UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[tomi71]

Here is the wikipedia quote from the same subject:

Under hypnosis, Betty's account was very similar to the events of her five dreams about the UFO abduction, but there were also notable differences. Under hypnosis, her capture and release were different. The technology on the craft was different. The short men had a significantly different physical appearance than the ones in her dreams. The sequential order of the abduction event was also different than in Betty's dream account. She filled in many details that were not in her dreams and contradicted some of her dream content. It is interesting that Barney's and Betty's memories in hypnotic regression were consistent but contradicted some of the information in Betty's dreams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_and_Barney_Hill_abduction

So the old argument about the sci-fi series should be thrown to garbage bin. It´s false and flawed. Her dream aliens were similar than in scifi-show but the description in hypnosis was different. Admit it finally.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Betty´s description was different in hypnosis than what she remembers seeing in her dreams. The hypnosis description of aliens was nothing like in the tv-show. This is a common misunderstanding that pops up over and over again. I recommend to read with google books about the book captured! that describes the event. Debunker claim about the similarities only occur when Betty described her dream but as said: the aliens in hypnosis were different.

Just reading your post it speaks volumes of your lack of ability to look at stories objectively.

Such as why did Betty dream the aliens to look one way but two years later they look a lot like the alien from that Outer Limits episode that was on 12 days before the hypnosis?

What about how it was Barney not Betty to be the first to describe the aliens looking a lot like the alien from the show?

Do you factor in that hypnosis is unreliable with recalling past events like something that happened two years ago?

Or how the star map was like maps you would see at a school back in the 60s?

 

[Aepervius]

Incorrect

Betty´s description was different in hypnosis than what she remembers seeing in her dreams. The hypnosis description of aliens was nothing like in the tv-show. This is a common misunderstanding that pops up over and over again. I recommend to read with google books about the book captured! that describes the event. Debunker claim about the similarities only occur when Betty described her dream but as said: the aliens in hypnosis were different.

Actually this is the other way around. The alien in her dream were not like the one in the show, but the one in the regression were :

During the intensive regression sessions, the Hills would describe their captors as "... bald-headed alien beings, about five foot tall, with greyish skin, pear shaped heads and slanting cat-like eyes." This description very much described what would become known as the "greys," now a standard description for the small beings with large heads, small mouths, and little or no ears, and hairless.

The men stood about five feet to five feet four inches tall, and wore matching uniforms, with caps similar to those worn by military cadets. They appeared nearly human with black hair, long noses, lips and ears, but had a grayish pallor and bluish lips.[14]

In the dreams, Betty, Barney, and the men walked up a ramp into a disc-shaped craft of metallic appearance.

Now those are the alien from the show

In all honesty , *WHICH* description would be the best described ? the one from hypnosis. The one from the dream had *hair* and *long nose* and *long ear*.

So you are actually wrong, the hypnosis description match nearly perfectly the alien in the tv show.

 

[Rramjet]

Then you DON'T agree with Rramjet:

He stated:

"At least ET fits with the available evidence"​

Despite his earlier protests that he doesn't believe UFOs are ET piloted craft, he really does, as he finally admitted.

RoboT, your out of context “quote mining” in an effort to make out that I believe something that I do not is just what I have come to expect. Nevertheless I have a question for you: Why do you feel it necessary for you to so misrepresent my position on the matter?

While the ET hypothesis might fit the evidence, that does not mean the ET hypothesis is correct. The hypothesis that the sun revolves around the earth fits with evidence from observations of the motion of the sun – yet the sun does not revolve around the earth. I have often and repeatedly (and in direct reply to you) stated that while the ET hypothesis might seem compelling (in just such an observational manner), that does not mean it is the correct explanation. Moreover (and again as I have repeatedly pointed out to you) there is no direct (hard) evidence to support the ET hypothesis. Given that I have often addressed exactly these points directly to you in my replies, and given that you are obviously following this thread and my comments rather closely, what conclusions can we then draw about your motivations in this matter?

GeeMack also attempts a misrepresentation of my position - in the guise of a reply to LordofTruth (who, incidentally, agrees with me that ET may not be the answer):

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.

But your claim has nothing to do with space aliens and the OP's still unsupported claim that research and evidence would support the existence of those aliens. He believes, based on nothing more than a large body (of more precisely, a small body very often repeated) of arguments from incredulity and ignorance, that if a mundane explanation for a UFO has not been provided, one which he personally accepts, then the explanation is the UFO is alien craft.

My contention is (and has always been) that there exists a large percentage of UFO reports which defy plausible mundane explanation. According to one of the most comprehensive official studies ever conducted, the Battelle Study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf), more that 20% of reported cases fall into this “unknown” category - or as the author’s of the study state “…the term "flying saucers" shall be used hereafter in this report to mean a novel, airborne phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily explainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by the Free World.” (p. 1) and where the categorisation of such as “Unknown” is defined ”… the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p. 12). That is, the Battelle Study found that where there was sufficient credible and reliable information, enabling a process of elimination conducted by independent scientific investigators to rule out plausible mundane causes, 21.5% of all cases were categorised as “Unknown” – and not only that – the more reliable the report and the more credible the witness, the greater the chance of a report being categorised as Unknown (and in the case of military observers – a full 38% of their reports were categorised as Unknown!). Incredibly, despite these startling revelations in the body of the report, the summary and conclusions, in a depressing foretaste of Condon’s own denials in the face of the evidence (a decade later), basically states “Move along, move along, nothing to see here”! However, the point is that just because such cases defy plausible mundane explanation, does not mean that the explanation is ET. We just do not have the direct evidence to enable us to draw that conclusion.

That in turn does not mean that we cannot speculate about (hypothesise as to) causes. I stated that the evidence seemed to fit the ET hypothesis, but of course, as I have intimated, just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck does not mean it is a duck. To positively determine the presence of a duck we would require “hard” evidence of a duck - and that we simply do not have in relation to UFO reports and ETs. Instead what we have is inference from credible and reliable multiple eyewitness, film and photographic and radar and physical trace evidence indicating that something unusual – something outside our current knowledge of the natural and technological world (possibly but not certainly ET) - is occurring.

And in that regard, the ET hypothesis is just one of many that has been proposed as an explanation (psi effects, government or government agency conspiracy, interdimensional beings, etc being just some of the other hypotheses proposed). Unfortunately the ET hypothesis, as it stands, is an untestable hypothesis because currently we do not have any means by which we may falsify it. We are therefore stuck at a point where, as tomi71 points out (to paraphrase) We may know what it is not”, however we don’t know what it is!

Regarding LordofTruth’s contention that the phenomenon may be a psi effect:

I'll try again. Do you have any evidence of the existence of this 'psi'?

