UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Mister Earl]

As a child, I was fascinated with UFOs. I used to go out into the fields at night around my house and watch the dark skies with an old beat up polariod camera my grandmother had given me. I was sure, absolutely sure that I would see one if I waited long enough.

Time passed, though. And I lost that easy credulity. We see odd and crazy things in the skies all the time. The atmosphere itself can do some pretty wild things. Thermal inversion in itself can bring entire floating continents and massive cities before your eyes. You can SEE it, and seeing is believing. But belief and reality aren't tied.

I no longer believe aliens from another civilization are visiting us. I've never seen, nor heard of a case that was 100% "Yeah. Aliens." The best it can get is "We're not sure what it was." But "We're not sure" doesn't equate to "aliens".

For me to believe aliens are visiting us, I'd have to agree with Robo up there. We'd need solid, physical proof in the form of something completely non-terrestrial.

 

[SOdhner]

I am not sure why you would want the UFO research to positively conclude that ET is the answer.

Time travelers works too. Bioluminescent pterodactyls. Whatever. But saying "I don't know, and have no evidence, but it's something 'alien'" doesn't really make sense. At that point it's just "dunno".

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.

But as we've already shown, ET isn't remotely plausible.

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.

Physical evidence for aliens. Not anecdotes, or blurry photographs of hubcaps and street lights.

Also, 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?

 

[Rramjet]

This is your attempt at switching the burden of proof that has been so typical.

The implication of wollery’s statement (“Please tell us, who in this thread has hand-waved away all UFOs.”) is that there is someone in this thread who has not waved away all UFOs - as misconceptions, misperceptions or hoaxes (myself excluded). To verify the truth of wollery’s implication (and to prove my initial claim incorrect) all it would take is one UFO debunker to nominate one case that has not been “waved away” in such terms. A simple enough proposition surely.

Of course, also by implication, if you fail to nominate a case that you have not waved away as a as misconception, misperception or hoax, then we may assume that you also do not believe there are any UFO cases that cannot be explained in those terms. It is not a complicated issue RoboT.

You nominate one case which has been proven to be "aliens".

I am not sure how you could still be labouring under the misapprehension that I am somehow promoting the ET hypothesis as being the correct explanation (for I have no doubt that is what you are actually thinking of when you state “aliens”). I have stated countless times that such a conclusion is not warranted on the evidence – and most of those statements have been made in direct reply to you!

All I am contending is that there are UFO cases which defy plausible mundane explanation. …and when I use the term “alien” I simply mean something alien - that is foreign - to our knowledge of the natural or technological world.

But let’s examine the claim is that some UFOs are caused by ET. That claim is not able to be falsified because we do not have a concrete conception of what ET is supposed to be. That is, we do not have the parameters of ET by which we can compare the evidence of any specific claim to. “This was an example of ET”. How do you know it was ET and not something that merely resembled ET - and in fact was something else altogether (secret government technology coupled with sinister motivation for example)?

That is not to say we don’t have circumstantial evidence (multiple eyewitness, film and photos, radar and physical trace evidence) that “looks like” ET. But there’s the rub. What does “looks like” ET actually mean. What are the parameters we are using to come to that conclusion? You might say apparent technological craft apparently piloted by beings that have no conventional explanation for their existence. But again notice the caveat “apparently”. It seems we can not pin it down any more categorically than that. We may indeed be being visited by ET, but we cannot prove that we are.

But of course I have directly explained all that to you on numerous prior occasions, in this (and other) threads, and since I cannot believe that you are incapable of understanding my statements on the matter, therefore for you to ask me here to nominate a case which has “proven” to be aliens is a scurrelous nonsense.

How about an alien body, alien spaceship, or alien raygun? Not pictures of them or anecdotes about them.

Okay, fine, so for you, “physical evidence” is “extraordinary evidence”. But what is it evidence for. It certainly is not evidence for any claim that I have made. It might be evidence for the claim “Some UFOs are caused by ET” – but that is not a claim I have (ever) made. All I know (and all I have ever claimed) is that we have at least circumstantial evidence (multiple eyewitness, photo and film, radar and physical trace evidence – and sometimes a conjunction of those) that indicates that something is occurring that we cannot plausibly explain in mundane terms.

However, I have no idea what that “something” is (or what it represents). When I state (as I sometimes do) that the evidence “looks like ET” I am not stating a personal preference or a position of my own that I wish to promote. All I am stating is the historical fact that many commentators and researchers have come to that conclusion. I on the other hand have categorically and repeatedly stated that such a conclusion is unsafe (unsound, not warranted) based on the evidence we currently have.

 

[wollery]

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

Wow, that's quite astounding. In one sentence you managed to shift the burden of proof and move the goalposts.

It was your claim that UFO debunkers dismiss all UFOs as either misconception, misperception or hoax, therefore it is your burden of proof to show that that's what they do. That's why I asked for evidence. It isn't up to me, or anyone else to proove otherwise.

As for the goalpost shifting, well, your claim was that debunkers dismiss all claims, but if a debunker says, "I don't know what that was" then they aren't dismissing the claim. All I would have to do to counter your claim is show a single case where I honestly don't have any idea what the UFO in question was.

But I won't, because apart from the fact that I already have (several times in this thread) it is (as pointed out earlier) your burden of proof to back up your claim.

So, your claim, your burden of proof. Ante up.

If you don't then it's an unevidenced assertion and may be dismissed as such.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The implication of wollery’s statement (“Please tell us, who in this thread has hand-waved away all UFOs.”) is that there is someone in this thread who has not waved away all UFOs - as misconceptions, misperceptions or hoaxes (myself excluded). To verify the truth of wollery’s implication (and to prove my initial claim incorrect) all it would take is one UFO debunker to nominate one case that has not been “waved away” in such terms. A simple enough proposition surely.

Unbelievably, you attempt to shift the burden of proof again in your response to being called out on shifting the burden of proof. I supposed it shouldn't be so extraordinarily unbelievable since it is what you have attempted to do the entire thread. You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens". What part of that is confusing for you? Everyone knows your attempts at shifting the burden of proof are because you lack compelling evidence for your unfounded belief system.

Of course, also by implication, if you fail to nominate a case that you have not waved away as a as misconception, misperception or hoax, then we may assume that you also do not believe there are any UFO cases that cannot be explained in those terms. It is not a complicated issue RoboT.

Indeed it isn't at all complicated. You show one case that has been confirmed as "alien" with compelling evidence. Not anecdotes or pictures. You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens".

I am not sure how you could still be labouring under the misapprehension that I am somehow promoting the ET hypothesis as being the correct explanation (for I have no doubt that is what you are actually thinking of when you state “aliens”). I have stated countless times that such a conclusion is not warranted on the evidence – and most of those statements have been made in direct reply to you!

Your fallacy above is called "strawman". That means that you are attributing an argument to me that I didn't make. You do that because it is easier for you to tilt at windmills made of straw than my, and everyone else's, actual arguments. I'll advise you again, don't misrepresent what I say.

All I am contending is that there are UFO cases which defy plausible mundane explanation. …and when I use the term “alien” I simply mean something alien - that is foreign - to our knowledge of the natural or technological world.

