Evidence, particularly eyewitness testimony, as has been demonstrated in this thread more than once, can be erroneous. You admit that yourself. So when you demand that any explanation be "plausible" in that it fit with the evidence, you are a priori assuming that the evidence is accurate.
How many different ways can a UFO debunker state:
The eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time? For that is
precisely what they contend – and of course when they DO this, they make an
a priori assumption about the accuracy of the evidence!
Of course the UFO debunker will protest:
We have never claimed that the eyewitnesses are wrong 100% of the time. and of course they would be correct – because they never STATE it. But you just try presenting a case to them and the FIRST thing they will tell you is that
eyewitnesses can be mistaken. And they will do this for EVERY case you present – 100% of the time!
…and of course for wollery to contend it is UFO proponents who make the
a priori assumption about eyewitness evidence is to indulge himself in that favourite tactic of the UFO debunker:
to accuse your opponent of the very sin you (yourself) commit!
I am a UFO proponent and I never accept eyewitness testimony at face value (nice for wollery to admit it IS evidence though). Using the results and conclusions of scientific research (both psychological and perceptual) I examine the evidence to determine what factors (if any) are extant in the case that might influence perception - and I make accounting of those factors (if any) where they are apparent (for example the distance estimates at Rogue River). I also examine the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. I agree with wollery on this point, that it would be totally unscientific of me to make any
a priori assessment of the evidence – but then it is not I who do so – it is wollery who makes the assumption!
But sometimes the explanation is that the evidence is wrong.
The
evidence can NEVER be wrong! Evidence is evidence, pure and simple. Even if the witnesses misinterpreted what they saw, their reports REMAIN as
evidence. What they are evidence OF is the open question. Is the report (for example) evidence of
misinterpretation? Is it evidence of a hoax? Is it evidence of a UFO? …and so on. The POINT being that the
evidence itself can NEVER be “wrong”. Our
interpretation of that evidence can be wrong, but not the evidence itself.
Take Campeche. The evidence in that case made oil-well fires a totally implausible explanation. I mean, how can oil-well fires chase and surround a military jet? The explanation was that the witnesses, and the evidence were wrong. On the face of the evidence as presented the explanation that it was oil-well fires is utterly implausible. And yet, you accept that explanation. Why? It fails the test that you, in the above diatribe, demand as a prerequisite for any explanation.
The
evidence in the Campeche case has made the determination of oil-well fires THE MOST
plausible explanation! It IS interesting though that while this
seems to be the most plausible explanation – it does not necessarily mean it is a
valid (credible, truthful, believable) explanation for all of the forward-looking infrared radiometry (FLIR) images OR the initial radar target!
Let us conduct a little analysis of the
evidence in the Campeche case to see how the two factors I mentioned above tie in together.
The FLIR film and the “radar” locks were actually separate events pertaining to separate “objects”. The radar ‘locks” occurred BEFORE the visual sightings (and the flir) was initiated.
I fact the whole thing is not quite as straightforward as the UFO debunkers try to make out. I think it is time we examined the Campeche case in a little more detail to put to rest some of the UFO debunkers misrepresentations (and I have to ask WHY the UFO debunkers have to resort to misrepresentation in EVERY case they describe …what are they afraid of …the truth?)
In summary:
The case began at 4:42pm (March 5, 2004) when an object was spotted on radar about 5 miles ahead of a C-26 Mexican DoD plane over the Yucatan peninsular. The crew thought they had detected a light plane and decided to follow it. They followed for 10 minutes and got to within 2.3 miles of the object, but despite having continual radar contact the crew could not get a visual confirmation. They also could not get a reading on it with the FLIR. Running low on fuel they decided to turn (148 degrees to the right) and head back toward base. The radar target continued on its original heading until the plane was near Cuidad del Carmen when the object disappeared off the radar some 40 miles behind the plane travelling at about 380 mph.
Just before the plane turned away from the object the crew did obtain an FLIR contact, but this was 12 degrees to the right of where the radar target was (dead ahead), so even though the crew later speculated this might have been the target – it probably was not.
The FLIR recorder was turned off during the turn but after the turn it was switched on and the FLIR operator began a search for the object (which was still on radar) and/or the original FLIR contact. An FLIR contact was made, but again not the radar target and it soon disappeared behind a cloud. Soon the operator saw a group of lights in a line, two of which (the “twins”) were so bright they saturated the dynamic range of the FLIR. It soon became apparent that there were as many as 15 lights “accompanying” the “twins”. Soon however they too disappeared behind a cloud. Then a new group of lights (or the same ones) were detected in a different array, this time in two, bright “triplet” arrays. Eventually this second “family” of lights was lost behind a cloud. All these images were at 135 degrees to the left of the plane. The FLIR recorder was turned off for 4 minutes.
When it was turned on again it recorded a very bright light and two “dimmer” lights with no clouds apparent (as before). These lights were at 90 degrees to the left of the plane. Several minutes later only aw single bright light appeared.
