UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

I stated:
“ What, a plausible non-mundane explanation? You may have missed it, but I am proposing no explanations whatsoever.”

You said that you eliminated all plausible mundane explanations. If anyone suggests that you haven't, you insist that they tell you specifically which one you missed.

Letting the falsehood of your first sentence pass, is it not reasonable to ask that if anyone does have (or can think of) any plausible mundane explanations for the cases I have been presenting, that they do so before accusing me of not being able to rule out all plausible mundane explanations? If they no-one can do so, is it not reasonable to consider that to be at least circumstantial evidence suggesting I might indeed have ruled them out?

I've used the process of elimination to show that all of your cases positively defy plausible non-mundane explanations.

He said he eliminated all plausible non-mundane explanations. Unless you want to be a hypocrite, you would have to either agree with him or say specifically which one he missed.

First, RoboT said he did, but he has provided no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.

So, your dishonest accusation rings hollow. If you are accusing me of not being able to rule out plausible non-mundane explanations, then you only need to propose any plausible non-mundane explanation and we'll examine it based on the evidence. As you have stated however:

"I am proposing no explanations whatsoever."​

Second, why would I be a hypocrite if his claim is false?

Because your claim is false. Do you see the subtlety of his argument?

Third, even if his claim was true, I have indicated that ET is a plausible non-mundane explanation. Of course that does not mean it is a correct explanation - or even that I believe it to be a correct explanation – just the simple fact that it is a plausible non-mundane explanation.

So you are using weasel words to sneak in your ET explanation while not proposing any explanation whatsoever? ET is not a plausible explanation.

When any plausible (mundane or non-mundane) explanation is proposed for any of the cases I have been presenting, then the merits of those explanations can be debated. However, just because something may be plausible does not make it true – all it does is make it a plausible candidate hypothesis – the merits of which can then be debated.

ET is not plausible. "Mundane" is plausible. Note that when I say "mundane" that I don't mean mundane, but it does mean perfectly ordinary and well within our common range of experience. Or unknown.

So now that your claims are dismissed and we see that your "process of elimination" failed to properly eliminate all plausible mundane explanations in this case I assume you'll be acknowledging this and removing it from your list of cases?

To demonstrate that the process of elimination has failed in the cases I have been presenting you must provide evidence (or logical argument) that it has done so. Of course the simplest way of providing evidence is to cite a plausible mundane explanation for any of the cases – an explanation that could plausibly explain the case (and by plausible I don’t only mean it must be possible, I also mean it must fit with the evidence in the case). You have not done so, therefore we can dismiss your claims of a failure of the process of elimination in this regard as unfounded.

Well, no. You simply try to wish them into the cornfield. For Venezuela, hoax is a plausible explanation. For Campeche, oil well fires are a plausible explanation. For Delphos, hoax is a plausible explanation. For Rogue River, blimp is a plausible explanation. Do you see how ET is not a plausible explanation for any of those? Therefore, your hypothesis of ET that you are proposing and yet not proposing any explanation whatsoever is not plausible.

It was a letter to the editor. Those aren't generally fact-checked.

Are they not? Provide evidence for that assertion or we can dismiss it. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well, no. You are claiming it's ET, you provide evidence that it's ET. Or "aliens", take your pick of proposals that you aren't proposing.

Second, this would have been enormously difficult to fact check at the time. People didn't even have telephones! How would they have even fact-checked it?

Really? What about sending a letter asking for corroborating detail (the name of the hospital, the doctors he spoke to, the medical records, etc). Simple …really.

Exactly! Now you just need to provide evidence that they did so! Good show!

So it's your position that writing a letter that contains inaccurate information is as unlikely as the idea that I'm just a brain in a vat? That doesn't even make sense.

No, I was merely pointing out that a mere possibility does not equate to likely or even plausible.

You are simply using your belief system filter. If the explanation isn't "aliens" then you don't want it to be plausible.

I can go write a letter right now that contains inaccurate information.

Given the evidence of your posts, I am sure that you could write such a letter. Perhaps even you should write a factually inaccurate “hoax” letter - and let’s see if you can get it published in SciAm. If you can, then I will publically retract my statements in this regard.

However, he doesn't write inaccurate posts. Shouldn't you be getting busy doing your due diligence in researching the case to show that the purported letter is genuine? What have you done so far?

…different TYPES and DOSAGES of radiation present differently. So for you to say it matches but (sic) them…

You asked:
“ Tell me, Rramjet - what specific TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation do you think matches these symptoms?”

I replied:
“ I have no idea. I am merely noting that the general symptomatology matches that of radiation poisoning (immediate symptoms matching those of radiation poisoning – a latency period, matching that of radiation poisoning – the subsequent appearance of major symptoms, matching those of radiation poisoning). This is a startling parallel especially considering radiation that could cause such symptomatology was undiscovered and completely unknown at the time.”

If you had read just a little more carefully you might have noted that I stated that I had no idea what type and dose matches the symptoms – I merely noted that the symptomatology in the case matches that of radiation poisoning – and that is an undeniable, objective fact.

You seem to expound the most about the things you know the least about. Your unknowns become "aliens", your lack of knowledge of radiation becomes your knowledge of radiation injuries. I suggest leaving such things to the people who actually know about them.

You made the claim that you've somehow eliminated this as a plausible explanation. So the burden of proof is on you. Do you have any evidence? Any at all?

The evidence that I have eliminated all plausible mundane explanations is presented in my discussions of the various cases I have presented as well as the evidence and analysis contained within other researcher's reports that I have linked to within those discussions. It would of course be quite simple for you to prove me wrong – all you have to do is present a plausible mundane explanation… any single one would prove me wrong…

That evidence that you are referring to has proven you wrong. Remember your Debri^WP Debacle, the blimp at Rogue River, your fatal flaws at Campeche, and your latest and greatest Dismay at Delphos? When will you acknowledge your blunders with your version of a process of elimination?

