UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

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?

Do you still cling to your unwarranted belief in the Johnson boy's claim to seeing a flying saucer? Despite being shown the evidence (which you selectvely tried to make sure wasn't shown) that he invented two other fantastic stories? Or do you still cling to your belief in his stories of a "wolf girl" and his psychic abilities? No, I had it right the first time. You eliminated HOAX with your version of a process of elimination by wishing it into the cornfield. Your version of a process of elimination seems to consist of one iteration: wish it into the cornfield if it doesn't support Rramjet's belief system.

Further, your dishonest mischaracterization of my posts is noted. I showed you exactly why HOAX is the most likely explanation. You showed a fairy ring as your evidence that it couldn't be mundane.

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?

I present Exhibit A: Rramjet and his fatally flawed analyses. Remember your Debri^WP Debacle, Campeche, the blimp at Rogue River and your latest Dilemma at Delphos? I rest.

… 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.

Yes, there is a "your" version. Your version is fatally flawed. Note above where I proved my case with you as my star witness.

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).

<snipped spammed links>

Well, I asked but I didn't receive. That list would have answered the question "Are there any cases where Rramjet doesn't want to know if there is a mundane explanation?"

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

Do you see the difference? If not, why not?

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.

Actually, your version of a process of elimination would rule out oil well fires. So what do you think it was at Campeche? Oil well fires can't surround a military plane (with trained military observers backed up by FLIR evidence).

Alternatively, you could use this case to show your version of a process of elimination. What were the 20 questions you asked of the evidence? Then we'll apply those same questions to other cases.

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.

That's why it is your Debri^WP Debacle. You threw it up against the wall with your other cases and had to grudgingly admit to the mundane explanation after using your fatally flawed version of a process of elimination.

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.

Well, no. You've amply proven time and time and time again that you have absolutely no ability to eliminate mundane explanations. The very links you spam are evidence of it. At least you proved something with this thread. That's how the scientific process works. You don't hate the very foundations of the scientific process itself, do you?

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)

We aren't finished with Delphos yet. Tell me again how you eliminated HOAX as the most likely explanation knowing the Johnson boy's history of telling fabulous stories? And this time, show your working. Your results aren't to be trusted without that.

 

[Rramjet]

Do you still cling to your unwarranted belief in the Johnson boy's claim to seeing a flying saucer?

What is a “flying Saucer”? He saw a UFO if that is what you mean. His parents also saw it. There was also an independent witness (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html).

Despite being shown the evidence (which you selectvely tried to make sure wasn't shown) that he invented two other fantastic stories?

(I would call that a mere unfounded assertion which may be dismissed as such - except for the fact that it is such an egregiously false statement that it does need to be called out as such)

Or do you still cling to your belief in his stories of a "wolf girl" and his psychic abilities?

What belief? I believe that Johnson believed that he saw a “wolf girl” and that he somehow developed (unspecified) psychic powers after his encounter. He was 16 at the time of the encounter and it obviously affected him greatly. That is not to say he did not see a “wolf girl” or that he did not develop psychic powers, it is just that, in this case, plausible alternatives to a real “wolf girl” and psychic powers cannot be ruled out.

No, I had it right the first time. You eliminated HOAX with your version of a process of elimination by wishing it into the cornfield.

Do you believe that merely shouting louder (“HOAX”) will confer any more veracity on your unfounded assertion? I think you will find that merely raising the volume of an unfounded assertion does not confer any greater veracity on it than the mere statement of it – it remains unfounded and may therefore be legitimately dismissed as such.

Your version of a process of elimination seems to consist of one iteration: wish it into the cornfield if it doesn't support Rramjet's belief system.

Let me tell you a little something concerning “wishing into a cornfield”- the original story was a greatly superior treatment than what the Twighlight Zone delivered us – unfortunately I have lost the anthology it was included in (at the time I read it) and the name of the original author escapes me. I do believe it would be worth your while to search it out though.

Further, your dishonest mischaracterization of my posts is noted.

Tell me RoboT, how does simply including the links to both yours and my posts constitute a “dishonest mischaracterisation”?

I showed you exactly why HOAX is the most likely explanation. You showed a fairy ring as your evidence that it couldn't be mundane.

These are – you guessed it – merely unfounded assertions and of course may be legitimately dismissed as such.

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

I present Exhibit A: Rramjet and his fatally flawed analyses. Remember your DebriWP Debacle, Campeche, the blimp at Rogue River and your latest Dilemma at Delphos? I rest.

Remember THIS post RoboT? Where I claimed ”You are therefore simply talking past me, shouting over the top of me, and in such a circumstance there is simply no means of rationally communicating with you.”. Obviously my claim stands.

I explained:
” 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.”

Yes, there is a "your" version. Your version is fatally flawed. Note above where I proved my case with you as my star witness.

Once again ”You are therefore simply talking past me, shouting over the top of me, and in such a circumstance there is simply no means of rationally communicating with you.”.

Unfortunately, the rest of your post may be characterised similarly (for example you claim ” That list would have answered the question "Are there any cases where Rramjet doesn't want to know if there is a mundane explanation?"” and ” Actually, your version of a process of elimination would rule out oil well fires.” and ” You threw it up against the wall with your other cases and had to grudgingly admit…” and ” You've amply proven time and time and time again that you have absolutely no ability to eliminate mundane explanations…” etc and so on…). That is, I get no sense in which you are rationally or logically debating the evidence, instead it seems to me that you are merely stating wild and unfounded assertions despite the evidence. I am truly sorry RoboT, but unless you can actually support your unfounded claims with evidence or logical argument, then there can be no rational debate with you.

If you consider replying to me now, then I would exhort you to consider also supporting your claims with evidence or logical argument.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What is a “flying Saucer”? He saw a UFO if that is what you mean. His parents also saw it. There was also an independent witness (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html).

No, you are incorrect. His parents claimed they saw a light in the sky. Evidence that an independent witness saw the same thing the Johnson boy did?

(I would call that a mere unfounded assertion which may be dismissed as such - except for the fact that it is such an egregiously false statement that it does need to be called out as such)

No, you are incorrect again. Merely stating your unfounded assertions does not do your credibility any favors.

What belief? I believe that Johnson believed that he saw a “wolf girl” and that he somehow developed (unspecified) psychic powers after his encounter. He was 16 at the time of the encounter and it obviously affected him greatly. That is not to say he did not see a “wolf girl” or that he did not develop psychic powers, it is just that, in this case, plausible alternatives to a real “wolf girl” and psychic powers cannot be ruled out.

LOL. That belief. No, you are incorrect. The boy was given to telling fantastical tales. HOAX is the most likely explanation which your version of a process of elimination wished into the cornfield.

Do you believe that merely shouting louder (“HOAX”) will confer any more veracity on your unfounded assertion? I think you will find that merely raising the volume of an unfounded assertion does not confer any greater veracity on it than the mere statement of it – it remains unfounded and may therefore be legitimately dismissed as such.

What is this talk of shouting? And why do you continue to fall back on your so easily discredited "unfounded assertion" mantra? I've given you an extremely well-founded assertion. This speaks to your continuing dishonesty.

Let me tell you a little something concerning “wishing into a cornfield”- the original story was a greatly superior treatment than what the Twighlight Zone delivered us – unfortunately I have lost the anthology it was included in (at the time I read it) and the name of the original author escapes me. I do believe it would be worth your while to search it out though.

Does that mean you are going to change your fatally flawed method of wishing things into the cornfield?

Tell me RoboT, how does simply including the links to both yours and my posts constitute a “dishonest mischaracterisation”?

Here is the paragraph I was referring to:

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?

