UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Then why did you bring it into a thread where you are trying to prove "aliens" exist? Have you forgotten so soon your unsupported assertion:

"At least ET fits with the available evidence"​

ET does NOT fit the available evidence, unless you are going to be providing that evidence soon? No?

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.

You are presenting case after case of speculation about things that are unidentified. You haven't presented any evidence for aliens, so why do you continue to assert that ET fits the available evidence? Can you point to which of your posts did so? I thought I had read them all but I must have missed that one.

Also, you claim to present research and evidence but when it is shown how incorrect you are, you suddenly throw up another case and ignore the previous one.

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).

Well, no. (chuckles) As has been shown, you've been asked pointed questions about Delphos and Venezuela and then cease to talk about them. So where did your version of a process of elimination go so wrong? Have you done your due diligence yet on the purported letter in the Venezuela case? Do you know where you went wrong in claiming Delphos to be "aliens"?

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.

Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread and try to pay attention to where YOU'VE supplied the proof for that contention multiple times, I merely point out where you have made your mistakes. It's up to you to work towards correcting them.

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.

And yet you've proven yourself wrong on so many occasions. Remember Campeche, the blimp at Rogue River, your Debri^WP Debacle, and your latest Dismay at Delphos? Should we add your Vagueness at Venezuela since you haven't done your due diligence in ascertaining that the purported letter is genuine?

I, on the other hand, with my implementation of the process of elimination showing that all of your cases positively defy plausible non-mundane explanations, have never been shown to be wrong. Unless you know of some case that has been conclusively proven to be "aliens"? No? I've asked multiple times and you've repeatedly failed to answer.

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.

On the other hand, you do know what unidentified things are. LOL I explained the special pleading in the post you are responding to. Try rereading it, paying particular attention to where it was explained and see if you can spot it.

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

Surely even you can see that any proposed mundane explanation can be virtually unlimited and you've proven you have no ability to eliminate them. Non-mundane explanations are not plausible so even you should be able to see that they should only be proposed when you've run out of any mundane explanations. Remember your inability to ever eliminate the mundane explanation that I'm still thinking of? Remember how your version of a process of elimination is so fatally flawed and hadn't eliminated oil well fires at Campeche?

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

Yes, the military personnel who described it that way. Perhaps you should read up on the case before discussing it further? You've never explained how your version of a process of elimination either did or did not eliminate them and where you went wrong with it.

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

The mundane is self-evident. Even you should be able to see that through your belief system filter. Cats, refrigerators and night clubs are mundane. Aliens are non-mundane and implausible. Why do you choose the implausible over the plausible for your belief system?

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

Yes, and it continues to be an unfounded assertion and may be legitimately dismissed. I've used a process of elimination and determined that all the cases you've presented positively defy plausible non-mundane explanations, leaving only "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane", I don't mean mundane, however it does mean perfectly ordinary and well within our common range of experience.

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

I'm not proposing any explanations either. I just note that all the cases that you have presented positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation (see above).

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

If only you would use that same logic and apply it to your "aliens". You simply refuse to acknowledge that you could be wrong.

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

I'm not sure of your sentence construction here. You may want to look up geocentric universe to understand what you've said. Or did you mean to put the term in quotes like "aliens", indicating you've made up another term using the wrong word?

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.

Actually, it is futile for me to provide the evidence since you have repeatedly ignored it. (shakes head sadly)

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.

Actually, you have. You stated:

"At least ET fits with the available evidence"​

And, as has been shown, ET does not fit the available evidence. So, not only is it not a strawman (you may want to look the term up in your favorite online reference work) it is also your belief.

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”.

Well, no. I've shown that with the process of elimination that all the cases that you have presented positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation, leaving only "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane", I don't mean mundane. However, it does mean perfectly ordinary and well within our range of common experience.

What the UFO creduloids persist in claiming is, "I don't know what it is so it must be aliens!"

What “extraordinary claims”?

Your extraordinary claim of aliens or "aliens". You may wish to reread the OP to see what is claimed.

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!

You stated:

"At least ET fits with the available evidence"​

And, of course, it doesn't, despite your belief system. Let me ask you, do you believe that blimps exist? But, of course, you will ignore the questions that display how incorrect you are. Now there's a prediction for you!

You mean apart from the evidence?

What evidence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

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.

If you let me know which word you are unfamiliar with, I'll send you a link to an online dictionary. Was it the word "scientist"? I'm always eager to assist in someone's learning. I like to pride myself on the few times I've been able to assist you in this thread already.

 

[TjW]

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.


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.

So you're abandoning your original post?