You'll need compelling evidence to prove that assertion, which is so far unfounded. As Sagan so rightly said, "Extaordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

But let’s examine the claim is that some UFOs are caused by ET. That claim is not able to be falsified because we do not have a concrete conception of what ET is supposed to be. That is, we do not have the parameters of ET by which we can compare the evidence of any specific claim to. “This was an example of ET”. How do you know it was ET and not something that merely resembled ET - and in fact was something else altogether (secret government technology coupled with sinister motivation for example)?

That is not to say we don’t have circumstantial evidence (multiple eyewitness, film and photos, radar and physical trace evidence) that “looks like” ET. But there’s the rub. What does “looks like” ET actually mean. What are the parameters we are using to come to that conclusion? You might say apparent technological craft apparently piloted by beings that have no conventional explanation for their existence. But again notice the caveat “apparently”. It seems we can not pin it down any more categorically than that. We may indeed be being visited by ET, but we cannot prove that we are.

But of course I have directly explained all that to you on numerous prior occasions, in this (and other) threads, and since I cannot believe that you are incapable of understanding my statements on the matter, therefore for you to ask me here to nominate a case which has “proven” to be aliens is a scurrelous nonsense.

I'll try one more time. This is you attempting to shift the burden of proof. You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens". I'm not sure how I could make it any simpler for you to understand.

Okay, fine, so for you, “physical evidence” is “extraordinary evidence”.

“Anecdotes” are for you. LOL.

But what is it evidence for. It certainly is not evidence for any claim that I have made. It might be evidence for the claim “Some UFOs are caused by ET” – but that is not a claim I have (ever) made. All I know (and all I have ever claimed) is that we have at least circumstantial evidence (multiple eyewitness, photo and film, radar and physical trace evidence – and sometimes a conjunction of those) that indicates that something is occurring that we cannot plausibly explain in mundane terms.

You forgot FLIR. LOL. Remember your extremely well evidenced fatal flaws in using your version of a process of elimination? Campeche, the blimp at Rogue River, your Debri^WP Debacle, and your latest Dismay at Delphos?

However, I have no idea what that “something” is (or what it represents). When I state (as I sometimes do) that the evidence “looks like ET” I am not stating a personal preference or a position of my own that I wish to promote. All I am stating is the historical fact that many commentators and researchers have come to that conclusion. I on the other hand have categorically and repeatedly stated that such a conclusion is unsafe (unsound, not warranted) based on the evidence we currently have.

Then why do you keep posting links to their conclusions?

I've used a process of elimination on all the cases you've brought forward and conclude that they are all "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane" I don't mean mundane, but it does mean within our common range of experience and quite ordinary. I'm not proposing any particular solutions myself, just noting that all of your cases have so far defied plausible non-mundane explanation. Also note that a process of elimination is iterative and logical and has enabled me to eliminate plausible non-mundane explanations. Your version of a process of elimination has been proven (by you!) to be fatally flawed. I have never been shown to be inaccurate in my implementation of a process of elimination.

If you have found one that has been confirmed to be "aliens" that I missed, bring the extraordinary evidence and we'll examine it on its merits, not on your unfounded assertions. You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens".

 

[Rramjet]

I can see no purpose in me stating this again except to hope that one day – one day – a UFO debunker will no only read it, but also understand it:

The mere statement of an unfounded assertion does NOT somehow, magically, confer veracity on that assertion.​

The UFO debunkers posting to this thread persist with such statements as “It is proven…” and “It has been shown…”, yet absolutely fail to provide any evidential support for such statements. For example:

But as we've already shown, ET isn't remotely plausible.

Now I have logically argued that ET IS plausible. That is:

There is nothing in our natural or technological knowledge of the universe that would preclude ET – indeed, given our knowledge it would be actually surprising if ET did not exist. There is nothing in our natural or technological knowledge of the universe that would preclude ET (or their “representatives”) visiting earth. We also have reliable and credible observations by multiple eyewitnesses, often in conjunction with photographic or film, radar or physical trace evidence, of apparently technological craft apparently piloted by humanoid beings that defy mundane explanation. That is not to say ET is the correct explanation – just a plausible explanation.​

Alternatively, what have the UFO debunkers presented to counter the plausibility of the ET hypothesis? That is, to show that ET “isn’t remotely plausible”…

Just because evidence may be circumstantial, that does not preclude plausibility. Just because it has been shown that some UFO cases are the result of misconception, misperception and hoax does not mean that all UFO cases can be so attributed – indeed official studies have shown that upwards of 20% of all cases remain inexplicable in mundane terms (eg; the Battelle study). If the UFO debunkers want physical evidence before they can “believe”, then that is their prerogative, however, the critical thinkers among us will realise that there exists a substantial weight of evidence which demonstrates that something is occurring that is outside our knowledge of the natural and technological world.

The UFO debunkers also project onto all UFO researchers a belief in ET as the explanation for UFOs. They then expend much time and effort in demolishing this strawman argument. Sure, there are some researchers who contend that ET is the explanation, but the UFO debunkers simply cannot conceptualise that UFO researchers (such as myself) exist who do not argue that ET is the explanation. Such researchers argue that any conclusion that ET is the explanation, in consideration of the evidence, is unsound - even while maintaining that UFO cases exist which defy plausible mundane explanation.

In order to maintain their beliefs (that all UFO cases are the result of misconceptions, misperceptions and hoaxes) the UFO debunkers must ignore the wealth of evidence that does exist. They wave that evidence away with fallacious conceptions such as eyewitnesses can be mistaken, therefore they are mistaken (humans can be blind, therefore humans are blind). They assert falsehoods such as we only have “blurry” photographs of “hubcaps”, when in fact we have a wealth of clear UFO photos (and here again they fallaciously contend that because photographs can be hoaxed, therefore the existing photographs are hoaxed). The UFO debunkers also engage in direct misrepresentations (often lies) about both the evidence and the position of UFO researchers (and you only have to look at statements posted recently such as “Since you have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations and no ability to propose non-mundane explanations…” and “Are you championing ET as a hypothesis? You'll need to provide compelling evidence for it.” and “Anecdotes” are for you. LOL.” and “He points to a dark spot and declares, "This is a shadow person." That's this thread, pretty much.” to understand the essence of what I am talking about here).

The UFO debunkers also like to relate “UFO” tales of the format “I used to believe in UFOs, but I saw a UFO once and it turned out to be a flock of birds, so I no longer believe in UFOs.” - as if such stories somehow demonstrated that anyone who believed in UFOs was somehow not rational and were simply mistaken in not understanding what the evidence is actually showing them.

The UFO debunkers also will never answer a direct question or challenge concerning their beliefs. They will either completely ignore the question or challenge, or answer it with one of their own. For example, in response to my direct challenge to wollery ”Okay then, nominate for us one UFO case that you do not consider to be the result of a misconception, misperception or hoax.” he replied:

Wow, that's quite astounding. In one sentence you managed to shift the burden of proof and move the goalposts.

So instead of being able to come clean with his beliefs – ostensibly that all UFOs are the result of a misconception, misperception or hoax – he considers it necessary to shift the burden back to me – by claiming that I have illegitimately shifted the burden of proof! One has to ask why he is not able to be forthright in admitting to his beliefs?