In that paragraph, you claim that I simply say "HOAX" without explanation and you further intimate that you provide evidence when you claim "NOT HOAX". That speaks even more to your dishonesty. Do not mischaracterize what I say in future.

These are – you guessed it – merely unfounded assertions and of course may be legitimately dismissed as such.

I assume you are referring to your own unfounded assertion that things "positively defy plausible mundane explanation" mantra, now that you have been shown just exactly how incorrect you are.

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

Remember THIS post RoboT? Where I claimed ”You are therefore simply talking past me, shouting over the top of me, and in such a circumstance there is simply no means of rationally communicating with you.”. Obviously my claim stands.

I explained:
” 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.”

This is simply you shouting to get your parents attention. You keep repeating your same unfounded assertions over and over as if wishing them to be true would make them true.

Once again ”You are therefore simply talking past me, shouting over the top of me, and in such a circumstance there is simply no means of rationally communicating with you.”.

If you would let me know what parts you don't understand, I'll try to simplify for you.

Unfortunately, the rest of your post may be characterised similarly (for example you claim ” That list would have answered the question "Are there any cases where Rramjet doesn't want to know if there is a mundane explanation?"” and ” Actually, your version of a process of elimination would rule out oil well fires.” and ” You threw it up against the wall with your other cases and had to grudgingly admit…” and ” You've amply proven time and time and time again that you have absolutely no ability to eliminate mundane explanations…” etc and so on…). That is, I get no sense in which you are rationally or logically debating the evidence, instead it seems to me that you are merely stating wild and unfounded assertions despite the evidence. I am truly sorry RoboT, but unless you can actually support your unfounded claims with evidence or logical argument, then there can be no rational debate with you.

If you consider replying to me now, then I would exhort you to consider also supporting your claims with evidence or logical argument.

Unfortunately, none of your post addressed any of my concerns about your fatally flawed version of a process of elimination. If you cannot logically and rationally support your unfounded assertions, then rational debate will continue to not be possible with you.

Now, answer the questions that have been put to you to show that you can engage rationally in the discussion.

Also, I have examined the information regarding the Father Gill case. I applied your version of a process of elimination to it and concluded that the case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation. For example, it wasn't Santa Claus, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, or Plan 9 From Outer Space. In this way I was able to eliminate entire classes of non-mundane explanations.

The only thing left is "mundane" explanations. When I say "mundane", I don't mean mundane. However, "mundane" does mean within our range of experience and quite ordinary. I make no claims to what the answer is other than that the case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation.

Unless you have a plausible non-mundane explanation that you'd like to discuss, Rramjet?

 

[Rramjet]

No, you are incorrect. His parents claimed they saw a light in the sky. Evidence that an independent witness saw the same thing the Johnson boy did?

”Ron's parents came running around the side of the house to get a glimpse of the unusual phenomena. They arrived just in time to see the object, now big as the full moon, as it disappeared from view.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

Also:

” There would also be another witness to corroborate Ron Johnson's account of the UFO. Sheriff Enlow told the press;

"On 11-03-71 Mr. Lester Ensbarger of 416 Argyle St. in Minneapolis advised Deputy Sheriff Leonard Simpson that at approx. 7:30 p.m. 11-02-71 he had observed a bright light descending in the sky in the Delphos area." (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

Coincidence RoboT? Or perhaps more than one UFO? Or maybe you are thinking that there was a mothership…

Also, I have examined the information regarding the Father Gill case. I applied your version of a process of elimination to it and concluded that the case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation. For example, it wasn't Santa Claus, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, or Plan 9 From Outer Space. In this way I was able to eliminate entire classes of non-mundane explanations.

I presume this is the case to which you refer:
The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)

How exactly did you apply the process of elimination to ”non-mundane” explanations? That is, I would be very interested to see you outline such a process for us.

How did you determine that fictional movie beings (Santa Claus, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc …ummm …you do realise that your “non-mundane explanations” are movies don’t you RoboT?) are ”plausible” non-mundane explanations? That is, I would be very interested to see you justify your beings (Santa Claus, etc) as plausible non-mundane explanations for the Father Gill UFO (where is your evidence to show your beings are plausible non-mundane explanations...?).

Unless you have a plausible non-mundane explanation that you'd like to discuss, Rramjet?

There are plenty of plausible non-mundane explanations available to us. ET for a start. But the trouble is, such non-mundane explanations as we might have available to us are not falsifyable. We therefore cannot rule them in or out. That is why we must stick to plausible mundane explanations, for we can (there is at least a real potential) to falsify mundane explanations. However, even if, at the end of a process of elimination we find ourselves bereft of plausible mundane explanations, then we cannot (it is not logically sound and there is no direct evidence to support) turning to “non-mundane” explanations.

Interestingly, the primary candidate non-mundane explanation – ET – has much circumstantial evidence to support it (making it plausible). However, just because it looks like ET, does not mean that it is ET.

 

[RoboTimbo]

”Ron's parents came running around the side of the house to get a glimpse of the unusual phenomena. They arrived just in time to see the object, now big as the full moon, as it disappeared from view.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

Also:

” There would also be another witness to corroborate Ron Johnson's account of the UFO. Sheriff Enlow told the press;

"On 11-03-71 Mr. Lester Ensbarger of 416 Argyle St. in Minneapolis advised Deputy Sheriff Leonard Simpson that at approx. 7:30 p.m. 11-02-71 he had observed a bright light descending in the sky in the Delphos area." (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

Coincidence RoboT? Or perhaps more than one UFO? Or maybe you are thinking that there was a mothership…

You've misunderstood the question. I asked for evidence that the light he claimed to see descending towards Delphos was the same thing that Ron Johnson saw.

I presume this is the case to which you refer:
The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)

How exactly did you apply the process of elimination to ”non-mundane” explanations? That is, I would be very interested to see you outline such a process for us.

I can only refer you to your favorite online reference source for a description of how a process of elimination works if you don't understand it.

How did you determine that fictional movie beings (Santa Claus, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc …ummm …you do realise that your “non-mundane explanations” are movies don’t you RoboT?) are ”plausible” non-mundane explanations? That is, I would be very interested to see you justify your beings (Santa Claus, etc) as plausible non-mundane explanations for the Father Gill UFO (where is your evidence to show your beings are plausible non-mundane explanations...?).

I'll just have to refer you to your favorite reference source for how a process of elimination works if you don't understand it. It is similar to how you have eliminated page 356 of War and Peace as a plausible mundane explanation for something in orbit. How did you determine that a page from War and Peace was a plausible mundane explanation for that?

There are plenty of plausible non-mundane explanations available to us. ET for a start.

Nope, ET isn't plausible. Never been shown to have happened.

But the trouble is, such non-mundane explanations as we might have available to us are not falsifyable. We therefore cannot rule them in or out.

Yep, I have done so. Eliminated all of them using a process of elimination. Similar to a child's game of 20 questions, which I believe you are familiar with.

That is why we must stick to plausible mundane explanations, for we can (there is at least a real potential) to falsify mundane explanations. However, even if, at the end of a process of elimination we find ourselves bereft of plausible mundane explanations, then we cannot (it is not logically sound and there is no direct evidence to support) turning to “non-mundane” explanations.

No, you are incorrect. I've eliminated all plausible non-mundane explanations which only leave "mundane" explanations. Note that by "mundane" that I do not mean mundane, however it does mean ordinary and within our range of experience. Did you have some plausible non-mundane explanation that you would like to put forward?

Interestingly, the primary candidate non-mundane explanation – ET – has much circumstantial evidence to support it (making it plausible). However, just because it looks like ET, does not mean that it is ET.

