UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Access Denied]

...I had to rule out all aircraft because of the instant acceleration...

Sorry, not buying it…

Had you recorded a full account of this decades ago immediately after it happened I might be interested but given what we know about memories changing over time, the way this is unfolding, and your performance here so far, I don’t see how anyone can be sure you didn’t just make this up as you went along…. not to mention the fact that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable anyway.

 

[GregInAustin]

A meteor can leave a glowing train of suspended particles for many minutes

Really? Every single meteor I've seen in person lasted moments. 5 seconds at the most. Even those giant fireballs that light up the night sky don't last more than 10-15 seconds. (check youtube videos for meteors, and you'll see what I mean.)

I'm interested in ufology's answer regarding the length of time he saw a "glowing trail."

 

[EHocking]

Oh, just another note on the accuracy of your memory from 37 years back and the error in asserting it's infallibility.

Q. Distance and Speed
A.Yes that was answered in a previous post so you must have missed it. It was based on landmarks of discernable distance based on map measurements with a minimal margin of error for all practical purposes.

Let's just check that margin of error with other statements.
In one of your posts here, you claim the object rose 200ft in the air, yet on your website you claim it was 300m, now we have a TOTALLY DIFFERENT HEIGHT.

...The object rose up about two thirds the height of the mountains, stopped, got really bright, and instantly accelerated up the valley north between the mountains,...

Let's see now, turning terrain on in GoogleMaps and looking across the lake from west to the east, we see Four Points Mountain, Mount Tegart and Mt Bryan - coming in at 1870m, 2340m and 2440m respectively.

To give you the benefit of the doubt and to reduce the error margin as much as possible, let's use the height of Four Points Mountain as a guide.

2/3rds of 1870m is 1246m.
ETA: Ack. Let's apply some trigonometry here.
Assume Four Points Mountain is 7.8km distant, then an object at 3km distant that appears to be 2/3 of the way up it would be at about a height of 480m. Still a significant variation in the height estimates from ufology...

So, did this object rise, 300ft, 200m (656ft) or 1246m (4088ft) 480m(1570ft) in the air before zooming off northwards?

And given the 3 different accounts from you on the matter, can we really rely on your assertion that any of your numbers come anwhere near "a minimal margin of error for all practical purposes."?

I admit, the above is not a difficult one to work out...

 

[Agatha]

Following on from EHocking's points about accuracy, on this website you've talked about the figure of eight manoeuvre being performed twice, and on your website you say the infinity symbol was traced four times. Which is correct?

On here, you say that you observed the alleged object three times, and also that you observed it four times. On your website you talk of four different observations at two-hour intervals. Was it three or four?

 

[Agatha]

Really? Every single meteor I've seen in person lasted moments. 5 seconds at the most. Even those giant fireballs that light up the night sky don't last more than 10-15 seconds. (check youtube videos for meteors, and you'll see what I mean.)

I'm interested in ufology's answer regarding the length of time he saw a "glowing trail."

On his website he likens it to the effect of waving a glow-stick in a darkened room. so that would be only a second or so.

 

[Aepervius]

Also you say the object accelerated suddenly , well if i read what you wrote cortrectely at that distance it could have had the same velocity, only coming toward you, then arcing upward, all in a quarter circle. That gives the illusion of the incredible acceleration, but in reality is only an illusion due to angular velocity vector change.

(picture a 1/4 circle instead of straight lines)
                     C 
                      |
                  B /
                 /
      A _____                                                                                      X you

From what I can see a lot of error of perception/distance7height could come in.

 

[Rramjet]

FACTS are something that can not be denied and they require proof. Provide direct quotes from your sources of how to employ your methodology. You claim you have a methodology to determine the reliablity of a UFO report and the witnesses. However, I have yet to see you demonstrate that you can do this using real data.

If you keep misinterpreting/misrepresenting my claims then you will never understand them AstroP.

I claimed that the perceptual and cognitive factors that lead to misinterpretations are well documented and that we can use that knowledge to assess UFO reports for reliability.

I have provide two examples from real cases - Rogue River case size estimates and the Campeche/Mexican DoD psychological priming - to demonstrate how we can use the above mentioned factors to tease information out of those cases that indicate a truth about those cases that is not immediately obvious merely from reading the report.

