UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RobDegraves]

Well... I will give it another shot...

Cowgill must have heard about the case from someone and the story was interesting enough for him so that this prompted him to visit the hospital. It is therefore reasonable to assume that much of his information would have come from the victims themselves. He was also therefore able to observe their injuries first hand.

He does not say that nor is it reasonable to assume. As a good British diplomat, it's atypical that he would have addressed them directly for specific details. In either case, his information is hearsay at best.

It is unlikely that he visited the house. If he did, he would have most likely stated so. But so what?

So... his info about the house and other associated phenomenon is hearsay.

Cowgill assumed the phenomenon was “meteorological occurrence (which) may be of interest to your readers as an addition to the list of electrical eccentricities”. Nothing to do with UFOs, spiritualists, etc.

Sigh.. I take it you have not research the situation in the 19th century.

In 1853, Tennessee students witnessed what could be described as a couple of UFO's. A Professor A. C. Carnes interviewed the students and ventured the opinion that the phenomenon might be electrical in nature. By the time of your account, UFO sightings had gotten common and it was a common way to approach the subject by saying it was an electrical phenomenon if you wanted to sound like you were not advocating aliens.

The account you bring up is neither atypical nor particularly striking, given it's stunning lack of details or independent follow up.

I think you overstate the case somewhat. Around that time there were a number of “big name” scientists who were interested in studying the phenomenon - and many did so. That is not the same as stating they were “firm believers”. The consensus among the scientists of the time was actually that spiritualism was a scam.

You could not be more mistaken.

To name a few of the "big name" scientists who were firm believers in spiritualism...

Chemist and physicist William Crookes
Biologist Alfred Russel Wallace
Lord Rayleigh, Nobel laureate
Charles Richet, another Nobel laureate and coiner of the term "ectoplasm".
Arthur Conan Doyle

Etc.

Now... should I go through the list of who believed in UFO's, the Hollow Earth, Yeti, etc?

It's a long one.

The conclusion that we can reach is that the case defies plausible mundane explanation.

Hardly. It's clear that the case does not have sufficient evidence to reach any conclusion.

I have presented the evidence and logical argument to support my position. My opponents merely present and seem to rely on the mere presentation of unfounded assertion.

1. You have not presented any argument that supplants the lack of facts not derived from hearsay.

2. I have not presented any unfounded assertion but merely pointed out ...

A. The lack of reliable testimony.
B. The existence of a body of beliefs already in place prior to the event that would supply the framework for a biased or manufactured report.

 

[RobDegraves]

I just saw RoboTimbo's post and it reminded me of one point I would like to add.


I don't require extraordinary evidence for the existence of aliens or spaceships, etc.

Just the regular kind of evidence.... the verifiable kind.

 

[Rramjet]

He does not say that nor is it reasonable to assume. As a good British diplomat, it's atypical that he would have addressed them directly for specific details.

You see, this is (yet another reason) why my UFO debunker opponents have huge credibility problems. I have claimed consistently that they never examine the evidence in any case for themselves (never!) - but instead merely make unfounded pronouncements that are simply drawn from their faith-based beliefs. Once again here is proof of that contention – Cowgill was a United States Navy trained career diplomat attached to the United States consulate in Venezuela… No-one who has examined the evidence in the case (specifically the letter, but also my posts over the last couple of pages and the information under the www links provided) could have missed that…

Moreover, we have yet another (wild and fanciful and) completely unfounded assertion that Cowgill, having visited the victims in hospital and observed their symptoms first hand would not have spoken to them!

So... his info about the house and other associated phenomenon is hearsay.

Sure. It is what it is. It is “proof” of nothing. It is merely an intriguing story – but just because we cannot explain that story does not mean that we must conclude “hoax” or “factual inaccuracy”. The UFO debunkers however do seem to love that line of fallacious argument (“It cannot be, therefore it isn’t”) - as if they know everything there is to know - or will ever be known.

In 1853, Tennessee students witnessed what could be described as a couple of UFO's. A Professor A. C. Carnes interviewed the students and ventured the opinion that the phenomenon might be electrical in nature. By the time of your account, UFO sightings had gotten common and it was a common way to approach the subject by saying it was an electrical phenomenon if you wanted to sound like you were not advocating aliens.

Now, apart from the fact that there is no reference or citation for that initial information – thus it is, once again, merely an unfounded assertion (when will my opponents learn that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?) – the implication is that the term “electrical eccentricities” was well known as code for “UFOs”(!) – a completely unfounded assertion for which there is absolutely no historical precedent or supporting evidence – but also that Cowgill, some fifty years later, was aware that “electrical eccentricities” was code for UFOs!

But that’s not all – once again we have the “whomsoever believes in UFOs must therefore also believe in ETs” contention. That is not, nor has it ever been my position. UFOs are (literally) unknown – we have no explanation for them.

But even that is not all! Somehow the implication is that I also knew that “electrical eccentricities” was code for UFOs and that somehow I should have known better than to present the case as an electrical eccentricity if I did not want the ET connection to be drawn! Talk about drawing a long bow!

The account you bring up is neither atypical nor particularly striking, given it's stunning lack of details or independent follow up.

“neither atypical”? I presume then you are able to present other, similar cases for us examine then? No? I thought not…

“Stunning lack of detail”? Well, I suppose if one has not actually read the letter - then of course one will have not have been able to note the explicit, specific and extensive detail contained within it…

“independent follow up”? What has this got to do with the price of fish? Indeed, what does “independent follow up” actually mean in regard to this case?

You could not be more mistaken.

To name a few of the "big name" scientists who were firm believers in spiritualism...

Chemist and physicist William Crookes
Biologist Alfred Russel Wallace
Lord Rayleigh, Nobel laureate
Charles Richet, another Nobel laureate and coiner of the term "ectoplasm".
Arthur Conan Doyle

Etc.

Now... should I go through the list of who believed in UFO's, the Hollow Earth, Yeti, etc?

It's a long one

So what? Are you contending that we cannot trust scientists or their assessments now? What precisely are you trying to say?

Hardly. It's clear that the case does not have sufficient evidence to reach any conclusion.

That’s merely your opinion - and you would be entitled to it - except for the fact that it seems clear that you have not examined the evidence…

1. You have not presented any argument that supplants the lack of facts not derived from hearsay.

“supplants … the lack of facts … not derived … from hearsay…”?

Perhaps you would care to restate that unfounded (yet again) assertion in rational, understandable English? Or is it merely restating that the letter is hearsay (anecdotal)? Sure it is. And in that regard I have stated (repeatedly) that we cannot rule out a hoax – but I have also stated that the mere possibility of a hoax does not make it likely or even plausible as an explanation.

2. I have not presented any unfounded assertion but merely pointed out ...

A. The lack of reliable testimony.

That is an unfounded assertion! How did you assess the reliability of Cowgill’s testimony? On what evidence do you base your implication that it is unreliable? You may believe that it is unreliable – but that is not the same as knowing whether it is or is not – based on the evidence. The evidence (Cowgills training and status, the tone and content of the letter, the fact that it was published in SciAm) all suggests the letter to have veracity…

B. The existence of a body of beliefs already in place prior to the event that would supply the framework for a biased or manufactured report.

Once again, that is an unfounded assertion! You have not demonstrated the existence of this “body of beliefs” at all. You have merely made an unfounded assertion that it existed. Moreover, just because an unexplained observation was subsequently explained as an “electrical eccentricity” does not mean that it was known as “code” for UFOs – indeed the very first mention of the term “UFO” did not come until the early 1950s! (eg http://www.suite101.com/content/the-national-archives-ufo-files-a355531 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufology - but I feel sure there is an FBI memo that mentions the term before Ruppelt used it – I just can’t find the reference right now…). Nevertheless, the concept simply did not exist either before the Venezuelan letter was written - or at the time! Nor have you demonstrated that “electrical eccentricities” was code for “extraterrestrial” or that such a belief existed at the time. Indeed the fact that SciAm published such accounts without any caveat that mentions such a “popular” belief set indicates that it was not a popular belief set – unless you are contending that SciAm is somehow complicit in this whole conspiracy theory of yours? (I really do wish the debunkers would take note of what plausible actually means!)

I just saw RoboTimbo's post and it reminded me of one point I would like to add.

So obviously you completely missed my exhortation for you to note carefully the type of replies I received when I demanded that the UFO debunkers produce evidence in support of their unfounded claims? Why does that not surprise me?

I don't require extraordinary evidence for the existence of aliens or spaceships, etc.

Just the regular kind of evidence.... the verifiable kind.