Nope, not plausible. Never been shown to have happened. But it seems that you are already also grudgingly admitting that ET is not plausible and therefore only "mundane" explanations remain.

Unless you have a plausible non-mundane explanation you would like to put forward for discussion? You know that the burden of proof is in your court, right?

 

[SOdhner]

First of all, I'll remind you that you still haven't responded to my previous post. I would love a reply to that when you get a chance, since it's still the same thing I've been waiting on an answer from you on for months.

Interestingly, the primary candidate non-mundane explanation – ET – has much circumstantial evidence to support it (making it plausible). However, just because it looks like ET, does not mean that it is ET.

How can you say something "looks like" ET, when you don't know what ET looks like? What "circumstantial evidence" do you have that isn't circular? In other words, you can't say "X looks like ET, because it looks like Y. Y looks like ET, because it looks like X." So you're unexplained UFO cases can't count as evidence for anything specific just because you think they look like each other.

Second, I disagree that ET is plausible in the first place. I think it's pretty much a certainty to say that some sort of life has developed somewhere other than Earth at some point, but to suggest ET as an explanation for any UFO sighting you're saying a lot more.

1. Intelligent alien life developed. This isn't guaranteed.
2. It lived long enough to develop advanced technology.
3. It developed on a planet with conditions and resources that allowed for that technology.
4. It actually did go ahead and develop advanced technology.
5. It did all this close enough to Earth for visiting to be a possibility.
6. It did all this with timing that allowed them to be seen by us, rather than before humans existed or after we're all dead.
7. It decided to go in the first place, rather than just flying around its own planet or whatever.
8. It survived the trip.
9. It decided not to actually contact us, instead doing fly-bys in such a way that they allowed themselves to be seen only in situations where no clear photos or videos could be taken, but not managing to stay hidden from random passerby who don't have good cameras.

That's not remotely plausible.

 

[SOdhner]

So you're unexplained UFO cases can't count as evidence for anything specific just because you think they look like each other.

Oh, man. I just want to take a second and acknowledge that I somehow used the wrong "you're" rather than "your". I spell things wrong all the time, but that one drives me nuts and I never do it... sigh. I don't know that this post will be approved since it doesn't contribute anything, but I really wanted to put it out there that I am embarrased for that particular mistake.

 

[Rramjet]

How did you determine that a page from War and Peace was a plausible mundane explanation for that?

You are simply missing critical point about why I am stating defies plausible mundane explanation. The words in that phrase are chosen for very specific reasons. I have been asked why not simply “defies explanation”? The reason why not is as follows:

Mundane is necessary – because as I have pointed out, we cannot falsify (and thus cannot eliminate) non-mundane explanations. What are UFOs? They are the playthings of pink dragons. No matter what objection to that non-mundane explanation anyone comes up with, an excuse (probably but not necessarily based on “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”), will be found to counter it. Surely we would see pink dragons? No, they are invisible. Etc and so on… Thus any characteristics of UFOs used in a process of elimination can only potentially defy mundane explanations.

Plausible is also necessary. The page from War and Peace example I have used many times as an extreme example (which is why I guess you raise it – and of course misrepresent it…) to show why any mundane explanation we propose must also be a plausible mundane explanation. A page from War and Peace is a mundane explanation, sure, but it is certainly not a plausible mundane explanation.

Thus the formulation “defies plausible mundane explanation” is necessary (rather than any other formulation - such as the simple “defies explanation”).

Returning to non-mundane explanations, there is a sense that we can however also demand that they be plausible if proposed (though of course we are on very shaky ground in doing so).

Nope, ET isn't plausible. Never been shown to have happened.

That is, we know that the laws of nature, being universally applicable, make it highly likely that ET exists. Moreover, the laws of physics, being universally applicable, do not rule out ET visiting earth. Finally, whenever beings have been noted in conjunction with UFOs, they have almost universally been humanoid. Thus ET is a plausible non-mundane explanation (because there is circumstantial evidence in support of it) while pink dragons (etc) are not plausible because there is absolutely no evidence to indicate they exist.

Thus when you state:

I've eliminated all plausible non-mundane explanations which only leave "mundane" explanations.

My questions remain: How did you determine plausible and how did you eliminate your non-mundane explanations?

First of all, I'll remind you that you still haven't responded to my previous post. I would love a reply to that when you get a chance, since it's still the same thing I've been waiting on an answer from you on for months.

You can claim that, but considering I have responded many times to your concerns about whether the Venezuelan incident is a hoax or not, you are then simply ignoring that fact. I cannot stop you making the unfounded claim, but I can point out that it is unfounded and may legitimately be dismissed as such. We have moved on Sodhner, can I suggest you do the same?

How can you say something "looks like" ET, when you don't know what ET looks like?

It “looks” like ET because there are UFOs observed whose characteristics defy plausible mundane explanation. Given also that many UFOs also seem to represent some sort of technology (they have technological characteristics) and that in some cases “beings” are also noted in conjunction with them, then it “looks” like ET.

What "circumstantial evidence" do you have that isn't circular? In other words, you can't say "X looks like ET, because it looks like Y. Y looks like ET, because it looks like X." So you're unexplained UFO cases can't count as evidence for anything specific just because you think they look like each other.

The meaning of your statement here is a little obscure - but I presume you are agreeing with me that just because it “looks” like something, does not mean it is that something. That is we have no direct evidence that ET is the cause, and while ever that remains the case, we could be entirely mistaken if we propose ET is the cause.

Second, I disagree that ET is plausible in the first place. I think it's pretty much a certainty to say that some sort of life has developed somewhere other than Earth at some point, but to suggest ET as an explanation for any UFO sighting you're saying a lot more.

1. Intelligent alien life developed. This isn't guaranteed.

Nothing is guaranteed. That is the reason why ET as an explanation does not work. I have consistently maintained in this thread that we cannot say that ET is the cause because there is no direct evidence for the explanation. However, that being said, we can hypothesise (speculate), in the absence of evidence suggesting other explanations, that ET might be an explanation.

2. It lived long enough to develop advanced technology.
3. It developed on a planet with conditions and resources that allowed for that technology.
4. It actually did go ahead and develop advanced technology.

Well, we (humans) did, so we know that it is possible for such a thing to occur.

5. It did all this close enough to Earth for visiting to be a possibility.

The thing about that is we don’t know where physics might advance in terms of being able to traverse vast distances. Given our own history in the advancement and development of science it would be foolhardy and arrogant in the extreme to suppose that such a thing is impossible.

6. It did all this with timing that allowed them to be seen by us, rather than before humans existed or after we're all dead.
7. It decided to go in the first place, rather than just flying around its own planet or whatever.

We (humans) are already on the brink of discovering if other planets contain life. All we have to do is identify certain atmospheric constituents indicating life on a distant planet (and that is already possible on current technology) and we will have our reason to (when it is possible to do so) plan and pay a visit.

8. It survived the trip.

Stating the bleeding obvious I would have thought. But you have also not considered intelligent machines. We humans are also on the brink of creating such machines. It may be likely that we would send probes out containing such machines rather than go ourselves (considering the survivability and distance factors…).

9. It decided not to actually contact us…

Given our history of contact with less advanced civilisations, if ET were ethical beings (which they must be to have survived as a species long enough to get off their planet and visit us) then perhaps they would not directly contact us. It is in fact extremely arrogant to think we would be so important to ET so as to warrant risking our very survival as a species to establish direct contact (especially since our main technological preoccupation is to wage war and manufacture short term profits at the expense of long term gains rather than to ensure the long term survival of our species). It “looks” like ET is studying us, but maintaining a distance. And remember the most valuable resource on earth is in protein synthesis (from DNA) which can give us unimaginable medicines and materials – and we have only just begun to realise the enormous potential there – even as we are wiping out that potential in one of the greatest extinction events this planet has ever experienced.