In the Rogue River case we know that size estimates against a featureless background are not going to be able to be reliably made - as there are no depth cues. Accordingly we note that the various witnesses do report differing sizes. The first thing to note is that means when the witnesses reported the incident, collusion was likely not then a factor (otherwise they would have “got their story straight” before reporting the incident). In multiple eyewitness cases such as this where hoax has been claimed, this then is a point of evidence against the hoax hypothesis. The distance estimates also vary among the witnesses. Now one could say that the variance in distance and size estimates means that the witnesses are not reliable – however because we understand the perceptual factors involved we would positively expect a variance in those estimates between witnesses if they were telling the truth – and we do indeed observe a variance as the perceptual factor predicts we should – the alternate, hoax, predicts that there would be no difference because they would have – as mentioned - got their story straight before reporting. That’s how it works AstroP.

In the Campeche incident we have an example of confirmation bias. The radar was telling them that UFOs were present, so of course unidentified lights seen outside the plane are going to be construed as confirmation of the radar. They had their UFOs. That’s how it works AstroP.

Then there is the margin for error, which you found so important in Kecksburg. What is your potential for error in making a mistake in your analysis of a reports reliability? Surely, a scientist would be able to determine how accurate such a methodology is. If you can't do this, then it is subjective and not objective. It is not a fact, it is your opinion. It allows for personal bias to affect the analysis.

If you have any objection to my assessments above, then you will be able to show by evidence or logical argument that they are somehow flawed.

As for Kecksburg, I merely noted that the calculated trajectory could have been in error in a number of ways that had not been accounted for by the people calculating that trajectory. Once those error factors are accounted for, the author’s could not possibly be certain that their particular trajectory was precisely accurate. They should have stated that there was an error margin around that calculated trajectory – but of course they did not because those error margins were large enough to allow the “Kecksburg trajectory” to also be valid.

If you have an objection to that argument then I am sure you will be able to show by evidence or logical argument how it might be flawed or otherwise in error.

You pointed towards sources but have you really read them? Listing a bunch of books you googled on the web is not the same thing as researching it and providing relevant quotes

That is simply a false statement. I told you that the influential perceptual factors may be found listed in any psychology 101 textbook and that the cognitive heuristics and biases may be found by exploring the works of some particular authors who have published some seminal papers on the topic (namely Kahneman and Tversky). Such is common knowledge AstroP.

Feel free to present your actual source material (direct quotes and not just a listing of books) you claim that supports what you are stating. Otherwise, you appear to be just making it up as you go along.

Type in “principles of perception” into your search engine and similarly type in “heuristics and biases” – and you will find a wealth of information in what is listed as a result.

Once you have done that, you can present case examples of actual UFO events where you can demonstrate if a report is reliable or not. However, it can not be one of the cases you have already presented. Let's try some raw reports and then let you assess the reliability of the reporting witnesses and the report. If your methodology is as good as you claim, you should have no problem identifying the reports that are misperceptions and the ones that are real "UFOs" (aliens/objects unknown to science/whatever you want to call them).

I claim that there are UFO cases which simply defy mundane explanation – nothing more, nothing less.

I have already provided you some examples from real cases to demonstrate the principle behind my claims. I hardly think the principle behind my claims can be questioned. In each case however there will be a different set of factors at play and each case will of course have to be assessed on its own merits.

However, here is a case where UFO debunkers have had a go at using various perceptual and cognitive principles to claim a flock of birds was the answer:

Tremonton, Utah, UFO Colour Film (02 July 1952)
(http://www.nicap.org/utahdir.htm)
Video including the 1950 Montana film
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kwsvnmwks&feature=channel_page)

See some of the debunker analysis here (http://www.nicap.org/utah1.htm) for example where Hartmann uses the principle of the minimum resolution of the eye. Though he does not “quantify” that resolution – that is the principle nevertheless – and that is that while the eye may perceive an object, if the distance/size ratio is of a certain proportion then the resolution of the eye will miss the details – such as wings... and he did not have to “quantify” that principle or ratio for us to understand his argument. Others have suggested against that that the motion of the objects is too uniform for it to have been birds and that there are no irregularities of light and shadow on the objects as they travel - which there would have been if birds wheeling in flight was the answer… so while Hartmann’s argument is valid (as an argument from principle), it does not square with the facts of the case.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I claim that there are UFO cases which simply defy mundane explanation – nothing more, nothing less.

You are simply wrong - nothing more, nothing less. You are wrong to such an extent and so often about it that it continues to showcase your dishonesty.