Who is claiming “alien spaceships”? This is a thread about observations that defy plausible mundane explanation. It is therefore indeed about UFOs – but in that regard, ET is just one of many speculative explanatory hypotheses. That does not mean that it is a correct explanatory hypothesis, or that I believe it to be a correct explanatory hypothesis. I am merely presenting (multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace) evidence that shows that there exists a body of evidence that demonstrates that the characteristics of that evidence simply defies plausible mundane explanation. If you (or I) propose any explanation – I would expect you (or I) to have the supporting evidence for that explanation.

 

[SOdhner]

Can you provide the evidence or logical argument to support that unfounded assertion?

Yup. It's in my post, which you haven't replied to.

Please provide the evidence or logical argument that the points you have raised are indeed valid points, as opposed to mere unfounded assertions.

I have. In my post, which you haven't replied to.

Clearly I am responding to and discussing your posts.

If that were the case, you would have replied to my post. But you haven't.

 

[Cuddles]

Who is claiming “alien spaceships”?

I'm sure I remember someone mentioning aliens. Oh yes, here it is:

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You see, this is (yet another reason) why my UFO debunker opponents have huge credibility problems. I have claimed consistently that they never examine the evidence in any case for themselves (never!) - but instead merely make unfounded pronouncements that are simply drawn from their faith-based beliefs. Once again here is proof of that contention – Cowgill was a United States Navy trained career diplomat attached to the United States consulate in Venezuela… No-one who has examined the evidence in the case (specifically the letter, but also my posts over the last couple of pages and the information under the www links provided) could have missed that…

Speaking of credibility problems and lack of research, how is it going with you doing any research at all in the Venezuela case? Have you checked into hospital records? Done anything at all to ascertain the veracity of the purported letter? How about Delphos? You remember Delphos, where you either deliberately avoided listing websites that described Ron Johnson's other hoaxes or you missed them in your "research". Which was it? I've asked before and you've always missed answering.

Moreover, we have yet another (wild and fanciful and) completely unfounded assertion that Cowgill, having visited the victims in hospital and observed their symptoms first hand would not have spoken to them!

My favorite wild and fanciful and completely unfounded assertion about Cowgill was that he was scientifically minded! Oh wait, that was your own made up story.

Sure. It is what it is. It is “proof” of nothing. It is merely an intriguing story – but just because we cannot explain that story does not mean that we must conclude “hoax” or “factual inaccuracy”. The UFO debunkers however do seem to love that line of fallacious argument (“It cannot be, therefore it isn’t”) - as if they know everything there is to know - or will ever be known.

If you are now admitting that you erred in using the Venezuela case to prove to yourself that UFOs are aliens, you may withdraw the case. I've used the process of elimination and determined that this case is "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane" that I dont' mean mundane, but it is well within our common range of experience and quite ordinary.

Now, apart from the fact that there is no reference or citation for that initial information – thus it is, once again, merely an unfounded assertion (when will my opponents learn that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence?) – the implication is that the term “electrical eccentricities” was well known as code for “UFOs”(!) – a completely unfounded assertion for which there is absolutely no historical precedent or supporting evidence – but also that Cowgill, some fifty years later, was aware that “electrical eccentricities” was code for UFOs!

Why did you want to use the Venezuela case to prove your UFOs are aliens then?

But that’s not all – once again we have the “whomsoever believes in UFOs must therefore also believe in ETs” contention. That is not, nor has it ever been my position. UFOs are (literally) unknown – we have no explanation for them.

After hundreds of pages, well past the point where everyone knew your hidden agenda, you finally admitted it yourself. Kudos for the admission but minus a couple hundred for not admitting it on page one where everyone else had already figured it out.

But even that is not all! Somehow the implication is that I also knew that “electrical eccentricities” was code for UFOs and that somehow I should have known better than to present the case as an electrical eccentricity if I did not want the ET connection to be drawn! Talk about drawing a long bow!

Why did you bring up the Venezuela case in your UFOs as aliens thread? I've used the process of elimination and determined that it positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation.

“neither atypical”? I presume then you are able to present other, similar cases for us examine then? No? I thought not…

“Stunning lack of detail”? Well, I suppose if one has not actually read the letter - then of course one will have not have been able to note the explicit, specific and extensive detail contained within it…

Like, which hospital? What was the exact location of their home? The kind of details that would really matter, not the details that can't be verified.

“independent follow up”? What has this got to do with the price of fish? Indeed, what does “independent follow up” actually mean in regard to this case?

Not much now that it's 120 years old with such a glaring lack of detail.

So what? Are you contending that we cannot trust scientists or their assessments now? What precisely are you trying to say?


That’s merely your opinion - and you would be entitled to it - except for the fact that it seems clear that you have not examined the evidence…

“supplants … the lack of facts … not derived … from hearsay…”?

Perhaps you would care to restate that unfounded (yet again) assertion in rational, understandable English? Or is it merely restating that the letter is hearsay (anecdotal)? Sure it is. And in that regard I have stated (repeatedly) that we cannot rule out a hoax – but I have also stated that the mere possibility of a hoax does not make it likely or even plausible as an explanation.

Of course, to you, ET is a plausible explanation. To the rationally minded, it isn't plausible. Hoax is, for all the reasons that you have been given.

That is an unfounded assertion! How did you assess the reliability of Cowgill’s testimony? On what evidence do you base your implication that it is unreliable? You may believe that it is unreliable – but that is not the same as knowing whether it is or is not – based on the evidence. The evidence (Cowgills training and status, the tone and content of the letter, the fact that it was published in SciAm) all suggests the letter to have veracity…

How did you assess that Cowgill was scientifically minded? How did you arrive at your belief that the purported letter is genuine without having done any research? You used only the letter itself? Interesting. You've also claimed to have done document analysis on it. Your homework will be to look up what document analysis actually entails.

Once again, that is an unfounded assertion! You have not demonstrated the existence of this “body of beliefs” at all. You have merely made an unfounded assertion that it existed. Moreover, just because an unexplained observation was subsequently explained as an “electrical eccentricity” does not mean that it was known as “code” for UFOs – indeed the very first mention of the term “UFO” did not come until the early 1950s! (eg http://www.suite101.com/content/the-national-archives-ufo-files-a355531 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufology - but I feel sure there is an FBI memo that mentions the term before Ruppelt used it – I just can’t find the reference right now…). Nevertheless, the concept simply did not exist either before the Venezuelan letter was written - or at the time! Nor have you demonstrated that “electrical eccentricities” was code for “extraterrestrial” or that such a belief existed at the time. Indeed the fact that SciAm published such accounts without any caveat that mentions such a “popular” belief set indicates that it was not a popular belief set – unless you are contending that SciAm is somehow complicit in this whole conspiracy theory of yours? (I really do wish the debunkers would take note of what plausible actually means!)

The only definition that you will accept for plausible is "aliens".

So obviously you completely missed my exhortation for you to note carefully the type of replies I received when I demanded that the UFO debunkers produce evidence in support of their unfounded claims? Why does that not surprise me?

I only wish that YOU would carefully note the replies that you receive and that YOU would produce evidence in support of your unfounded assertions. Nobody is suprised by now that you do not.

Who is claiming “alien spaceships”? This is a thread about observations that defy plausible mundane explanation. It is therefore indeed about UFOs – but in that regard, ET is just one of many speculative explanatory hypotheses. That does not mean that it is a correct explanatory hypothesis, or that I believe it to be a correct explanatory hypothesis. I am merely presenting (multiple eyewitness, radar, film and photographic and physical trace) evidence that shows that there exists a body of evidence that demonstrates that the characteristics of that evidence simply defies plausible mundane explanation. If you (or I) propose any explanation – I would expect you (or I) to have the supporting evidence for that explanation.

Well, you are claiming "alien spaceships". This is NOT a thread about observations that defy plausible mundane explanation. If it were, all of your cases would be off topic since I've used the process of elimination and determined that they all positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation, leaving only "mundane". There is NO mention of either plausible nor mundane in your OP, there IS mention of "aliens". Why do you tell these whoppers when the facts are so easily checked?

Why do you think your version of a process of elimination caused you to believe in aliens at Delphos rather than the plausible explanation of HOAX? Was it your lack of research skills or were you deliberately hiding the information about his other hoaxes?

 

[RobDegraves]

Well.. I'm only going to reply to salient points, since responding to the whole post would be both repetitive and a waste of time.

1.

Once again here is proof of that contention – Cowgill was a United States Navy trained career diplomat attached to the United States consulate in Venezuela… No-one who has examined the evidence in the case (specifically the letter, but also my posts over the last couple of pages and the information under the www links provided) could have missed that…

Didn't miss it. However, I was talking and looking up a lot of stuff about British UFO groups and the error crept in by osmosis.