Of course I can predict his response here. He will claim that I have illegitimately attributed beliefs to him – but of course he will never simply state his beliefs in order to clear the whole mess up - and he will launch counterclaims such as “You originally claimed that all UFO debunkers dismiss all UFOs as a misconception, misperception or hoax, so it is up to you to provide evidence to support that assertion”. Oh wait, he already has done that:

It was your claim that UFO debunkers dismiss all UFOs as either misconception, misperception or hoax, therefore it is your burden of proof to show that that's what they do. That's why I asked for evidence. It isn't up to me, or anyone else to proove otherwise.

I’ll now await his claim of illegitimate attribution of beliefs to him shall I?

And what about this statement?

As for the goalpost shifting, well, your claim was that debunkers dismiss all claims, but if a debunker says, "I don't know what that was" then they aren't dismissing the claim. All I would have to do to counter your claim is show a single case where I honestly don't have any idea what the UFO in question was.

Then, show me a single case in all that I have presented where a UFO debunker has claimed “I don’t know what it was”.

But of course…

…I won't, because apart from the fact that I already have (several times in this thread) it is (as pointed out earlier) your burden of proof to back up your claim.

On this particular “burden of proof” issue, wollery knows that for me to go back over every statement made by every UFO debunker in this thread to “prove” that they have all dismissed as a misconception, misperception or hoax the cases I have presented would be an impossibly onerous task – but if I were to undertake it, we both know the result would be to support my initial claim. Wollery is merely hiding behind this burden of proof issue as a means of obfuscating and as a means of avoiding having to state his own beliefs.

Of course RoboT sings from the same song sheet:

Unbelievably, you attempt to shift the burden of proof again in your response to being called out on shifting the burden of proof.

In so doing he also is hiding behind the issue in order to not have to state his own beliefs on the matter. Indeed, when I directly challenged him on the issue as follows:

”Of course, also by implication, if you fail to nominate a case that you have not waved away as a as misconception, misperception or hoax, then we may assume that you also do not believe there are any UFO cases that cannot be explained in those terms. It is not a complicated issue RoboT.” He stated:

Indeed it isn't at all complicated. You show one case that has been confirmed as "alien" with compelling evidence. Not anecdotes or pictures. You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens".

Now that is shifting the burden of proof! LOL.

Remembering all that I have stated above, notice what happens when I state:

” I am not sure how you could still be labouring under the misapprehension that I am somehow promoting the ET hypothesis as being the correct explanation (for I have no doubt that is what you are actually thinking of when you state “aliens”). I have stated countless times that such a conclusion is not warranted on the evidence – and most of those statements have been made in direct reply to you!”​

Your fallacy above is called "strawman". That means that you are attributing an argument to me that I didn't make. You do that because it is easier for you to tilt at windmills made of straw than my, and everyone else's, actual arguments. I'll advise you again, don't misrepresent what I say.

He’ll “advise” me? Notice also he never actually denies my assertions – he merely claims that I have illegitimately attributed beliefs to him and “advises” me not to do it again. Of course such convolutions in the discussion could be entirely avoided if he (like wollery) would just come out and directly state his beliefs on the matter. One has to ask why he (they) will not do this?

And so RoboT continues in this vein (right down the unfounded assertions and misrepresentative and false statements). For example:

You'll need compelling evidence to prove that assertion, which is so far unfounded.

I'll try one more time. This is you attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Remember your extremely well evidenced fatal flaws…

Then why do you keep posting links to their conclusions?

Then he ends with some semantic nonsense:

Note that when I say "mundane" I don't mean mundane, but it does mean within our common range of experience and quite ordinary.

Contrast that with my statement:

Note that when I say “alien” I do not mean ET, I mean something foreign to our understanding of nature and technology.​

Whose statement actually makes sense then?

I'm not proposing any particular solutions myself, just noting that all of your cases have so far defied plausible non-mundane explanation.

And here is another place where RoboT has avoided a direct question to him. I have asked him now more than once to outline or describe the process by which he determined “non-mundane explanations” to be plausible explanations for the cases I have presented - and how the cases I have presented “defy non-mundane explanation”. He has of course avoided answering that altogether.

Also note that a process of elimination is iterative and logical and has enabled me to eliminate plausible non-mundane explanations.

Once again he has avoided my direct questioning of him concerning precisely how he was able to do that (or even that he has done that…).

Your version of a process of elimination has been proven (by you!) to be fatally flawed.

Here he has utterly failed to provide any evidential or logical support for that unfounded assertion. Show us that “proof” RoboT.

I have never been shown to be inaccurate in my implementation of a process of elimination.

And here he has never been able to articulate how the process of elimination actually allows him to conclude as he does – or that he has even applied a process of elimination during his cogitations.

Finally he ends with:

If you have found one that has been confirmed to be "aliens" that I missed, bring the extraordinary evidence and we'll examine it on its merits, not on your unfounded assertions. You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens".

Given that I have presented cases which (according to many researchers) defy plausible mundane explanation – that is, they are ‘alien” in the sense that they are foreign to our understanding of the natural and technological world - then I am no longer sure what RoboT wants from me. That is, I get a definite sense of duplicity when he states “alien” – he uses “my” term, but seems to actually mean ET.

RoboT has already articulated that for him extraordinary evidence is physical evidence (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7088959#post7088959). But when challenged on what the physical evidence he requires is supposed to prove, he ducks that question also. Of course he is still talking about ET. That is he wants to see the physical evidence to prove the existence of ET - but it should be abundantly clear by now that I have nether claimed that such evidence exists, nor have I claimed that I would present it.

Of course what is actually happening here is a distraction from discussing the actual research and case evidence. And that is exactly as the UFO debunkers want it. The longer they can prevent any rational debate concerning the research and the evidence, the better off they feel they are. They feel safer if no-one actually examines the evidence – for they know that the evidence supports my claims and contentions. Of course they can never bring themselves to openly admit it (even a simple “I don’t know” is a step too far for them) and it seems they will never openly and directly state their own beliefs on the matter.

Now I have articulated my beliefs on the matter many times: That is I believe that there are UFO cases (upwards of 20% of all reported cases) that simply defy plausible mundane explanation. I also believe that on the evidence the ET hypothesis cannot be directly supported. I also believe that if ever we actually get beyond the UFO debunker inspired denial and ridicule to the point of conducting legitimate, peer reviewed research into the UFO phenomenon, it will turn out to be phenomena – that is will have multiple causes.

In conclusion I would like to ask a direct question:

Will any of you posting to this thread also directly articulate your beliefs in such a manner?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Of course RoboT sings from the same song sheet:

Now it's an unbelievable action even for you. You again attempt to shift the burden of proof. You began a thread to prove "aliens". Look at the OP, it's back on page one of this thread. The author is Rramjet. We ask for you to show even one of your cases that has been confirmed "alien" and you try to switch the burden of proof. We say we haven't seen extraordinary evidence to prove your extraordinary belief system in "aliens" so you say, "Ha ha! Show me one case that you don't believe to be mundane or you have a belief system!" Can you understand how that is you attempting to switch the burden of proof when I phrase it like that? You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens". It really is that simple.