You've been proven wrong with specific examples (Rogue River, Campeche, your Dismay at Delphos, your Debri^WP Debacle among others). You've never explained how your version of a process of elimination works because it doesn't work.

Using the real process of elimination, I've determined that all of the cases you've presented have positively defied plausible non-mundane explanation leaving only "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane" that doesn't mean mundane but it does mean well within our common range of experience and quite ordinary.

You have proven that you have no ability to eliminate mundane explanations and I have never been shown to be wrong - nothing more, nothing less.

If you feel you have a legitimate refutation to that, you will no doubt be able to provide logical explanations or links.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I claimed that the perceptual and cognitive factors that lead to misinterpretations are well documented and that we can use that knowledge to assess UFO reports for reliability.

Why do you REFUSE to list the supporting documentation that demonstrates HOW you employ these FACTORS in assessing UFO reports for reliability? Anybody can google a bunch of books and list them. I am asking you to give us relevant quotes that support your claim that you can do assess these reports properly (i.e. objectively without bias). Feel free to present your case to demonstrate that you are not simply making this up. Your REFUSAL to do so implies this is not an objective measurement but a subjective measurement that is influenced by your own personal bias/beliefs.

Additionally, choosing Rogue River and Campeche is cherry picking. Try working with raw cases that you are not biased towards and are not sure if they are good UFO reports or not. Additionally, you are not influenced by other UFOlogists and their opinions. That is where you can prove that your methodology works or doesn't work.

Big snip of the usual repeats

 

[R.A.F.]

I claim that there are UFO cases which simply defy mundane explanation – nothing more, nothing less.

Well that's a "safe" claim...unknowns always "defy explanation"....so what.

 

[ufology]

Are we supposed to pretend that you've had a site devoted to ufology since 1989 and yet it's only just now that it's occurred to you to include details of your own Amazing UFO Story on it?

I haven't had the site itself since 1989. 1989 is when I started USI. I had the sighting in 1974. I've only made mention of the sighting in the past on the site, but the smaller details asked for here have not been included. I think they are good questions and that it wouldn't hurt to update my description with some of them. After all they are being asked by skeptics so it could make a good example of the way skeptics probe for explanations.

Are we to further pretend that your now 37-year-old memories of this 'event' are an accurate reconstruction?

Every answer I give is as how it happened. If I wasn't certain, or didn't recall, I'd say so. Everyone has certain things they never forget. Many people can remember certain things from a very young age very clearly. I have brief recollections of things from much younger than that. Is your memory really so bad you don't remember things from your teen years or childhood?

You saw all this through a freaking window??? You've got to be kidding. But of course it never occurred to you to actually go outside?

Not all observations were from inside. Each was of a short duration and not expected. I was pretty comfortable and could see fine where the thing went down without having to stand outside all night. The first three sightings that evening were from inside a dark living room looking through the picture window, with a wall behind us and only three of us home all together on the couch. The fourth sighting happened early in the morning when I had gone outside on the deck to get some air and have a better look for landmarks that would zero me in on the landing site.

I can't wait to hear your 37-years-later explanation of how you eliminated reflections on the window as a possible explanation for this.

I know what window pane reflections look like and there was nothing in the room to cause an inside reflection. Additionally, any reflection, inside or out, on the window, would have to appear in the foreground ... and by that I don't mean that it couldn't appear to be coming from beyond the distance of the window pane, but it couldn't appear to come up from behind the mountain across the lake.

The silhouette of the dark mountain against the starlit sky was visible and the glow the object created as it was coming up from behind brought out the dark silhouette in higher contrast, and when it came over the mountain toward us and descended, you could see it lighting up the tops of the trees on the other side of the lake. No mere window pane reflection will do that. Only a very sophisticated illusion could pull that off, and I think James was probably preoccupied with his pro career at that time.
[/quote]

You saw this from 25 kilometers away?

When I made the comment on the distance of 25Km, it wasn't with specific reference to my sighting alone. It was illustrative of the performance characteristics of these things, whatever they are, and part of the general discussion that led into the issue of my own sighting.

With specific reference to my sighting, I've already said that the distance it traveled from a dead stop in 1 second was actually further, but that I have a hard time accepting the numbers myself, even though I saw it with my own eyes. So for all practical purposes, 25 Km in 1 sec from a dead stop illustrates the point fine, and I've shown using a map of the area that contrary to assertions that I could not have seen that far, There is a clear line of sight at least that far ... and in actual fact, with respect to the flight path of the object ... even further.

