, I am sorry, I guess you missed this link then:

The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)