My bad.

Moreover, we have yet another (wild and fanciful and) completely unfounded assertion that Cowgill, having visited the victims in hospital and observed their symptoms first hand would not have spoken to them!

Not an assertion, simply another possibility. Can you demonstrate that he did speak to them firsthand?

– the implication is that the term “electrical eccentricities” was well known as code for “UFOs”(!) – a completely unfounded assertion for which there is absolutely no historical precedent or supporting evidence –

http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/ufo-history4.htm

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

http://www.unmuseum.org/crash19.htm

Draw your own conclusions.

but I have also stated that the mere possibility of a hoax does not make it likely or even plausible as an explanation.

Let's be concise for brevity's sake.

1. Other than the letter, there is no other evidence of this having happened.

2. You have not supplied anything, other than your own impressions, that would indicate that Cowgill had actually verified any of this other than to go see the victims.

3. There is no mention by yourself of any kind of supporting evidence other than this letter.

Ergo... there is no evidence that anything that Cowgill reported was learned by anything more than hearsay. To double that ... your own evidence is hearsay, since it depends on one single source with no other documentation.

Therefore... not substantial evidence of anything.

 

[Rramjet]

Who is claiming “alien spaceships”?

I'm sure I remember someone mentioning aliens. Oh yes, here it is:

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

So here we see yet another example of my opponent's failure to examine the evidence! Sad to say, but my contention that my opponents never examine the evidence is being proved at every turn…

I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

(...)

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”.

(bolding added. Rr)

 

[Rramjet]

Note: For expediency and clarity's sake, some of the following quotes from RoboT are presented, not in the oder of his post, but in logical order (grouping those that talk about the same thing together..

Speaking of credibility problems and lack of research, how is it going with you doing any research at all in the Venezuela case?

Okay – lets do speak of credibility then. I have presented my case and have presented supporting evidence and logical argument for my contentions concerning it. You have rejected that evidence and logical argument – dismissing it out of hand – with no basis - and have instead proposed a hoax. For your out-or-hand dismissal of my arguments and for the proposition of your “hoax” claim - you have provided absolutely no evidence or logical argument. Who would you say has the greater credibility problem?

Like, which hospital? What was the exact location of their home? The kind of details that would really matter, not the details that can't be verified.

Those details have been lost in time. Perhaps it would be possible to dig themj out if one had the resources. I do not. I have presented my case – along with the supporting evidence and logical argument. You have presented..?

…now that it's 120 years old with such a glaring lack of detail.

Oh. I think you will find if you actually read the letter it contains a great deal of detail – surprising detail in fact – considering radiation poisoning was completely unknown at the time…

You remember Delphos, where you either deliberately avoided listing websites that described Ron Johnson's other hoaxes or you missed them in your "research".

Do you think that the mere statement of lies is actually a rational debating tactic?

My favorite wild and fanciful and completely unfounded assertion about Cowgill was that he was scientifically minded! Oh wait, that was your own made up story.

How did you assess that Cowgill was scientifically minded?

It is a reasonable assumption to make that if a person reads Scientific American and is interested enough to respond to the presented articles with a well thought out article of his own, which is well enough constructed that it is actually published, then that person can be plausibly be described as scientifically minded. Do you have any evidence or logical argument to suggest otherwise?

How did you arrive at your belief that the purported letter is genuine without having done any research?

Well, there are the biographical details of Cowgill, the tone and content of the letter and the fact that it was published in SciAm, all suggesting veracity. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

You used only the letter itself? Interesting.

Yes indeed, it is, isn’t it.

You've also claimed to have done document analysis on it.

Actually no, I stated that document analysis is a tool that could be utilised in such cases. Obviously I have conducted some minor assessment in that regard, but have never claimed to have conducted a “document analysis”.

If you are now admitting that you erred in using the Venezuela case to prove to yourself that UFOs are aliens, you may withdraw the case.

Why did you want to use the Venezuela case to prove your UFOs are aliens then?

Why did you bring up the Venezuela case in your UFOs as aliens thread?

Your reasoning seems to be somewhat confused here. I stated that the case represented something that defies plausible mundane explanation. In that respect it is representative of UFO cases in general. I have also clearly and on many occasions spelt out (in no uncertain terms) that just because something defies plausible mundane explanation, that does not mean we automatically assume it is ET related. I have also contended that while ET may be a plausible explanation for some UFO cases, that does not mean that I believe it is the correct explanation for this or any other UFO case. How you could have missed those repeated and clear statements from me is simply beyond comprehension.

Of course, to you, ET is a plausible explanation.

Yes it is. There is nothing in our knowledge of physics or technology that would rule it out. There is a high probability that earth is not the only life-bearing planet. Many UFO observations display the characteristics of intelligent control and many others also have associated beings. Do you have any evidence or logical argument to suggest it is not a plausible explanation?

To the rationally minded, it isn't plausible.

That is a mere unfounded assertion (claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).

The only definition that you will accept for plausible is "aliens".

Clearly you have either not read my posts or have simply not understood them. There is even ample evidence in my replies to you in this post that you could use to falsify that claim.

Hoax is, for all the reasons that you have been given.

What”reasons”? As far as I can tell you have provided nothing except the unfounded assertion (and claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence)..

I've used the process of elimination and determined that this case is "mundane".

I've used the process of elimination and determined that it positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation.

Where have you used this process of elimination? I can find no evidence of it. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Note that when I say "mundane" that I dont' mean mundane, but it is well within our common range of experience and quite ordinary.

Sure, if that is how you wish to define “mundane” then you are perfectly entitled to do so – just so long as you7 use it consistently and clearly indicate if you switch back to the common meaning (including the term in quotation marks is a useful indicator that you are using your “special” meaning – just as I do so for “alien”).

After hundreds of pages, well past the point where everyone knew your hidden agenda, you finally admitted it yourself.

What “hidden agenda” might that be RoboT? I thought my agenda was clearly and repeatedly stated. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Kudos for the admission but minus a couple hundred for not admitting it on page one where everyone else had already figured it out.

You mean my stating that: “ UFOs are (literally) unknown – we have no explanation for them.”? Sure, but I did state that contention on page one – in my OP. I am not surprised you missed it though…

What I have figured out though is that you (along with all UFO debunkers) seem to believe that all UFOs can be simply explained as misrepresentations, misperceptions, or hoaxes. [/QUOTE]

I only wish that YOU would carefully note the replies that you receive and that YOU would produce evidence in support of your unfounded assertions. Nobody is suprised by now that you do not.

Clearly another false assertion. It should be obvious to any rational person that not only am I carefully reading all the replies I get, I go on to provide detailed replies of my own in direct response to them.

Well, you are claiming "alien spaceships".

Nowhere have I made that claim. Have you any evidence for your unfounded assertion?

This is NOT a thread about observations that defy plausible mundane explanation. If it were, all of your cases would be off topic since I've used the process of elimination and determined that they all positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation, leaving only "mundane".

This is a thread about UFOs. It just so happens that a substantial percentage of UFO reports defy plausible mundane explanation. If you have used the process of elimination as you claim to have, then you will be able to present us with the evidence you have done so. Until then …claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Why do you tell these whoppers when the facts are so easily checked?

LOL. Why do you tell these whoppers when the facts are so easily checked?

Why do you think your version of a process of elimination caused you to believe in aliens at Delphos rather than the plausible explanation of HOAX?

I have not claimed ET is the explanation for Delphos and you have not demonstrated that “hoax” is plausible.

Was it your lack of research skills or were you deliberately hiding the information about his other hoaxes?

What “other hoaxes”?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Speaking of credibility problems and lack of research, how is it going with you doing any research at all in the Venezuela case?

Okay – lets do speak of credibility then. I have presented my case and have presented supporting evidence and logical argument for my contentions concerning it. You have rejected that evidence and logical argument – dismissing it out of hand – with no basis - and have instead proposed a hoax. For your out-or-hand dismissal of my arguments and for the proposition of your “hoax” claim - you have provided absolutely no evidence or logical argument. Who would you say has the greater credibility problem?

You haven't presented a logical argument. Every time I've presented one to you, you've dismissed it. With your continued false assertions, your credibility is well down among the wines and spirits. Note the following:

I'm not proposing any explanations either...

Hoax remains the most plausible hypothesis but I'm not proposing it, just noting that the case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation....

Note that I'm not proposing that HOAX is the answer, just that the case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation, only leaving "mundane"....

Note that I am not proposing any explanations myself, just noting that this case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation, leaving only "mundane"...