A radio-controlled model lighting up details of the surrounding trees such that they were visible from 25 kilometers away is a ridiculous suggestion. Why am I unsurprised that you find it reasonable. Making up this story as you go isn't working out very well for you, is it?

You keep missing that the initial sighting happened directly across the lake from us ( about 3 Km ). At that distance the details are small but visible. Where I live now, I have a view of many miles and can see car lights traveling along the roads at night that are many kilometers away.

The reason that the bits and pieces are coming out as we go is because of how the incident came up in the discussion. I was asked a specific question, and it would not have been appropriate to just slam the whole story down as a reply to that or any other specific question. So far as I am concerned it is "working out" just fine in a question and answer format.

On the radio controlled model issue. It is a better suggestion that outright dismissal. In 1974 there were radio controlled aircraft, but the only reasonable type for the first 3 appearances would had to have been something super high tech for its day, maybe a jet powered military drone. But that doesn't explain the last sighting, nothing anyone has suggested that is either manmade or natural can do that.

j.r.

 

[AdMan]

Every answer I give is as how it happened. If I wasn't certain, or didn't recall, I'd say so. Everyone has certain things they never forget. Many people can remember certain things from a very young age very clearly. I have brief recollections of things from much younger than that. Is your memory really so bad you don't remember things from your teen years or childhood?

You are vastly overestimating the ability of humans to remember events accurately.

See this article for more information, or just Google "fallibility of memory":

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199501/its-magical-its-malleable-its-memory

 

[23_Tauri]

Every answer I give is as how it happened. If I wasn't certain, or didn't recall, I'd say so. Everyone has certain things they never forget. Many people can remember certain things from a very young age very clearly. I have brief recollections of things from much younger than that. Is your memory really so bad you don't remember things from your teen years or childhood?

Forgive me, ufology, but I'm actually going to be slightly stronger than AdMan and say that this statement of yours is utter baloney. No, people do not remember things clearly, not even things they witnessed last week. They might think that they do, but that's something entirely different.

When it comes to events that are unusual and outside of their day-to-day experience (such as your UFO sighting) their re-call is even worse.

Check this page on Witness Perception Issues:
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/eyewit.htm

Even people who are trained to spot anomalies, such as pilots and policemen, are notoriously bad at remembering events. There was a study comparing police officers' recall of a crime with that of laypeople, and the officers were no better at recording key details. I can't remember where I read about this study, does it ring any bells with anyone here?

And it was Philip Klass who said, in his ten principles for investigating UFOs, that "Basically honest and intelligent persons who are suddenly exposed to a brief, unexpected event, especially one that involves an unfamiliar object, may be grossly inaccurate in trying to describe precisely what they have seen."

 

[AdMan]

There was a very interesting talk by Elizabeth Loftus at TAM earlier this month on "Manufacturing Memories". Here is a related article also by her:

Creating False Memories

My own research into memory distortion goes back to the early 1970s, when I began studies of the "misinformation effect." These studies show that when people who witness an event are later exposed to new and misleading information about it, their recollections often become distorted. In one example, participants viewed a simulated automobile accident at an intersection with a stop sign. After the viewing, half the participants received a suggestion that the traffic sign was a yield sign. When asked later what traffic sign they remembered seeing at the intersection, those who had been given the suggestion tended to claim that they had seen a yield sign. Those who had not received the phony information were much more accurate in their recollection of the traffic sign.

My students and I have now conducted more than 200 experiments involving over 20,000 individuals that document how exposure to misinformation induces memory distortion. In these studies, people "recalled" a conspicuous barn in a bucolic scene that contained no buildings at all, broken glass and tape recorders that were not in the scenes they viewed, a white instead of a blue vehicle in a crime scene, and Minnie Mouse when they actually saw Mickey Mouse. Taken together, these studies show that misinformation can change an individual's recollection in predictable and sometimes very powerful ways.

 

[Akhenaten]

Are we supposed to pretend that you've had a site devoted to ufology since 1989 and yet it's only just now that it's occurred to you to include details of your own Amazing UFO Story on it?

I haven't had the site itself since 1989. 1989 is when I started USI. I had the sighting in 1974. I've only made mention of the sighting in the past on the site, but the smaller details asked for here have not been included. I think they are good questions and that it wouldn't hurt to update my description with some of them. After all they are being asked by skeptics so it could make a good example of the way skeptics probe for explanations.