The existence of psi effects is a hotly debated topic where the evidence is so far equivocal (some research concludes yes, some no – for example see the discussion in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188366). Carl Jung was one of the first in the “modern” era to propose a collective consciousness and so called “catalytic exteriorization phenomenon” where psi could manifest materially and affect the material world in various ways. So, depending on your position, UFOs could thus be an “internally” generated phenomenon with material external effects - or - they could be real, external and material phenomenon (that may cause internal effects). The “psi hypothesis”, as I stated, is just one of many speculative explanations - and it legitimately deserves a hearing (and if anyone can falsify such an hypothesis I would like to hear about it).

Returning to RoboT:

The oil rig was a reference to the sighting at Campeche, which has been such a thorn in the side of UFOlogists because it has to do with trained military observers misperceiving something which was also picked up on their FLIR system. There was a congruence of credible observers and independent verification from an objective system in a military setting. At least one UFOlogist would never acknowledge the implications of that because he didn't want to understand the implications.

Most UFOlogists accept “oil well fires” as a plausible explanation for what is seen in the FLIR images and they can also clearly understand how such a mistake by the air crew could be made.

In the Campeche case there were a number of radar contacts that defied plausible explanation and it was just these prior contacts that set the air crew looking for anything that could explain those anomalous contacts. When the air crew spotted the “oil well fires” (a subsequently plausible, but by no means positively identified explanation), being in the frame of mind they were in (psychologically primed for a visual observation of anything that might explain the radar contacts), they naturally “mistook” the oil well fires for the UFOs they were looking for. Their reaction to the unidentified radar targets and the subsequent appearance of unidentified lights (as seen in the FLIR: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlX7vvYXzxA) is thus a completely understandable and human reaction. However, that part of the case report is the one and only aspect of the case that the UFO debunkers consider - while completely ignoring the rest of the evidence in the case (see here for a full report: http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/). Where there UFOs involved in the Campeche incident? Most certainly. Was the FLIR representative of those UFOs? Not likely.

UFO debunkers such as RoboT not only ignore the rest of the case evidence but also disingenuously imply that because a “qualified” air crew could (and probably did) make such a mistake, then all such observations by such qualified persons can be considered as mistaken - and in that fallacious implication we can finally see why Campeche becomes so important to the UFO debunkers: Here is a “qualified” air crew making a misidentification of mundane objects, so who is to say that other observations by supposedly qualified personnel are not similarly mistaken?

However, we must of course consider context. In the Campeche incident there were a particular and specific set of circumstances that led up to the mistaken identification. The question we must then ask ourselves of other cases is: Do these particular circumstances also apply? If, in other cases, no such conditions exist, then we must look for different explanations. That is we simply cannot apply the general and fallacious “qualified air crew can be mistaken (as shown in the Campeche incident), therefore they are mistaken (in other cases)”. One simply must account for the situational factors involved – the context – the circumstances – and that is what the UFO debunkers completely ignore – indeed, must ignore – if they are to get their thesis up that all UFO reports are nothing but misidentifications or hoaxes.

RoboT then continues:

The blimp reference was to Rogue River. Another seemingly credible sighting with multiple eye-witnesses who described a blimp pretty well. When it was presented as one of Rramjet's iron-clad cases here, some of the less credulous minded did some actual research and found that blimps were stationed in proximity to the area. The more credulous minded would never acknowledge that a blimp was the likely explanation.

Once again we can demonstrate how the evidence in this case has been completely and utterly ignored. The craft observed in the Rogue River case was nothing like a blimp. It was circular (like a coin or pancake) with no protuberances (apart from a small “fin” on its upper surface). There were no gondolas or engines and no other fins and critically no logos (the only blimps on the west coast at the time were Goodyear advertising blimps - and all of them had large, highly visible Goodyear logos emblazoned along both flanks), there was no noise from the craft (and blimp engines are especially noisy), and the five witnesses observed the object for more than a minute - two with the aid of binoculars. As can be seen in the evidence from the case (see here for a full description: http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm), to get their “blimp” hypothesis up, the UFO debunkers must ignore the bulk of the evidence!

Moving right along, much has recently been made of the “UFO sighting characteristics following popular culture” hypothesis. Again, to get such a thesis up the UFO debunkers must simply ignore the evidence. For example Aepervius quotes a website stating that after Kenneth Arnold’s 24th June 1947 and after a subsequent media coining of the term “flying saucer”: ”People then claimed to see saucer shaped craft because the newspaper told them this is what alien craft would look like.”. This contention is patently untrue. For example just the second case on the Blue Book files states:

April 1947. Richmond, Virginia (37.55° N, 77.44° W). 11 a.m. (EST). Meteorologist Minczewski saw a silvery disc through a theodolite while tracking a pibal weather balloon, traveling E to W at less than 15,000 ft, appeared larger than the balloon.​

Other cases, preceding Arnold’s sighting and the coining of the term “flying saucer”, also describe disk-shaped objects. It is quite clear that disk-shaped objects were being seen prior to the media’s coining of the phrase “flying saucer”. All the debunkers would have to do is some basic research to understand that much at least …but of course they cannot, for it would destroy their thesis.

There is also a major question surrounding which came first, the sighting reports or the popular media. In contradiction to the UFO debunker’s thesis, it is equally legitimate to propose that perhaps it is the case that the popular media was driven by the increasing regularity and popularity of sighting reports - rather than, as the UFO debunkers would have us believe, the other way round. Most knowledgeable commentators agree that popular media is rather a reflection of societal tastes and habits rather than a driver of cultural norms and change.

Regarding the Betty and Barney Hill abduction case Aepervius states “…the hypnosis description match nearly perfectly the alien in the tv show.” Of course the descriptions match in the same way as, for example, a Mini-minor and a Cadillac match. Each has four wheels a windscreen and a steering wheel etc… but just on that basis one could not be said to “nearly perfectly” match the other. See here for Betty Hill’s alien (http://alien-ufo-research.com/betty_and_barney_hill/) and compare it with the TV show alien (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d1/Bellero.png/220px-Bellero.png). Both are “humanoid” (eyes, mouth, etc) but the TV alien has distinctive features that are not present in Betty’s conceptualisation and vice versa. People also forget that Barney also sketched the aliens (see from 4:22 – 4:27 of the video on the site above) and one would be hard pressed to fit that sketch to the TV alien – while at the same time Barney’s sketch does reflect key elements of Betty’s verbal description. No, in order to maintain their thesis, the UFO debunkers are compelled to misrepresent the descriptions (the evidence) so as to deliberately mislead us into their own preconceived, faith based beliefs – and I say “faith based” quite deliberately because quite clearly the debunker’s beliefs are not based in the actual case evidence.

UFO debunkers often and loudly claim bias and preconception in UFO proponents, but clearly, on the evidence above, it is actually the UFO debunkers who indulge in biased and misrepresentative statements concerning UFO reports and the research surrounding them.