Note that I'm not proposing any explanations myself, just noting that blimp is the most likely given the witness descriptions and the proximity of known blimps hangered nearby...

When you state that I am proposing HOAX, your lies are glaringly obvious.

Like, which hospital? What was the exact location of their home? The kind of details that would really matter, not the details that can't be verified.

Those details have been lost in time. Perhaps it would be possible to dig themj out if one had the resources. I do not. I have presented my case – along with the supporting evidence and logical argument. You have presented..?

You've presented a purported letter which you have done nothing to research to ascertain its veractiy. Your case is woefully inadequate for rational people to take seriously. Creduloids just eat that stuff up, though.

…now that it's 120 years old with such a glaring lack of detail.

Oh. I think you will find if you actually read the letter it contains a great deal of detail – surprising detail in fact – considering radiation poisoning was completely unknown at the time…

Well, no. You will actually find that it is woefully lacking in the kind of detail that would be verifiable. Name of the hospital, exact location of the house. You still haven't looked up "verisimilitude", have you.

You remember Delphos, where you either deliberately avoided listing websites that described Ron Johnson's other hoaxes or you missed them in your "research".

Do you think that the mere statement of lies is actually a rational debating tactic?

No, I've told you before (see above) that it won't work for you so you might as well stop it. So, are you going to answer the question? Did you deliberately not post websites showing his other hoaxes or did your brand of "research" miss them.

My favorite wild and fanciful and completely unfounded assertion about Cowgill was that he was scientifically minded! Oh wait, that was your own made up story.

How did you assess that Cowgill was scientifically minded?

It is a reasonable assumption to make that if a person reads Scientific American and is interested enough to respond to the presented articles with a well thought out article of his own, which is well enough constructed that it is actually published, then that person can be plausibly be described as scientifically minded. Do you have any evidence or logical argument to suggest otherwise?

In other words, you made it up out of whole cloth based on your wishful thinking that the purported letter (which you haven't researched) is evidence of aliens.

How did you arrive at your belief that the purported letter is genuine without having done any research?

Well, there are the biographical details of Cowgill, the tone and content of the letter and the fact that it was published in SciAm, all suggesting veracity. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Details of Cowgill, who may not have written the letter, the fact that SciAm didn't do fact checking on letters to the editor, the hoaxing tone of the letter and lack of detail, all suggest hoax. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Have you done even the barest bit of research?

You used only the letter itself? Interesting.

Yes indeed, it is, isn’t it.

Telling, also, about your "research" methods.

You've also claimed to have done document analysis on it.

Actually no, I stated that document analysis is a tool that could be utilised in such cases. Obviously I have conducted some minor assessment in that regard, but have never claimed to have conducted a “document analysis”.

Obviously, you have no ability in document analysis and use weasel words to inflate your imagined abilities. I've done some minor assessment of the letter and determined that hoax is plausible, for all the reasons I've already given you that you've ignored.

If you are now admitting that you erred in using the Venezuela case to prove to yourself that UFOs are aliens, you may withdraw the case.

Why did you want to use the Venezuela case to prove your UFOs are aliens then?

Why did you bring up the Venezuela case in your UFOs as aliens thread?

Your reasoning seems to be somewhat confused here. I stated that the case represented something that defies plausible mundane explanation. In that respect it is representative of UFO cases in general. I have also clearly and on many occasions spelt out (in no uncertain terms) that just because something defies plausible mundane explanation, that does not mean we automatically assume it is ET related. I have also contended that while ET may be a plausible explanation for some UFO cases, that does not mean that I believe it is the correct explanation for this or any other UFO case. How you could have missed those repeated and clear statements from me is simply beyond comprehension.

I've demonstrated that ET is not a plausible explanation. How you could have missed that repeated and clear statement from me is simply beyond comprehension. Just because something positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation, doesn't mean that you HOAX is the answer, just that it IS a plausible explanation and ET isn't.

Of course, to you, ET is a plausible explanation.

Yes it is. There is nothing in our knowledge of physics or technology that would rule it out. There is a high probability that earth is not the only life-bearing planet. Many UFO observations display the characteristics of intelligent control and many others also have associated beings. Do you have any evidence or logical argument to suggest it is not a plausible explanation?

The typical creduloid answer. There is nothing in our knowledge that ET has ever visited our planet, no matter how a creduloid tries to shoehorn them in. There is a high probability that the Earth is not the only life-bearing planet but no evidence that others have visited us. What do you think the answer is at Campeche for the intelligent control of the UFOs surrounding the military plane (with trained military observers backed up by FLIR evidence)?

To the rationally minded, it isn't plausible.

That is a mere unfounded assertion (claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).

Indeed it isn't so are you now admitting that ET is not plausible? Well done!

The only definition that you will accept for plausible is "aliens".

Clearly you have either not read my posts or have simply not understood them. There is even ample evidence in my replies to you in this post that you could use to falsify that claim.

Clearly, you have not read your own posts. There is ample evidence in your replies to everyone that what I say is true.

Hoax is, for all the reasons that you have been given.

What”reasons”? As far as I can tell you have provided nothing except the unfounded assertion (and claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence)..

Why did you make that unfounded assertion then? Your selective reading habits seem to be your Achilles heel. Go back and read my posts.

I've used the process of elimination and determined that this case is "mundane".

I've used the process of elimination and determined that it positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation.

Where have you used this process of elimination? I can find no evidence of it. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

On all the cases you've submitted. They've all positively defied plausible non-mundane explanation. I've never been wrong in my analysis. Unless you can point to any case that has been verified to be aliens? No? You've been proven wrong time and time and time again. You get to take the credit for that! Remember all of the fatal flaws in your version of a process of elimination?

Note that when I say "mundane" that I dont' mean mundane, but it is well within our common range of experience and quite ordinary.

Sure, if that is how you wish to define “mundane” then you are perfectly entitled to do so – just so long as you7 use it consistently and clearly indicate if you switch back to the common meaning (including the term in quotation marks is a useful indicator that you are using your “special” meaning – just as I do so for “alien”).

So all of the cases you've present have positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation and are therefore "mundane". Good, we agree.

After hundreds of pages, well past the point where everyone knew your hidden agenda, you finally admitted it yourself.

What “hidden agenda” might that be RoboT? I thought my agenda was clearly and repeatedly stated. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Yes, your own posts. Remember your problems with keeping your story straight?

Kudos for the admission but minus a couple hundred for not admitting it on page one where everyone else had already figured it out.

You mean my stating that: “ UFOs are (literally) unknown – we have no explanation for them.”? Sure, but I did state that contention on page one – in my OP. I am not surprised you missed it though…

No, but nice attempt at one of your favorite fallacies, "strawman". Did you ever look it up in your favorite online reference? Anyway, kudos for finally admitting that you were trying to wedge ET into your UFOs.

What I have figured out though is that you (along with all UFO debunkers) seem to believe that all UFOs can be simply explained as misrepresentations, misperceptions, or hoaxes.

I only wish that YOU would carefully note the replies that you receive and that YOU would produce evidence in support of your unfounded assertions. Nobody is suprised by now that you do not.

Clearly another false assertion. It should be obvious to any rational person that not only am I carefully reading all the replies I get, I go on to provide detailed replies of my own in direct response to them.

Clearly another false assertion. When you are asked for evidence of the veracity of the letter at Venezuela, you quote elements of the letter from Venezuela. When asked where your version of a process of elimination went so badly wrong for you so many times, you stop talking about Delphos.

Well, you are claiming "alien spaceships".

Nowhere have I made that claim. Have you any evidence for your unfounded assertion?

Where you claimed that you had evidence for "aliens" and then brought in UFOs, ostensibly spaceships. Are you now saying that ET is here but not in spaceships? Remember your problem of keeping your story straight?

This is NOT a thread about observations that defy plausible mundane explanation. If it were, all of your cases would be off topic since I've used the process of elimination and determined that they all positively defy plausible non-mundane explanation, leaving only "mundane".

This is a thread about UFOs. It just so happens that a substantial percentage of UFO reports defy plausible mundane explanation. If you have used the process of elimination as you claim to have, then you will be able to present us with the evidence you have done so. Until then …claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Another verifiably false assertion on your part. All of the cases that you've presented have positively defied plausible non-mundane explanation, leaving only "mundane". Otherwise your claims without evidence are dismissed.

Why do you tell these whoppers when the facts are so easily checked?

LOL. Why do you tell these whoppers when the facts are so easily checked?

LOL. See above, many times. Why do you tell these whoppers when the facts are so easily checked?

Why do you think your version of a process of elimination caused you to believe in aliens at Delphos rather than the plausible explanation of HOAX?