Whenever you first published the story, amending it now to include supposedly just-remembered details is retrofitting.

Pseudoscience at its worst.

Are we to further pretend that your now 37-year-old memories of this 'event' are an accurate reconstruction?

Every answer I give is as how it happened. If I wasn't certain, or didn't recall, I'd say so. Everyone has certain things they never forget. Many people can remember certain things from a very young age very clearly. I have brief recollections of things from much younger than that. Is your memory really so bad you don't remember things from your teen years or childhood?

You've already demonstrated how fallible your own memory is by presenting details of the story that differ significantly from the version on your website. It's quite reasonable to assume that that account may also have varied from the actual events, assuming that there actually were any events.

You saw all this through a freaking window??? You've got to be kidding. But of course it never occurred to you to actually go outside?

Not all observations were from inside. Each was of a short duration and not expected. I was pretty comfortable and could see fine where the thing went down without having to stand outside all night. The first three sightings that evening were from inside a dark living room looking through the picture window. A wall behind us and only three of us home all together on the couch. The fourth sighting happened early in the morning when I had gone outside on the deck to get some air and have a better look for landmarks that would zero me in on the landing site.

Yet more details emerge in the retelling.

I can't wait to hear your 37-years-later explanation of how you eliminated reflections on the window as a possible explanation for this.

I know what window pane reflections look like and there was nothing in the room to cause an inside reflection. Additionally, any reflection, inside or out, on the window, would have to appear in the foreground ... and by that I don't mean that it couldn't appear to be coming from beyond the distance of the window pane, but it couldn't appear to come up from behind the mountain across the lake.

Unless you were sitting in a completely darkened room, there were possible sources of reflections present.

The semi-transparent nature of reflections on the surface of a window makes it very difficult to determine, if one does not immediately realise that they are reflections, whether they are in front of or behind other objects.

The trouble with reflections like these is the same as with other forms of pareidolia, you see something vague and formless and your brain fills in the details, but not necessarily the correct ones.

The silhouette of the dark mountain against the starlit sky was visible and the glow the object created as it was coming up from behind brought out the dark silhouette in higher contrast, and when it came over the mountain toward us and descended, you could se it lighting up the tops of the trees on the other side of the lake. No mere window pane reflection will do that. Only a very sophisticated illusion could pull that off, and I think James was probably preoccupied with his pro career at that time.

Pareidolia can create illusions that the Amazing himself would be proud of - and without any special techniques or apparatus being required.

You saw this from 25 kilometers away?

When I made the comment on the distance of 25Km, it wasn't with specific reference to my sighting alone. It was illustrative of the performance characteristics of these things, whatever they are, and part of the general discussion that led into the issue of my own sighting.

Again the story shifts when confronted with hard questiions.

With specific reference to my sighting, I've already said that the distance it traveled from a dead stop in 1 second was actually further, but that I have a hard time accepting the numbers myself, even though I saw it with my own eyes. So for all practical purposes, 25 Km in 1 sec from a dead stop illustrates the point fine, and I've shown using a map of the area that contrary to assertions that I could not have seen that far, There is a clear line of sight at least that far ... and in actual fact, with respect to the flight path of the object ... even further.

Line of sight notwithstanding, without knowing the size of the object (and that's assuming that it was an object) you have no way of determining things like its speed and distance. You're making those up to fit what you thought you saw.

A radio-controlled model lighting up details of the surrounding trees such that they were visible from 25 kilometers away is a ridiculous suggestion. Why am I unsurprised that you find it reasonable. Making up this story as you go isn't working out very well for you, is it?

You keep missing that the initial sighting happened directly across the lake from us ( about 3 Km ). At that distance the details are small but visible. WHere I live now, I have a view of many miles and can see car lights traveling along the roads at night that are many kilometers away.

It makes no difference if the initial sighting was a metre away. You claimed to be able to see this thing from 25 km away during at least some sightings.

The reason that the bits and pieces are coming out as we go is because of how the incident came up in the discussion. I was asked a specific question, and it would not have been appropriate to just slam the whole story down as a reply to that or any other specific question. So far as I am concerned it is "working out" just fine in a question and answer format.

The reason that the bits and pieces are coming out as we go is because you are making them up as we go and retrofitting them to your campfire story.