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that. It is a collection of reports, case studies and general documentary information.
<snippage>
I must make one caveat on my meaning of “alien”. By “alien” I DO NOT mean “Extraterrestrial”. The term as I use it simply means something outside our common understanding of reality. “They” could be from “out there”, they could be from “precisely here”, they could be extra- or intra-dimensional, they could be, well, anything at all…we just do not know and without a concerted research effort, perhaps we will never truly “know”.
<snippage>

By posting a case after this OP, I'd say you are implying the lights are something that could legitimately be referred to as ET. Your nitpicking of replies as not using the exact sequence of characters that you used to describe the concept is simply a technique you use to dodge and weave. You can never be wrong, because only you get to define "aliens".

The idea that this bobbing and weaving is somehow a virtue is somewhat amusing.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

Hu. Say what ? What *other* sort of evidence you think there can be ? Photo ? Video ? *what* sort of evidence do you think would be better than a piece of machinated metal with either isotopic composition not encountered on earth, technology for which we may have no equivalent (I am not saying future tech or bizarre stuff, I am saying for example diode or processor based on a different scheme than we do) or even animal/bacterial specie or DNA not encountered. Those would be evidence and very solid one.

So you are in essence telling us the msot solid evidence (physical) are bad ?

I am sorry, but I have to ask : are you joking ? I get away with the feeling that you realize that good evidence (physical one) are inexistent, so you disparage them.

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.

Yeah. Right. Except that beyond a few minority , msot people use up what those whacky scientist with their physical evidence and repeatable experience do. Like that computer you are using to post message. *EVEN* the few unconvinced are the hypocrit which use the same technology of physical evidence they don#t believe in (not speaking of you but more generally).

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.

Physical evidence are the only way to cut the things one way or the other. The rest will not convince *Anybody* having watched SF special FX film in the last 10 years.

 

[Aepervius]

"The Hair of the Alien by Bill Chalker"
(example : http://www.paraview.com/chalker/index.htm)

Description sound like your standard sleep paralysis / half wake dream, with some hair found afterward with degraded / undeterminable DNA. I am also a bit skeptic, because the web site keep saying "DNA from the hair" but hair do not have DNA, only mtDNA (correct me if I am wrong) and you need the follicle for DNA , which is never mentioned. Could be a literary shortcut too.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

You are correct, mea culpa.

Rramjet, bring forth just one "alien" raygun, "alien" body, or "alien" spaceship.

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.

I think you're misunderstanding the term "skeptic". If there were compelling evidence for aliens or "aliens", that would enable skeptics to change their knowledge base to encompass the new knowledge. The dogmatic ones are the creduloids who "believe" without evidence.

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)?

But physical evidence can be tested. Creduloids want to discount physical evidence because they don't have any.

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.

My understanding is that it was a top-secret balloon project and the later conflation of stories added bodies to Roswell where there were none before.

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.

The problem for the UFO creduloids is that the hair was human.

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

It isn't practical because something not happening doesn't leave evidence of it having happened.

 

[Paul2]

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.

Unless you're just using the term "poisoning the well" loosely, what you describe is not an example of that at all. Falsely attributing a belief to someone else, in and of itself, is not poisoning the well. It can be part of poisoning the well, but you don't say that, you just said that the mere false attribution of a belief you don't hold is poisoning the well, which is incorrect.

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.

Nothing ironic about it at all. Again, accusing someone of poisoning the well, in and of itself, is not an example of poisoning the well.

 

[Rramjet]

"The Hair of the Alien by Bill Chalker"
(example : http://www.paraview.com/chalker/index.htm)

Description sound like your standard sleep paralysis / half wake dream, with some hair found afterward with degraded / undeterminable DNA. I am also a bit skeptic, because the web site keep saying "DNA from the hair" but hair do not have DNA, only mtDNA (correct me if I am wrong) and you need the follicle for DNA , which is never mentioned. Could be a literary shortcut too.

Hair of the Alien (23 Jul 1992)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html)
(http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)
(http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2005/07/hair-of-alien-ccr5-deletion-factor.html)
(http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/mymumtalkstoaliens)

Indeed, a “literary shortcut”. Hair contains DNA. The shaft contains only maternal DNA (mitochondrial or mtDNA) and the root (the follicle is the place the hair springs from on the body, not part of the hair itself) contains nuclear DNA – that DNA found in the nucleus of every other cell in the body (sperm and ova are special cases we need not go into here).

In this case both the shaft and the root were analysed – with surprising – and some say impossible if it were human - results.

You are correct, mea culpa.

Rramjet, bring forth just one "alien" raygun, "alien" body, or "alien" spaceship.

You say mea culpa , then immediately repeat your erroneous assertion?

Or perhaps you are thinking you are somehow being clever in using the quotation marks – “pretending” to utilise my definition of alien from my OP - as something foreign and thus “alien” to our current natural or technological knowledge? But in that, the statement “Bring forth a foreign to our current natural or technological knowledge raygun (spaceship, body, etc)” makes no particular sense either…

The cases I have been presenting seem to represent something foreign to our current natural or technological knowledge – that is, they defy plausible mundane explanation. I have contended nothing more, yet nothing less.