…instead doing fly-bys in such a way that they allowed themselves to be seen only in situations where no clear photos or videos could be taken, but not managing to stay hidden from random passerby who don't have good cameras.

Simply a collection of myths and misconceptions. We do have clear photos and videos (for example: http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html and http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.asp) – it is just that the criers of “hoax” and “photoshop” have the greater resources to get their message out.

That's not remotely plausible.

ET? I think I have shown that it is plausible…

Oh, man. I just want to take a second and acknowledge that I somehow used the wrong "you're" rather than "your". I spell things wrong all the time, but that one drives me nuts and I never do it... sigh. I don't know that this post will be approved since it doesn't contribute anything, but I really wanted to put it out there that I am embarrased for that particular mistake.

I think you are worrying too much about that. Let me reassure you. Unlike others in this thread (who shall remain nameless) I would never criticise grammatical or spelling errors from others – we all make them – what counts is the substance of the argument, not how it is expressed or spelled.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You are simply missing critical point about why I am stating defies plausible mundane explanation. The words in that phrase are chosen for very specific reasons. I have been asked why not simply “defies explanation”? The reason why not is as follows:

Mundane is necessary – because as I have pointed out, we cannot falsify (and thus cannot eliminate) non-mundane explanations. What are UFOs? They are the playthings of pink dragons. No matter what objection to that non-mundane explanation anyone comes up with, an excuse (probably but not necessarily based on “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”), will be found to counter it. Surely we would see pink dragons? No, they are invisible. Etc and so on… Thus any characteristics of UFOs used in a process of elimination can only potentially defy mundane explanations.

And yet you also cannot eliminate mundane explanations, as you've repeatedly shown and proven. I'm able to eliminate plausible non-mundane explanations in the same way you have claimed that you can eliminate mundane ones. The only difference is, you're the only one of us two who has been proven unable to apply a process of elimination.

Plausible is also necessary. The page from War and Peace example I have used many times as an extreme example (which is why I guess you raise it – and of course misrepresent it…) to show why any mundane explanation we propose must also be a plausible mundane explanation. A page from War and Peace is a mundane explanation, sure, but it is certainly not a plausible mundane explanation.

In the same way that any non-mundane explanation you propose must also be plausible. Which plausible non-mundane explanation are you proposing for the Father Gill case? I'm pretty sure that a process of elimination can eliminate non-mundane explanations but if you have one you think I've missed, let me know.

Thus the formulation “defies plausible mundane explanation” is necessary (rather than any other formulation - such as the simple “defies explanation”).

No, I've used a process of elimination and eliminated plausible non-mundane explanations. Thus the correct formulation "defies plausible non-mundane explanation" is the one we'll use going forward. Thus I can posit "mundane" for all the cases you've brought into this thread, repeatedly. Note that when I say "mundane" I don't mean mundane but it does mean quite ordinary and within our common range of experience.

Returning to non-mundane explanations, there is a sense that we can however also demand that they be plausible if proposed (though of course we are on very shaky ground in doing so).

No, you are incorrect. If we wish to avoid the charge of being hypocritical, we must insist that the non-mundane explanations be plausible also. Otherwise we open ourselves to the charge of improper goalpost shifting.

That is, we know that the laws of nature, being universally applicable, make it highly likely that ET exists. Moreover, the laws of physics, being universally applicable, do not rule out ET visiting earth. Finally, whenever beings have been noted in conjunction with UFOs, they have almost universally been humanoid. Thus ET is a plausible non-mundane explanation (because there is circumstantial evidence in support of it) while pink dragons (etc) are not plausible because there is absolutely no evidence to indicate they exist.

Well, no. ET is not a plausible explanation. There is no compelling evidence that ETs have ever visited the Earth. There is exactly as much evidence for pink dragons as there is for ET visiting the Earth. There is actually more evidence for Santa Claus. Did you know that the movie "The Santa Clause" starring Tim Allen was based on a folklore character that exists in many cultures around the world?

Thus when you state:

My questions remain: How did you determine plausible and how did you eliminate your non-mundane explanations?

I can only refer you to your favorite online reference for an explanation for how a process of elimination works. I have successfully applied it to all the cases that you've provided in this thread. You have applied your version of a process of elimination in your attempt to prove "aliens" exist and your version has failed, provably, repeatedly, spectacularly. Yours is the only one that is verifiably fatally flawed. I find myself unable to accept any of your unfounded assertions anymore.

You can claim that, but considering I have responded many times to your concerns about whether the Venezuelan incident is a hoax or not, you are then simply ignoring that fact. I cannot stop you making the unfounded claim, but I can point out that it is unfounded and may legitimately be dismissed as such. We have moved on Sodhner, can I suggest you do the same?

No, you are incorrect. You may continue to wish that the Johnson boy saw a flying saucer or aliens but it was a HOAX. I applied a process of elimination and determined that there are no plausible non-mundane explanations responsible. Unless you have one to propose, then we can discuss it. Otherwise, the answer is "mundane".

 

[SOdhner]

You can claim that, but considering I have responded many times to your concerns about whether the Venezuelan incident is a hoax or not, you are then simply ignoring that fact.

You have NEVER responded to me about the points I raised. Not once. I showed why my suggestion is plausible, and I also showed why your suggested reasons that the letter was accurate were faulty. You did not, anywhere in this thread, respond to my points OR my refutation of your points. You also quite clearly haven't responded to my most recent post.

We have moved on Sodhner, can I suggest you do the same?

YOU have moved on, without actually supporting your claims or refuting the counter-claims.

It “looks” like ET because there are UFOs observed whose characteristics defy plausible mundane explanation.

Even if that were the case it wouldn't by default "look like" ET. That simply means you don't know WHAT it looks like. Looking like something specific would require specific evidence for that thing.

Given also that many UFOs also seem to represent some sort of technology (they have technological characteristics) and that in some cases “beings” are also noted in conjunction with them, then it “looks” like ET.

Setting aside the fact that I obviously disagree with your assessment of the quality of pretty much every case you've referred to, let me address this just for the sake of the conversation.

Looking like "some sort of technology" doesn't mean it's an alien.

Looking like some sort of "being" also doesn't mean aliens. In fact, if they bear any resemblance to humans (which they generally do) that would be evidence of a terrestrial origin.

I presume you are agreeing with me that just because it “looks” like something, does not mean it is that something.

No, that's not what I meant (though obviously that's also true). I meant that unless something is confirmed to be alien, you can't use comparison to it as proof of another thing being an alien. If case X involves a sighting of some being in a silver jumpsuit with green skin, and case Y involves a UFO that looks a lot like the one from case X, you can't say case Y "looks like ET" unless you can first show that the dude in the silver jumpsuit was an ET.

However, that being said, we can hypothesise (speculate), in the absence of evidence suggesting other explanations, that ET might be an explanation.

Except it's completely implausible.

Well, we (humans) did, so we know that it is possible for such a thing to occur.

No, we haven't. We're getting a little closer, obviously, but we aren't there yet and may never get there. Our attempts at space travel have been limited, getting us no further than our own satellite. Some probes have gone a bit further, of course, but even then it's nowhere near what would be needed for us to be the "flying saucers" to someone else.

The thing about that is we don’t know where physics might advance in terms of being able to traverse vast distances. Given our own history in the advancement and development of science it would be foolhardy and arrogant in the extreme to suppose that such a thing is impossible.