On the radio controlled model issue. It is a better suggestion that outright dismissal. In 1974 there were radio controlled aircraft, but the only reasonable type for the first 3 appearances would had to have been something super high tech for its day, maybe a jet powered military drone. But that doesn't explain the last sighting, nothing anyone has suggested that is either manmade or natural can do that.

j.r.

Nobody is engaging in outright dismissal.

What the R/C model is though, is far more plausible than the ET/alien explanation that you'd prefer to believe.

 

[GeeMack]

Nobody is engaging in outright dismissal.

Nope. I'm not dismissing it. I think the whole thing is a lie. Adding more and more details to a story as time goes on is reasonable evidence to support that possibility. And the fact that ufology is a known liar certainly contributes to that explanation. Also the question that he has been most reluctant to address, dealing with it with outright ignorance, is the question about his credibility.

Given everything we've read about the situation so far, there is a single way to explain it that make it all fit together, every single part, and that is ufology's story, all of it, is manufactured from scratch in his head.

How about it, ufology, why shouldn't we just take the whole thing as a lie? And that's the ninth time I've asked nicely.

What the R/C model is though, is far more plausible than the ET/alien explanation that you'd prefer to believe.

And so is the not-a-single-shred-of-honesty explanation.

 

[23_Tauri]

Nope. I'm not dismissing it. I think the whole thing is a lie. Adding more and more details to a story as time goes on is reasonable evidence to support that possibility. And the fact that ufology is a known liar certainly contributes to that explanation. Also the question that he has been most reluctant to address, dealing with it with outright ignorance, is the question about his credibility.

I think he's just mistaken, has atrocious re-call of an event that happened 36 years ago (heck, wouldn't we all?) and has an emotional investment in holding onto his belief system.

Given everything we've read about the situation so far, there is a single way to explain it that make it all fit together, every single part, and that is ufology's story, all of it, is manufactured from scratch in his head.

How about it, ufology, why shouldn't we just take the whole thing as a lie? And that's the ninth time I've asked nicely.

I agree it's manufactured in his head but - and I'm not trying to let ufology off the hook here, after all there are many posters here explaining to him about the problems inherent in accounts of UFO sightings - it's just I don't think ufology actually realises he's making it all up as he goes along.

 

[Audible Click]

I think he's just mistaken, has atrocious re-call of an event that happened 36 years ago (heck, wouldn't we all?) and has an emotional investment in holding onto his belief system.


I agree it's manufactured in his head but - and I'm not trying to let ufology off the hook here, after all there are many posters here explaining to him about the problems inherent in accounts of UFO sightings - it's just I don't think ufology actually realises he's making it all up as he goes along.

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion he's tried just about every trick in the book including deflecting, evading, and telling his story piecemeal all the while changing the details as we go along. When he's adamantly questioned he claims to be persecuted. I believe he started and necromanced UFO threads to try and interest forum members in his UFO club but I don't think it's working out for him. I'm sure you realize that under your scenario, ufology, would be considered not quite sane and I don't believe that for one minute.

 

[23_Tauri]

I respectfully disagree. In my opinion he's tried just about every trick in the book including deflecting, evading, and telling his story piecemeal all the while changing the details as we go along. When he's adamantly questioned he claims to be persecuted. I believe he started and necromanced UFO threads to try and interest forum members in his UFO club but I don't think it's working out for him. I'm sure you realize that under your scenario, ufology, would be considered not quite sane and I don't believe that for one minute.

Maybe being a girl I'm more inclined to think people are being ignorant and deluded rather than out to deliberately con others. But, you may well be right, particularly as we've all been led to go and have a squint at that website. Sigh!

I concede. Even if ufology is just clinging on to ufolian beliefs, then that's no excuse seeing as he's come onto a skeptical website ostensibly to learn about critical thinking and skepticism as applied to ufology, and spent the last - ooh how many weeks is it now? - ducking, diving, moving goalposts and going

I'm a little nervous that this speculation regarding ufology's character might lead to some mod action, so I should really get back on topic.

 

[EHocking]

...Every answer I give is as how it happened. If I wasn't certain, or didn't recall, I'd say so...

... and yet, some of the answers you gave here conflict with each other and the recollection you posted in your CV on your website.

How do you explain the discrepancies I pointed out in post 265 and 268 if, "every answer you give is as how it happened", and "if you weren't certain, or didn't recall, you'd say so"?