But physical evidence can be tested. Creduloids want to discount physical evidence because they don't have any.

You have that unfounded assertion pointing at the wrong people. As LordofTruth pointed out, as with “The Hair of the Alien”, the results of analysis of the physical evidence are questioned according to the debunker mindset of “It cannot be, therefore it is not”. The sample was contaminated, the scientists made a mistake, they were not qualified, the equipment was faulty, etc and so on – the debunkers will always have a post hoc explanation as to why the results of any tests on any potential physical evidence do not show anything unusual. Thus it is the debunkers who discount the physical evidence, not (as you would have it) the other way around.

Nothing ironic about it at all. Again, accusing someone of poisoning the well, in and of itself, is not an example of poisoning the well.

It is ironic because the falsehood of your accusation of me “poisoning the well” makes it so. You falsely accuse me of the very thing that you are doing.

Your false accusation of me in that regard constitutes and attempt by you to “poison the well” in relation to my own comments. That is you attempt to force me into a position from which I cannot reply - in that if I attempt criticize you, you will say “see, he is poisoning the well!”.

…and your accusation of “poisoning the well” is false. Strictly speaking my comments did not constitute a “poisoning of the well” because my comments relate to a conclusion drawn from the evidence I presented. That is I presented the evidence and drew a particular conclusion from that evidence. Now you may legitimately argue that my conclusion (or premises) was (were) somehow in error, but you cannot claim that it was “poisoning the well” because if my conclusions or premises were faulty, you could easily have pointed that out. Instead you merely made the false accusation. On the other hand, I can legitimately claim you are “poisoning the well” because you provide no evidential support that might allow us to draw such a conclusion – you merely state the unfounded assertion – and that forces me into the position described in the previous paragraph. See the difference “professor”?

 

[RoboTimbo]

You say mea culpa , then immediately repeat your erroneous assertion?

Only if you are using the same definition for "alien" as you are for alien. Is that what you are really doing?

Or perhaps you are thinking you are somehow being clever in using the quotation marks – “pretending” to utilise my definition of alien from my OP - as something foreign and thus “alien” to our current natural or technological knowledge? But in that, the statement “Bring forth a foreign to our current natural or technological knowledge raygun (spaceship, body, etc)” makes no particular sense either…

Are you claiming that "aliens" only leave anecdotal evidence?

The cases I have been presenting seem to represent something foreign to our current natural or technological knowledge – that is, they defy plausible mundane explanation. I have contended nothing more, yet nothing less.

Well, no. They don't seem to represent something foreign to our current knowledge. I've used a process of elimination to determine that all of the cases you have presented here positively defy plausible non-mundane explanations, therefore the solutions have been "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane" that I don't mean mundane. However, it does mean perfectly normal and well within our common range of experience.

You have that unfounded assertion pointing at the wrong people. As LordofTruth pointed out, as with “The Hair of the Alien”, the results of analysis of the physical evidence are questioned according to the debunker mindset of “It cannot be, therefore it is not”. The sample was contaminated, the scientists made a mistake, they were not qualified, the equipment was faulty, etc and so on – the debunkers will always have a post hoc explanation as to why the results of any tests on any potential physical evidence do not show anything unusual. Thus it is the debunkers who discount the physical evidence, not (as you would have it) the other way around.

Well, no. It is the close-minded creduloids who jump to the unfounded conclusion of aliens or "aliens", being close minded to any mundane explanations that they can think of. Remember your errors in using your version of a process of elimination? You know that your version is fatally flawed and yet you still pretend it works for you.

 

[Paul2]

Rramjet, forgive me but I'm not going to get into a point-by-point discussion with you, as I'm twice shy. But, I will comment on this:

Your false accusation of me in that regard constitutes and attempt by you to “poison the well” in relation to my own comments. That is you attempt to force me into a position from which I cannot reply - in that if I attempt criticize you, you will say “see, he is poisoning the well!”.

That is so not a good definition of poisoning the well. I know you got it online, but that doesn't mean it's good. If you look around at other definitions, including some of the ones you offered (on another thread?), you'll see much better definitions. The one you're using here is way too general and doesn't get to the heart of what poisoning the well is.

Instead you merely made the false accusation.

Yeah, maybe I was wrong, maybe not. You make it sound like it's bad to be wrong.

See the difference “professor”?

Now *that's* hitting below the belt. There's no need to insult me.

 

[SOdhner]

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.