In so doing he also is hiding behind the issue in order to not have to state his own beliefs on the matter. Indeed, when I directly challenged him on the issue as follows:

My "belief" is that you haven't shown evidence for "aliens". It should be a simple matter for you to show even one of your cases to be "aliens" for that to change. As Sagan so rightly stated, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." That still applies here. You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens".

”Of course, also by implication, if you fail to nominate a case that you have not waved away as a as misconception, misperception or hoax, then we may assume that you also do not believe there are any UFO cases that cannot be explained in those terms. It is not a complicated issue RoboT.” He stated:

Now that is shifting the burden of proof! LOL.

Just show one case that you have presented here that has been confirmed to be "aliens". You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens".

Remembering all that I have stated above, notice what happens when I state:

” I am not sure how you could still be labouring under the misapprehension that I am somehow promoting the ET hypothesis as being the correct explanation (for I have no doubt that is what you are actually thinking of when you state “aliens”). I have stated countless times that such a conclusion is not warranted on the evidence – and most of those statements have been made in direct reply to you!”​

He’ll “advise” me? Notice also he never actually denies my assertions – he merely claims that I have illegitimately attributed beliefs to him and “advises” me not to do it again. Of course such convolutions in the discussion could be entirely avoided if he (like wollery) would just come out and directly state his beliefs on the matter. One has to ask why he (they) will not do this?

I can only advise, I can't make you not misrepresent my arguments. I see that you are, in fact, continuing to do so.

And so RoboT continues in this vein (right down the unfounded assertions and misrepresentative and false statements). For example:

It's your own fault for finally throwing off the mask and declaring your belief in ET visiting the Earth. No doubt you were typing in the excitement of the thing and got carried away and let it slip. The cat's out of the bag now, though.

Then he ends with some semantic nonsense:

Contrast that with my statement:

Note that when I say “alien” I do not mean ET, I mean something foreign to our understanding of nature and technology.​

Whose statement actually makes sense then?

It's a direct copy of the sentiment in your statement. So you are saying that your statement is semantic nonsense. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

And here is another place where RoboT has avoided a direct question to him. I have asked him now more than once to outline or describe the process by which he determined “non-mundane explanations” to be plausible explanations for the cases I have presented - and how the cases I have presented “defy non-mundane explanation”. He has of course avoided answering that altogether.

How many times were you asked to describe your version of a process of elimination so that we could all see exactly where the fatal flaws in it were. I was trying to do you a favor. Your version of a process of elimination has failed so spectacularly and so often that I was hoping we could discover where it went so wrong with your implementation. My implementation of a process of elimination has never erred. Yours is the only one which has provably, demonstrably, irrevocably, utterly failed.

Once again he has avoided my direct questioning of him concerning precisely how he was able to do that (or even that he has done that…).

You describe your version of a process of elimination and I'll compare it with mine and then I'll let you know where yours failed. I've been asking you to do that for months now and you always wish the question into the cornfield. I'm not the only one who has been asking, either.

Here he has utterly failed to provide any evidential or logical support for that unfounded assertion. Show us that “proof” RoboT.

Actually, I've shown you many, many times. Your Debri^WP Debacle, Campeche, the blimp at Rogue River, your latest Dismay at Delphos. You presented these cases to shore up your belief system in aliens and ET. You used your version of a process of elimination on them and they have been shown to be mundane. Using the real process of elimination, I was able to rule out plausible non-mundane explanations leaving only "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane" I don't mean mundane. It does however mean well within our common range of experience and quite ordinary.

And here he has never been able to articulate how the process of elimination actually allows him to conclude as he does – or that he has even applied a process of elimination during his cogitations.

Well, no. I think you'll find that your version of a process of elimination is the only one in this thread which has so spectacularly failed. That has been proven over and over (by you!). I don't mind if you want to cling to your beliefs in aliens and ET.

Finally he ends with:

Given that I have presented cases which (according to many researchers) defy plausible mundane explanation – that is, they are ‘alien” in the sense that they are foreign to our understanding of the natural and technological world - then I am no longer sure what RoboT wants from me. That is, I get a definite sense of duplicity when he states “alien” – he uses “my” term, but seems to actually mean ET.

But you have absolutely no ability to eliminate mundane explanations, as has been proven (by you!) so many times in this thread. I have used a process of elimination to rule out plausible non-mundane explanations leaving only "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane" I don't mean mundane but it does mean well within our common range of experience and quite ordinary. Therefore, the ball is still in your court, burden of proof wise. You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens".

RoboT has already articulated that for him extraordinary evidence is physical evidence (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7088959#post7088959). But when challenged on what the physical evidence he requires is supposed to prove, he ducks that question also. Of course he is still talking about ET. That is he wants to see the physical evidence to prove the existence of ET - but it should be abundantly clear by now that I have nether claimed that such evidence exists, nor have I claimed that I would present it.

Well, no. You have already articulated that ET is the answer for you. You claim ET, you prove ET.

Remember this?

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).

ET does NOT fit the evidence, by the way. That is an unfounded assertion on your part and we dismiss it as such. Also by the way, note that you were again attempting to switch the burden of proof. I don't propose any alternative explanations, I only note that the cases you've presented positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation and therefore the answer is "mundane".

Of course what is actually happening here is a distraction from discussing the actual research and case evidence. And that is exactly as the UFO debunkers want it. The longer they can prevent any rational debate concerning the research and the evidence, the better off they feel they are. They feel safer if no-one actually examines the evidence – for they know that the evidence supports my claims and contentions. Of course they can never bring themselves to openly admit it (even a simple “I don’t know” is a step too far for them) and it seems they will never openly and directly state their own beliefs on the matter.

No, you are incorrect. What is happening here is Rramjet is throwing up mounds and mounds of crap "evidence" and wants actual rational thinking people to jump on his ET bandwagon. The evidence does NOT support your claims. I have applied a process of elimination to all of the cases you have thrown against the wall and they all positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation. That means that the answer to each of the ones you've regurgitated here is "mundane". Unless you can show even only ONE case that has been confirmed "aliens". You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens".

Now I have articulated my beliefs on the matter many times: That is I believe that there are UFO cases (upwards of 20% of all reported cases) that simply defy plausible mundane explanation. I also believe that on the evidence the ET hypothesis cannot be directly supported. I also believe that if ever we actually get beyond the UFO debunker inspired denial and ridicule to the point of conducting legitimate, peer reviewed research into the UFO phenomenon, it will turn out to be phenomena – that is will have multiple causes.

And yet, see above, you have articulated your belief that ET is the answer. But I'd settle for you showing evidence of "aliens".

In conclusion I would like to ask a direct question:

Will any of you posting to this thread also directly articulate your beliefs in such a manner?

I believe that Rramjet has not shown evidence for "aliens". You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens".

 

[SOdhner]

I can see no purpose in me stating this again except to hope that one day – one day – a UFO debunker will no only read it, but also understand it:

The mere statement of an unfounded assertion does NOT somehow, magically, confer veracity on that assertion.​

The UFO debunkers posting to this thread persist with such statements as “It is proven…” and “It has been shown…”, yet absolutely fail to provide any evidential support for such statements.