I didn't say impossible. It's just yet another thing that makes ET hideously implausible.

We (humans) are already on the brink of discovering if other planets contain life. All we have to do is identify certain atmospheric constituents indicating life on a distant planet (and that is already possible on current technology) and we will have our reason to (when it is possible to do so) plan and pay a visit.

That doesn't address what I said, though. At all.

Stating the bleeding obvious I would have thought.

Not at all, that's a non-trivial issue.

But you have also not considered intelligent machines. We humans are also on the brink of creating such machines.

Citation needed. Also, that doesn't change anything.

It is in fact extremely arrogant to think we would be so important to ET so as to warrant risking our very survival as a species to establish direct contact (especially since our main technological preoccupation is to wage war and manufacture short term profits at the expense of long term gains rather than to ensure the long term survival of our species).

Anything with technology advanced enough to meet the criteria we've already assumed would have no trouble wiping us out on a whim. They would have nothing at all to fear from us. They would also be able to go undetected. What you're implying instead is that they want to "not contact us" but simultaneously come into contact with us in a random and seemingly careless way.

Not impossible, just yet another reason this is completely implausible.

It “looks” like ET is studying us, but maintaining a distance. And remember the most valuable resource on earth is in protein synthesis (from DNA) which can give us unimaginable medicines and materials – and we have only just begun to realise the enormous potential there – even as we are wiping out that potential in one of the greatest extinction events this planet has ever experienced.

Unfounded assertion, etc., etc.

We do have clear photos and videos (for example: http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html and http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.asp) – it is just that the criers of “hoax” and “photoshop” have the greater resources to get their message out.

Those pictures are laughable. One had a citation of "I found this on some website, I don't know who took them" and another (on the other site) was of street lights. Many of the others were the furthest thing from clear, being essentially fuzzy blurs or lacking the proper context.

I would never criticise grammatical or spelling errors from others – we all make them – what counts is the substance of the argument, not how it is expressed or spelled.

Well, you got pretty upset when I mistakenly typed Argentina instead of Venezuela even though we both knew what I was talking about. Anyway, the "Your" "You're" thing is a pet peeve of mine, so it's extra painful when I make that specific mistake.

Anyway... any time you want to respond to my earlier post...

 

[Rramjet]

RoboT, Sohdner, I must ask a question: When will either of you learn that the mere (repeated) statement of an unfounded assertion will not somehow magically confer veracity on that (those) assertion(s)? For example, both of you lead your latest posts with unfounded assertions as follows:

And yet you also cannot eliminate mundane explanations, as you've repeatedly shown and proven. I'm able to eliminate plausible non-mundane explanations in the same way you have claimed that you can eliminate mundane ones. The only difference is, you're the only one of us two who has been proven unable to apply a process of elimination.

Process of elimination:
A way of finding an answer or a solution by first deciding which answers are not possible (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/process-of-elimination).​

The process of elimination is iterative and logical. However, we do not – as you would have it RoboT - start by listing and individually assessing possible individual causes. Instead, we start by considering broad categories that define the families of cause. That is, we divide the set of all causes into families and then conduct an investigation to rule out all but one family. We repeat this exercise on the remaining family until the root cause is all that remains. For example:

” Suppose I were to ask you to determine a word that I am thinking of and you could only ask yes or no questions. You might start by asking, “Does the word begin with the letter A?” If I said no, you would probably ask, “Does the word begin with the letter B?” and so on. Another strategy might be to ask whether the word is an animal, mineral, or vegetable, thereby narrowing the number of possibilities.

The best strategy, however, would be to ask the question, “Does the word begin with the letter A thru L?” By asking that one question, you have eliminated half the dictionary, and you really don’t care if I say yes or no! If the answer is yes, the next question would be "Does the word begin with the letter A thru F?" and so on.” (http://blog.yourbreakthroughstrategies.com/2010/12/use-process-of-elimination-to-find-root.html)​

Let us see how that process applies to a real-life UFO case example: Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).

In that case the eyewitnesses observed a circular object (like a coin) with no protuberances (except a small fin on the upper surface), silent and moving at the speed of a jet plane.

If we believe the eyewitnesses, we can immediately rule out all families of objects that do not fly. What families of objects that fly are we left with? Immediately we can rule out all families of objects that have protuberances (airplanes, blimps, helicopters, birds, etc – not to mention the soundlessness). We can also rule out all things that do not move at the speed of a jet plane (balloons, meteors, wind blown debri, etc). What are we left with? There is simply nothing in our knowledge of the technical or natural world that matches the characteristics described in the sighting. If we believe the eyewitnesses, then the object defies mundane explanation.

But that is only if we believe the eyewitnesses. We still have the categories of mistaken observations and hoax. Could the eyewitnesses have been mistaken? Well, there were five of them and they all described a similar object. The day was clear and the sun was low at their backs – near perfect viewing conditions. Two of the witnesses applied the use of binoculars - where certain features resolved that were unable to be seen with the naked eye. It is just not plausible to suppose that all five witnesses (two with the aid of binoculars) could have been substantially mistaken in describing the general characteristics of the object.

That leaves us with hoax. Two of the eyewitnesses held responsible positions at a secure military establishment. All people who were interviewed and who knew the people involved described them as sober minded, reliable people. They never sought publicity for their sighting – indeed it remained buried in the Blue Book archives for decades – and they only reported the sighting to the security section of their workplace (they told no-one else at all). At the time (May 1949) it was considered a civic duty to report such sightings. In short, it is also implausible to suppose this sighting to be a hoax.

What then are we left with? A case that simply defies plausible mundane explanation. That is how it works RoboT. That is the process of elimination in action and as applied to a real-world UFO case.

Now …you have claimed you can rule out plausible non-mundane explanations using the same process. For example:

I've used a process of elimination and eliminated plausible non-mundane explanations.

And…

…we must insist that the non-mundane explanations be plausible also…

So my questions to you remain:

How did (do) you determine plausibility for your non-mundane explanations and what was the applied process you used to rule them out?

If you cannot rationally answer those questions with logical argument or evidence than we are entitled to dismiss your claim to have ruled out “plausible non-mundane” causes.

Which plausible non-mundane explanation are you proposing for the Father Gill case?

I am proposing no “plausible non-mundane explanations”. None at all. None. I simply leave the speculation and hypothesising to others. I am simply demonstrating by supplying logical argument and evidence (such as that I have supplied above) that there exist UFO cases which defy plausible mundane explanation.

ET is not a plausible explanation. There is no compelling evidence that ETs have ever visited the Earth.

Since you are so into the “plausible non-mundane explanations” what alternative hypotheses do you propose. At least ET fits with the available evidence (making it plausible). Perhaps you can think of other non-mundane explanations that might similarly be plausible?

There is exactly as much evidence for pink dragons as there is for ET visiting the Earth.

Has ever a pink dragon been noted in conjunction with a UFO? Certainly “beings” have been noted, but never pink dragons. The beings could plausibly be ET (that is there is nothing in our current knowledge that would rule that out), but pink dragons? Please.

There is actually more evidence for Santa Claus. Did you know that the movie "The Santa Clause" starring Tim Allen was based on a folklore character that exists in many cultures around the world?

Why do you persist in bringing fictions to the table? Do you know the origins of “Santa Claus”? It has a very culture specific origin (see for example http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=35 and http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=611) – then the marketing people took over… the problem (as I see it) with your approach RoboT is that you undertake no research (nor analyse any evidence) to determine if your claims have any support in reality. That is why we can legitimately dismiss much of what you claim out of hand and moreover, show the falsity of your claims by simply supplying the evidence…

You have NEVER responded to me about the points I raised. Not once. I showed why my suggestion is plausible, and I also showed why your suggested reasons that the letter was accurate were faulty. You did not, anywhere in this thread, respond to my points OR my refutation of your points. You also quite clearly haven't responded to my most recent post.