On January 18th I suggested that a hoax was a plausible explanation, and gave some support for that argument. You didn't reply.
On January 31st, I reminded you that you still hadn't addressed these points. Later that day you replied but did not address anything, instead referring to "evidence" elsewhere in the thread without actually linking to anything or explaining what that evidence might be.
On February 1st, I pointed out that no such evidence seems to exist.
On February 2nd, you replied by quoting Wollery, although that quote had nothing to do with evidence that the letter was not a hoax.
On February 3rd, I replied and showed that Wollery's post actually made a point of leaving hoax as a possibility. You responded by again alluding to some mythical evidence elsewhere in the thread, without links or explanations of what that evidence might be.
On February 5th, I pointed this out and suggested that this "evidence" you referred to did not exist.
On February 6th, you once again insisted that there was "evidence" somewhere in the thread. You quoted Wollery again even though I had already shown that it supported my position and not yours, and you quoted Jocce even though his post had no evidence that the letter wasn't a hoax.
On February 7th, I pointed out that these quotes provided no evidence that the letter was not a hoax.
On February 8th, you once again cited "evidence" without linking to it or explaining what evidence that might be.
On February 9th, I pointed out that you still hadn't linked to this supposed evidence.
On February 13th, I pointed out that you still hadn't replied to me. You replied to say that you had supplied the evidence and the links in your post on February 6th, even though that was clearly not the case.
On February 14th, I pointed out that you had linked to a post that didn't contain any evidence that the letter was factually accurate. I also gave more reasons that it is plausible that the letter is a hoax.
On February 15th, I reminded you that you hadn't replied to me yet.
On February 16th, you replied to a side-issue mentioned in my February 15th post, but did not address the hoax issue.
On February 18th, I reminded you that you hadn't replied to the February 14th post yet.
On February 21st, I yet again reminded you that you hadn't addressed my post.
On February 25th, I yet again reminded you that you hadn't replied to me. You finally replied later that day, and insisted that you had already addressed my points somewhere. In response to me pointing out that your links hadn't gone anywhere with evidence, you said you had "made a mistake in linking" but didn't post a revised link - and in fact you linked to that post again! You dismissed my suggestion as "not plausible" without any reason, and yet again referred to "evidence" elsewhere in the thread without actually linking to it or suggesting what evidence that might be.
On February 26th, I pointed out yet again that this supposed evidence is nowhere to be found.
On February 27th, you didn't directly reply to me but you did once again misrepresent the quotes from Wollery and Jocce despite having been previously shown that they weren't saying what you had suggested they were.
On February 28th, I pointed this out and requested that you reply to the rest of my post. You dismissed me, implying that I was wrong about you not having replied to my post. I then replied and pointed out that it was actually a fact, and once more asked that you reply. You replied to that and dismissed me without actually addressing anything.
On March 1st, I pointed out that your dismissal was unfounded and you still hadn't supplied any of this supposed evidence. You replied but yet again dismissed me without addressing my points. You then (still March 1st) posted a separate post that is the closest thing so far to providing any evidence for your position. Unfortunately this still didn't have any actual evidence, just some personal incredulity, rhetorical questions, and unfounded assertions. I replied and pointed this out, refuting each of your points and providing support of my own.
On March 2nd, you referred yet again to this mysterious "evidence" but didn't reply to my post.
On March 3rd, I pointed out that while you had speculated about Cowgill's reputation, his intentions, and his job security you had not provided anything to back these assumptions up. You hadn't given any actual reasons that it isn't plausible for the letter to be factually inaccurate, and you hadn't actually responded to a single one of my reasons why it IS plausible.
On March 4th, I pointed out that you still hadn't replied.
On March 9th, I pointed this out again.
On March 21st, I yet again asked you to reply.
On April 5th, I asked again. You finally replied, but didn't address my specific points or refutations, instead once again referring to some mysterious "evidence"
On April 7th, I pointed out yet again that you still hadn't given any actual evidence or responded to my points.
On April 10th, I reminded you that you still hadn't replied to me.
On April 11th, you suggested that you had replied "many times" and that me saying otherwise was an unfounded claim. I responded and pointed out that this was clearly false.
On April 12th, you replied and suggested that I should be satisfied that your lack of supply should be sufficient since it lets me have the last word - while implying that I was mistaken by using the word "believe".
On April 13th, I pointed out that it wasn't a matter of belief, but of fact.
On April 14th, I once again pointed out that you hadn't replied to these questions.
On April 15th, I did so again.
On April 185h, I did so again.
On May 7th, I asked again since after all this time you still haven't responded.
On May 11th, I yet again pointed out that you've never answered me. Later that day, you actually replied - but only to repeat the false statement that you had already answered my questions.

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)

Your posts containing the evidence you keep referring to don't exist as far as I can tell. It seems like it would be faster for you to just present it, if there is any such evidence.

 

[RelentlessPunishment]

But physical evidence can be tested. Creduloids want to discount physical evidence because they don't have any.