I have been presenting the research and the evidence surrounding UFOs in this thread, yet the debunkers consistently and persistently ignore and misrepresent it – and it seems they must do so if they are to maintain their faith based belief system. What is called for is a critical and sceptical assessment of the evidence - and with their persistent ignorance and mischaracterisation of the evidence in UFO cases the UFO debunkers do a grave disservice to the cause of sceptisism and the search for knowledge. Is it not about time the debunkers dropped their biased and preconceived beliefs and their denials and ridicule in order to actually study the research and the evidence in a truly sceptical and critical frame of mind? – and that is also what I have been calling for in this thread.

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboT, your out of context “quote mining” in an effort to make out that I believe something that I do not is just what I have come to expect. Nevertheless I have a question for you: Why do you feel it necessary for you to so misrepresent my position on the matter?

Actually, you will find that it is your motivations which have been called into question. As I, wollery, and others have repeatedly asked you to desist in misrepresenting our positions.

While the ET hypothesis might fit the evidence, that does not mean the ET hypothesis is correct.

Ah, I think we've found the source of your error. ET does not fit the evidence. Unless you can provide a link to where there is a confirmed ET? Compelling evidence for it? Anything?

The hypothesis that the sun revolves around the earth fits with evidence from observations of the motion of the sun – yet the sun does not revolve around the earth. I have often and repeatedly (and in direct reply to you) stated that while the ET hypothesis might seem compelling (in just such an observational manner), that does not mean it is the correct explanation. Moreover (and again as I have repeatedly pointed out to you) there is no direct (hard) evidence to support the ET hypothesis. Given that I have often addressed exactly these points directly to you in my replies, and given that you are obviously following this thread and my comments rather closely, what conclusions can we then draw about your motivations in this matter?

You are correct that I follow this thread closely. I only wish that you gave the same attention to it so that you would actually answer the questions posed to you. What is your motivation in ignoring the questions and evidence which demolish your beliefs? Why do you believe ET could be piloting flying saucers in our skies?

My contention is (and has always been) that there exists a large percentage of UFO reports which defy plausible mundane explanation.

I've looked at all the cases that you've presented here and using a process of elimination I've determined that they all positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation. If you can think of a plausible non-mundane explanation that you believe fits the evidence, bring it forward and we'll examine it on the evidence.

That in turn does not mean that we cannot speculate about (hypothesise as to) causes. I stated that the evidence seemed to fit the ET hypothesis, but of course, as I have intimated, just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck does not mean it is a duck. To positively determine the presence of a duck we would require “hard” evidence of a duck - and that we simply do not have in relation to UFO reports and ETs. Instead what we have is inference from credible and reliable multiple eyewitness, film and photographic and radar and physical trace evidence indicating that something unusual – something outside our current knowledge of the natural and technological world (possibly but not certainly ET) - is occurring.

So, still professing your belief in ET? You forgot FLIR evidence. What is your motivation in always leaving that one out? LOL

And in that regard, the ET hypothesis is just one of many that has been proposed as an explanation (psi effects, government or government agency conspiracy, interdimensional beings, etc being just some of the other hypotheses proposed). Unfortunately the ET hypothesis, as it stands, is an untestable hypothesis because currently we do not have any means by which we may falsify it. We are therefore stuck at a point where, as tomi71 points out (to paraphrase) We may know what it is not”, however we don’t know what it is!

And yet, as has been proven, you can't know what it isn't. Your version of a process of elimination has been shown to be fatally flawed. Remember Campeche, the blimp at Rogue River, your Debri^WP Debacle and your latest Dismay at Delphos? I've never failed at implementing a process of elimination.

Regarding LordofTruth’s contention that the phenomenon may be a psi effect:

The existence of psi effects is a hotly debated topic where the evidence is so far equivocal (some research concludes yes, some no – for example see the discussion in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188366). Carl Jung was one of the first in the “modern” era to propose a collective consciousness and so called “catalytic exteriorization phenomenon” where psi could manifest materially and affect the material world in various ways. So, depending on your position, UFOs could thus be an “internally” generated phenomenon with material external effects - or - they could be real, external and material phenomenon (that may cause internal effects). The “psi hypothesis”, as I stated, is just one of many speculative explanations - and it legitimately deserves a hearing (and if anyone can falsify such an hypothesis I would like to hear about it).

So, still trying to switch the burden of proof?

Returning to RoboT:

Most UFOlogists accept “oil well fires” as a plausible explanation for what is seen in the FLIR images and they can also clearly understand how such a mistake by the air crew could be made.

In the Campeche case there were a number of radar contacts that defied plausible explanation and it was just these prior contacts that set the air crew looking for anything that could explain those anomalous contacts. When the air crew spotted the “oil well fires” (a subsequently plausible, but by no means positively identified explanation), being in the frame of mind they were in (psychologically primed for a visual observation of anything that might explain the radar contacts), they naturally “mistook” the oil well fires for the UFOs they were looking for. Their reaction to the unidentified radar targets and the subsequent appearance of unidentified lights (as seen in the FLIR: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlX7vvYXzxA) is thus a completely understandable and human reaction. However, that part of the case report is the one and only aspect of the case that the UFO debunkers consider - while completely ignoring the rest of the evidence in the case (see here for a full report: http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/). Where there UFOs involved in the Campeche incident? Most certainly. Was the FLIR representative of those UFOs? Not likely.

UFO debunkers such as RoboT not only ignore the rest of the case evidence but also disingenuously imply that because a “qualified” air crew could (and probably did) make such a mistake, then all such observations by such qualified persons can be considered as mistaken - and in that fallacious implication we can finally see why Campeche becomes so important to the UFO debunkers: Here is a “qualified” air crew making a misidentification of mundane objects, so who is to say that other observations by supposedly qualified personnel are not similarly mistaken?

However, we must of course consider context. In the Campeche incident there were a particular and specific set of circumstances that led up to the mistaken identification. The question we must then ask ourselves of other cases is: Do these particular circumstances also apply? If, in other cases, no such conditions exist, then we must look for different explanations. That is we simply cannot apply the general and fallacious “qualified air crew can be mistaken (as shown in the Campeche incident), therefore they are mistaken (in other cases)”. One simply must account for the situational factors involved – the context – the circumstances – and that is what the UFO debunkers completely ignore – indeed, must ignore – if they are to get their thesis up that all UFO reports are nothing but misidentifications or hoaxes.

I thought you put much credibility into a confluence of eyewitness testimony with other compelling evidence such as FLIR? How did your version of a process of elimination work at Campeche? You've never explained that since you've discovered the answer was mundane. Again, your version has been proven to be a failure. What is your motivation to continue to rely on it as if it actually worked?