1. You insist that these cases have "defied mundane explanation" thereby implying that the explanation must be non-mundane, but have not demonstrated any way that you could know anything more than that they are unexplained. Unexplained does not equal "non-mundane".
2. You say that there is evidence that the Cowgill letter is factually accurate. You have never supplied this evidence even though I've been asking for months.
3. You say that the Cowgill case matches radiation poisoning symptoms even though this has been shown to be false. You might be able to make a case if you would say what TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation you think matches, but you won't even supply that most simple bit of foundational information.
4. You say some things "look like" ET, but can't say what ET looks like.

The mere statement of these unfounded assertions does NOT somehow, magically, confer veracity on them. Are you planning on providing any evidence for these things, Rramjet?

Now I have logically argued that ET IS plausible.

The problem is that you keep confusing "possible" and "plausible". It has already been shown why ET is completely implausible. Of course, you stopped replying to those posts.

Alternatively, what have the UFO debunkers presented to counter the plausibility of the ET hypothesis? That is, to show that ET “isn’t remotely plausible”…

The posts are there, if you ever choose to reply to them.

The UFO debunkers also project onto all UFO researchers a belief in ET as the explanation for UFOs.

It's generally correct that "UFO researchers" think ET is the explanation. Not all the time, of course, and that's okay. I don't really care. Present whatever theory you want, and we'll discuss it. In your case you refuse to even suggest an explanation, instead relying on the God of the Gaps. I don't know, therefore "Aliens".

So instead of being able to come clean with his beliefs – ostensibly that all UFOs are the result of a misconception, misperception or hoax – he considers it necessary to shift the burden back to me – by claiming that I have illegitimately shifted the burden of proof! One has to ask why he is not able to be forthright in admitting to his beliefs?

I wouldn't say that. I would say that all UFOs have some explanation. That can range from birds, to airplanes, to heat distortion, to hallucinations, to hoaxes, you name it. Technically that could include aliens as well, although that's not remotely plausible. Or can you point to a case where that is the explanation? So far you've just said "I don't know" and then insisted that you had somehow ruled out every possible mundane explanation (including things you haven't thought of yet, which is a neat trick).

And here is another place where RoboT has avoided a direct question to him.

Rramjet, I have a direct question for you: What is your evidence that the Cowgill letter is factually accurate and not, for example, a hoax of some sort?
Here's another direct question: What TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation do you think fits with the symptoms described in that case?

You've failed to answer those questions for a long time, why do you try to criticize others?

I have asked him now more than once to outline or describe the process by which he determined “non-mundane explanations” to be plausible explanations for the cases I have presented - and how the cases I have presented “defy non-mundane explanation”. He has of course avoided answering that altogether.

This seems pretty straightforward to me. He's clearly using the same process you are. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you want to wave your hand and declare that you've eliminated every conceivable mundane explanation somehow I think it's reasonable for him to do the same with the non-mundane ones. Actually, it's far more reasonable because by definition non-mundane explanations aren't plausible without some sort of solid evidence.

Once again he has avoided my direct questioning of him concerning precisely how he was able to do that (or even that he has done that…).

Pot, kettle...

Here he has utterly failed to provide any evidential or logical support for that unfounded assertion.

And again...

And here he has never been able to articulate how the process of elimination actually allows him to conclude as he does – or that he has even applied a process of elimination during his cogitations.

And again. Rramjet, these things can all be applied to you. Also, we asked you first. If you can answer, I'm sure that RoboTimbo will follow suit.

The longer they can prevent any rational debate concerning the research and the evidence, the better off they feel they are. They feel safer if no-one actually examines the evidence – for they know that the evidence supports my claims and contentions.

Then present that evidence. Let's start with the evidence I've been asking for since January. What evidence do you have that the Cowgill letter is factually accurate? Let's have a nice rational debate about the evidence, Rramjet.

 

[wollery]

I can see no purpose in me stating this again except to hope that one day – one day – a UFO debunker will no only read it, but also understand it:

The mere statement of an unfounded assertion does NOT somehow, magically, confer veracity on that assertion.​

What, like this unfounded assertion?

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.

You remember, that statement that I asked you to provide evidence for.

Without evidence it is, as you are fond of saying, an unfounded assertion, and may be dismissed as such.

All you have to do to support this assertion is show one person stating that all UFOs can be dismissed as misconceptions, misperceptions and hoaxes. Just one. It cannot be refuted by giving one example of someone stating that not all UFOs can be dismissed as misconceptions, misperceptions and hoaxes, since that isn't what you claimed. To refute your statement it would be necessary to show that all debunkers hold that position. If your statement is true then how hard is it to find evidence?

Of course, that's beside the point, because what you are doing is attempting to tar all of your opponents with the same brush by association.

The UFO debunkers posting to this thread persist with such statements as “It is proven…” and “It has been shown…”, yet absolutely fail to provide any evidential support for such statements.

What, every debunker?

Just because evidence may be circumstantial, that does not preclude plausibility. Just because it has been shown that some UFO cases are the result of misconception, misperception and hoax does not mean that all UFO cases can be so attributed – indeed official studies have shown that upwards of 20% of all cases remain inexplicable in mundane terms (eg; the Battelle study). If the UFO debunkers want physical evidence before they can “believe”, then that is their prerogative, however, the critical thinkers among us will realise that there exists a substantial weight of evidence which demonstrates that something is occurring that is outside our knowledge of the natural and technological world.

Again with the underhanded insults. "The critical thinkers among us", discounting debunkers, the implication being that debunkers aren't critical thinkers.

The UFO debunkers also project onto all UFO researchers a belief in ET as the explanation for UFOs. They then expend much time and effort in demolishing this strawman argument. Sure, there are some researchers who contend that ET is the explanation, but the UFO debunkers simply cannot conceptualise that UFO researchers (such as myself) exist who do not argue that ET is the explanation. Such researchers argue that any conclusion that ET is the explanation, in consideration of the evidence, is unsound - even while maintaining that UFO cases exist which defy plausible mundane explanation.

Again, lumping all debunkers together. I assume you count me as a debunker, yet I have never made any statement to the effect that all UFO researchers believe in ET, because I don't, and many others have made similar sentiments clear.

In order to maintain their beliefs (that all UFO cases are the result of misconceptions, misperceptions and hoaxes) the UFO debunkers must ignore the wealth of evidence that does exist.

No longer some, but all debunkers are now included in this tar brushing.

They wave that evidence away with fallacious conceptions such as eyewitnesses can be mistaken, therefore they are mistaken (humans can be blind, therefore humans are blind).

Unsupported assertion, and may be dismissed as such.

They assert falsehoods such as we only have “blurry” photographs of “hubcaps”, when in fact we have a wealth of clear UFO photos (and here again they fallaciously contend that because photographs can be hoaxed, therefore the existing photographs are hoaxed).

Unsupported assertion, and may be dismissed as such.

The UFO debunkers also engage in direct misrepresentations (often lies) about both the evidence and the position of UFO researchers (and you only have to look at statements posted recently such as “Since you have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations and no ability to propose non-mundane explanations…” and “Are you championing ET as a hypothesis? You'll need to provide compelling evidence for it.” and “Anecdotes” are for you. LOL.” and “He points to a dark spot and declares, "This is a shadow person." That's this thread, pretty much.” to understand the essence of what I am talking about here).

Tarring with the same brush.