I have not claimed ET is the explanation for Delphos and you have not demonstrated that “hoax” is plausible.

What the...? You have simply not understood the discussion. What parts of it do you find confusing? I've really tried to make it as simple as possible. In the meantime, why do you think your version of a process of elimination is so fatally flawed?

Was it your lack of research skills or were you deliberately hiding the information about his other hoaxes?

What “other hoaxes”?

What the...? You really need to pay attention. Go back and read my posts describing the other hoaxes that you either deliberately avoided posting or missed using your version of "research".

 

[SOdhner]

Rramjet, I'm still waiting for you to reply to my post.

 

[Rramjet]

When you state that I am proposing HOAX, your lies are glaringly obvious.

So in that very same post that you quote, why then did you state the following (especially including a capitalisation of the word “hoax”)?

…the letter has never been ascertained to be genuine, we are only left with HOAX.

So in this case, the most likely explanation is HOAX

You cannot have it BOTH ways RoboT. To borrow from your own statements:

…you've been using weasel words to dance around it.

I asked you specifically what evidence you had to support your “hoax” contention and you replied:

You've presented a purported letter which you have done nothing to research to ascertain its veractiy. Your case is woefully inadequate for rational people to take seriously. Creduloids just eat that stuff up, though.

The only conclusion we can draw from that is that you are avoiding the question by attempting to shift the burden of proof. And the only conclusion we can draw from that is that you do not have any supporting evidence or logical argument for your “hoax” contention - and therefore, your “hoax” contention is a mere unfounded assertion and so then it becomes legitimate to state: Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!

Now of course I have presented evidence and logical argument to indicate the letter has veracity – for example the biographical details of Cowgill, the tone and content of the letter and the publication of it in SciAm.

I stated:
“Oh. I think you will find if you actually read the letter it contains a great deal of detail – surprising detail in fact – considering radiation poisoning was completely unknown at the time…”

Well, no. You will actually find that it is woefully lacking in the kind of detail that would be verifiable.

If all the evidence we have suggests the letter has veracity and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise (for if there was I feel certain you would have presented it), then the working hypothesis becomes that the letter has veracity. Therefore we must take the details described within the letter as having (at the very least) been presented by Cowgill as fact (to the best of his knowledge). That is not to say those “facts” will be entirely accurate – indeed, the only part of the letter that is a first hand account is Cowgill’s description of the appearance of the victims in hospital – but the method of injury he could only have gotten from either the victims or the hospital staff (and probably both).

Name of the hospital, exact location of the house.

I have already informed you that such details are probably forever lost in the fog of history (though I will state that I do suspect that at that date there would have only been one hospital in Maracaibo capable of dealing with the injuries - and that we also know the victim’s house was some “several leagues” from that city).

You still haven't looked up "verisimilitude", have you.

I don’t need to - the letter has every appearance of having veracity. Please demonstrate the verisimilitude of your “hoax” contention.

Back to Delphos…

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

Did you deliberately not post websites showing his other hoaxes or did your brand of "research" miss them.

Your question is based on unfounded premises – that the boy was involved in other “hoaxes" and that websites exist demonstrating that. Once again; Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I stated:
“ It is a reasonable assumption to make that if a person reads Scientific American and is interested enough to respond to the presented articles with a well thought out article of his own, which is well enough constructed that it is actually published, then that person can be plausibly be described as scientifically minded. Do you have any evidence or logical argument to suggest otherwise?”

In other words, you made it up out of whole cloth based on your wishful thinking that the purported letter (which you haven't researched) is evidence of aliens.

Not only have you not answered my question and have illegitimately dismissed my argument with the mere wave of the hand - you have also attempted to shift the burden of proof with the proposition of a bald-faced lie. At this point I can see no way of entering into a rational debate with you RoboT - and I am therefore beginning to question the utility of me even replying to your posts.

Details of Cowgill, who may not have written the letter, the fact that SciAm didn't do fact checking on letters to the editor, the hoaxing tone of the letter and lack of detail, all suggest hoax. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Have you done even the barest bit of research?

Now you are simply grasping at straws - proposing wild, fanciful and critically, unfounded assertions, most likely in an attempt to “poison the well” by illegitimately biasing the reader’s mind. I will ask you once again: do you have ANY evidence that the letter was a hoax?

…and of course there is evidence contrary to “hoax”: I have presented evidence and logical argument to indicate the letter has veracity – for example the biographical details of Cowgill, the tone and content of the letter and the publication of his letter in SciAm. Just because you ignore that evidence and argument, does not mean that it does not exist.

Obviously, you have no ability in document analysis and use weasel words to inflate your imagined abilities.

At this point I can only assume that you somehow believe that the mere statement of an unfounded assertion will magically confer veracity on that assertion.

I've done some minor assessment of the letter and determined that hoax is plausible, for all the reasons I've already given you that you've ignored.

I have asked you on numerous occasions to present these “reasons” for your unfounded hoax assertion. You have simply not done so. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I will ask you once again(!): do you have ANY evidence that the letter was a hoax?

I've demonstrated that ET is not a plausible explanation.

I have asked you on numerous occasions to present the evidence for such unfounded assertions – yet you merely reply with a restatement of the unfounded assertion! There seems to be no means of rationally communicating with you RoboT.

I have however stated that the ET hypothesis is a plausible explanation – while being careful to point out that just because it is plausible does not mean it is true or that I personally believe it to be true…

I stated:
“There is nothing in our knowledge of physics or technology that would rule it out. There is a high probability that earth is not the only life-bearing planet. Many UFO observations display the characteristics of intelligent control and many others also have associated beings. Do you have any evidence or logical argument to suggest it is not a plausible explanation?”

There is nothing in our knowledge that ET has ever visited our planet, no matter how a creduloid tries to shoehorn them in.

“Many UFO observations display the characteristics of intelligent control and many others also have associated beings”.

There is a high probability that the Earth is not the only life-bearing planet but no evidence that others have visited us.

“Many UFO observations display the characteristics of intelligent control and many others also have associated beings”.

What do you think the answer is at Campeche for the intelligent control of the UFOs surrounding the military plane (with trained military observers backed up by FLIR evidence)?

How am I to rationally respond to such a grossly misrepresentative characterisation of the Campeche incident? Whenever I outline the facts of the case for you, you simply ignore my statements, wait a couple of posts (or pages) and then simply restate your misrepresentations. For anyone who is actually interested in the details of the case, they may be accessed here:

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

On all the cases you've submitted. They've all positively defied plausible non-mundane explanation. I've never been wrong in my analysis.

LOL. You have never presented your “analysis”!

Unless you can point to any case that has been verified to be aliens?

This is merely a straw man attempt to shift the burden of proof. I have never claimed ET is the explanation for anything. Just because it might seem to be a plausible explanation, does not mean it is the correct explanation – looks can be deceiving.

You've been proven wrong time and time and time again.

That is your opinion (and an unfounded one at that) and you are of course entitled to it – but equally I am entitled to dismiss it on the grounds that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Remember all of the fatal flaws in your version of a process of elimination?

LOL. What I do remember is your seemingly interminable repetition of this (and many other) unfounded assertion(s).

RoboT, I am not going to specifically reply to the rest of your post because it is a mere repetition of all of the above and it seems that no matter what I say - and no matter what evidence or logical argument I present in support of my contentions - you will simply not respond logically. Unfortunately I find there is simply no way of rationally communicating with you RoboT.

Oh …and SOdhner old boy …quite simply I have responded to your post(s). If however you feel there is any matter outstanding that has not already been addressed by me in those responses, then you are perfectly within your rights to put them forward for discussion.

 

[RoboTimbo]

When you state that I am proposing HOAX, your lies are glaringly obvious.

So in that very same post that you quote, why then did you state the following (especially including a capitalisation of the word “hoax”)?

…the letter has never been ascertained to be genuine, we are only left with HOAX.

So in this case, the most likely explanation is HOAX

You cannot have it BOTH ways RoboT. To borrow from your own statements:

…you've been using weasel words to dance around it.

I appreciate you providing more evidence of your lying. I only proposed that HOAX is the most likely explanation, not that it was THE explanation. It's very similar to how you propose ET as a likely explanation while not proposing any explanations. Do not misrepresent what I say again.

I asked you specifically what evidence you had to support your “hoax” contention and you replied:

You've presented a purported letter which you have done nothing to research to ascertain its veractiy. Your case is woefully inadequate for rational people to take seriously. Creduloids just eat that stuff up, though.