RoboT then continues:

Once again we can demonstrate how the evidence in this case has been completely and utterly ignored. The craft observed in the Rogue River case was nothing like a blimp. It was circular (like a coin or pancake) with no protuberances (apart from a small “fin” on its upper surface). There were no gondolas or engines and no other fins and critically no logos (the only blimps on the west coast at the time were Goodyear advertising blimps - and all of them had large, highly visible Goodyear logos emblazoned along both flanks), there was no noise from the craft (and blimp engines are especially noisy), and the five witnesses observed the object for more than a minute - two with the aid of binoculars. As can be seen in the evidence from the case (see here for a full description: http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm), to get their “blimp” hypothesis up, the UFO debunkers must ignore the bulk of the evidence!

The evidence has definitely been ignored by you. You should look at the pictures that the witnesses drew and read about the blimp(s) that were stationed in proximity to the location.

Rramjet, you've been proving right along that you have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations other than the Rramjet Seven^TM I will concede that in the Venezuela alleged incident that it is not page 357 of War and Peace. What other mundane explanations have you eliminated and what evidence do you have that the letter was genuine? Once we have determined that you have done your due diligence in assuring the legitimacy of the purported letter, we can then begin to examine the evidence.

Unless you'd rather discuss exactly where your version of a process of elimination went so horribly wrong at Delphos and my actual process of elimination worked so well, much to your chagrin?

 

[SOdhner]

Rramjet, I see you've returned.

Let me remind you that you still have never provided the evidence you insist exists that shows that the Cowgill letter isn't best explained as being factually inaccurate (for example, a hoax) despite me asking you since January. It's been more than a quarter of a year, Rramjet. Surely by now you should have been able to find this "evidence" and share it with us?

It's important that you address this concern about the Cowgill case, because it goes directly to your other claims. After all, if you ignore simple questions with one case and try to change the subject, why should anyone seriously discuss any other case with you?

So, then... are you prepared to admit your process of elimination failed you and that the Cowgill letter can most plausibly be explained by being factually inaccurate? Or are you going to actually present this "evidence" you've been hinting at since January?

 

[therival58]

Has anyone seen the documentary "UFO:s - The Hidden Truth"? It suggests that the UFO phenomenon is linked to transdimensional activity.

Intro Part 1, goes over history of UFO sightings from ancient to modern times
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_9jSmjt6k4

Part 6-8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD5Uf3AoRdE

From our analysis, the teachings of the space beings appear to support many of the principles taught in oriental philosophy by Seers of the Far East...(Bryan Reeves)

UFO researcher John Weldon then offers this question: How credible is it to think that literally thousands of genuine extraterrestrials would fly thousands of millions of light years simply to teach new age philosophy, deny Christianity, and support the occult? And why would the entities actually possess and inhabit people just like demons do if they were really advanced extraterrestrials?

Part 7-8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J6w9RyHM9k

Dr. Jacques Vallee has addressed the United Nations on UFO's...he has been widely recognized as the premier investigating scientist in the realm of UFO research...In his book Confrontations, he writes, The medical examinations to which abductees are said to be subjected, often accompanied by sadistic sexual manipulation, is reminiscent of the medieval tales of encounters with demons.

he also made this statement, I believe that when we speak of UFO sightings as instances of space visitations, we are looking at the phenomenon on the wrong level. We are not dealing with successive waves of visitations from space - we are dealing with a controlled system. And he states, UFOs are the means through which man's concepts are being rearranged - they are engaging in a worldwide enterprise of subliminal seduction.

Jacques Vallee, at least at that time when he wrote that book was an agnostic. Interestingly, he comes to basically the same conclusions as I do as a Christian in my research. And he said about UFOs that they're real, but they're not physical. They're messengers of deception, and this was based on his research of about 20 years. They seem to be psychologically, preparing, setting us up, for some ultimate delusion, that is too horrible to imagine, as yet. I would agree with that. (Dave Hunt)

It's completely outlandish but very popular among Christian fundamentalists. The film claims Jacques Vallee was a leading UFO researcher.

 

[RelentlessPunishment]

Thanks Aepervius, I've bookmarked them and I'll check them out.

 

[RelentlessPunishment]

Hiya, LordofTruth! And if I neglected to welcome you earlier, welcome!

The oil rig was a reference to the sighting at Campeche, which has been such a thorn in the side of UFOlogists because it has to do with trained military observers misperceiving something which was also picked up on their FLIR system. There was a congruence of credible observers and independent verification from an objective system in a military setting. At least one UFOlogist would never acknowledge the implications of that because he didn't want to understand the implications.

The blimp reference was to Rogue River. Another seemingly credible sighting with multiple eye-witnesses who described a blimp pretty well. When it was presented as one of Rramjet's iron-clad cases here, some of the less credulous minded did some actual research and found that blimps were stationed in proximity to the area. The more credulous minded would never acknowledge that a blimp was the likely explanation.

Not sure what your Millenium Falcon reference is to. This thread has been more about the psychology of UFOlogists and believers than anything else. I find it to be a fascinating glimple into the thought processes that cause someone to, basically, fool themselves to support a belief system like that.

Hurry up and get those 15 posts under your belt so you can start posting links!

Thanks for your kind welcome RoboTimbo. I don't know the two cases but I'll Google them.

My Millenium Falcon reference was to post- Star Wars sci-fi spaceships in general, sorry I was a bit oblique there.

The psychology of this sort of thing fascinates me. I'd say I firmly fall into the camp of the 'believers', and that's very much a result of my psychology, and that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I think if my brain was tweeked very slightly differently I'd be very much a 'skeptic'. If I think of anything constructive to say abou this I'll post it.

 

[RelentlessPunishment]

My contention is (and has always been) that there exists a large percentage of UFO reports which defy plausible mundane explanation.

That's what I think.

 

[Rramjet]

Has anyone seen the documentary "UFO:s - The Hidden Truth"? It suggests that the UFO phenomenon is linked to transdimensional activity.

Intro Part 1, goes over history of UFO sightings from ancient to modern times
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_9jSmjt6k4

Part 6-8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD5Uf3AoRdE

Part 7-8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J6w9RyHM9k

It's completely outlandish but very popular among Christian fundamentalists. The film claims Jacques Vallee was a leading UFO researcher.

Jaques Vallee is a leading UFO researcher, but that is not to say his thesis is correct. There is a fundamental debate among UFO proponents about not only the origin of UFOs but also about their physicality. Some are “nuts and bolts”, ET proponents, some are (trans, inter, intra, parallel universe variant…) “dimensional” proponents - and there are variations and combinations of belief surrounding all that – “they” are from here (indigenous), they are from out there (ET), they are exteriorised psychic phenomena, they are “messengers of deception”, etc and so on. All these variants however have one thing in common, they are speculative hypotheses – and while the adherents of each can build a circumstantial (and often seemingly compelling) case to support their own pet hypothesis, none actually have the “proof” (the hard evidence) to show why we should favour one hypothesis over another – and this applies to Vallee’s thesis also.