Nobody is saying that the letter has been proven to be a hoax or otherwise factually inaccurate. We just said that it's plausible. Suggesting that our position is anything else is presenting a straw man.

No, your hypothesis is that the letter is a hoax. I have however presented circumstantial evidence that speaks to the letter’s veracity. What have you got in the way of evidence that indicates a hoax?

So, still getting your straw wholesale then? Your hypothesis is that the letter shows that ET landed in Venezuela and yet you've provided absolutely no evidence for that. Circumstantial evidence has been presented that the purported letter is a hoax. Since ET is not plausible, what evidence is there for ET being the answer that you have proposed?

I stated:
“I think you should investigate the “All crows are black” fallacy.

I've never seen a list of fallacies that includes anything by that name.

I asked you to investigate… not to rely on a probably faulty memory (as all of us have) or your obviously limited knowledge (because it is a recognised fallacy) to provide an answer... (Hint: type into your search engine “all crows are black fallacy”…)

You should have been busy during this time with the homework I gave you. You were to look up Strawman fallacy and Switching the Burden of Proof, two of your favorite fallacies that you use with the most frequency.

Let us know when you've done your due diligence in ascertaining that the purported letter from Venezuela is genuine.

 

[SOdhner]

Letting the falsehood of your first sentence pass,

Oh, let's not. Are you suggesting that you have NOT eliminated all plausible mundane explanations?

First, RoboT said he did, but he has provided no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.

He's presented as much evidence as you have. And unlike you, he hasn't been shown to be wrong.

I have indicated that ET is a plausible non-mundane explanation.

Hey, remember this?

I have NEVER contended ET was a plausible explanatory hypothesis.

But anyway, if you'd like to continue our discussion of whether or not ET visitation is remotely plausible (spoiler alert: it's not) you can pick up on my last post on the subject which you never responded to: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7080806#post7080806

Of course that does not mean it is a correct explanation - or even that I believe it to be a correct explanation – just the simple fact that it is a plausible non-mundane explanation.

Are you suggesting that it is more plausible than the letter being factually inaccurate? If not, it's off-topic and we can drop it. If so, what are you basing that on?

To demonstrate that the process of elimination has failed in the cases I have been presenting you must provide evidence (or logical argument) that it has done so. Of course the simplest way of providing evidence is to cite a plausible mundane explanation for any of the cases – an explanation that could plausibly explain the case (and by plausible I don’t only mean it must be possible, I also mean it must fit with the evidence in the case).

Ah! Well, no problem. What about the letter being factually inaccurate? That's plausible, and would fit with what we know. Done!

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Okay, then present evidence for your outlandish claim that Scientific American went to all the trouble of fact-checking an anecdote in a letter. Keep in mind that according to the sources you provided, the issue in question was published just one month after the letter was written. That means the letter got there, worked its way through whoever reads them and was typeset in time to get published. Now, within that time, you are suggesting that... what? They couldn't send letters to random hospitals in Venezuela asking for medical records of nameless characters in an anecdote, right? So surely they... what? Did they send a journalist to Venezuela in person? Did they rely on Cowgill to verify his own information (I would love to see that letter: "Are you sure?" Love, SciAm.)? You've got probably less than two weeks for this fact checking to take place. In Venezuela. In 1886. For a lousy letter, not an actual article.

But go ahead, present your evidence. I'm sure it will be well-researched and persuasive.

No, I was merely pointing out that a mere possibility does not equate to likely or even plausible.

Why is it not plausible? What explanation is more plausible? If you can't suggest one that is MORE plausible, then it's reasonable to say that this is the most plausible explanation. Right? Do you have one that is MORE plausible?

If you had read just a little more carefully you might have noted that I stated that I had no idea what type and dose matches the symptoms – I merely noted that the symptomatology in the case matches that of radiation poisoning – and that is an undeniable, objective fact.

As I said, that's absurd. Since different TYPES and DOSAGES of radiation present with different symptoms, it makes no sense for you to say it "matches" if you don't even know WHAT it is that it matches. You're making an unfounded assertion, Rramjet. All you would have to do is take the time to do a little research and find out if these symptoms match any specific TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation.

The evidence that I have eliminated all plausible mundane explanations is presented in my

Wait, wait, wait.

You said that you eliminated all plausible mundane explanations.

Letting the falsehood of your first sentence pass,

... I have eliminated all plausible mundane explanations ...

Within a single post, again.

No, your hypothesis is that the letter is a hoax.

Are you arguing with yourself now?

I'll make this easy. Unless you can suggest an explanation that is MORE PLAUSIBLE than the letter being factually inaccurate, then by definition that's the most plausible explanation we have. Can you suggest a more plausible explanation?

I asked you to investigate… not to rely on a probably faulty memory (as all of us have) or your obviously limited knowledge (because it is a recognised fallacy) to provide an answer... (Hint: type into your search engine “all crows are black fallacy”…)

Okay, I typed that into Google. No results showing a fallacy called "all crows are black", although one page did use it as an example of a hasty generalization (just like I remembered!). Do you have a point, Rramjet?

As RoboTimbo said, let us know when you've done your due diligence in ascertaining that the purported letter from Venezuela is genuine.

 

[Rramjet]

In light of recent statements from RoboT (and others), I think it becomes necessary for me to take a moment to clarify my position.

First: I am proposing that the UFO cases I am presenting defy plausible mundane explanation. That is that the characteristics of the UFOs in question cannot be explained using current knowledge of the natural or technological world. The characteristics of the UFOs in question are therefore foreign (alien) to our understanding in that regard.

Second: I am proposing no explanation whatsoever for the UFO cases I am presenting. Their cause (or causes) is (are) truly unknown.

Third: I am proposing that the UFO phenomenon will have multiple explanations and should therefore be considered to be the product of multiple phenomena, rather than as a single phenomenon.

Fourth: I am proposing that ET is a plausible explanation for some (but not all) UFOs. That does not mean that ET is a correct explanation, or that I believe it to be a correct explanation. It is merely an acknowledgement of its plausibility as an explanation. The merits of it as an explanation can be legitimately debated.