It can be tested. But I'm doubtful about what happens next, once the results are published. Maybe I'm being too cynical - it's not as though I've got any personal experience of the culture of science and research, so I am perhaps being a bit assumptous here.

I certainly don't discount physical evidence, but I don't think it's neccassarily as conclusive as it should be, for reasons that have nothing to do with the nature of the evidence in itself, and everything to do with human nature.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It can be tested. But I'm doubtful about what happens next, once the results are published. Maybe I'm being too cynical - it's not as though I've got any personal experience of the culture of science and research, so I am perhaps being a bit assumptous here.

I certainly don't discount physical evidence, but I don't think it's neccassarily as conclusive as it should be, for reasons that have nothing to do with the nature of the evidence in itself, and everything to do with human nature.

Interesting opinion.

Do you have any examples you can use to illustrate your point? Let me rephrase your point to see if I have it correctly: On the one hand, you place great weight in these anecdotes as evidence of some non-mundane reality. On the other hand, testable physical evidence would be too subjective or too prone to human error to be reliable.

Don't call strawman on me. I'm not saying that this is your position, I'm asking if it is so that I can understand and we can discuss it.

 

[GeeMack]

It can be tested. But I'm doubtful about what happens next, once the results are published. Maybe I'm being too cynical - it's not as though I've got any personal experience of the culture of science and research, so I am perhaps being a bit assumptous here.

So how about you tell us what has happened every time so far that some physical evidence has shown UFOs are visitors from another planet or a psi effect? No link to scientific papers necessary, just maybe some news articles about how the scientific community dealt with it last time a UFO was determined to be aliens, or psi.

 

[Rramjet]

SOdhner – your thinking on this matter is simply fallacious.

First, just because it is possible for the letter to have been a hoax, does not mean that it is a hoax. Just because it is possible for you to be a brain in a vat being manipulated by a mad scientist, does not mean that your are a brain in a vat. This type of fallacious thinking underpins the UFO debunker position – on the one hand, in the debunker mindset, if there is a possibility of a hoax or a misidentification, then it must be a hoax or a misidentification, but on the other hand, if there is a possibility that it might be ET …then what?

Second, you are just plain wrong in your assertions. I have answered your questions on this matter a number of times and as I have indicated to you, also on a number of previous occasions (which by the way you seem to “conveniently” leave out of your synopsis), the substantial arguments you are looking for (negating your “hoax hypothesis”) begin on p. 199 of this thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156375&page=199 from post #7940). I do not feel the need to retype or repost those arguments – they are there for all (including yourself) to see.

Now, if you have any substantial, rational objections to my arguments, then please feel free to post those objections and we can take the discussion from there.

I've used a process of elimination to determine that all of the cases you have presented here positively defy plausible non-mundane explanations

I can state categorically that this assertion from you is entirely false. Nowhere have you done as you claim. If however you can supply any evidence that you have done as you claim, for any of the cases I have presented in this thread, then please feel free to do so.

However, let me make a prediction here. Following my lead (from above) you will link to a post (or series of posts) which you will then claim supplies just such evidence. I therefore feel it necessary to remind you that the mere statement of unfounded assertions does not make those assertions true. A case in point:

Remember your errors in using your version of a process of elimination? You know that your version is fatally flawed and yet you still pretend it works for you.

Just because you make the statement, does not mean that statement is true. Remember, claims require evidence. If you make a claim, then the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. Moreover, I also feel it necessary to point out that one unsubstantiated claim cannot be supported by another unsubstantiated claim.

Do you have any examples you can use to illustrate your point? Let me rephrase your point to see if I have it correctly: On the one hand, you place great weight in these anecdotes as evidence of some non-mundane reality. On the other hand, testable physical evidence would be too subjective or too prone to human error to be reliable.

Don't call strawman on me. I'm not saying that this is your position, I'm asking if it is so that I can understand and we can discuss it.

A case in point:

Hair of the Alien (23 Jul 1992)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html)
(http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)
(http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2005/07/hair-of-alien-ccr5-deletion-factor.html)
(http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/mymumtalkstoaliens)

As LordofTruth pointed out, the results of analysis of the physical evidence in this case are questioned according to the debunker mindset of “It cannot be, therefore it is not”. The sample was contaminated, the scientists made a mistake, they were not qualified, the equipment was faulty, etc and so on – the debunkers will always have a post hoc explanation as to why the results of any tests on any potential physical evidence do not show anything unusual.

So how about you tell us what has happened every time so far that some physical evidence has shown UFOs are visitors from another planet or a psi effect? No link to scientific papers necessary, just maybe some news articles about how the scientific community dealt with it last time a UFO was determined to be aliens, or psi.