That is not to say we should dismiss out of hand any of these speculations. We should instead be asking ourselves “What if… (any/one/a combination of these hypotheses is correct)?” What if Vallee is correct? What if we are being manipulated by forces unknown to us. What then can we do to guard against being manipulated? It seems to me the best way to do this is through a comprehensive education. These are the various beliefs of mankind. This is the historical background against which each of them are set. Here is the method of critical thought by which we may assess them. Here is an ethical framework that can guide our actions.

The UFO debunkers would have us believe that the topic of UFOs is “fringe” and confined to a few “believers in woo”. But that is just not the case:

” Numerous public opinion polls from the last 50 years, and from multiple different countries, report very consistent and similar findings: 50% of the population believes in the reality of UFOs; and 5% of the population has seen a UFO.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/publicopinionpolls.htm )​

It is clear that a large percentage (if not a majority) of the population “believes” in UFOs – and this despite a concerted “populist” campaign of ridicule and denial conducted by the debunkers and of official denials by various governments and government agencies.

In this “leaderless” climate, any old whacko can set up shop and spout any old rubbish and they will attract adherents. That is just the nature of humanity. The debunkers however would have us believe it is the nature of the phenomenon and they positively use the disarray that they see in the (many and various and often completely crazy) beliefs surrounding UFOs to deny UFOs altogether. What they don’t get is that such disarray is actually a reflection of humanity (leaderless and uneducated) rather than of the phenomenon (or more likely phenomena) itself. Something unexplained is occurring and without guidance (official, peer reviewed), a chaos of beliefs is the result.

What we must do is take a step back. We must admit that we just don’t know. We must go back to square one. The basis of all science is observation. To date, most of the observation concerning UFOs has been completely ad hoc. People see them and report them but there has been no real scientific control placed on those observations. There has been no real effort to set up a comprehensive research program to actually study the phenomena. Sure there have been some ad hoc efforts, but they have never lasted long enough to do any good. One may cite projects such as Sign, Grudge, Blue Book, Condon, etc, but all these were efforts set up with the specific purpose to debunk rather than to enlighten. An interesting example of an official study project was Project Twinkle (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html) - but as soon as it discovered that there may have been a reality to the phenomenon – it was shut down!

The only way to resolve the issues surrounding UFOs is to research them in a comprehensive, adequately funded, peer-reviewed manner. On that - it seems to me (in my opinion) the main purpose (perhaps even the sole purpose) of sceptical societies worldwide is to actively prevent that from occurring. You never hear them proposing research projects to clear the issue up, rather you hear them obfuscating the evidence, creating bewilderment and uncertainty, and muddying the waters by lumping UFOs in with all manner of paranormal phenomena and religious beliefs - and then citing the disarray of beliefs surrounding all of that as evidence for non-action and non-belief! Perhaps we should actually be asking ourselves if (so called) sceptical societies are not being run by Vallee’s “messengers of deception” – it is as plausible a hypothesis as any other! LOL.

One day (soon I hope) we will see past the ridicule and denial (the shrill warbling of the “noisy negativists” as another leading UFO researcher has termed them) and actually get down to the business of finding out what we are actually dealing with here. The evidence that something unexplained and inexplicable in terms of current knowledge is irrefutable. The debunkers have their theories, the proponents others, but the only way to resolve the issue is by research!

Thanks for your kind welcome RoboTimbo. I don't know the two cases but I'll Google them.

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

The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlX7vvYXzxA)

My contention is (and has always been) that there exists a large percentage of UFO reports which defy plausible mundane explanation.

That's what I think.

And here is some official research to support that: (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) and see in particular page 24. You will also find that (a la Condon) the somewhat negative summary and conclusions are not supported by the actual data and findings in the body of the report.

 

[GeeMack]

My contention is (and has always been) that there exists a large percentage of UFO reports which defy plausible mundane explanation.

Yet of that alleged large percentage, in this thread of over 8600 posts, not one single UFO report mentioned has defied a plausible mundane explanation. Any reasonably intelligent, sane, English speaking person, given just the contents of this thread with which to formulate their opinion, would come to the conclusion that you've failed absolutely and completely to support your contention.

 

[NordaVinci]

Luis Fernando Mastajo Maertens Testimony

Noticed this testimony on YouTube...
11 youtube videos make up the whole presentation...
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGw-tBQxLdI&feature=player_embedded
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfSFRVBQtNk&feature=related
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCxnNo7IVUg&feature=related
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heGIPJJYO3w&feature=related
5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr5LTaCe4oo&feature=related
6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUXdEiJwGuM&feature=related
7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1REQWjcNuI&feature=related
8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1h2kDsfo9E&feature=related
9) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9tprbYyhLs&feature=related
10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5DPCuicN6g&feature=related
11) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrAqPJDlOjo&feature=related

 

[RoboTimbo]

Jaques Vallee is a leading UFO researcher, but that is not to say his thesis is correct. There is a fundamental debate among UFO proponents about not only the origin of UFOs but also about their physicality. Some are “nuts and bolts”, ET proponents, some are (trans, inter, intra, parallel universe variant…) “dimensional” proponents - and there are variations and combinations of belief surrounding all that – “they” are from here (indigenous), they are from out there (ET), they are exteriorised psychic phenomena, they are “messengers of deception”, etc and so on. All these variants however have one thing in common, they are speculative hypotheses – and while the adherents of each can build a circumstantial (and often seemingly compelling) case to support their own pet hypothesis, none actually have the “proof” (the hard evidence) to show why we should favour one hypothesis over another – and this applies to Vallee’s thesis also.

That is not to say we should dismiss out of hand any of these speculations. We should instead be asking ourselves “What if… (any/one/a combination of these hypotheses is correct)?” What if Vallee is correct? What if we are being manipulated by forces unknown to us. What then can we do to guard against being manipulated? It seems to me the best way to do this is through a comprehensive education. These are the various beliefs of mankind. This is the historical background against which each of them are set. Here is the method of critical thought by which we may assess them. Here is an ethical framework that can guide our actions.

The UFO debunkers would have us believe that the topic of UFOs is “fringe” and confined to a few “believers in woo”. But that is just not the case:

” Numerous public opinion polls from the last 50 years, and from multiple different countries, report very consistent and similar findings: 50% of the population believes in the reality of UFOs; and 5% of the population has seen a UFO.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/publicopinionpolls.htm )​

Ah, good. You finally admit that there are no debunkers in this thread. Nobody in this thread has said they don't believe in UFOs. I know for a fact that they exist.

It is clear that a large percentage (if not a majority) of the population “believes” in UFOs – and this despite a concerted “populist” campaign of ridicule and denial conducted by the debunkers and of official denials by various governments and government agencies.

I think I see where you've been making your error again. You are perceiving ridicule against people who witness UFOs when in fact, the ridicule is reserved for those who claim to know what they are. The only conclusion I have been able to reach is that the cases you have brought forth in this thread positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation. Unless you can think of a plausible non-mundane explanation that fits the evidence? You could make your proposal in this thread and we can then judge your hypothesis on the evidence.