The only conclusion we can draw from that is that you are avoiding the question by attempting to shift the burden of proof. And the only conclusion we can draw from that is that you do not have any supporting evidence or logical argument for your “hoax” contention - and therefore, your “hoax” contention is a mere unfounded assertion and so then it becomes legitimate to state: Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!

But I'm not proposing any explanations whatsoever. How can I shift the burden of proof to you when it's always been yours? You are the one using this case to prove your UFOs are aliens. Stop with your other favorite fallacy, shifting the burden of proof and answer the question. Have you done anything at all to ascertain the veracity of the purported letter? The barest bit of research? No?

Now of course I have presented evidence and logical argument to indicate the letter has veracity – for example the biographical details of Cowgill, the tone and content of the letter and the publication of it in SciAm.

I stated:
“Oh. I think you will find if you actually read the letter it contains a great deal of detail – surprising detail in fact – considering radiation poisoning was completely unknown at the time…”

Well, no. You will actually find that it is woefully lacking in the kind of detail that would be verifiable.

If all the evidence we have suggests the letter has veracity and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise (for if there was I feel certain you would have presented it), then the working hypothesis becomes that the letter has veracity. Therefore we must take the details described within the letter as having (at the very least) been presented by Cowgill as fact (to the best of his knowledge). That is not to say those “facts” will be entirely accurate – indeed, the only part of the letter that is a first hand account is Cowgill’s description of the appearance of the victims in hospital – but the method of injury he could only have gotten from either the victims or the hospital staff (and probably both).

If all the evidence we have suggests HOAX and the only thing indicating veractiy is your wishful thinking, then the working hypothesis is that the letter is a HOAX. Note that I'm not proposing HOAX. The lack of critical details, the verisimilitude (let me know if you need an explanation of that), the fact that Scientific American wouldn't check facts on a letter to the editor. Once you have done the barest bit of research and determined that the purported letter is from Cowgill, we can then look at the next bit of it.

Name of the hospital, exact location of the house.

I have already informed you that such details are probably forever lost in the fog of history (though I will state that I do suspect that at that date there would have only been one hospital in Maracaibo capable of dealing with the injuries - and that we also know the victim’s house was some “several leagues” from that city).

Should be easy for you to do the barest bit of research then. Get cracking. Once you have ascertained the veracity of the letter to my satisfaction, we can discuss the next element, if you want to continue with this unverifiable 120 year old purported letter of an anecdote as evidence of your aliens.

You still haven't looked up "verisimilitude", have you.

I don’t need to - the letter has every appearance of having veracity. Please demonstrate the verisimilitude of your “hoax” contention.

You have only to read my posts. I had supposed that since you weren't reading them that you were busy researching the veracity of the purported letter. It appears that my expectations were too lofty.

Back to Delphos…

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

Did you deliberately not post websites showing his other hoaxes or did your brand of "research" miss them.

Your question is based on unfounded premises – that the boy was involved in other “hoaxes" and that websites exist demonstrating that. Once again; Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I stated:
“ It is a reasonable assumption to make that if a person reads Scientific American and is interested enough to respond to the presented articles with a well thought out article of his own, which is well enough constructed that it is actually published, then that person can be plausibly be described as scientifically minded. Do you have any evidence or logical argument to suggest otherwise?”

In other words, you made it up out of whole cloth based on your wishful thinking that the purported letter (which you haven't researched) is evidence of aliens.

Not only have you not answered my question and have illegitimately dismissed my argument with the mere wave of the hand - you have also attempted to shift the burden of proof with the proposition of a bald-faced lie. At this point I can see no way of entering into a rational debate with you RoboT - and I am therefore beginning to question the utility of me even replying to your posts.

No, you're beginning to see the huge gaping holes and fatal flaws in your arguments and realizing that you have no rational rebuttals. Explain the mechanism for the existence of a "wolf girl" that Ron Johnson later clamied to have seen and "psychic powers" that he later claimed to have. Note that a mechanism for his belief (or your belief) in them is not enough.

Details of Cowgill, who may not have written the letter, the fact that SciAm didn't do fact checking on letters to the editor, the hoaxing tone of the letter and lack of detail, all suggest hoax. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Have you done even the barest bit of research?

Now you are simply grasping at straws - proposing wild, fanciful and critically, unfounded assertions, most likely in an attempt to “poison the well” by illegitimately biasing the reader’s mind. I will ask you once again: do you have ANY evidence that the letter was a hoax?

I'm glad to see that this thread has had some utility, you've learned some new phrases. You haven't learned how to use them yet but I am gladdened to see your attempts. Since you are proposing that this purported letter to an editor of a magazine 120 years ago is evidence for your aliens, have you done the barest bit of research at all to ascertain the veracity of the letter? Not to verify that there was a Cowgill, or paper, or ink, or a city named Maracaibo, or the existence of houses, or the existence of a magazine. Do you understand the difference?

…and of course there is evidence contrary to “hoax”: I have presented evidence and logical argument to indicate the letter has veracity – for example the biographical details of Cowgill, the tone and content of the letter and the publication of his letter in SciAm. Just because you ignore that evidence and argument, does not mean that it does not exist.

I guess the answer is no, you don't understand the difference. I've presented evidence and logical argument that the letter could be a HOAX, the use of an official's name, the tone and content of the letter, the fact that it was sent in as a letter to the editor rather than other channels, the lack of verifiable details, the utter lack of any research on the part of anyone who wants to use it as evidence for aliens. Just because you wish that evidence were in the cornfield, doesn't make it go away.

Obviously, you have no ability in document analysis and use weasel words to inflate your imagined abilities.

At this point I can only assume that you somehow believe that the mere statement of an unfounded assertion will magically confer veracity on that assertion.

Well, no. That's why I was trying to show you that your unfounded assertion that you had done any kind of document analysis was dismissed. A bit too subtle, you think?

I've done some minor assessment of the letter and determined that hoax is plausible, for all the reasons I've already given you that you've ignored.

I have asked you on numerous occasions to present these “reasons” for your unfounded hoax assertion. You have simply not done so. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I will ask you once again(!): do you have ANY evidence that the letter was a hoax?

What the...? You are still strawmanning me with your unfounded assertions? Note that I'm not proposing HOAX, but rational argument doesn't seem to work with you. I'm beginning to think that any rational discussion will be impossible with you while you maintaine your UFOs are aliens filter.

I've demonstrated that ET is not a plausible explanation.

I have asked you on numerous occasions to present the evidence for such unfounded assertions – yet you merely reply with a restatement of the unfounded assertion! There seems to be no means of rationally communicating with you RoboT.

I have however stated that the ET hypothesis is a plausible explanation – while being careful to point out that just because it is plausible does not mean it is true or that I personally believe it to be true…

I've heard it said that unfounded assertions can be legitimately dismissed. Until you can rationally explain how ET is a plausible explanation, it will remain in the realm of implausible. In the meantime, I've determined that all of the cases you have presented are "mundane".

I stated:
“There is nothing in our knowledge of physics or technology that would rule it out. There is a high probability that earth is not the only life-bearing planet. Many UFO observations display the characteristics of intelligent control and many others also have associated beings. Do you have any evidence or logical argument to suggest it is not a plausible explanation?”

There is nothing in our knowledge that ET has ever visited our planet, no matter how a creduloid tries to shoehorn them in.

“Many UFO observations display the characteristics of intelligent control and many others also have associated beings”.

There is a high probability that the Earth is not the only life-bearing planet but no evidence that others have visited us.

“Many UFO observations display the characteristics of intelligent control and many others also have associated beings”.

What do you think the answer is at Campeche for the intelligent control of the UFOs surrounding the military plane (with trained military observers backed up by FLIR evidence)?

How am I to rationally respond to such a grossly misrepresentative characterisation of the Campeche incident? Whenever I outline the facts of the case for you, you simply ignore my statements, wait a couple of posts (or pages) and then simply restate your misrepresentations. For anyone who is actually interested in the details of the case, they may be accessed here:

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

On all the cases you've submitted. They've all positively defied plausible non-mundane explanation. I've never been wrong in my analysis.

LOL. You have never presented your “analysis”!

LOL. Neither have you! The difference is that mine has never failed and yours has been provably, repeatedly, extraordinarily, fatally wrong.

Unless you can point to any case that has been verified to be aliens?

This is merely a straw man attempt to shift the burden of proof. I have never claimed ET is the explanation for anything. Just because it might seem to be a plausible explanation, does not mean it is the correct explanation – looks can be deceiving.

Ok, so you don't know the definition of strawman or shifting the burden of proof. You really should acquaint yourself with their definitions since you employ them so much. You have the burden of proof. Accept it. ET is not a plausible explanation until you can show that it is.