The UFO debunkers also like to relate “UFO” tales of the format “I used to believe in UFOs, but I saw a UFO once and it turned out to be a flock of birds, so I no longer believe in UFOs.” - as if such stories somehow demonstrated that anyone who believed in UFOs was somehow not rational and were simply mistaken in not understanding what the evidence is actually showing them.

Tarring with the same brush.

The UFO debunkers also will never answer a direct question or challenge concerning their beliefs.

Tarring with the same brush, and demonstrably untrue. I've stated my beliefs on more than one occasion in this thread alone.

They will either completely ignore the question or challenge, or answer it with one of their own. For example, in response to my direct challenge to wollery ”Okay then, nominate for us one UFO case that you do not consider to be the result of a misconception, misperception or hoax.” he replied:

Wow, that's quite astounding. In one sentence you managed to shift the burden of proof and move the goalposts.

But a shifting of the burden of proof is exactly what it was. You made an unsupported statement, and I asked for evidence, which you refused to give.

So instead of being able to come clean with his beliefs – ostensibly that all UFOs are the result of a misconception, misperception or hoax

And yet you are unable to find any statement by me to that effect. In fact, you seem unable or unwilling to find any statement by anybody to that effect. That's all it would take to prove your assertion to be accurate, just one person making such a statement.

– he considers it necessary to shift the burden back to me

It was your assertion, and therefore you burden of proof to begin with.

– by claiming that I have illegitimately shifted the burden of proof! One has to ask why he is not able to be forthright in admitting to his beliefs?

As I noted, I have stated my beliefs very clearly more than once on this thread. But okay, I'll play your game.

I believe that UFOs exist. In fact, I know that UFOs exist. There are things that have not been identified. There are things that will never be identified. I do not know what they are. It is possible that they are all the result of misconception, misperception or hoax. But it is also possible that they are aliens, time travellers, dimensional travellers or something else I haven't thought of. I rule out nothing.

My problem isn't with the concept of UFOs being something non-mundane, it's with the evidence, which is woefully short of that required to support any non-mundane hypothesis.

Of course I can predict his response here. He will claim that I have illegitimately attributed beliefs to him

Well, you did. Without evidence. And not for the first time.

– but of course he will never simply state his beliefs in order to clear the whole mess up

I just have.

- and he will launch counterclaims such as “You originally claimed that all UFO debunkers dismiss all UFOs as a misconception, misperception or hoax, so it is up to you to provide evidence to support that assertion”. Oh wait, he already has done that:

It was your claim that UFO debunkers dismiss all UFOs as either misconception, misperception or hoax, therefore it is your burden of proof to show that that's what they do. That's why I asked for evidence. It isn't up to me, or anyone else to prove otherwise.

I’ll now await his claim of illegitimate attribution of beliefs to him shall I?

Done, and demonstrated with a clear statement of my beliefs.

Your turn. Evidence for your assertion please.

And for the record, I was wrong, you didn't claim that all debunkers dismiss all cases, which makes me wonder why you didn't point that out and give one single example of someone making such a statement to support your assertion. Maybe because you can't?

And what about this statement?

As for the goalpost shifting, well, your claim was that debunkers dismiss all claims, but if a debunker says, "I don't know what that was" then they aren't dismissing the claim. All I would have to do to counter your claim is show a single case where I honestly don't have any idea what the UFO in question was.

Then, show me a single case in all that I have presented where a UFO debunker has claimed “I don’t know what it was”.

I've stated that for more than one case. In fact, I don't believe that I have given a definitive identification for any case. For the vast majority there simply isn't enough evidence, and for a small number we can rule out all of the mundane explanations that have been put forward. For the vast majority of cases you have presented I can honestly say that I don't know what they were.

Of course, that's a far cry from saying that they must be something non-mundane, but it's a far cry from saying that they should all be dismissed as well.

But of course…

…I won't, because apart from the fact that I already have (several times in this thread) it is (as pointed out earlier) your burden of proof to back up your claim.

On this particular “burden of proof” issue, wollery knows that for me to go back over every statement made by every UFO debunker in this thread to “prove” that they have all dismissed as a misconception, misperception or hoax the cases I have presented would be an impossibly onerous task – but if I were to undertake it, we both know the result would be to support my initial claim. Wollery is merely hiding behind this burden of proof issue as a means of obfuscating and as a means of avoiding having to state his own beliefs.

Except that that wasn't what you actually said, was it, and my characterisation of your assertion was therefore wrong. To contradict your actual assertion I'd have to find quotes from all "debunkers", not just one. I again note that it's strange that you didn't spot that error. Could that be because it was what you actually meant, even though you didn't say it?

Of course RoboT sings from the same song sheet:

Unbelievably, you attempt to shift the burden of proof again in your response to being called out on shifting the burden of proof.

In so doing he also is hiding behind the issue in order to not have to state his own beliefs on the matter. Indeed, when I directly challenged him on the issue as follows:

”Of course, also by implication, if you fail to nominate a case that you have not waved away as a as misconception, misperception or hoax, then we may assume that you also do not believe there are any UFO cases that cannot be explained in those terms. It is not a complicated issue RoboT.” He stated:

Indeed it isn't at all complicated. You show one case that has been confirmed as "alien" with compelling evidence. Not anecdotes or pictures. You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens".

Now that is shifting the burden of proof! LOL.

Nope, you made a claim. It's up to you to defend it.

You're very keen to point out other people's burden of proof, but this one is all yours. Back up your assertion, otherwise it may be legitimately dismissed as unfounded.

Remembering all that I have stated above, notice what happens when I state:

” I am not sure how you could still be labouring under the misapprehension that I am somehow promoting the ET hypothesis as being the correct explanation (for I have no doubt that is what you are actually thinking of when you state “aliens”). I have stated countless times that such a conclusion is not warranted on the evidence – and most of those statements have been made in direct reply to you!”​

You created the definition of "alien", in the OP, and now you constantly complain when other people use it, as you defined it. Maybe you should come up with a different term.

Your fallacy above is called "strawman". That means that you are attributing an argument to me that I didn't make. You do that because it is easier for you to tilt at windmills made of straw than my, and everyone else's, actual arguments. I'll advise you again, don't misrepresent what I say.

He’ll “advise” me? Notice also he never actually denies my assertions – he merely claims that I have illegitimately attributed beliefs to him and “advises” me not to do it again. Of course such convolutions in the discussion could be entirely avoided if he (like wollery) would just come out and directly state his beliefs on the matter. One has to ask why he (they) will not do this?

That you constantly interpret and assume what other people mean is a large part of the problem in these discussions. Try sticking to what people actually say and the debate might be more productive. And I have stated clearly what I believe, on a number of occasions. That you ignore that speaks volumes.

And so RoboT continues in this vein (right down the unfounded assertions and misrepresentative and false statements). For example:

You'll need compelling evidence to prove that assertion, which is so far unfounded.

I'll try one more time. This is you attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Remember your extremely well evidenced fatal flaws…

Then why do you keep posting links to their conclusions?

Then he ends with some semantic nonsense:

Note that when I say "mundane" I don't mean mundane, but it does mean within our common range of experience and quite ordinary.

Contrast that with my statement:

Note that when I say “alien” I do not mean ET, I mean something foreign to our understanding of nature and technology.​

Whose statement actually makes sense then?