In this “leaderless” climate, any old whacko can set up shop and spout any old rubbish and they will attract adherents. That is just the nature of humanity. The debunkers however would have us believe it is the nature of the phenomenon and they positively use the disarray that they see in the (many and various and often completely crazy) beliefs surrounding UFOs to deny UFOs altogether. What they don’t get is that such disarray is actually a reflection of humanity (leaderless and uneducated) rather than of the phenomenon (or more likely phenomena) itself. Something unexplained is occurring and without guidance (official, peer reviewed), a chaos of beliefs is the result.

What is stopping you? Based on your complaint, it seems to be this thread which is stopping you.

What we must do is take a step back. We must admit that we just don’t know. We must go back to square one. The basis of all science is observation. To date, most of the observation concerning UFOs has been completely ad hoc. People see them and report them but there has been no real scientific control placed on those observations. There has been no real effort to set up a comprehensive research program to actually study the phenomena. Sure there have been some ad hoc efforts, but they have never lasted long enough to do any good. One may cite projects such as Sign, Grudge, Blue Book, Condon, etc, but all these were efforts set up with the specific purpose to debunk rather than to enlighten. An interesting example of an official study project was Project Twinkle (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html) - but as soon as it discovered that there may have been a reality to the phenomenon – it was shut down!

The only way to resolve the issues surrounding UFOs is to research them in a comprehensive, adequately funded, peer-reviewed manner. On that - it seems to me (in my opinion) the main purpose (perhaps even the sole purpose) of sceptical societies worldwide is to actively prevent that from occurring. You never hear them proposing research projects to clear the issue up, rather you hear them obfuscating the evidence, creating bewilderment and uncertainty, and muddying the waters by lumping UFOs in with all manner of paranormal phenomena and religious beliefs - and then citing the disarray of beliefs surrounding all of that as evidence for non-action and non-belief! Perhaps we should actually be asking ourselves if (so called) sceptical societies are not being run by Vallee’s “messengers of deception” – it is as plausible a hypothesis as any other! LOL.

Actually, I've never heard you proposing research projects. You are one of our resident UFOs as ET or "aliens" proponents, why don't you act on your beliefs? Instead you bring a load of anecdotes to a skeptical forum for the purpose of... what?

One day (soon I hope) we will see past the ridicule and denial (the shrill warbling of the “noisy negativists” as another leading UFO researcher has termed them) and actually get down to the business of finding out what we are actually dealing with here. The evidence that something unexplained and inexplicable in terms of current knowledge is irrefutable. The debunkers have their theories, the proponents others, but the only way to resolve the issue is by research!

Actually, it isn't irrefutable, as has been proven in this thread. You should go back and reread the thread where everything you have said has been refuted. Or you could go do some of that research you've been talking about.

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

The Campeche Incident (5 Mar 2004)
(http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlX7vvYXzxA)


And here is some official research to support that: (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) and see in particular page 24. You will also find that (a la Condon) the somewhat negative summary and conclusions are not supported by the actual data and findings in the body of the report.

Using the real process of elimination, I've been able to determine that every case you have brought up positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation. I've never been wrong in my implementation of the process of elimination.

You, using your version of a process of elimination, have failed provably, repeatedly, utterly. In fact, your version of a process of elimination has never been shown to be correct. Unless you can point to any case where the answer was definitively "aliens". No?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not anecdotes.

 

[Rramjet]

One of the classic UFO cases, the Brown Mountain lights, serves as a case in point for the need for research and also serves to demonstrate how the UFO debunker’s and (so called) sceptic’s out-of-hand dismissals, denial and ridicule is an utterly bankrupt position.

After observations of these mysterious lights going back over 100 years including credible, multiple eyewitness sightings and more recently video, the debunkers insisted on ridicule, denial and out-of-hand dismissal. Moreover, a ”US Geological Survey study began in 1922, which determined that witnesses had misidentified automobile or train lights, fires, or mundane stationary lights.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Mountain_Lights). Brian Dunning of skeptoid.com also states:

” So let's wrap up what we've learned about the two different manifestations of the Brown Mountain Lights. Regarding those that appear in the sky above a ridge, it's apparent that the 1922 USGS report solved it as described in the following conclusion. Today, nearly 90 years later, the lights are coming from different sources but this analysis probably still holds up:

"In summary it may be said that the Brown Mountain lights are clearly not of unusual nature or origin. About 47 percent of the lights that the writer was able to study instrumentally were due to automobile headlights, 33 percent to locomotive headlights, 10 percent to stationary lights, and 10 percent to brush fires."​

As for the lights appearing on the faces of the hills, we find there are no historical references to such a thing, and only a few recent YouTube videos and modern claims reporting it, in this age of LED flashlights, lanterns, headlamps, and iPhone screens. So I'm confident calling this one unexplained, but also not especially interesting or surprising.

It is all too often that we eagerly accept wild and sensational phenomena, which causes us to shut out the real science behind what's going on. I find real wonder in mirage refractions, and I find great excitement in such perfect solutions as the correlation of the locomotive with the 1909 Lights reports. This wonder and excitement are lost to those who replace science with sensationalism.” (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4226)​

…and Robert Sheaffer weighed into the discussion with:

” Why do you say "Lack of serious investigation"? The famous UFO skeptic Philip J. Klass had a whole chapter about them in his book "UFOs Explained" (1974). See chapter 7, "Brown Mountain UFOs."

"The mysterious lights had been investigated in 1913 by D.B. Sterrett of the U.S. Geological Survey, who had concluded that they were simply distant locomotive headlights distorted by refractory atmospheric effects."

So the "lights" were debunked almost 100 years ago. But the Rubber Ducky Effect ("you can't keep a good yarn down") keeps bringing them back every few years.” (http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11985)​

Now, after proper, lengthy and concerted, peer-reviewed scientific study, it turns out that the phenomenon has been discovered for what it actually is… reproducible plasma balls of geological origin similar to ball lightning! (http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/brownplasma.html). See video coverage of the lights and investigation here (http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/brownmountain2.html).

So in this case we can see how bankrupt the (so called) “sceptical” position really is. We can see clearly how the “sceptics” simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence. We can see clearly how their default position of ridicule and denial actually prevents proper investigation (previous investigations obviously bought into the sceptic’s “nothing to see here, move along” school of thought) and we can see how the “sceptical” position actually relies on the “received wisdom” beliefs from the bankrupt pronouncements of debunkers such as (the late) Phillip Klass. Finally, we can see clearly how the “sceptical” position is based not on the evidence but on a mere faith based belief: “It cannot be, so it isn’t”.

Should we expect to see the debunkers and so called sceptics, in the face of the evidence surrounding this case, retract their ridicule and denial anytime soon? I doubt it. Faith based beliefs never die.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So.... the Brown Mountain lights turned out to not be aliens either, huh?