What is the point of asking such questions when you know full well that no UFO has been “determined” to be of alien or psi origin and thus your question cannot be answered? Well of course the point is to publicise that very thing. But your question is like asking Darwin, before his work was published and accepted, to point to newspaper articles referencing how the scientific community was dealing with his unproven hypotheses. If we were to judge the success of Darwin’s theories on how the newspapers (and his scientific peers) treated him at the time, we would still not accept evolution as valid theory.

There are of course many who, to this day, do not accept Darwin’s theory as valid – despite the overwhelming nature of the supporting evidence that has been built up since the publication of his thesis. Similarly, in the field of UFOlogy, the overwhelming nature of the evidence indicates that, at the very least, many UFOs defy plausible mundane explanation, yet there are many who deny even this basic fact. Just as Darwin’s detractors originally used the fact that he also had no mechanism by which his theory could be operationalised to deny his theory, the UFO debunkers use the fact that we have no mechanism to explain UFOs to deny them. Subsequently, for Darwin’s theory, DNA was discovered as just that enabling mechanism. For UFOs, some have speculated that ET is that enabling mechanism – others have speculated psi effects – still others have other explanatory hypotheses – but just because we lack definitive proof of that basic explanatory mechanism, does not mean that we can deny the phenomenon (or phenomena) outright.

Of course what is needed to “solve” the mystery of that mechanism is a properly constituted program of research. On that score, the utter bankruptcy of the debunker’s “denialist” position is underscored by the Brown Mountain lights case. There research showed that a plausible mundane solution was available – geologically induced plasma effects – but the debunker position was steadfast in the denial of any unusual phenomenon in the case – despite the overwhelming evidence from credible multiple eyewitness and video (it was merely “locomotive” or car headlights, or people’s imagination, etc and so on). It was only a properly constituted program of research that, over many years, finally “cracked the case”.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I can state categorically that this assertion from you is entirely false. Nowhere have you done as you claim. If however you can supply any evidence that you have done as you claim, for any of the cases I have presented in this thread, then please feel free to do so.

However, the point is that just because such cases defy plausible mundane explanation, does not mean that the explanation is ET.

I can state categorically that your unfounded assertion is entirely false. You've presented no cases which defy mundane explanation. They've all defied plausible non-mundane explanation, as I've proven. The only difference is, I've never been incorrect in my implementation of a process of elimination and you have, provably, repeatedly, extraordinarily. Remember your gross errors at Campeche, your Vagueness at Venezuela, your now infamous Debri^WP Debacle, and what is probably your biggest and latest embarrassment, your Dismay at Delphos? Do you see the difference now? If not, why not?

If you've posted a case where the answer was "aliens" and I missed it, I will apologize. Otherwise, we'll have to agree that you are incorrect.

However, let me make a prediction here. Following my lead (from above) you will link to a post (or series of posts) which you will then claim supplies just such evidence. I therefore feel it necessary to remind you that the mere statement of unfounded assertions does not make those assertions true. A case in point:

You've never been much good at predictions, have you. Until you make something other than unfounded assertions, there isn't much point in linking you to the posts which have demolished your arguments.

Just because you make the statement, does not mean that statement is true. Remember, claims require evidence. If you make a claim, then the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. Moreover, I also feel it necessary to point out that one unsubstantiated claim cannot be supported by another unsubstantiated claim.

Oh, if only you would look in a mirror when you say that! LOL

I forget, which ones have proven to be "aliens"? Oh, that's right, none of them.

A case in point:

Hair of the Alien (23 Jul 1992)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/khouryabduction.html)
(http://www.auforn.com/Bill_Chalker_35.htm)
(http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2005/07/hair-of-alien-ccr5-deletion-factor.html)
(http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/mymumtalkstoaliens)

As LordofTruth pointed out, the results of analysis of the physical evidence in this case are questioned according to the debunker mindset of “It cannot be, therefore it is not”. The sample was contaminated, the scientists made a mistake, they were not qualified, the equipment was faulty, etc and so on – the debunkers will always have a post hoc explanation as to why the results of any tests on any potential physical evidence do not show anything unusual.

The creduloid mindset seems to be, "You can't prove it isn't aliens so it's "aliens"!" Maybe I should encourage you to read up on the fallacy of switching the burden of proof.

What is the point of asking such questions when you know full well that no UFO has been “determined” to be of alien or psi origin and thus your question cannot be answered?

Of course it can be answered. The answer is zero. When you present evidence of your "aliens" (real evidence, I mean), the number will increase by one. Something for you to look forward to!

 

[SOdhner]

First, just because it is possible for the letter to have been a hoax, does not mean that it is a hoax.

That's a strawman argument, Rramjet. It's not even a subtle one. Try addressing my actual arguments.

I have answered your questions on this matter a number of times

That's flat-out untrue. I included every single post since our discussion started that had anything to do with the issue at hand. You've gone for almost four months claiming this without once linking to this supposed evidence. All it would take is a link.

the substantial arguments you are looking for (negating your “hoax hypothesis”) begin on p. 199 of this thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156375&page=199 from post #7940).