Finally: I am proposing that there is a conspiracy to deny public knowledge of UFO cases through various government, organisational and individuals, using such means as ridicule and denial, misrepresentation, obfuscation and outright lies.

Now, in regard to the specific cases mentioned in recent posts (in date order):

A Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
(http://genforum.genealogy.com/cowgill/messages/342.html)
(http://genforum.genealogy.com/cowgill/messages/348.html)

In this case I have presented circumstantial evidence indicating the veracity of the letter. First there is the letter write himself – a USN trained career diplomat – someone whose public standing would potentially be ruined by the exposure of a lie – and clearly given access to SciAm in Venezuela – if he wanted top perpetrate a hoax , he must have considered his exposure would have been almost certain.

Second, there is the fact that the letter was published in SciAm. It is simply implausible to imagine a magazine of such high reputation (even in 1886) would not have a fact checking protocol in place for anything it might publish.

Finally there is the letter itself. The style, the tone, the concise conveying of facts without emotional embellishment, the close description of the symptomatology of radiation injuries when radiation was completely unknown at the time – all point to the letter having veracity.

Now while that circumstantial evidence cannot positively rule out a hoax, it does provide evidence in favour of the letter’s veracity. On the other hand, those who claim a hoax in this case have no evidence for that claim whatsoever - apart from the mere fact that it is possible for a hoax to have been perpetrated. In that regard there is no evidence to suggest that a hoax is likely or even plausible in this case.

Considering the claims of a parallel with radiation injury we may simply note the both environmental factors and the symptomatology of the victims. There was the bright light without heat accompanied by a humming sound that precipitated no property damage. There were the immediate symptoms (vomiting, skin injury), followed by a latency period of some days (where the victims clearly considered their injuries were not sufficient to seek medical help), followed by the emergence of more serious injury (virulent sores, hair loss) whereupon the victims clearly did seek medical assistance. Anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of radiation injury will recognise a specific parallel with the victims symptomatology and that of radiation injury.

There are of course questions about what type and dose of radiation could have caused the injuries – but in that we have no certain or clear answer. Clearly we have the symptomatology of radiation poisoning, yet the type and dose cannot be defined. In that respect the case simply defies plausible mundane explanation!

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

Five witnesses, on a clear day with the sun low at their backs, in near perfect viewing conditions (two with the aid of binoculars) described a circular object (like a coin of pancake), some 35 feet in diameter, with no protuberances apart from a small fin on the upper surface, making no sound, appear first coming toward them, then turning across their field of vision, to disappear at an angle away from them at the speed of a jet plane.

Nothing about that sighting resembles a blimp in any way, shape or form. Blimps are large, cylindrical and noisy beasts with lots of protuberances - and which most certainly cannot travel at jet speeds. Moreover, the only candidate blimps, GoodYear, had large, clear and deliberately conspicuous advertising logos along both flanks. It must also be considered that the historical evidence suggests that no blimp was anywhere near the area at the time.

Once again, the sighting simply defies plausible mundane explanation.

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)

In this case a sixteen-year old boy witnessed a metallic, mushroom shaped UFO with multicoloured lights and making a sound like an “old washing machine” land within 75 feet from him. The boy estimated it’s size as between 6-8 feet. As the UFO took off, he ran to his family house to alert them and his parents were in time to observe the UFO as a bright object, now as “big as a full moon” high in the sky.

The boy and his parents went to the landing site where they observed a “glowing ring” on the ground and also some glowing material on the nearby trees. The ring subsequently stayed dry even after rain and snowfalls.

Investigators later examined the ring and conducted soil analyses. Its unusual hydrophilic properties and composition when compared with the surrounding soil were noted.

An independent witness observed and reported a UFO in the area at around the same time.

Subsequently the boy, clearly traumatised, developed nightmares and later would go on to claim he had separately sighted a “wolf-girl” in the area and to have developed some (unspecified) psychic powers.

The UFO debunkers, despite the physical trace evidence and the independent witnesses, claim this case is a hoax. Of course they offer no evidence for this claim. However, the UFO debunkers must not only offer evidence in support of their claims in this regard, they must also clearly state why this case should be regarded as a hoax over and above any other UFO case. That is the mere possibility that any UFO case could be a hoax does not mean that in this case is likely or even plausible to have been so - Why call “hoax” on this case specifically, when it is possible to do so in any case?

STS-74 Atlantis (Launch 12 Nov 1995)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related @ 6:17)

Here we have a case of some debris behaving unusually. The trajectory of the object in question seems difficult to explain in mundane terms. Suggestions such as motivation from the shuttles thrusters, the perspective from which it is being viewed, that it is in fact a distant satellite, etc, all seem difficult to actually reconcile with the object’s trajectory. That is not to say the object is not merely a piece of “space junk” that an application of a combination of factors results in the observed trajectory – it is just that no-one has yet provided the mathematical model or the logical sequence of events that must have occurred to demonstrate that possibility.

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

In this case we have series of unusual radar events that precede and follow the FLIR video “sighting” (see the report and video linked above). It is entirely plausible for the FLIR to be explained by “oil-well lights” over the open ocean - and it is also easy to see how the crew of the airplane, primed by the anomalous radar contacts to look for anything to explain those contacts, could mistake the oil-well fires for the UFOs they were looking for. What has not been explained is the anomalous radar contacts themselves – which of course remain to defy plausible mundane explanation.

It is also interesting, that having now brought the case to our attention, the UFO debunkers completely ignore those anomalous radar contacts!

It must be noted that this latter case is not a case I have actually presented in support of my hypothesis. It was in fact introduced by the UFO debunkers themselves, ostensibly in order to demonstrate that a “qualified” flight crew could make mistakes in observation (thus seemingly weakening the credentials of all so called qualified observers). However, in this case, it can clearly be seen that there existed a specific set of circumstances where a mistaken observation was (potentially – because it is by no means certain that oil-well fires is the explanation for the FLIR) made. In other cases other circumstances prevail and one cannot simply use this case to denigrate all “qualified observer” cases where different circumstances and viewing conditions might prevail.