And you've given up any pretense of trying to defend your position and are admitting that your strategy is to just throw up case after case each time you are boxed into a corner? Your idea is to berate the people who won't buy into your belief in "aliens"?

You have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations, as you have so thoroughly proven time after time.
There are absolutely no cases where you can show you are correct.
You use special pleading for your favorite mantra, "positively defies plausible mundane explanation!" - why does the mundane need to be plausible? How plausible were oil well fires surrounding a military plane? Logic would suggest that since we know the mundane exists, a mundane explanation may exist that isn't plausible at first glance. You've never shown your non-mundane "aliens" exist and yet your non-mundane explaations are excused from being plausible, even though we don't know they exist.

You simply have a belief in aliens and try to surround it with pseudo-science to make it palatable to yourself and other believers.

Just one case. Just one, show that it's aliens. Bring forth the body, the ship, the raygun. Not pictures or stories about them.

It isn't a case of there is so much evidence out there that there must be something to it, it's a case of if there is so much evidence out there, there must be some that is extraordinary.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Any cases that have turned out to be aliens? Anything compelling? IANAS but anything a real scientist would accept? Anything at all?

 

[SOdhner]

One of the classic UFO cases, the Brown Mountain lights, serves as a case in point for the need for research and also serves to demonstrate how the UFO debunker’s and (so called) sceptic’s out-of-hand dismissals, denial and ridicule is an utterly bankrupt position.

Really? Because it looks to me like the opposite. Scientific research has resulted in several proposed explanations, while others insist that it it defies mundane explanation and must be ghosts or aliens. This is all par for the course. Unless someone can present proof that an explanation has been confirmed, it's just a theory - and some are more plausible than others. The ghosts and aliens crowd have no evidence and no plausibility. The scientific explanations... well, some have been better than others and despite your implying that plasma is the answer none have been confirmed. So what? Why are you even bringing this up here? Do you think this is somehow proof of your "aliens"?

Let me be really clear, here. Even if every scientist in the world had insisted this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be headlights (which isn't what happened) and then it was conclusively proven to be balls of plasma (which it hasn't been) this still wouldn't have any bearing on your other cases, unless you are suggesting that the cases you have presented are similar to the Brown Mountain lights and therefore might also be naturally occurring balls of plasma.

Meanwhile, you're still avoiding the actual and valid concerns raised about the cases you've thrown out here and then abandoned. I've been waiting on your "evidence" that Cowgill's letter is factually accurate since January. You've still never replied. How can you claim that skeptics as a whole are "bankrupt" when you stall for almost four months on answering a simple question? How can we be expected to keep reading these links you provide when you won't answer our questions about the cases you've already presented?

If you think I'm not portraying the course of this conversation accurately, please feel free to link to the post where you provided this evidence I've been requesting since January. You've said before that you provided it, but could never show where. I'll happily admit that I'm wrong if you can just link to it.

 

[Paul2]

Rramjet is trying the Poisoning the Well fallacy. If skeptics can be in denial, thinking it's headlights when it was really plasma, then they are more likely to be in denial about blimps, when it's really aliens.

 

[Rramjet]

So.... the Brown Mountain lights turned out to not be aliens either, huh?

I never claimed the lights were ET related, nor have I claimed any of the cases I have presented in this thread are ET related – rather it is you who seems to be fixated with the ET hypothesis.

And you've given up any pretense of trying to defend your position…

I am merely presenting the research and evidence surrounding the topic of UFOs. What you make of that evidence and research (or my methodology) is up to you.

…and are admitting that your strategy is to just throw up case after case each time you are boxed into a corner?

Perhaps you should read back over my last few of my posts - and in doing so you just might discover your question is based on an erroneous premise (I say “might” because, on the evidence, such an outcome is by no means certain).

You have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations, as you have so thoroughly proven time after time.

If you any have proof whatsoever of that contention, then you will be able to present it. Of course you will not because I know you cannot.

There are absolutely no cases where you can show you are correct.

I have contended that the cases I have presented in this thread defy plausible mundane explanation. I have presented the research and the evidence to logically support this position. You on the other hand are simply stating unfounded assertions, supplying no research or evidence (or even logical argument) in support of them. We are therefore legitimately entitled to dismiss such statements from you as irrelevant to the debate.

You use special pleading for your favorite mantra, "positively defies plausible mundane explanation!"

So what “special pleading” is that RoboT? It would of course be futile of me to ask for you to supply any supporting evidence or explanation - because I know you will not.

…why does the mundane need to be plausible?

Surely even you can see that any proposed mundane explanation for UFOs must be a plausible explanation?

How plausible were oil well fires surrounding a military plane?

Your question assumes that someone considered that oil-well fires could “surround” an airplane. That is patently a ridiculous and false assumption.

Logic would suggest that since we know the mundane exists, a mundane explanation may exist that isn't plausible at first glance.

Logic?
Logically prove to me that “the mundane” exists.
Logically prove to me that it is sensible to propose implausible explanations.

You've never shown your non-mundane "aliens" exist…

I have simply claimed that the cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

…and yet your non-mundane explaations are excused from being plausible…

That is a straw-man argument. I have never proposed any non-mundane explanations for the cases I have been presenting.

…even though we don't know they exist.

I don't know that you exist. I simply infer it from the observational evidence. I could be wrong.

You simply have a belief in aliens…

…and you simply have a belief in a geocentric universe… (or is that Robo-centric..? LOL)

…and try to surround it with pseudo-science to make it palatable to yourself and other believers.

Another unfounded accusation. It would (of course) be futile for me to ask you to show this “pseudo-science” I am trying to “surround” my beliefs in - wouldn’t it? You have never supported any of your wild accusations in the past with evidence or logical argument and I am certain that you will not start now.

Just one case. Just one, show that it's aliens. Bring forth the body, the ship, the raygun. Not pictures or stories about them.

Given that I have never claimed the ET hypothesis might form the basis of a correct explanation for UFOs, then once again you are presenting a straw-man argument.

It isn't a case of there is so much evidence out there that there must be something to it, it's a case of if there is so much evidence out there, there must be some that is extraordinary.

What I find extraordinary is that there exist so many UFO cases that simply defy plausible mundane explanation, yet the UFO debunkers persist in claiming “nothing to see here, move along, move along”.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What “extraordinary claims”?

Any cases that have turned out to be aliens?

What is your fixation with the ET hypothesis? Your thesis seems to be that UFO proponents must prove the ET hypothesis to be correct - or you will dismiss the whole of the phenomena out of hand. That is like saying that I must prove an airplane is a beach-ball - and if I do not - then you will deny the existence of airplanes!

Anything compelling?

You mean apart from the evidence?

IANAS but anything a real scientist would accept?

I am sorry, but you will have to pose your questions in English or Chinese, I am not conversant with the language of your question.