7940 has nothing at all in it relevant to this discussion. You mention the case briefly in post 7947, but provide no evidence about the letter being factually accurate. You mention it again in 7951 and 7957, but again provide no evidence of anything. That's all for that page.

This is coming off as extremely dishonest. Surely you could have linked to a specific post if one exists? Four months and you can't find the "evidence"?

 

[RoboTimbo]

That's a strawman argument, Rramjet. It's not even a subtle one. Try addressing my actual arguments.



That's flat-out untrue. I included every single post since our discussion started that had anything to do with the issue at hand. You've gone for almost four months claiming this without once linking to this supposed evidence. All it would take is a link.



7940 has nothing at all in it relevant to this discussion. You mention the case briefly in post 7947, but provide no evidence about the letter being factually accurate. You mention it again in 7951 and 7957, but again provide no evidence of anything. That's all for that page.

This is coming off as extremely dishonest. Surely you could have linked to a specific post if one exists? Four months and you can't find the "evidence"?

Rramjet, these are important points that you continue to evade. The legitimacy of the purported letter in your Venezuela case should be of paramount importance before we can discuss any other specifics.

What actions have you taken to ascertain that the letter is genuine? The answer to this question may also address the concerns about your sincerity in real research.

Can you link to the post where you've done your due diligence to ascertain the purported letter's legitimacy?

 

[RelentlessPunishment]

Interesting opinion.

Do you have any examples you can use to illustrate your point? Let me rephrase your point to see if I have it correctly: On the one hand, you place great weight in these anecdotes as evidence of some non-mundane reality. On the other hand, testable physical evidence would be too subjective or too prone to human error to be reliable.

Don't call strawman on me. I'm not saying that this is your position, I'm asking if it is so that I can understand and we can discuss it.

Hi RoboTimbo

Yes, I personally do place great weight on anecdotes as evidence. I’m particularly struck by consistencies of details between the anecdotes. I know less about law than I do about science, which is saying a lot (I don’t even watch courtroom shows on TV), but I think my case for UFOs would be based on circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence. I just looked up circumstantial evidence in Wikipedia and found this:

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out."

It seems concise and pertinent to this discussion so I thought I hope you and the moderators don’t mind me pasting it here. I think it’s appropriate to include because legal theorists have been mulling over this stuff for a long time, and I often wonder what ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ mean in science, which seems to lack the formal aims of a court case, where there are literal winners and losers. As far as I can people intend to mean something like a consensus within the scientific community, which seems a fairly nebulous idea to me. In fact, for me, part of the corroborating patterns is that there have been, IIRC, highly qualified and well regarded scientists who’ve taken UFOs seriously.

I think testable physical evidence could be perfectly objective and could be tested to the highest levels of professionalism, but I’m cynical about how fairly and objectively this information would be received. I havn't got time to discuss my reactin to The Hair of the Alien now, but perhaps I will in another post.

I’m writing this in a rush as I drink my morning coffee, so I hope it all makes sense. If it doesn't just ask, and hopefully I'll be able to interpret my own ramblings.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hi RoboTimbo

Yes, I personally do place great weight on anecdotes as evidence. I’m particularly struck by consistencies of details between the anecdotes. I know less about law than I do about science, which is saying a lot (I don’t even watch courtroom shows on TV), but I think my case for UFOs would be based on circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence. I just looked up circumstantial evidence in Wikipedia and found this:

There is a major difference in using circumstantial evidence in law versus using it to try to prove something alien and that is this: We know that people can commit murder, rape, arson, etc. We know people exist and we know crimes exist. We don't know that aliens or "aliens" exist anywhere near Earth. You can't apply rules of evidence for law to rules of evidence for science. At least you can't do it legitimately, but many try.

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out."

Two problems here. One, there is no corroborating evidence. Two, alternative explanations have not been ruled out. UFOlogists get it backwards, they start with their conclusion that there are aliens and then try to claim that evidence fits their conclusion. Ask them to define "aliens" first and then let's see if the evidence fits.

It seems concise and pertinent to this discussion so I thought I hope you and the moderators don’t mind me pasting it here. I think it’s appropriate to include because legal theorists have been mulling over this stuff for a long time, and I often wonder what ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ mean in science, which seems to lack the formal aims of a court case, where there are literal winners and losers. As far as I can people intend to mean something like a consensus within the scientific community, which seems a fairly nebulous idea to me. In fact, for me, part of the corroborating patterns is that there have been, IIRC, highly qualified and well regarded scientists who’ve taken UFOs seriously.

But no scientist has brought forward compelling evidence of aliens visiting the Earth. Beliefs don't count.