You've been proven wrong time and time and time again.

That is your opinion (and an unfounded one at that) and you are of course entitled to it – but equally I am entitled to dismiss it on the grounds that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The facts are that you've been proven wrong time and time and time again. You can't wish that into the cornfield.

Remember all of the fatal flaws in your version of a process of elimination?

LOL. What I do remember is your seemingly interminable repetition of this (and many other) unfounded assertion(s).

LOL. You wish I didn't remember all of the fatal flaws in your version of a process of elimination! You still haven't addressed the concern, despite your hand waving.

RoboT, I am not going to specifically reply to the rest of your post because it is a mere repetition of all of the above and it seems that no matter what I say - and no matter what evidence or logical argument I present in support of my contentions - you will simply not respond logically. Unfortunately I find there is simply no way of rationally communicating with you RoboT.

Quite the contrary. I rebut your "arguments" with sound logic and rational rebuttal. You have yet to overcome those rebuttals. Wishing things into the cornfield and simply repeating them to the point of tedium is not the same thing.

 

[SOdhner]

I have asked you on numerous occasions to present the evidence for such unfounded assertions – yet you merely reply with a restatement of the unfounded assertion!

Remember when we were having this very conversation, and you simply stopped replying? You can always continue that conversation here instead of pretending it didn't happen:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7080806#post7080806

Oh …and SOdhner old boy …quite simply I have responded to your post(s).[/QUOTE]

I've lost count of how many times you've used this tactic. You ignore someone for a while, and then try to reset the conversation by re-posting your position as if none of the points against it had been raised, and then if that doesn't work you pretend you've responded. You haven't, though.

The post is here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7223220#post7223220

I'm still waiting.

 

[Rramjet]

I appreciate you providing more evidence of your lying. I only proposed that HOAX is the most likely explanation, not that it was THE explanation. It's very similar to how you propose ET as a likely explanation while not proposing any explanations. Do not misrepresent what I say again.

You simply misunderstand – I have not put forward ET as an explanation for anything! I have however stated the while it may seem to be a plausible explanation (There is nothing in our knowledge of physics or technology that would rule it out. There is a high probability that earth is not the only life-bearing planet. Many UFO observations display the characteristics of intelligent control and many others also have associated beings), that does not mean it is the explanation, or that I believe it to be the explanation (looks can be deceiving) – and therefore I do not put it forward as an explanation. Rather, all I am contending is that the UFO cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Against that however you have proposed “hoax” as “the most likely explanation”. Then, if you believe it to be the “most likely explanation”, you will have based that conclusion on reasons (that is on evidence or logical argument). All I have asked you to do is present that evidence or reasoning. – otherwise we can simply assume it is a [faith-based belief of yours - a mere unfounded assertion and claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But I'm not proposing any explanations whatsoever…

…the letter has never been ascertained to be genuine, we are only left with HOAX.

So in this case, the most likely explanation is HOAX.

I only proposed that HOAX is the most likely explanation…

You cannot have it BOTH ways RoboT. To borrow from your own statements:

…you've been using weasel words to dance around it.

How can I shift the burden of proof to you when it's always been yours? You are the one using this case to prove your UFOs are aliens.

That statement is a bald faced lie. As I already stated: “Unfortunately I find there is simply no way of rationally communicating with you RoboT".

Stop with your other favorite fallacy, shifting the burden of proof and answer the question.

What “fallacy” might that be? Where have I “shifted” the burden of proof? You keep making these unfounded assertions as if you believed that the mere statement of them will somehow magically confer veracity on them. Tell me RoboT, what part of “Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” do you not understand?

Have you done anything at all to ascertain the veracity of the purported letter? The barest bit of research? No?

To repeat: I have ascertained the biographical details of Cowgill, I have also noted the tone and the content of the letter and also the fact that it was published in SciAm. All these things point toward the letter having veracity. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

If all the evidence we have suggests HOAX…

What evidence? I keep asking you this but you never have any reply to it.

…and the only thing indicating veractiy is your wishful thinking…

Actually, I think you will find that is your wishful thinking! LOL.

…then the working hypothesis is that the letter is a HOAX.

On what evidence or logical argument do you base that conclusion?

The lack of critical details…

What “lack of critical details”? The letter is full to the brim of very specific detail! Just because you wish to ignore those details, does not mean they don’t exist (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG).

…the verisimilitude (let me know if you need an explanation of that)…

If you have evidence or logical argument demonstrating verisimilitude in your “hoax” explanation, then of course you will be able to present it. The very fact that you have not done so, even after repeated calls for you to do so, suggests that you have no such evidence. “Hoax” then becomes a mere unfounded assertion – a faith-based belief of yours – and Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!

…the fact that Scientific American wouldn't check facts on a letter to the editor.

It is implausible to suppose that such a prestigious magazine would not have a fact checking protocol in place for the things it publishes. Of course, if you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, then please do present it – otherwise, Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!

Once you have done the barest bit of research and determined that the purported letter is from Cowgill, we can then look at the next bit of it.

You are claiming that Cowgill did not write the letter? On what evidence do you base that assertion? You have also never demonstrated the slightest interest in the details of the letter – indeed you deny the letter contains any detail – so why should I believe that you will start looking at them now?

Once you have ascertained the veracity of the letter to my satisfaction…

But that is just the point. There is nothing I could say, no evidence I could produce, no logical argument I could present, that would satisfy you RoboT. Nothing. Anything I could produce, you would dismiss out-of-hand with an unfounded assertion. Quite simply, your beliefs are set in concrete, and nothing it seems will shift them.

Remember when we were having this very conversation, and you simply stopped replying? You can always continue that conversation here instead of pretending it didn't happen:

(…)

I'm still waiting.

If you have anything rational to add to the conversation (anything at all), then please feel free to present it. It is a (relatively) free thread, you can put forward your ideas at any time – but at this point in time I feel I must tell you – mere “waiting” will never achieve those ends…

 

[SOdhner]

It is a (relatively) free thread, you can put forward your ideas at any time – but at this point in time I feel I must tell you – mere “waiting” will never achieve those ends…

I already have, you just won't address the points I've raised. There's no need for me to re-post them like you seem to want me to do - they're still there. Go back and reply to the post.

Or admit that you have no answer and that my conclusions are correct. That's fine too. Pretending you've answered me is silly, though.

 

[TjW]

You simply misunderstand – I have not put forward ET as an explanation for anything!

So every followup post you've made in the thread you started is off-topic?
Oh, wait, no. You'll bring up your peculiar use of the word aliens.

It's not a very interesting dance.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I appreciate you providing more evidence of your lying. I only proposed that HOAX is the most likely explanation, not that it was THE explanation. It's very similar to how you propose ET as a likely explanation while not proposing any explanations. Do not misrepresent what I say again.

You simply misunderstand – I have not put forward ET as an explanation for anything! I have however stated the while it may seem to be a plausible explanation (There is nothing in our knowledge of physics or technology that would rule it out. There is a high probability that earth is not the only life-bearing planet. Many UFO observations display the characteristics of intelligent control and many others also have associated beings), that does not mean it is the explanation, or that I believe it to be the explanation (looks can be deceiving) – and therefore I do not put it forward as an explanation. Rather, all I am contending is that the UFO cases I have been presenting defy plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

You've simply not followed the discussion or don't understand it. There has never been compelling evidence for ET to have visited the Earth. At Campeche, the creduloids' Waterloo, UFOs displayed the characteristics of intelligent control. Which planet do you propose they came from? No, you are incorrect again, ET is not a plausible explanation, no matter how much you wish it to be.

Against that however you have proposed “hoax” as “the most likely explanation”. Then, if you believe it to be the “most likely explanation”, you will have based that conclusion on reasons (that is on evidence or logical argument). All I have asked you to do is present that evidence or reasoning. – otherwise we can simply assume it is a [faith-based belief of yours - a mere unfounded assertion and claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

No, you've deliberately misunderstood again. I'm beginning to see that you engage in this pattern of behavior and it is very dishonest. Please don't continue the same behavior.

I'm not proposing any explanations whatever. I only note that plausible non-mundane explanations have been ruled out leaving only "mundane". All of your cases have positively defied plausible non-mundane explanation and the evidence points to hoax, but I'm not proposing it. You continue with your unevidenced faith based belief system in aliens. All I ask is that you provide some evidence for your proposal of aliens.

But I'm not proposing any explanations whatsoever…

…the letter has never been ascertained to be genuine, we are only left with HOAX.

So in this case, the most likely explanation is HOAX.

I only proposed that HOAX is the most likely explanation…

You cannot have it BOTH ways RoboT. To borrow from your own statements:

…you've been using weasel words to dance around it.