My Brown Mountain lights post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7172123#post7172123) began:

” One of the classic UFO cases, the Brown Mountain lights, serves as a case in point for the need for research and also serves to demonstrate how the UFO debunker’s and (so called) sceptic’s out-of-hand dismissals, denial and ridicule is an utterly bankrupt position.”​

Really? Because it looks to me like the opposite. Scientific research has resulted in several proposed explanations, while others insist that it it defies mundane explanation and must be ghosts or aliens. This is all par for the course. Unless someone can present proof that an explanation has been confirmed, it's just a theory - and some are more plausible than others.

You seem to be confusing a theory with an hypothesis. Evolution is a theory, Einstein’s relativity is a theory, that you have a mind is a theory, but “ghosts” and “aliens” are mere (speculative) hypotheses.

However, defying plausible mundane explanation is neither a theory nor an hypothesis. It is a logical conclusion that admits of no explanation (one way or other). It states that we simply don’t know of an explanation. It does not mean that there is no explanation – or that the explanation is non-mundane (whatever that means in the context…). It does however allow, given a future expansion in our current natural or technological knowledge, that a mundane explanation might be possible (see my post on the Brown Mountain lights above for a case in point).

The ghosts and aliens crowd have no evidence and no plausibility.

There is evidence. That much is irrefutable. The contention comes when we try to interpret that evidence. As for plausibility, can you prove that “ghosts” or “aliens” do not exist (or are otherwise implausible as explanations)?

The scientific explanations... well, some have been better than others…

You mean …just plain wrong… LOL.

…and despite your implying that plasma is the answer none have been confirmed.

If plasma is not the answer then we are simply back to “defying plausible mundane explanation”…

So what? Why are you even bringing this up here? Do you think this is somehow proof of your "aliens"?

Sorry, but you lost me there. I presume you are talking about my Brown Mountain lights post? Perhaps you should read that post over again – the purpose of that post is clearly stated.

Let me be really clear, here. Even if every scientist in the world had insisted this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be headlights (which isn't what happened) and then it was conclusively proven to be balls of plasma (which it hasn't been) this still wouldn't have any bearing on your other cases…

I have never claimed that it did. It does however have direct bearing on the beliefs and methodology of (so called) “sceptics” and UFO debunkers.

…unless you are suggesting that the cases you have presented are similar to the Brown Mountain lights and therefore might also be naturally occurring balls of plasma.

I have consistently maintained throughout this thread that (so called) UFOs will (in my opinion) turn out to be explained (if we ever get past the debunker’s ridicule and denial) in terms of various phenomena (rather than a single phenomenon). I have no doubt that “plasma” will form some part – but not the whole - of that explanation.

Meanwhile, you're still avoiding the actual and valid concerns raised about the cases you've thrown out here and then abandoned. I've been waiting on your "evidence" that Cowgill's letter is factually accurate since January. You've still never replied.

Rubbish. I have replied to you on the topic on many occasions. If you choose to ignore those replies (or simply do not like them) I cannot be held responsible for your actions.

How can we be expected to keep reading these links you provide when you won't answer our questions about the cases you've already presented?

I do not expect you to read anything I post. The choice is yours entirely. I also no longer expect any of you to answer any questions I might pose - on the evidence that would clearly be an irrational expectation.

If you think I'm not portraying the course of this conversation accurately, please feel free to link to the post where you provided this evidence I've been requesting since January. You've said before that you provided it, but could never show where. I'll happily admit that I'm wrong if you can just link to it.

It may come as a surprise to you, but I simply do not care if you “admit” right or wrong. My posts (including those containing the evidence you crave – beginning, if memory serves from around post 96) will stand or fall on their own merits (as will yours). I don’t need your imprimatur or admissions one way or other.

Rramjet is trying the Poisoning the Well fallacy. If skeptics can be in denial, thinking it's headlights when it was really plasma, then they are more likely to be in denial about blimps, when it's really aliens.

Actually, the “skeptics” (and UFO debunkers) are doing a good enough job of poisoning their own well Paul. For example your own (and others) persistent implication (and in many cases outright accusation) that I believe in the ET hypothesis. Anyone who has been following this thread will know that is not a belief I have put forward as my own.

I do however find it ridiculously, yet somehow deliciously ironic that you attempt to “poison the well” by accusing me of that very thing. You gotta love how the debunker mindset works! LOL.

…oh and the “skeptics” are not “in denial” about blimps at all - they positively endorse them! LOL. What they are in denial about is the evidence that destroys their “blimp hypothesis” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
– but then, an analysis of the evidence was never their strong point… unfounded speculation and accusation, faith-based belief, ridicule, denial…now those are (in my opinion) their strong points (if “strong” is the right term here…).

 

[RelentlessPunishment]

Just one case. Just one, show that it's aliens. Bring forth the body, the ship, the raygun. Not pictures or stories about them.

I don’t think that’s fair. I’ve only skimmed this thread, but as far as I can tell Rramjet’s been pretty consistent in saying that the “ET hypothesis” is only one of many. If they are a psi phenomena or something equally wooful, then physical evidence may be impossible or non-existent.

I actually think that physical evidence is possibly the worst sort of evidence anyway. Even if someone did find something, IMO there are enough cynics and dogmatic skeptics who would find fault with it anyway (not you excellent JREF people of noble purpose and high integrity of course). I don’t think it would be treated objectively. I think this cynicism would exist both within scientific circles and in society at large.

My opinion is that physical evidence is a lot like a sighting – excellent personal empirical (is that the word? – when it happens to you personally?) proof for the scientists who have the experience of studying it, but pretty useless as evidence beyond that, because everyone else it going to believe according to their prejudices anyway. For this reason I don’t think that peer review would work very well for physical evidence – it would just create more people with direct experience of the object. IMHO, good analogies of this can be seen in parapsychology, where results divide rather than unite. I also think that physical evidence has a very limited and problematic replicability. It’s not replicable in itself, but experiments on it are, and this makes things complicated. For example -who chooses who gets to do these replications, and how does this accommodate other interested parties? How do you establish that the object being tested actually is the object in question? What if the object is lost or damaged? How do the scientists reconcile the results of their experiments with accounts of where the evidence came from (presumably they weren’t the ones to see or find the UFO)?

I don’t know much about Roswell, but my understanding is that wreckage and bodies were recovered from the crash site, at least according to the popular account. I personally don’t have an opinion on this, but I do think that the truth, whatever it was, would have had little bearing on how the story has been accepted and rejected by various parties.

I think there are other more modest accounts of physical evidence. The one that comes to mind is The Hair of the Alien by Bill Chalker. I remember reading it and not really understanding a lot of it because it’s quite scientific, but as I recall it had some good discussion about the problems associated with physical evidence in UFO cases.

Overall, while I think physical evidence is an excellent ideal, and I totally respect that, I’m not sure how practical it is.