“It was viewed through the rotating propeller and went behind a cloud top that was estimated at about 14 miles away. There was also a new radar target, this time ahead of the aircraft. The new radar target was traveling at a “ground speed” of about 60 mph and the plane was catching up with it.” (
http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)
“At 5:19 PM the flir operator turned the flir forward and obtained images of the rising moon when it was only about a degree above the horizontal. These images provided useful data for calibration of the pointing accuracy of the flir system. Over the next several minutes the flir operator searched the sky but found only a few small, bright cloud tops (reflecting the setting sun). Then the flir operator found a very bright light that appeared against a featureless background. This light was detected almost directly behind the aircraft. Its brightness decreased as the plane traveled along. In the meantime the radar target had disappeared at the right side after the airplane caught up with it. (It may have been a moving radar reflector on the ground, such as a truck.) The videotape ends, showing a dim light almost directly behind the plane, at 5:28 PM.” (
http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/)
So …that’s the
evidence in the case – the basic facts. Now the question becomes – how do we
interpret the evidence? Of course it would be interesting to explore how the aircrew interpreted the evidence – but then that would merely constitute their opinion (and their statements can be noted in transcripts in Appendix A of the above cited document) – what actually matters is the
evidence itself.
Even the UFO debunkers claims of “surrounded” is actually a
spurious misrepresentation , as the following section of transcript shows:
17:15:22 Unknown Voice: [Laughing] Fasten your seat belts!
UV: Let's see...
UV: [nervous laughter] Don't scare me.
17:15:26 FO: Can anyone check through the window? We have one going along
at approximately 1 and the rest are still going along at our 9 o’clock
17:15:33 UV: Does that means we are surrounded?
FO: Well... I don't know.
UV: At what distance?
17:15:40 UV:[in a loud voice, as if making an announcement] Boys, today is your lucky day!!
[Laughter]
UV: At what distance?
UV: And that one is getting near to the other one.
UV: Do you mark the distance?
FO: I don’t get distance readings.
17:15:49 RO: Okay, the one that is at 1 o’clock, I have it at 22 mi (19 nm) going at 60 mph (52 kt). (p. 62 - (
http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/))
Finally, it should be quite obvious to anyone interested that the “public” FLIR images tell but a small fraction of the story, even if some limited sections of FLIR recording can be “explained” as lights from oil-well fires (as it seems is
plausible to do), there is still the mysterious radar target to account for and other seemingly “anomalous” FLIR images. The UFO debunkers have latched onto the “oil-well” fires explanation as if that is the whole story and that should be the end of it. This is at least a mistaken conception of the case. However if they have any knowledge of the case at all – and according to their own principles they should have at least apprised themselves of the evidence in the case before discussing it - then the UFO debunker's claims about the case are then a misrepresentation of the case.
So, let's look at the Rogue River case again. What evidence would have to be wrong for the blimp explanation to "fit" the evidence. Well, not much of it actually. It would require that the eyewitnesses misinterpreted the shape of a distant object, that reflection from the Sun at least partially obscured the logo (and let's not forget the photo of a Goodyear blimp that showed the logo partially obscured by reflection of the Sun), and that they failed to hear the noise of the engines, which at a distance and if the wind was from behind them would have been fairly quiet anyway.
1. The eyewitnesses used binoculars, through which they could CLEARLY identify the shape – they even drew detailed pictures of it!
2. Sure there is a picture where a logo is
partially obscured, but it must be remembered that the object manoeuvred, turning through an angle greater than 90 degrees and it is hard to imaging HOW a “reflection” (from a semi-specular object) could obscure the logo, the fins, the gondola, the engines… throughout the entirety of the object’s manoeuvres. In the face of the evidence, yours is an example of an
implausible explanation – and so must be rejected.
3. “Wind” does NOT effect sound! The engines on blimps (especially those of the era) are (and were) particularly noisy beasts. As far as can be ascertained, there was no wind on the day (the witnesses were able to search the river surface for “feeding fish” – indicating that the river surface was not “ruffled” by any wind: It was a “clear” blue-sky day). The strength of wind needed to “blow” sound away is quite substantial.
For example:
“The sound speed, at moderate velocities of wind, is almost constant throughout the flow field. That is, velocities of wind such as 10 m/s does not produce a substantial variation of the speed of sound compared with that in still air. What makes the desired sound more difficult to be heard is the interference with the rest of pressure waves in your ears produced by wind fluctuations as you said in a windy day. Another point is that the sound wave can be carried faster if the wind is faster, because the sound wave is advected by the fluid. But such difference is negligible at ordinary wind velocities because 345m/s>>10m/s. The thing is pretty different at Mach Numbers of order 1 though... (
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive.../t-149392.html)
(see also the discussion here for example (
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=273093)
The bottom line is that because sound moves at 343 m/s any “wind” is going to have a negligible affect on the sound reaching you from a distant object (remember also the object is radiating sound in all directions). If the sound is “shifted” at all by the wind moving the whole airmass – remembering also that
“This downwind refraction effect occurs because there is a wind gradient; the sound is not being carried along by the wind.” (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound), then you simply pick up the sound that is radiated “not-directly” at you from source.