I think testable physical evidence could be perfectly objective and could be tested to the highest levels of professionalism, but I’m cynical about how fairly and objectively this information would be received. I havn't got time to discuss my reactin to The Hair of the Alien now, but perhaps I will in another post.

You may want to peruse back through the thread where it has been discussed. There was quite a bit of fevered imagination involved.

I’m writing this in a rush as I drink my morning coffee, so I hope it all makes sense. If it doesn't just ask, and hopefully I'll be able to interpret my own ramblings.

It made perfect sense.

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, these are important points that you continue to evade. The legitimacy of the purported letter in your Venezuela case should be of paramount importance before we can discuss any other specifics.

LOL. No. You simply want to make it of “paramount importance”. I have already stated that it is not possible to 100% rule out a hoax. It is also not possible to 100% rule out that you are not a brain in a vat - or that you and the JREF are simply not a product of my awesome imagination. However, just because something is possible does not make it likely.

This is of course where my insistence on the use of the term “plausible” comes in. Is it plausible that Cowgill’s Venezuelan letter to SciAm is a hoax? Clearly, on the evidence, no, it is not plausible to assert a hoax. Does that mean it is not a hoax? Of course not. Stranger things have happened.

Of course, in positively asserting “hoax” in this case, you (and Sohdner) are committing the fallacy of an argument from ignorance. That is, you are asserting that your proposition (hoax) is true, merely because it has not been proven to be false.

This is of course related to another fallacy. That is, what you are doing is asking me to prove a negative. That is to prove that it is not a hoax. In that however you seem to be forgetting that there is no evidence that it is a hoax and indeed, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest (but not prove) that it not a hoax.

Then (and again related), there is also an element of shifting of the burden of proof in your claim of “hoax”. That is, in logical argument (or rational debate), it is generally considered that the person making a claim is required to provide a rational justification (by presenting evidence or logical argument) for that claim.

Finally, it does not particularly matter to me whether you (or Sohdner) consider the letter to be a hoax. It seems that no matter what I say, or what logical arguments I might put forward or what evidence I may present – you will go on believing what you want to believe regardless.

All I can say to you at this point (in reference to the Venezuelan case - (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)) is that the case has been discussed at some length in this thread and that the various arguments about it (including whether the letter can be considered to be a hoax or not) begin on this page (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...56375&page=199) from post #7940 - and extend over many subsequent pages. All you have to do is follow that argument through and if you find yourself with alternate opinions you are of course welcome to post them.

I just looked up circumstantial evidence in Wikipedia and found this:

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out."

This is precisely what the UFO debunkers in this thread are attempting to disallow. In that regard, they seem to forget (as you also point out in your post) that science itself (and scientific progress) is primarily an inferential pursuit, where (as you say) what often passes for “truth” in science, at its heart is merely a consensus opinion. That is not to say that an inferential opinion is not valid – it merely indicates that it is an inferential conclusion based on a weight of evidence, rather than a deductive – or necessary – outcome.

Considering inferences derived from UFO reports - when we see ostensible intelligent control of what seem to be technological craft and especially when associated with “non-human” beings of some sort, in the absence of any plausible mundane explanation, then ET becomes a compelling inferential conclusion. That is not to say that it is the correct conclusion. Indeed, in my opinion in most cases, it likely is not going to be a correct conclusion (eg; Brown Mountain) – but critically – we cannot rule it out.

Of course the debunkers principle objection to the ET conclusion is that, given the almost incomprehensible distances involved (and the implied – or inferred - time and energy considerations), they can see no way for ET to get here. But of course that objection assumes we know everything there is to know about the physics of traversing space-time - and even if we did (a seemingly exceedingly arrogant assumption given the history of science) - that some intelligent species would not actually spend that time in doing so. There are many scenarios one can imagine that would enable that in practice: For example what if their sun was dying and they simply had no choice but to “get away” – where would they go? What if the “ET” we observe are not biological entities – but “intelligent machines” where time and energy considerations were not particularly relevant (perhaps they could simply “shut down” until they reached their destination, no matter how “long” it took). Quite simply there is no real physical constraint that might dictate that earth cannot be visited by ET.

The other objection from the UFO debunkers is that UFOs do not seem to conform to our conceptualisations of what technology might look like – they are just too weird. They do “impossible” things. They don’t seem to behave in a comprehensible or rational manner. “If I was them”, the debunkers claim “I would not crash, or abduct, or change my appearance, or deceive (or do the myriad other things that I cannot comprehend)”. But of course this argument presupposes that we know what motivates ET and also what their “technology” does or does not allow them to do. And this of course is an utter nonsense. It is an arrogant anthropomorphism. How can we possibly know what motivates ET or what their technology looks like? Of course we simply cannot.

Athur C. Clarke stated ”Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” and ”When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Arthur_C._Clarke/). Precisely.