You stated in the above ”…I also showed why your suggested reasons that the letter was accurate were faulty.” and that you had supplied a “refutation” of my points. If you believe I have not responded, then let that be sufficient for you. The argument to which you refer to was had over many pages in this thread (and quite recently). It is therefore not an argument I wish to revisit at this stage - and if – as you argue – you have had the last word on the matter – then you should be satisfied.

Even if that were the case it wouldn't by default "look like" ET. That simply means you don't know WHAT it looks like. Looking like something specific would require specific evidence for that thing.

Just because we cannot explain a phenomenon (or phenomena) does not mean that we cannot describe the characteristics of that phenomenon (or phenomena). In the case of UFOs, many seem to present as if they are technological craft and many have associated beings. Considering that those craft and those beings seem to defy plausible mundane explanation, then we may hypothesise (speculate) on the alternatives. One alternative does seem to match the evidence – that is ET – however, because the evidence for such an explanation is purely circumstantial, we cannot be sure that ET is the answer. Thus I agree fully with you when you state:

Looking like "some sort of technology" doesn't mean it's an alien.

However, for the very same reasons I agree with you on the above, I must respectfully disagree with you on the following:

In fact, if they bear any resemblance to humans (which they generally do) that would be evidence of a terrestrial origin.

To use your own phraseology from above: Resembling humans doesn’t mean that they are human. And it must be stated that in the main, they only resemble humans in that they have two legs, two arms and a head with eyes... many non-human animals have those characteristics (the whole of the monkey family for example).

I meant that unless something is confirmed to be alien, you can't use comparison to it as proof of another thing being an alien.

I have consistently maintained - and have repeatedly stated in this and other threads - that we cannot use ET as the explanation for UFOs – no matter how compelling the circumstantial evidence might seem.

Our attempts at space travel have been limited, getting us no further than our own satellite.

So where are the Voyager spacecraft now Sodhner? What about Cassini? What about Mars? What about all the other exploratory and data gathering craft we have sent off to various places?

Some probes have gone a bit further, of course, but even then it's nowhere near what would be needed for us to be the "flying saucers" to someone else.

You are simply discounting potential advances in our abilities to project ourselves. For example in using intelligent machines (or perhaps biological androids)… or some other technology (akin to holograms for example)…

Anything with technology advanced enough to meet the criteria we've already assumed would have no trouble wiping us out on a whim. They would have nothing at all to fear from us. They would also be able to go undetected. What you're implying instead is that they want to "not contact us" but simultaneously come into contact with us in a random and seemingly careless way.

This is akin to you proposing that you “know the mind of God”! How do you propose to know the motivations and technical proficiencies of any potential aliens? Are they really capable of “wiping us out”? Do they really “have no fear of us”? Can they really “go undetected” (and do they want to?) Moreover, your assessment of “random and careless” is merely an anthropogenic projection – perhaps even a Sohdner specific projection…?

Those pictures are laughable. One had a citation of "I found this on some website, I don't know who took them" and another (on the other site) was of street lights. Many of the others were the furthest thing from clear, being essentially fuzzy blurs or lacking the proper context.

Oh, I did not say that there were not hoaxes or poor quality pictures among those I pointed you toward (http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html and http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.asp), I was merely demonstrating that your contention (and the often stated perception of UFO debunkers) that all we had (have) are “blurry” photographs - is demonstrably false.

 

[SOdhner]

You stated in the above ”…I also showed why your suggested reasons that the letter was accurate were faulty.” and that you had supplied a “refutation” of my points.

Yup. You saw them, and then simply didn't reply.

If you believe I have not responded, then let that be sufficient for you.

Believe? It's not a matter of belief, Rramjet. It's a matter of verifiable fact. You have not, at any point, responded to those things. At all.

It is therefore not an argument I wish to revisit at this stage - and if – as you argue – you have had the last word on the matter – then you should be satisfied.

The entire point is that, when called on it, you cannot justify your unfounded claims. Why then should we continue discussing ANY of these cases? You made some unfounded assertions, I countered them and provided my own (well-explained and founded) claims, and you completely ignored them and tried to move onto another case. This is yet more proof that your process of elimination that you rely on is completely faulty, so it is relevant to any case where you rely on that process of elimination.

One alternative does seem to match the evidence – that is ET –

That's still circular. You're saying these look like ET because they look like ET. What does ET "look like", Rramjet?

To use your own phraseology from above: Resembling humans doesn’t mean that they are human.

Obviously. Good thing I never said that. I said it would imply a terrestrial origin. That is, if we see a monkey and a human it suggests that they are related or developed under similar evolutionary pressures. Something from another planet would be unlikely to resemble humans because it wouldn't be genetically related to us and the evolutionary pressures would be different. That doesn't make it entirely impossible, but it's yet another reason why it is hideously improbable.

I have consistently maintained - and have repeatedly stated in this and other threads - that we cannot use ET as the explanation for UFOs – no matter how compelling the circumstantial evidence might seem.

I'm aware. But that means you can't use them as an example of what ET "looks like" either. So what does ET look like?

So where are the Voyager spacecraft now Sodhner?

Those are probes, which I mentioned.

You are simply discounting potential advances in our abilities to project ourselves.

Yes. Yes I am. That's because you said that we had reached this level - present tense - as proof that it could be done. I'm pointing out that the level of technology you are referring to is a POSSIBLE level of technology that we may or may not reach, but that we have not reached yet.

Are they really capable of “wiping us out”?

Yes. Absolutely. Give me technology that allows for alien spacecraft and I will end humanity.

Moreover, your assessment of “random and careless” is merely an anthropogenic projection – perhaps even a Sohdner specific projection…?

I see that you're trying to make some sort of personal attack there, but I can't really tell what it is specifically that you are trying to suggest about me.

Oh, I did not say that there were not hoaxes or poor quality pictures among those I pointed you toward (http://www.ufocasebook.com/bestufopictures.html and http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/photohome.asp), I was merely demonstrating that your contention (and the often stated perception of UFO debunkers) that all we had (have) are “blurry” photographs - is demonstrably false.

The photos were blurry, or obvious hoaxes, or otherwise useless. You proved my point. If there is any specific photo you'd like to hold up as evidence let me know, all the ones I saw confirmed my statement.

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboT, Sohdner, I must ask a question: When will either of you learn that the mere (repeated) statement of an unfounded assertion will not somehow magically confer veracity on that (those) assertion(s)? For example, both of you lead your latest posts with unfounded assertions as follows:

Learn it? We've been trying to break you of the habit for a long time. And yet you persist. I hope you weren't dishonestly saying that my well-founded assertion that you have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations was unfounded because that would be an untruth. I have explained to you time and time again and shown you with examples why you have no ability to do so. Your pretense otherwise merely points to your dishonesty.

Process of elimination:
A way of finding an answer or a solution by first deciding which answers are not possible (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/process-of-elimination).​

The process of elimination is iterative and logical. However, we do not – as you would have it RoboT - start by listing and individually assessing possible individual causes. Instead, we start by considering broad categories that define the families of cause. That is, we divide the set of all causes into families and then conduct an investigation to rule out all but one family. We repeat this exercise on the remaining family until the root cause is all that remains. For example:

” Suppose I were to ask you to determine a word that I am thinking of and you could only ask yes or no questions. You might start by asking, “Does the word begin with the letter A?” If I said no, you would probably ask, “Does the word begin with the letter B?” and so on. Another strategy might be to ask whether the word is an animal, mineral, or vegetable, thereby narrowing the number of possibilities.