So basically, the wind would have to be above Mach 1 (which after all is the speed of sound) before any substantial “wind” effects become apparent.
And that is why you have to invest so much time and energy "proving" that there were no Navy blimps on the US west coast. Because if there were then there's no logo that needs to be obscured, and the blimp explanation becomes not just possible, but utterly plausible.
But it is YOU (UFO debunkers) who contended the “blimp” hypothesis! I merely presented the historical records to show it could NOT have been a USN/USNR airship. It was an
impossibility for there WERE NO USN/USNR blimps on the WEST COAST at the time!
So that leaves the ONLY contender the Goodyear blimp – and that DOES have a large, colourful logo emblazoned on BOTH sides. Not only that it has engines, fins and a passenger gondola and it is CLEAR from the eyewitness descriptions and their drawings that what they saw was NOT a Goodyear advertising blimp.
As to your charge that an explanation needs to be both possible and plausible in order to be scientific, it just shows, once again, that you lack any real scientific training, or at least you've forgotten what training you did get. Plausibility refers to the appearance of validity as every dictionary entry you provided states. Science should only be concerned with the fact of validity. Appearance is utterly irrelevant in science, as QM amply demonstrates, and in fact, appearance can be extremely deceptive. Science is littered with examples of things that seemed utterly plausible, but turned out to be so far from the truth that they couldn't even be called wrong.
But this is the problem entirely with UFO debunkers. You simply ignore the
evidence - in this case my statements on the matter - as if that evidence NEVER existed. Instead you simply make unfounded assertions in ignorance of the evidence as if merely making the assertion somehow confers truth. Not only that, but the whole paragraph is aimed squarely at
obscuring the evidence and the truth. It twists meaning until there is no meaning left and to show HOW you have done this would take volumes of text to explicate.
For example you state
“As to your charge that an explanation needs to be both possible and plausible in order to be scientific…”
I NEVER claimed that! I claimed that a “mundane” explanation for UFOs MUST have the properties inherent in the meaning of “plausibility”. That is that the explanation must have the
properties of
validity, credibility, truthfulness, believability, etc…. The explanation MUST also be
possible. For you contend that these are properties that should NOT be a prerequisite for any such explanations simply beggars belief.
Then you make the completely unfounded assertion that
“…it just shows, once again, that you lack any real scientific training, or at least you've forgotten what training you did get.”
So the fact that YOU are disingenuous in claiming something that I NEVER did shows that
I am not “scientific”? That is you accuse me of something that is NOT true and then claim that untruth reflects badly on
me?
Then you state:
“Plausibility refers to the appearance of validity as every dictionary entry you provided states. Science should only be concerned with the fact of validity.”
But what does this MEAN? The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
Science is all about the
determination of validity. Validity is a
property of plausibility – but not the
only property (remember
validity, credibility, truthfulness, believability, etc…?) Scientific explanations must ALSO be credible, truthful, believable, etc…
as well as valid - in short they MUST be
plausible explanations.
Then you state:
“Appearance is utterly irrelevant in science”.
But this is a red herring! IF an explanation is to be
plausible then of course it will have the
appearance of
validity, credibility, truthfulness, believability, etc…… if these properties are NOT apparent in a “scientific” explanation, then we would be very worried indeed that the explanation does not represent the truth. However, such properties (as I pointed out) do not
guarantee truthfulness! NOTHING is guaranteed in science. NO “explanation” can be ascertained to be 100% “truth”. There will ALWAYS remain a margin of error. ALWAYS a possibility that we are incorrect – no matter WHAT “scientific explanation” we are providing.
You continue:
“… as QM amply demonstrates, and in fact, appearance can be extremely deceptive.”
What is “QM”?
Appearance can be deceptive… but so what? You are proposing that because we can NEVER be certain in science that we have the “correct” explanation, then we might as well dispense with ANY prerequisites for what we might like to have as properties for our explanations (ie;
validity, credibility, truthfulness, believability, etc…). In essence you are stating that just because science cannot provide guarantees, then we might as well throw THAT out as well – there are plenty of [Iscientific[/I] theories that have proved incorrect – therefore science must be useless! What utter bunk!
You then confirm my assessment:
“Science is littered with examples of things that seemed utterly plausible, but turned out to be so far from the truth that they couldn't even be called wrong.
So you ARE contending that science should be dispensed with! This is antirational woo at its height! Here we have a JREF UFO debunker stating that science is useless because it has got things wrong in the past!
And you want plausibility to be a prerequisite for a search for scientific truth?
This is tautological! In fact your whole argument is tautological. I require scientific explanations to be
plausible explanations. However, that such explanations ARE plausible is STILL no guarantee that they are correct –but to consider that
validity, credibility, truthfulness, believability, etc… has no role to play in science – as YOU want to contend – is just antiscientific, anti-rational rubbish.
Your intention is clear. It is to obscure and confuse the issue. It is to disguise the truth and to hide the facts. In my opinion, in the method of argument you have employed in the above, you are like a despotic dictator who uses democracy to get themselves elected, then uses the conferred power to illegitimately overturn democratic principles all the while claiming a “mandate” for doing so.