Neither of them makes sense, which is exactly what RoboTimbo is pointing out with his use of that phrase.

I'm not proposing any particular solutions myself, just noting that all of your cases have so far defied plausible non-mundane explanation.

And here is another place where RoboT has avoided a direct question to him. I have asked him now more than once to outline or describe the process by which he determined “non-mundane explanations” to be plausible explanations for the cases I have presented - and how the cases I have presented “defy non-mundane explanation”. He has of course avoided answering that altogether.

Just as you have been asked to provide your process, and failed to answer. What he's doing is mirroring your argument in order to demonstrate its flaws. And he's doing a very good job of it.

Also note that a process of elimination is iterative and logical and has enabled me to eliminate plausible non-mundane explanations.

Once again he has avoided my direct questioning of him concerning precisely how he was able to do that (or even that he has done that…).

As do you.

Your version of a process of elimination has been proven (by you!) to be fatally flawed.

Here he has utterly failed to provide any evidential or logical support for that unfounded assertion. Show us that “proof” RoboT.

He has. How did your process of elimination come up with oilwell fires? If it didn't then what answer did it come up with. Applying the process of elimination as you describe it would logically discount oilwell fires as a plausible explanation for Campeche, yet you accept it as such.

I have never been shown to be inaccurate in my implementation of a process of elimination.

And here he has never been able to articulate how the process of elimination actually allows him to conclude as he does – or that he has even applied a process of elimination during his cogitations.

Neither have you. Do you see what he's doing yet?

Finally he ends with:

If you have found one that has been confirmed to be "aliens" that I missed, bring the extraordinary evidence and we'll examine it on its merits, not on your unfounded assertions. You claim "aliens", you prove "aliens".

Given that I have presented cases which (according to many researchers) defy plausible mundane explanation – that is, they are ‘alien” in the sense that they are foreign to our understanding of the natural and technological world - then I am no longer sure what RoboT wants from me. That is, I get a definite sense of duplicity when he states “alien” – he uses “my” term, but seems to actually mean ET.

No, you haven't shown any case to be "alien" as per your definition. You have only shown that some cases can't be any of the possible mundane explanation that have been put forward. The two are not the same.

RoboT has already articulated that for him extraordinary evidence is physical evidence (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7088959#post7088959). But when challenged on what the physical evidence he requires is supposed to prove, he ducks that question also. Of course he is still talking about ET. That is he wants to see the physical evidence to prove the existence of ET - but it should be abundantly clear by now that I have nether claimed that such evidence exists, nor have I claimed that I would present it.

You haven't shown any case to be anything other than "not one of the mundane explanations proposed".

Of course what is actually happening here is a distraction from discussing the actual research and case evidence. And that is exactly as the UFO debunkers want it. The longer they can prevent any rational debate concerning the research and the evidence, the better off they feel they are. They feel safer if no-one actually examines the evidence – for they know that the evidence supports my claims and contentions. Of course they can never bring themselves to openly admit it (even a simple “I don’t know” is a step too far for them) and it seems they will never openly and directly state their own beliefs on the matter.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. A paragraph full of projection, interpretation and unfounded assertions that seeks to tar all debunkers with the same brush.

Now I have articulated my beliefs on the matter many times: That is I believe that there are UFO cases (upwards of 20% of all reported cases) that simply defy plausible mundane explanation. I also believe that on the evidence the ET hypothesis cannot be directly supported. I also believe that if ever we actually get beyond the UFO debunker inspired denial and ridicule to the point of conducting legitimate, peer reviewed research into the UFO phenomenon, it will turn out to be phenomena – that is will have multiple causes.

In conclusion I would like to ask a direct question:

Will any of you posting to this thread also directly articulate your beliefs in such a manner?

Done.

Now, let's see whether you actually acknowledge my statement, or whether you try to brush it under the carpet or dismiss it as untrue.

 

[Rramjet]

I believe that UFOs exist. In fact, I know that UFOs exist. There are things that have not been identified. There are things that will never be identified. I do not know what they are. It is possible that they are all the result of misconception, misperception or hoax. But it is also possible that they are aliens, time travellers, dimensional travellers or something else I haven't thought of. I rule out nothing.

My problem isn't with the concept of UFOs being something non-mundane, it's with the evidence, which is woefully short of that required to support any non-mundane hypothesis.

… I don't believe that I have given a definitive identification for any case. For the vast majority there simply isn't enough evidence, and for a small number we can rule out all of the mundane explanations that have been put forward. For the vast majority of cases you have presented I can honestly say that I don't know what they were.

Of course, that's a far cry from saying that they must be something non-mundane, but it's a far cry from saying that they should all be dismissed as well.

Thank you wollery. I appreciate your statement here. It gives us a foundation for discussion and allows us to pinpoint any potential differences between us. In that context then, can I get some clarification from you?

You stated that some UFO cases may be the result of misconception, misperception or hoax (and we agree on that). In that light, what do you make of the Battelle Study’s findings that more than 20% of the 2000 or so cases they analysed (where there was sufficient quality information to make a determination) turned out to be “UNKNOWN” (that is inexplicable in mundane terms) and that the more reliable the observer and the information provided – the more likely a case was to be classified as “UNKNOWN”? What are your general thoughts on the matter? If you believe generally that the percentage of “UNKNOWN” UFO reports is different from that – on what do you base your conclusions?

You also do not rule out the possibility of non-mundane explanations for some cases.

On that, do you believe there are any UFO cases where sufficient quality of evidence exists to allow us to eliminate all known mundane causes as plausible explanations?

As a corollary, and given that the evidence in many cases suggests technological craft (general appearance, able to be photographed and picked up on radar, etc) and that often there does seem to be an “intelligence” involved (manoeuvring, interaction with the environment, associated beings, etc), then in those cases, what does that evidence suggest to you?

(to me, such evidence suggests ET – but equally, looks can be deceiving. But then do we reach for time travellers or a massive government black op, etc over and above ET as an explanation? To me the UFO problem is actually comprises a set of phenomena – that is there are multiple causes. My general feeling is that misconception, misperception or hoax explains many cases, however some may be ET, some may be government black ops (both legitimate and sinister), some may be as yet undescribed natural phenomena, and some may be other things (inter-dimensional time travellers, leakage from parallel universes, etc and so on). The problem we have is in determining which is which for any specific given case. What are your general feelings on the matter?).

You stated of the evidence that it ”…is woefully short of that required to support any non-mundane hypothesis.”

I can generally agree, but my feeling is that your “woefully short” is a misperception. There are apparently technological craft, beings and ostensible intelligent control involved. Surely that is at least suggestive even though inadequate as definitive proof?

You stated:
” For the vast majority of cases you have presented I can honestly say that I don't know what they were.”

But surely you have a general leaning? A sense, a gut feeling if you like, concerning the UFO problem in general. My feeling is that there is something going on that cannot be merely written off as misconception, misperception or hoax. There are simply too many credible witnesses providing too much quality information. So how then is a general climate of denial and ridicule able to be maintained in the face of all that evidence?

As you have articulated your beliefs so far, there may not be a great deal of difference between us. Could that be true? You thoughts on all the above would be greatly appreciated wollery.