Now that I have clarified my position I invite anyone to (rationally) comment or to provide evidence for any of the opposing claims to my own that have been put forward - or to provide plausible mundane explanations for any of the cases I have put forward in this thread.

 

[wollery]

In reference to the Battelle Study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf):

First you need to look at the definition of unknown. Simply put, it means that they couldn't think of a mundane explanation that fit the observations.

Almost – there were two parts to the Battelle scientist’s conceptualisation of UFOs. First:

“…the term "flying saucers" shall be used hereafter in this report to mean a novel, airborne phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily explainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by the Free World.” (p.1)​

Second, “UNKNOWN” was defined as:

”This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.” (p.12)​

Now obviously the scientists involved in the assessment of the UFO reports would have used a process of elimination to do so (Did it have wings? No, so obviously not an airplane. Did it manoeuvre? Yes, so obviously not a meteor. Did it travel at a substantial speed. Yes, so obviously not a balloon, radar kite, etc. Did it make any noise? No, so obviously not a helicopter. Etc and so on). Now I understand RoboT has done his very best to poison people’s minds against the process of elimination as a scientific tool. However, despite this, it must be noted that such a process is a powerful and logical process - without which science would simply not be possible. That is, the process of elimination is one of the most foundational elements of science and logic itself - and to denigrate or attempt to cast doubt about its legitimacy as a useful and powerful tool actually represents an attack on science and logic itself!

” I would like to point out that elimination is indeed a basic component of doing science thus in that context ID does not contribute to scientific inquiry. But unlike ID, science does not use elimination to conclude the validity of a certain hypothesis but rather the invalidity of one. Science then goes on to propose another hypothesis which will have to withstand the attempts at disprove. When evidence supporting the hypothesis strengthen, so does the hypothesis.” (http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000188.html)​

” Elimination of potential hypotheses is a fundamental component of many learning processes. In order to understand the nature of elimination, herein we study the following model of learning recursive functions from examples.” (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=637320)​

” The other great contribution to the history of the philosophy of science made by Mill is the Laws of Agreement, also known as Mill’s Methods, used to determine a causal effect in any relationship, by a process of elimination.” (http://www.experiment-resources.com/history-of-the-philosophy-of-science.html)​

”Induction. From The Oxford English Dictionary (OED); to induce (in relation to science and logic) means “to derive by reasoning, to lead to something as a conclusion, or inference, to suggest or imply,” and induction “as the process of inferring a general law or principle from observation of particular instances.” Another version is the “adducing (pulling together) of a number of separate facts, particulars, etc. especially for the purpose of proving a general statement.”

My 1967 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (E. Brit.) gives two versions by John Stuart Mill: “the operation of discovering and proving general propositions” or “that operation of the mind by which we infer that what we know to be true in a particular case or cases will be true in all cases that resemble the former in certain assignable respects.”

A paraphrase of Francis Bacon’s view (also from the E. Brit.) is “a selective process of elimination among a number of alternative possibilities.” The E. Brit. in a separate entry defines primary induction as “the deliberate attempt to find more laws about the behavior of the thing that we can observe and so to draw the boundaries of natural possibility more narrowly” (that is, to look for a generalization about what we can observe), and secondary induction as “the attempt to incorporate the results of primary induction in an explanatory theory covering a large field of enquiry” (that is, to try to fit the generalization made by primary induction into a more comprehensive theory).[/I]” (bolding added. Rr) (http://www.ssr.org/Induction.shtml)​

One could of course go on providing quotes to show how fundamental and essential the process of elimination is to science, but I think the above should suffice.

In other words, it means that they couldn't think of a mundane explanation that fit the observations.

Unless you are suggesting that they could think of a mundane explanation, which would be a thoroughly baffling thing for you to say.

There are several problems with this. First is the obvious, just because the assessors couldn't think of a mundane explanation doesn't mean that there isn't one.

So when you state (wollery) that the scientists simply “couldn’t think of a mundane explanation” you are implying that the scientists involved were somehow limited by their own imagination rather than having the ability to bring to bear the logical, iterative (and powerful) process of elimination using the knowledge of the “Free World”. In effect then, you are belittling the ability of the scientists involved to conduct science – and that is clearly not a sustainable position to take.

No, I'm suggesting that even the best scientists have limited knowledge. Read the quote from the report again, even they acknowledge (albeit subtly) that they're working from a limited knowledge base. To assume that you know everything that's known is arrogant in the extreme.

Second, it assumes that the observations are accurate, and as we've seen (Campeche), even normally reliable, well trained observers can get it badly wrong.

The observations (the reports) investigated were rated as to their reliability on a number of criteria.

”Ratings were assigned on the basis of the following factors of information, considered in relation to one another:
(1) The experience of the observer, deduced from his occupation, age, and training;
(2) The consistency among the separate portions of the description of the sighting;
(3) The general quality and completeness of the report;
(4) Consideration of the observer' s fact-reporting ability and attitude, as disclosed by his manner of describing the sighting.” (p.11)​

Now while it is obvious that this (as you point out) provides no absolute guarantee, an interesting finding of the Battelle report must be noted in this regard. That is, the more reliable the report, the greater the likelihood of it being classified as “UNKNOWN” (p. 24) Of course you (or anyone) can point to individual cases where ostensibly reliable observers “got it wrong”, but what matters here is the overall pattern in the data gathered over thousands of reports – and this simply shows that the more reliable the report, the more likely it was to be classified as UNKNOWN.

In your conceptualisation you fall foul of the “All crows are black” fallacy. In other words, you point to a single black crow and conclude from that all crows are black! That, I must inform you, is a logical fallacy. As with all scientific conclusions, one simply cannot draw sound conclusions from a single case, one needs many cases in order to understand the true picture of what is occurring.