The best strategy, however, would be to ask the question, “Does the word begin with the letter A thru L?” By asking that one question, you have eliminated half the dictionary, and you really don’t care if I say yes or no! If the answer is yes, the next question would be "Does the word begin with the letter A thru F?" and so on.” (http://blog.yourbreakthroughstrategies.com/2010/12/use-process-of-elimination-to-find-root.html)​

Let us see how that process applies to a real-life UFO case example: Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).

In that case the eyewitnesses observed a circular object (like a coin) with no protuberances (except a small fin on the upper surface), silent and moving at the speed of a jet plane.

If we believe the eyewitnesses, we can immediately rule out all families of objects that do not fly. What families of objects that fly are we left with? Immediately we can rule out all families of objects that have protuberances (airplanes, blimps, helicopters, birds, etc – not to mention the soundlessness). We can also rule out all things that do not move at the speed of a jet plane (balloons, meteors, wind blown debri, etc). What are we left with? There is simply nothing in our knowledge of the technical or natural world that matches the characteristics described in the sighting. If we believe the eyewitnesses, then the object defies mundane explanation.

But that is only if we believe the eyewitnesses. We still have the categories of mistaken observations and hoax. Could the eyewitnesses have been mistaken? Well, there were five of them and they all described a similar object. The day was clear and the sun was low at their backs – near perfect viewing conditions. Two of the witnesses applied the use of binoculars - where certain features resolved that were unable to be seen with the naked eye. It is just not plausible to suppose that all five witnesses (two with the aid of binoculars) could have been substantially mistaken in describing the general characteristics of the object.

That leaves us with hoax. Two of the eyewitnesses held responsible positions at a secure military establishment. All people who were interviewed and who knew the people involved described them as sober minded, reliable people. They never sought publicity for their sighting – indeed it remained buried in the Blue Book archives for decades – and they only reported the sighting to the security section of their workplace (they told no-one else at all). At the time (May 1949) it was considered a civic duty to report such sightings. In short, it is also implausible to suppose this sighting to be a hoax.

What then are we left with? A case that simply defies plausible mundane explanation. That is how it works RoboT. That is the process of elimination in action and as applied to a real-world UFO case.

First, I'll just refer you back to the individual refutations to your assertions above. Your version of a process of elimination failed.

You seem capable of looking up a definition of what a process of elimination is, you just don't seem able to actually implement one. I've used a process of elimination to eliminate all plausible non-mundane explanations. We are only left then with "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane", it doesn't mean mundane. It simply means that the answer is within our common range of experience and quite ordinary. I'm not proposing any answers myself, just noting that non-mundane has been ruled out leaving only "mundane".

I'll also note that I have never failed at using a process of elimination while you have. Repeatedly, obviously, soundly, extraordinarily. No, I retract that last one since your version has never actually been shown to be accurate, so quite ordinarily.

Now …you have claimed you can rule out plausible non-mundane explanations using the same process. For example:

And…

So my questions to you remain:

How did (do) you determine plausibility for your non-mundane explanations and what was the applied process you used to rule them out?

I'll refer you to your favorite online reference for a definition of plausible. Which question that you asked at Campeche allowed you to rule out oil well fires? Was it "Does it start with M-Z"?

Remember your failures at using your version of a process of elimination? Campeche, the Blimp at Rogue River, your Debri^WP Debacle, and your latest Dismay at Delphos where HOAX is the most likely explanation?

So the claimants at Rogue River described something like a blimp. With that information, we can determine that there is nothing that is plausible and non-mundane leaving only "mundane". Note that I'm not proposing any solutions, only noting that there are no plausible non-mundane ones. If you have any to propose, let me know and we'll judge them on their merits, not on your unfounded assertions.

If you cannot rationally answer those questions with logical argument or evidence than we are entitled to dismiss your claim to have ruled out “plausible non-mundane” causes.

Who is this "we" you are referring to? We have actually dismissed your claims that things are "alien" since you have not rationally or logically defended that position. You have made some bare assertions that go against the very foundations of the scientific method, but those are readily dismissed.

I am proposing no “plausible non-mundane explanations”. None at all. None. I simply leave the speculation and hypothesising to others. I am simply demonstrating by supplying logical argument and evidence (such as that I have supplied above) that there exist UFO cases which defy plausible mundane explanation.

Strawman. I'm not proposing anything either. I merely note that all of your cases defy plausible non-mundane explanation and therefore they are "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane", I don't mean mundane. However, "mundane" means well within our common range of experience and quite ordinary.

Since you are so into the “plausible non-mundane explanations” what alternative hypotheses do you propose. At least ET fits with the available evidence (making it plausible). Perhaps you can think of other non-mundane explanations that might similarly be plausible?

It is good to see that you have thrown off the mask and now are openly declaring your belief in ETs. Sadly, however, ET is not a plausible non-mundane explanation since ET has never been shown to have visited the Earth. There is as much evidence for pink dragons as there is for ETs visiting the Earth. There is actually more evidence for Santa Claus.

Has ever a pink dragon been noted in conjunction with a UFO? Certainly “beings” have been noted, but never pink dragons. The beings could plausibly be ET (that is there is nothing in our current knowledge that would rule that out), but pink dragons? Please.

Well, since you said please. Pink dragons are beings. If they exist, they would be descended from a common ancester to other life on the planet and may share some common traits. In your ET hypothesis, beings originating on another planet would not share our common ancestry and would probably not resemble humans. ET is a non-starter as far as plausibility goes. What other hypotheses do you propose?

Why do you persist in bringing fictions to the table? Do you know the origins of “Santa Claus”?

Yes, but you didn't seem know the origins since you stated that "they are all movies". I supposed that your knowledge was limited to that form of entertainment medium. Glad I could get you involved in some research and help you learn.

Now about these fictional ETs... By the way, "ET" was a movie too.

 

[Rramjet]

It seems I have been entirely remiss in my presentation of the Research and the Evidence surrounding UFOs and have not (as has been pointed out by some) exactly done as I had promised to do in my OP. I have been concentrating on case reports to make the case that there are UFO observations whose characteristics defy mundane explanation - but I have presented only one substantial research report (Blue Book Special Report #14) on the topic. To fulfil the promise of my OP it becomes necessary to expand my presentation beyond mere case reports. The following list of references will go at least part way to rectifying the situation.