Are you saying that you will stop dancing around it with weasel words? Good, maybe we can make some headway.

How can I shift the burden of proof to you when it's always been yours? You are the one using this case to prove your UFOs are aliens.

That statement is a bald faced lie. As I already stated: “Unfortunately I find there is simply no way of rationally communicating with you RoboT".

Do you deny that you have the burden of proof in this thread where you promised evidence for "aliens"? You haven't done it yet so you still have the burden of proof. Your bald faced lie is on display for all to see. Everyone knew you believed in aliens since the first page. You didn't need to wait over 200 pages before throwing the mask off. Since you have presented no evidence for ET, it is simply your beleif system based on an extraordinarily low standard of evidence.

Stop with your other favorite fallacy, shifting the burden of proof and answer the question.

What “fallacy” might that be? Where have I “shifted” the burden of proof? You keep making these unfounded assertions as if you believed that the mere statement of them will somehow magically confer veracity on them. Tell me RoboT, what part of “Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” do you not understand?

The fallacy that was mentioned in the sentence that you were quoting, of course, "shifting the burden of proof". You've begun a thread about evidence for "aliens" and have since thrown off the mask and openly declared your belief in aliens visiting us so you still have the burden of proof. Why do you have such a problem comprehending such a simple concept?

Have you done anything at all to ascertain the veracity of the purported letter? The barest bit of research? No?

To repeat: I have ascertained the biographical details of Cowgill, I have also noted the tone and the content of the letter and also the fact that it was published in SciAm. All these things point toward the letter having veracity. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

Ok, you've proven that you don't understand the difference between ascertaining the veracity of the letter and providing evidence that a particular person who purportedly wrote it existed. You haven't ascertained the veracity of the letter yet. Get cracking. I've noted the hoaxing tone of the letter, the lack of details, the use of a remote person in authority, and SciAm's undoubted lack of fact checking of letters to the editor. You've provided evidence that you haven't done the barest bit of research at all. Your wishful thinking doesn't count.

If all the evidence we have suggests HOAX…

What evidence? I keep asking you this but you never have any reply to it.

And I keep repeating it. You keep ignoring it. Discontinue that behavior also.

…and the only thing indicating veractiy is your wishful thinking…

Actually, I think you will find that is your wishful thinking! LOL.

Acutally, you will find that I've shown it to be your wishful thinking! Again! LOL!

…then the working hypothesis is that the letter is a HOAX.

On what evidence or logical argument do you base that conclusion?

What conclusion? I've only noted that the evidence points towards HOAX. I'm not proposing it. You believe it to be evidence of aliens and yet you've not done the barest bit of research at all!

The lack of critical details…

What “lack of critical details”? The letter is full to the brim of very specific detail! Just because you wish to ignore those details, does not mean they don’t exist (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG).

Where very specifically was the house? What very specifically was the name of the hospital? You haven't done the barest bit of research to ascertain the veracity of the letter at all, have you?

…the verisimilitude (let me know if you need an explanation of that)…

If you have evidence or logical argument demonstrating verisimilitude in your “hoax” explanation, then of course you will be able to present it. The very fact that you have not done so, even after repeated calls for you to do so, suggests that you have no such evidence. “Hoax” then becomes a mere unfounded assertion – a faith-based belief of yours – and Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!

That's why I've dismissed your claim that the purported letter is evidence of aliens. I don't see how rational discourse can continue with you if you simply want to wish evidence into the cornfield.

…the fact that Scientific American wouldn't check facts on a letter to the editor.

It is implausible to suppose that such a prestigious magazine would not have a fact checking protocol in place for the things it publishes. Of course, if you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, then please do present it – otherwise, Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!

Well, no. Your unfounded assertion is dismissed. You've claimed that SciAm had a fact checking procedure in place and yet have provided no evidence to back up your wild assertion. It would be implausible that a magazine would do any fact checking on a letter to the editor, especially 120 years ago. Have you done the barest bit of research at all?

Once you have done the barest bit of research and determined that the purported letter is from Cowgill, we can then look at the next bit of it.

You are claiming that Cowgill did not write the letter? On what evidence do you base that assertion? You have also never demonstrated the slightest interest in the details of the letter – indeed you deny the letter contains any detail – so why should I believe that you will start looking at them now?

Indeed, you will find that it is you who has been ignoring evidence that would upset your belief system in aliens. You've implied that the letter contains an incredible amoun of detail. So what in specific detail is the name of the hospital and where in specfic detail was the house?

Once you have ascertained the veracity of the letter to my satisfaction…

But that is just the point. There is nothing I could say, no evidence I could produce, no logical argument I could present, that would satisfy you RoboT. Nothing. Anything I could produce, you would dismiss out-of-hand with an unfounded assertion. Quite simply, your beliefs are set in concrete, and nothing it seems will shift them.

Well, no. Your unevidenced claims are summarily dismissed. You've done no research at all, you can't answer any concerns about the veracity of the letter because you've failed to do the barest bit of research on it at all. And then you claim that even if you did do any research, I wouldn't accept it. A pity you've never made the attempt.

I won't be held hostage to your low standards of evidence.

 

[Rramjet]

There has never been compelling evidence for ET to have visited the Earth.

That is your opinion, and of course you are entitled to it. However, just because it is your opinion (a mere belief of yours) does not make it a correct opinion. It also constitutes an unfounded assertion. Now you would never propose an unfounded assertion would you RoboT…?

At Campeche, the creduloids' Waterloo, UFOs displayed the characteristics of intelligent control.

You are simply making up false and misleading statements as you go. For those truly interested in the Campeche incident, where some radar UFOs sparked a search by the aircrew for anything to explain those anomalous contacts - and primed for anything that might provide an explanation, they subsequently mistook “oil well fires” for those contacts - then all the relevant information about the case can be found in the following:

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

No, you are incorrect again, ET is not a plausible explanation, no matter how much you wish it to be.

You see, this is your basic problem in a nutshell. I have presented evidence and logical argument to show why the ET hypothesis might be considered plausible (There is nothing in our knowledge of physics or technology that would rule it out. There is a high probability that earth is not the only life-bearing planet. Many UFO observations display the characteristics of intelligent control and many others also have associated beings). Against that you have posited the mere unfounded assertion that it is not a plausible hypothesis. I have asked you before: What part of claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence do you not understand?

I'm beginning to see that you engage in this pattern of behavior and it is very dishonest. Please don't continue the same behavior.

Here again is your problem writ large. When I claimed, in relation to the topic of UFOs, that you merely had a faith-based belief about them – I was basing that contention on the evidence that you have only ever put forward mere unfounded assertions in relation to your beliefs about them. When pressed on the issue to present the rationale, the reasons, the evidence or the logical argument to support your assertions – you never do! Thus it is reasonable to assume your beliefs are faith-based – and no different to any beliefs that are put forward for the support of any religion.

Thus I will continue to call your beliefs out for what they are – and the only way you will ever change that is to begin to present evidence in support of your unfounded assertions (your pleas for mercy just do not cut it with me I am afraid), just like I am going to call out the following statement from you for what it is…

I'm not proposing any explanations whatever.

…A big, fat lie.

…and the evidence in support of that contention? See the following:

…the letter has never been ascertained to be genuine, we are only left with HOAX.

So in this case, the most likely explanation is HOAX.

I only proposed that HOAX is the most likely explanation…

Now given that, demonstrably (that is backed by evidence), all you are doing in this thread is presenting unfounded assertions and lies (and I strongly suspect that is your sole purpose here), I don’t feel it necessary to engage with you any further.

Instead I propose to move on with my agenda – that is to present the research and the evidence for UFOs.

The following is a list of essential reference works for anyone who may be interested in the topic of UFOs – they provide much evidence and research concerning UFOs and commentary on both.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vallee, J. (2008) Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults. Daily Grail Publishing.
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/33478326/Jacques-Vallee-Messengers-of-Deception)
Summary (http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Vallee_06.pdf)

I recommend the above reference works for anyone who is genuinely interested in the subject of UFOs. Together they provide key insights into not only UFOs as unexplained phenomena, but how we arrived at the cultural zeitgeist that we experience today concerning UFO phenomena.

 

[dafydd]

You simply misunderstand – I have not put forward ET as an explanation for anything! I have however stated the while it may seem to be a plausible explanation (There is nothing in our knowledge of physics or technology that would rule it out. There is a high probability that earth is not the only life-bearing planet.

It does not sound plausible to me. The nearest life bearing planet would be far beyond the distance that our electromagnetic signals have reached. We are on a tiny speck in the suburbs of a galaxy. How did these aliens find us?