 

[TjW]

But surely you have a general leaning? A sense, a gut feeling if you like, concerning the UFO problem in general. My feeling is that there is something going on that cannot be merely written off as misconception, misperception or hoax. There are simply too many credible witnesses providing too much quality information. So how then is a general climate of denial and ridicule able to be maintained in the face of all that evidence?

As you have articulated your beliefs so far, there may not be a great deal of difference between us. Could that be true? You thoughts on all the above would be greatly appreciated wollery.

Intuitions or "gut feelings" are not evidence. Perhaps you should start a thread "UFOs: The Intuitions, the Gut Feelings".

I don't think many would argue that you don't actually have these feelings. Many would argue there, as they have here, that they're not evidence.

 

[ksbluesfan]

Has this video been discussed? I didn't see anything about it. It's supposed to be the body of an alien found in the snow in Russia.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-592395

 

[George 152]

Has this video been discussed? I didn't see anything about it. It's supposed to be the body of an alien found in the snow in Russia.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-592395

Some-one with a sense of humour, far to much time on their hands and a ball of modelling clay evidently

 

[Rramjet]

Has this video been discussed? I didn't see anything about it. It's supposed to be the body of an alien found in the snow in Russia.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-592395

Benjamin Radford, a paranormal investigator and managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, tells ABC News the clip is most certainly a hoax, with the first "red flag" being the way the video includes an establishing shot of the landscape. "We see this in sitcoms, we see this in virtually every film in order to establish a place and scene for the viewer," he said. "It makes sense in the context of a fake film but it does not make sense in the context of someone suddenly finding this alien creature." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/dead-alien-video-russia_n_851490.html)​

I just love how the UFO debunkers demand “hard” evidence from UFO proponents to support their cases, yet when it comes to “dismissing with a wave of the hand”, without evidence, those same “UFO cases” - they are the masters. LOL.

If Radford had stated “probably” a hoax, or even “most likely” a hoax then he might have gotten away with it – that is of course if he had presented a logical reason in support of those contentions (and there are many he could have used) – but he does not. Instead he stated it was “most certainly” a hoax and presented what is “most certainly” a spurious reason to support his claim.

A more compelling reason (other than Radford’s mere “wave of the hand” dismissal) might be:

Watching the video, the dead ‘alien’ is located in an area of heavy snow where it seems someone may have dug a path through the snow to where the alien’s body was discovered. Was the snow removed before or after the discovery of the dead alien body? If the dead alien was discovered after digging up the snow, why did someone choose that particular spot to dig? A path that led to a dead tree trunk in the middle of nowhere? (http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2011/04/dead-alien-discovered-in-russia-video-a-hoax-video/)​

Radford could have even asked: If it was a real alien, it would be a sensation, so where is the body now? Where are the autopsy reports? Where is there any evidence of a follow through on this? Radford could even have pointed to what the local police had to say:

The tiny “dead alien” is just skin from chicken filled with bread, reports the website 7d.org.ua. Police questioned the men who claimed to have found the “body” and they allegedly confessed to creating it themselves.

The chief editor of the local Kabansk-Info newspaper initially thought that it was the body of an infant in the video and alerted the police. Officers immediately started the investigation and identified the alleged author.

They went to his house and asked him about the infant’s body. The scared man reportedly showed a fake alien corpse. It was even painted in “alien colors”. Scolding is the only possible punishment for such a stunt as it cannot be considered a crime, the report says.( http://rt.com/news/dead-alien-siberia-body/)​

Of course something does not sit right quite with that explanation either… the film seems to show a more sophisticated effort than a mere “chicken skin stuffed with bread”!

Notwithstanding, Radford spoke up on a topic he was unqualified to speak on – that is without knowledge of the actual case - pretending an “expertise” for the reporters when he actually had none. Bunk (just like the case itself “probably” is).

 

[Stray Cat]

Has this video been discussed? I didn't see anything about it. It's supposed to be the body of an alien found in the snow in Russia.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-592395

http://rt.com/news/dead-alien-siberia-body/

Discussion finished apparently.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I can generally agree, but my feeling is that your “woefully short” is a misperception. There are apparently technological craft, beings and ostensible intelligent control involved. Surely that is at least suggestive even though inadequate as definitive proof?

So what type of technological craft were at Campeche surrounding the military plane loaded with trained observers and tracked on FLIR?

You stated:
” For the vast majority of cases you have presented I can honestly say that I don't know what they were.”

But surely you have a general leaning? A sense, a gut feeling if you like, concerning the UFO problem in general. My feeling is that there is something going on that cannot be merely written off as misconception, misperception or hoax. There are simply too many credible witnesses providing too much quality information. So how then is a general climate of denial and ridicule able to be maintained in the face of all that evidence?

"All that evidence"? So it is true that you were simply throwing a lot of garbage against the wall with your anecdotes hoping that the plural of anecdote somehow equalled evidence. Your "feelings" about it are not evidence.

As you have articulated your beliefs so far, there may not be a great deal of difference between us. Could that be true? You thoughts on all the above would be greatly appreciated wollery.

You also asked for my belief and I gave it to you. I believe that Rramjet has not provided evidence for "aliens". Your "feelings" are not evidence. Would you care to address that now?

 

[RelentlessPunishment]

I believe in UFOs. I think the patterns are there in the plurality of anecdotes. I've had one very odd and very vivid experience that was consistent with certain elements in a lot of abduction stories. I won't go into it here, but it's my own anecdote to add to that plurality and pattern. I agree with Ramjet, I don't think they're extra-terrestial. I think they're some sort of psi effect. And if they are a psi phenomena, I think the closest you could get to tangible evidence would be a pattern.

 

[GeeMack]

I believe in UFOs. I think the patterns are there in the plurality of anecdotes. I've had one very odd and very vivid experience that was consistent with certain elements in a lot of abduction stories. I won't go into it here, but it's my own anecdote to add to that plurality and pattern. I agree with Ramjet, I don't think they're extra-terrestial. I think they're some sort of psi effect. And if they are a psi phenomena, I think the closest you could get to tangible evidence would be a pattern.

As for the "unexplained UFOs must equal aliens" discussion in this thread and the complete lack of evidence supporting that position (keeping in mind that the proponents' arguments from incredulity and ignorance are not evidence), your comment seems only tangentially related. And considering it further, it actually contradicts the basic claim of this thread, which is that some UFOs defy mundane explanation (to the incredulous) and are therefore alien craft.

Maybe you'd like to start a new thread outlining your conjecture. You'd be expected to describe the not-tangible evidence you have that any sort of psi effect exists in reality. And explore the reasons you believe something might exist even while there is, as you've admitted, no tangible evidence of its existence.

 

[dafydd]

I believe in UFOs. I think the patterns are there in the plurality of anecdotes. I've had one very odd and very vivid experience that was consistent with certain elements in a lot of abduction stories. I won't go into it here, but it's my own anecdote to add to that plurality and pattern. I agree with Ramjet, I don't think they're extra-terrestial. I think they're some sort of psi effect. And if they are a psi phenomena, I think the closest you could get to tangible evidence would be a pattern.

Do you have any evidence of the existence of this 'psi'?

 

[Pacal]

The best it can get is "We're not sure what it was." But "We're not sure" doesn't equate to "aliens".

I agree completely