No, I commit no such fallacy, I simply note that observations and reports can be in error, and to make the assumption that they are 100% accurate is unwarranted, just as much as the assumption that they are 100% wrong. I don't say that they are wrong or right, merely that they are prone to error and should therefore be treated with due caution.

Third, how do you determine when there is sufficient information to have a reasonable chance of identification? It seems to me that a trained observer would be more likely to include perceived details, even where those details are wrong, and also phrase their observations in more certain terms, thus giving the illusion of more information where it doesn't exist. For this reason we might expect to see more 'unknown' reports from more reliable observers, simply because they include more information, even when they're wrong or uncertain. It's just a selection effect, and can be seen quite well in the graph on page 24 of the report, where the 'poor' and 'doubtful' reliability categories contain a much larger proportion of reports with insufficient information. Poor observers also tend to be poor reporters.

This is in fact a mere extension of your argument above and it was considered by the Battelle scientists:

”INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - This identification category was assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon. It is emphasized that this category of identification was not used as a convenient way to dispose of what might be called "poor unknowns", but as a category for reports that, perhaps, could have been one of several known objects or natural phenomena. No reports identified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION contain authenticated facts or impressions concerning the sighting that would prevent its being identified as a known object or phenomenon.” (p.12)​

In other words it was not simply about the quantity of information available – as your argument contends – rather it was about a combination of reliability and information content that was the determinant of categories. That is (for example) “Poor” reports (in terms of reliability) could still contain enough information content to allow a KNOWN categorisation and “Excellent” (again in terms or reliability) reports could also be classified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION. Thus it was the combination of reliability and information content that allowed an assessment and categorisation of the reports, not the mere quantity of information (as you erroneously contend).

Read what I said again. Here, I'll repeat it with the relevant bits highlighted.

Third, how do you determine when there is sufficient information to have a reasonable chance of identification? It seems to me that a trained observer would be more likely to include perceived details, even where those details are wrong, and also phrase their observations in more certain terms, thus giving the illusion of more information where it doesn't exist. For this reason we might expect to see more 'unknown' reports from more reliable observers, simply because they include more information, even when they're wrong or uncertain. It's just a selection effect, and can be seen quite well in the graph on page 24 of the report, where the 'poor' and 'doubtful' reliability categories contain a much larger proportion of reports with insufficient information. Poor observers also tend to be poor reporters.

As you say, it's not just the volume of information, but also the style of language and quality of information. I included those in my argument.

I stated:
“You also do not rule out the possibility of non-mundane explanations for some cases.”

Of course not, it would be unscientific, an unwarranted assumption, and simply bloody stupid to rule out possibilities where the cause is completely unknown.

Despite you glib and somewhat testy reply, this is an important point. Once a UFO report has been determined to be “UNKNOWN” (or as defying plausible mundane explanation) we are then free to generate alternate explanatory hypotheses. ET happens to be one of those alternate hypotheses. ET is also a plausible alternate hypothesis because there is nothing in our knowledge of physics and the natural world that would preclude it as a potentially correct hypothesis. That is not to say it is a correct hypothesis, just that we cannot rule it out. We also cannot rule out potential mundane explanations that are unknown to us - and the Brown Mountain lights case is an excellent example. In that case literally hundreds of years of observational data was “discounted”, ridiculed and denied by the debunkers – until it was determined that the “lights” were some form of geologically generated plasma. While the mechanism of such plasma generation remains speculative - the reality of the phenomenon is now beyond question (but that of course has not stopped the debunkers from continuing their ridicule and out-of-hand denial and dismissals – but of course that is just the nature of their faith-based beliefs – they simply admit of no evidence).

You are free to do whatever you want, that doesn't make it scientific or valid, and since you keep telling us that you are offering no alternative explanation then you aren't actually doing that, are you. Or are you?

I asked:
“ On that, do you believe there are any UFO cases where sufficient quality of evidence exists to allow us to eliminate all known mundane causes as plausible explanations?”

All known mundane causes, yes. But that doesn't rule out unknown mundane causes. Do you think we know everything there is to know?

And of course this goes directly to the point I just made above. Clearly then I do not think that “we know everything there is to know”. I do however find it fascinatingly ironic that you would attempt to use this argument against me when in fact it is the very same argument that “UFOs as ET” proponents use against the debunkers. The debunkers often claim that ET visiting earth is “impossible” because of time, distance and energy constraints – but of course that begs the question “Do you think we know everything there is to know”? LOL.

Have I ever used that argument? If not then there's no irony. If there's an irony here it's that you seem to think that ruling out all known mundane causes automatically makes something non-mundane. Unless, of course, you are allowing for unknown mundane causes. Do you do that?

I asked:
“As a corollary, and given that the evidence in many cases suggests technological craft (general appearance, able to be photographed and picked up on radar, etc) and that often there does seem to be an “intelligence” involved (manoeuvring, interaction with the environment, associated beings, etc), then in those cases, what does that evidence suggest to you?”

On its own it suggests nothing. There are plenty of UFO sightings that include those factors that turn out to be mundane objects, including static objects such as oil well fires.

Once again you simply commit the “All crows are black” fallacy. Sure you (or anyone) can point to cases where mistakes have been made – but that does not mean that mistakes have been made in all cases. I also find it ironic that the UFO debunkers point to the Campeche incident:

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

…as evidence of ostensibly reliable observers making a mistake - even while they totally ignore the evidence in the case that points to a genuine UFO being involved! (just read the case report).

It's sort of ironic that you equate the mentioning of oil well fires with the entire Campeche incident. I was only referring to the highly trained military observer who thought that he was being chased and surrounded by ground-based static objects. I use it merely as an example of how susceptible people are to such mistakes, even highly trained military personnel. It's an example of a UFO with high maneuverability and intelligent control, observed by someone who should know it when he sees it, that turned out to be neither intelligently controlled nor even slightly maneuverable. And if he can get it wrong.....