There does exist a wealth of UFO research and these can be broadly broken into two sections, private research and official research. Some of the most influential of the private research can be listed as follows:

Keyhoe, D. (1950) The Flying Saucers Are Real. Fawcett Publications. New York.
(http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5883)

Ruppelt, E. J. (1956) The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. Doubleday. New York.
(http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17346)
(http://static.lulu.com/items/volume_10/199000/199898/3/print/ReportOnUFOs.pdf)

NICAP (1969) The Truth About the Condon Report. The U.F.O. Investigator. Vol. IV, No. 9. pp 3-5.
(http://www.cohenufo.org/nicapcondon.htm)

Huyghe, P., Trumbore, H. (1996) The Field Guide To Extraterrestrials. Avon Books. New York.
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038078128X/?tag=idealbiz-20)

Clarke, J. (1998) The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon from the Beginning. Omnigraphics Inc.
(http://www.amazon.com/UFO-Encyclopedia-Phenomenon-Beginning-Set/dp/0780800974)
Review
(http://www.strangemag.com/reviews/ufoencyclopedia.html)

Hoyt, D. (2000) UFOCRITIQUE: UFOs, Social Intelligence, and the Condon Committee. Falls Curch, Virginia. (http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)

Stacy, D., Huyghe, P., Trumbore, H. (2000) The Field Guide To UFOs. Harper Collins
(http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Field-Guide-Ufos/?isbn=9780380802654) Review
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1448.htm)

Roe, T. (2004) Aviation Safety in America: Under-Reporting Bias of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Recommended Solutions
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/008/TR8Bias1.htm)

Some of the most influential of the official research projects can be listed as follows:

1. Project Sign (1948)
1.1 Estimate of the Situation
(http://www.nicap.org/papers/swords_Sign_EOTS.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/sign.htm)

2. Project Grudge (1948 to 1952)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Grudge)
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/grudge_dir.htm)

3. The Robertson Panel (14-17 Jan 1953)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm)

4. Project Blue Book (1952 to 30 Jan 1970)
(http://www.bluebookarchive.org/default.aspx)
4.1 The Blue Book Unknowns
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/bluebook1.html)
4.2 The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)

5. The O’Brien Committee (1996)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/obrien.htm)

6. The Condon Report (1968)
(http://ncas.org/condon/)
6.1. General Articles and Documents on Condon Report
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/CondonReport.htm)
6.2 Project Coordinator Low’s Infamous “Trick Memo”
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/660809lowmemo.htm)
(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_condonreport04.htm)
6.3 Hoyt – History and rationale behind Condon exposed (20 Apr 2000)
(http://www.narcap.org/commentary/ufocritique.pdf)

7. The 1968 US Congressional Hearings (plus various other government studies)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/governmentstudies.htm)

8. GEPAN / SEPRA / GEIPAN (France) (1977 – present)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Gepan-Sepra.htm)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/french_gov_ufo_study.pdf)

9. The Sturrock Panel Workshop (30 Sep – 3 Oct 1997)
9.1 Report (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc535.htm)
(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf)
9.2 Related Documents (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/SturrockPanel.htm)

Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem: (Parts 1 and 2)
(http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_1_sturrock.pdf) and (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_08_2_sturrock.pdf)

10. COMETA (1999)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm)

11. Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region (Mar 2000)
(http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/f...aerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm)

Obviously these two lists above are rather selective (in that they represent perhaps the tip of the iceberg in regards to the wealth of information actually available) but they do provide at least a general sense of the historical state of affairs in UFO research.

There are of course many official US government documents that relate to UFOs – see for example: (http://www.nicap.org/documents.htm), (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ufo/index.shtml) and (http://www.openminds.tv/twelve-government-documents-that-take-ufos-seriously/) – and these documents demonstrate that UFOs simply cannot be dismissed, as many debunkers do, with the mere wave of a hand and a statement that UFOs are all misconceptions, misperceptions and hoaxes. Such a dismissal is simply and demonstrably unwarranted on the evidence.

 

[wollery]

and these documents demonstrate that UFOs simply cannot be dismissed, as many debunkers do, with the mere wave of a hand and a statement that UFOs are all misconceptions, misperceptions and hoaxes. Such a dismissal is simply and demonstrably unwarranted on the evidence.

Please tell us, who in this thread has hand-waved away all UFOs.

Remember to back up your statements with evidence.

 

[SOdhner]

Such a dismissal is simply and demonstrably unwarranted on the evidence.

Well, the case I've been trying to discuss with you is the Cowgill letter. So far you have not presented any evidence that would rule out the letter being factually inaccurate (for example, a hoax) as a plausible explanation. I've asked repeatedly, and you keep referring to "evidence" here in the thread without ever linking to it or explaining what that evidence might be. The closest you've come so far is to make some unfounded assumptions about Cowgill's job security and Scientific American's fact-checking practices regarding letters to the editor. These, obviously, are not "evidence" and I've also refuted those claims. You haven't chosen to reply to my refutations, or the reasons I've provided that a hoax is plausible.

On the same case, you also continued to suggest that radiation matches the symptoms even after it was pointed out that this isn't the case. For you to make your case you would need to explain what TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation you think matches, since as you know different types and dosages of radiation have different symptoms. Knowing this, you must have a specific type and dosage in mind in order to suggest that it matches.

Moving on to another long list of links without addressing these points doesn't get us anywhere, because there will always be another case or another website. If we can't resolve any of them, if we just move on without answering our concerns, then this whole conversation serves no purpose.

I'm more than happy to do the research on any case you want, to read in detail any site you want. My concern is that I've already done this once, and you have simply not responded to my points. If there's no return on my investment of time I can't be expected to invest more.

So where is your evidence that the Cowgill letter is factually accurate? And what TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation do you think matches the symptoms described in that letter?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, you clearly want to put your mistakes behind you. I accept your admission that the cases you have presented fall woefully short of the standards of evidence required to prove extraordinary claims. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

So with your new list, which of those has positively concluded ET as the answer and what was the extraordinary evidence they used that we can examine? Substitute your contrived word "aliens" if you wish.

I do not accept your offer to wade through that pile myself.

 

[Rramjet]

Please tell us, who in this thread has hand-waved away all UFOs.

Remember to back up your statements with evidence.

Okay then, nominate for us one UFO case that you do not consider to be the result of a misconception, misperception or hoax.

So with your new list, which of those has positively concluded ET as the answer and what was the extraordinary evidence they used that we can examine?

I am not sure why you would want the UFO research to positively conclude that ET is the answer. I don’t even see how a positive conclusion in that regard would even be possible. As far as I am aware, there is no direct evidence that would allow such a conclusion. That being stated, the ET hypothesis certainly is the number one speculative explanation considered in a number of publications. That does not mean it is the correct explanation - merely that it seems to be an hypothesis that would (without necessarily breaking any known laws of nature or physics) explain the evidence.

I am not sure what this “extraordinary evidence” you ask for would consist of. Perhaps you can explain that to us? It is absolutely necessary that you define “extraordinary evidence” for us, because as it stands, I have no doubt that no matter what evidence I could present you with, you would simply state “Oh, that is not extraordinary evidence…” – so I require you to define it - and then I will see if I can provide it for you.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Okay then, nominate for us one UFO case that you do not consider to be the result of a misconception, misperception or hoax.

This is your attempt at switching the burden of proof that has been so typical. You nominate one case which has been proven to be "aliens".

I am not sure why you would want the UFO research to positively conclude that ET is the answer. I don’t even see how a positive conclusion in that regard would even be possible. As far as I am aware, there is no direct evidence that would allow such a conclusion. That being stated, the ET hypothesis certainly is the number one speculative explanation considered in a number of publications. That does not mean it is the correct explanation - merely that it seems to be an hypothesis that would (without necessarily breaking any known laws of nature or physics) explain the evidence.

No, it doesn't seem that way to me. Are you championing ET as a hypothesis? You'll need to provide compelling evidence for it. As Sagan so rightly said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I am not sure what this “extraordinary evidence” you ask for would consist of. Perhaps you can explain that to us? It is absolutely necessary that you define “extraordinary evidence” for us, because as it stands, I have no doubt that no matter what evidence I could present you with, you would simply state “Oh, that is not extraordinary evidence…” – so I require you to define it - and then I will see if I can provide it for you.

How about an alien body, alien spaceship, or alien raygun? Not pictures of them or anecdotes about them. Those are only good enough to convince creduloids.

 

[Mister Earl]

... this thread reminds me of that god-awful show "Ghost Lab". Remember that once scene, where the guy is reviewing some outdoor video? He points to a dark spot and declares, "This is a shadow person." That's this thread, pretty much.