But of course, you just hand-wave this objection away, there's no other incident with exactly the same set of circumstances, so we can't use it in consideration of other incidents. Which simply shows that you entirely miss the point.

I stated:
“ To me the UFO problem is actually comprises a set of phenomena – that is there are multiple causes. My general feeling is that misconception, misperception or hoax explains many cases, however some may be ET, some may be government black ops (both legitimate and sinister), some may be as yet undescribed natural phenomena, and some may be other things (inter-dimensional time travellers, leakage from parallel universes, etc and so on).”

That's called hedging your bets, or covering all bases.

No, it is simply an acknowledgement of your contention that we cannot “know everything there is to know”. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, it's quite a lot more. You aren't saying that you don't know what it is, you're saying that it's lots of different things. If you really can't see the difference between those two statements then it's pointless for me to try to explain it.

I asked:
“The problem we have is in determining which is which for any specific given case. What are your general feelings on the matter?”

That there is too little information to draw any conclusions.

Once again we see the debunker fallback position rear its head: A blanket, out-of-hand dismissal of all UFO cases. My follow-up question would then be: What of those UFO cases where there is sufficient information (for example the cases so designated in the Battelle study)? Of course the UFO debunker’s blanket denial in this regard exposes another weakness in their argument. Of course, when a UFO case has been classified as “KNOWN” (a known mundane object or phenomenon) then suddenly there was sufficient information and the report was reliable enough to determine that categorisation – but mysteriously (hypocritically?), when a report is classified as UNKNOWN then “Insufficient and unreliable information” becomes the blanket criticism! It is only when the debunkers can determine “KNOWN” that a UFO report suddenly becomes reliable and contains sufficient information – but never otherwise. LOL.

Where did I dismiss any cases? I simply state that we don't know what they are because there isn't enough information to positively identify them. If there was then we'd know what they were. That's the difference between known and unknown. For a lot of cases we can say with some certainty what they weren't, but there is not a single UFO case that remains unknown where we have sufficient information to positively identify what it was. And that being the case, no conclusion can be drawn. Feel free to speculate, but that's all you can do.

Unless you are suggesting that "UFO" is, in and of itself, a positive identification.

Then you have simply not followed my contentions in this thread. I have continually and consistently pointed out that I simply have no explanation for what UFOs actually are (or what their eventual explanation might turn out to be). All I have been pointing out is that there exist cases which defy plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less. You even seem to acknowledge that (“I don't know what they are and don't presume to draw conclusions…”) and you even positively highlight some of my own statements that support that conclusion (eg; “Looks can be deceiving”) – yet you try to build this straw-man argument that I have some sort of “need” or “desire” to “attribute UFOs to something bigger”. You are simply not understanding my position wollery and I suspect you resort to your straw-man here because you simply cannot countenance the fact that our respective views on the matter might not be so dissimilar after all.

I have no problem with our views being similar, and if your only contention is that we don't know what UFOs are then our positions are practically identical.

Of course, another difference is that you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of dismissing all UFOs out of hand and colluding to dishonestly misrepresent and obscure. That's the usual tactic of a conspiracy theorist.

Where a UFO debunker dismissal is “out-of-hand” I merely note and highlight the fact that this is what has occurred (as I have done so above).

You mean where I did no such thing, but merely noted that we don't know what UFOs are? The position that you claim is so similar to yours that you attacked it as an out-of-hand dismissal?

Similarly, where a “dishonest” misrepresentation by the UFO debunkers has occurred, I also highlight that fact. You are of course free to argue that I am mistaken in such characterisations and of course then must support your assertions with evidence and/or logical argument. And in that regard it must be noted that the mere unfounded accusation that I am incorrect or that I illegitimately characterise certain debunker positions (as you delineate) can be dismissed for what it is – unfounded. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

A point, I should remind you, that works both ways.

I desire a properly constituted program of research (an academic, scientific, peer-reviewed program), not the sparse, individual ad hoc studies (often constituted with the sole aim of debunking) that currently sprinkle the landscape.

Who is going to pay for this study, and who is going to work on it? You need scientists to give up their time to do this, on a long term basis, and lose precious time on their own research. And for what?

We can study old cases until we're old, wrinkled and blue in the face, but we won't get any more information from them.

That is simply an incorrect assertion and represents a misunderstanding of science and scientific progress. Once a program of research is initiated it inevitable follows that new concepts and new ways of viewing the world emerge. Armed with those “fresh eyes” one can then re-examine “old” data in light of the new concepts in order to see what then emerges.

I hate to break it to you, but the only thing that will yield will be more mundane explanations for old cases.

Do you want more monitoring of the skies? Do you have any idea how many telescopes (amateur as well as professional) there are pointing at the skies on any given night? How many CCTV cameras? How many people with mobile phone cameras?

Sure and UFOs are “captured” with those technologies every day. What is lacking is a rigorous program of research designed around specifically targeted monitoring programs. Currently, any UFOs (ostensibly) captured by the technology you point to can be dismissed out-of-hand by the UFO debunkers as hoaxes, faults in the equipment, misperceptions, etc and so on. Only a properly constituted, peer-reviewed and deliberately targeted program of research can overcome those blanket, out-of-hand general objections and dismissals (which program will obviously entail a targeted “monitoring of the skies” as you suggest).

We've had such studies. You keep pointing to Battelle, the conclusion of which was that about 20% of objects are unknown. And this tells us what, exactly? Nothing more than we already knew.

One of the biggest problem with UFOs is that they are (almost always) transient non-repeating phenomena. There's simply no way to study them in a proper scientific manner. For the vast majority of UFOs you can't set up observing equipment in advance, and even when there is advanced notice it usually proves almost impossible to get reliable data.

That is simply not true. The Brown Mountain lights is a case in point. There are other “UFO hotspots” around the world that could similarly be monitored. The plain fact is that such a properly constituted monitoring program has not ever been conducted (Project Twinkle* is the obvious exception although there are current efforts to get some up and running – of which I may provide more information if the discussion warrants) – so your conclusions in this regard (as you stated above) are based on absolutely no evidence (and that fact is no longer surprising to me).

I said almost always. But as you point out, there are "hotspots". And lots of people go to them, expecting to see UFOs and armed with high quality cameras and equipment. So which of these "hotspots" have yielded high quality results?

 

[dafydd]

Life happens.

But aliens buzzing the Earth,making crop circles and rectally probing rednecks does not happen.

 

[RoboTimbo]

In light of recent statements from RoboT (and others), I think it becomes necessary for me to take a moment to clarify my position.

First: I am proposing that the UFO cases I am presenting defy plausible mundane explanation. That is that the characteristics of the UFOs in question cannot be explained using current knowledge of the natural or technological world. The characteristics of the UFOs in question are therefore foreign (alien) to our understanding in that regard.

Well, no. The UFO cases you have presented have positively defied plausible non-mundane explanation. I have demonstrated that by applying the process of elimination. The explanation in every case therefore is "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane" that I don't mean mundane, but it is quite ordinary and well within our common range of experience. It also means unknown.

Second: I am proposing no explanation whatsoever for the UFO cases I am presenting. Their cause (or causes) is (are) truly unknown.

Same here. I'm not proposing any explanations either, but as you have noted the cases remain unknown or "mundane" as per my definition.

Third: I am proposing that the UFO phenomenon will have multiple explanations and should therefore be considered to be the product of multiple phenomena, rather than as a single phenomenon.

Ah, then you are quickly abandoning your false assertion that you are proposing no explanations and immediately proposing explanations. I simply note that all of the cases you have presented are unknown or "mundane".

Fourth: I am proposing that ET is a plausible explanation for some (but not all) UFOs. That does not mean that ET is a correct explanation, or that I believe it to be a correct explanation. It is merely an acknowledgement of its plausibility as an explanation. The merits of it as an explanation can be legitimately debated.

And right back to proposing specific explanations. ET does not fit any of the evidence, so it is a false proposition anyway. Do you have anything else? Evidence? Anything at all? All of the cases have so far been unknown or "mundane".

Finally: I am proposing that there is a conspiracy to deny public knowledge of UFO cases through various government, organisational and individuals, using such means as ridicule and denial, misrepresentation, obfuscation and outright lies.

So the creduloids are engaging in a conspiracy?

Now, in regard to the specific cases mentioned in recent posts (in date order):

A Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
(http://genforum.genealogy.com/cowgill/messages/342.html)
(http://genforum.genealogy.com/cowgill/messages/348.html)

In this case I have presented circumstantial evidence indicating the veracity of the letter. First there is the letter write himself – a USN trained career diplomat – someone whose public standing would potentially be ruined by the exposure of a lie – and clearly given access to SciAm in Venezuela – if he wanted top perpetrate a hoax , he must have considered his exposure would have been almost certain.

Circumstantial evidence has been provided that the case could easily be a hoax. There has been NO RESEARCH done to ascertain that the purported letter is genuine and no evidence presented that it is, only false assertions backed up by wishful thinking. It simply isn't plausible that Scientific American would be able to do any fact checking into a letter sent from Venezuela in 1886. Unless some creduloid has done the barest bit of research to ascertain the veracity of the purported letter? No? There certainly hasn't been any shown in this thread. Hoax remains the most plausible hypothesis but I'm not proposing it, just noting that the case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation.

Second, there is the fact that the letter was published in SciAm. It is simply implausible to imagine a magazine of such high reputation (even in 1886) would not have a fact checking protocol in place for anything it might publish.

See above. It is simply implausible that Scientific American would fact check a letter to the editor. Certainly there has been no evidence that it did. If you have done the barest bit of research, can you point it out to me?

Finally there is the letter itself. The style, the tone, the concise conveying of facts without emotional embellishment, the close description of the symptomatology of radiation injuries when radiation was completely unknown at the time – all point to the letter having veracity.

I'll direct you to your favorite online referece to look up the word "verisimilitude" (without the quotes, of course). Exactly the style, tone, conveying a made-up story, and how the injuries (not radiation injuries) don't match any known TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation - all point to the letter being a HOAX. Note that I'm not proposing that HOAX is the answer, just that the case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation, only leaving "mundane".

Now while that circumstantial evidence cannot positively rule out a hoax, it does provide evidence in favour of the letter’s veracity. On the other hand, those who claim a hoax in this case have no evidence for that claim whatsoever - apart from the mere fact that it is possible for a hoax to have been perpetrated. In that regard there is no evidence to suggest that a hoax is likely or even plausible in this case.

While non-mundane explanations can't be ruled out - it might have been the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus - there are none plausible that have been presented in this thread.

Considering the claims of a parallel with radiation injury we may simply note the both environmental factors and the symptomatology of the victims. There was the bright light without heat accompanied by a humming sound that precipitated no property damage. There were the immediate symptoms (vomiting, skin injury), followed by a latency period of some days (where the victims clearly considered their injuries were not sufficient to seek medical help), followed by the emergence of more serious injury (virulent sores, hair loss) whereupon the victims clearly did seek medical assistance. Anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of radiation injury will recognise a specific parallel with the victims symptomatology and that of radiation injury.

Considering that the purported injuries don't match any known TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation and that radiation injuries are implausible in 1886 Venezuela and that the letter has never been ascertained to be genuine, we are only left with HOAX. Note that I am not proposing any explanations myself, just noting that this case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation, leaving only "mundane"

There are of course questions about what type and dose of radiation could have caused the injuries – but in that we have no certain or clear answer. Clearly we have the symptomatology of radiation poisoning, yet the type and dose cannot be defined. In that respect the case simply defies plausible mundane explanation!

Cleary YOU cannot define it, that's why you've been using weasel words to dance around it. Radiation poisoning is not a plausible explanation, no matter how you try to wish it to be.

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

Five witnesses, on a clear day with the sun low at their backs, in near perfect viewing conditions (two with the aid of binoculars) described a circular object (like a coin of pancake), some 35 feet in diameter, with no protuberances apart from a small fin on the upper surface, making no sound, appear first coming toward them, then turning across their field of vision, to disappear at an angle away from them at the speed of a jet plane.

Nothing about that sighting resembles a blimp in any way, shape or form. Blimps are large, cylindrical and noisy beasts with lots of protuberances - and which most certainly cannot travel at jet speeds. Moreover, the only candidate blimps, GoodYear, had large, clear and deliberately conspicuous advertising logos along both flanks. It must also be considered that the historical evidence suggests that no blimp was anywhere near the area at the time.

Once again, the sighting simply defies plausible mundane explanation.

Except for blimp, which is the most likely and plausible explanation. 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.

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)

In this case a sixteen-year old boy witnessed a metallic, mushroom shaped UFO with multicoloured lights and making a sound like an “old washing machine” land within 75 feet from him. The boy estimated it’s size as between 6-8 feet. As the UFO took off, he ran to his family house to alert them and his parents were in time to observe the UFO as a bright object, now as “big as a full moon” high in the sky.

The boy and his parents went to the landing site where they observed a “glowing ring” on the ground and also some glowing material on the nearby trees. The ring subsequently stayed dry even after rain and snowfalls.

Investigators later examined the ring and conducted soil analyses. Its unusual hydrophilic properties and composition when compared with the surrounding soil were noted.

An independent witness observed and reported a UFO in the area at around the same time.

Subsequently the boy, clearly traumatised, developed nightmares and later would go on to claim he had separately sighted a “wolf-girl” in the area and to have developed some (unspecified) psychic powers.

The UFO debunkers, despite the physical trace evidence and the independent witnesses, claim this case is a hoax. Of course they offer no evidence for this claim. However, the UFO debunkers must not only offer evidence in support of their claims in this regard, they must also clearly state why this case should be regarded as a hoax over and above any other UFO case. That is the mere possibility that any UFO case could be a hoax does not mean that in this case is likely or even plausible to have been so - Why call “hoax” on this case specifically, when it is possible to do so in any case?

The physical trace evidence resulted in a known fungus being found. Which star system do you think it came from? Why didn't you post links to websites that discussed the boy's purported sighting of a "wolf girl" or his claim to "psychic abilities" until I backed you into a corner? You were very careful to avoid those links, I note.

So in this case, the most likely explanation is HOAX based on the story from a boy who was prone to telling fanciful stories. Unless you can provide evidence for an actual "wolf girl" and psychic abilities? I would gladly admit you were correct if you were to post actual evidence and not wishful thinking.

STS-74 Atlantis (Launch 12 Nov 1995)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related @ 6:17)

Here we have a case of some debris behaving unusually. The trajectory of the object in question seems difficult to explain in mundane terms. Suggestions such as motivation from the shuttles thrusters, the perspective from which it is being viewed, that it is in fact a distant satellite, etc, all seem difficult to actually reconcile with the object’s trajectory. That is not to say the object is not merely a piece of “space junk” that an application of a combination of factors results in the observed trajectory – it is just that no-one has yet provided the mathematical model or the logical sequence of events that must have occurred to demonstrate that possibility.

The case where it all started to go south for you and your version of a process of elimination. The bolded part really goes to the heart of the creduloid mindset, though.

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

In this case we have series of unusual radar events that precede and follow the FLIR video “sighting” (see the report and video linked above). It is entirely plausible for the FLIR to be explained by “oil-well lights” over the open ocean - and it is also easy to see how the crew of the airplane, primed by the anomalous radar contacts to look for anything to explain those contacts, could mistake the oil-well fires for the UFOs they were looking for. What has not been explained is the anomalous radar contacts themselves – which of course remain to defy plausible mundane explanation.

It is also interesting, that having now brought the case to our attention, the UFO debunkers completely ignore those anomalous radar contacts!

It must be noted that this latter case is not a case I have actually presented in support of my hypothesis. It was in fact introduced by the UFO debunkers themselves, ostensibly in order to demonstrate that a “qualified” flight crew could make mistakes in observation (thus seemingly weakening the credentials of all so called qualified observers). However, in this case, it can clearly be seen that there existed a specific set of circumstances where a mistaken observation was (potentially – because it is by no means certain that oil-well fires is the explanation for the FLIR) made. In other cases other circumstances prevail and one cannot simply use this case to denigrate all “qualified observer” cases where different circumstances and viewing conditions might prevail.

But your version of a process of elimination eliminated oil well fires. That's what you keep missing and ignoring. It's no use your saying after the fact that oil well fires are plausible once you know that's the answer. Oil well fires do not match the witness descriptions and witness descriptions are your gold standard. Note how you gush over the letter at Venezuela.

Now that I have clarified my position I invite anyone to (rationally) comment or to provide evidence for any of the opposing claims to my own that have been put forward - or to provide plausible mundane explanations for any of the cases I have put forward in this thread.

You've not rationally clarified your position.

Please propose your plausible non-mundane explanations if you think there are any that the process of elimination hasn't dismissed and we'll discuss them. Based on the evidence, of course.

 

[SOdhner]

A Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)

Since this post is just you repeating things I've already responded to, I'll ask that you just reply to my post directly.

 

[Rramjet]

In other words, it means that they couldn't think of a mundane explanation that fit the observations.

No, it means that after research and analysis they could not determine any mundane cause for the observed phenomenon.

No, I'm suggesting that even the best scientists have limited knowledge. Read the quote from the report again, even they acknowledge (albeit subtly) that they're working from a limited knowledge base. To assume that you know everything that's known is arrogant in the extreme.

Sure, we all work from a limited knowledge base. It is just that the scientists involved would have a broader knowledge base than most in regard to the analysis of UFO reports. They were scientists after all, and scientists research their subject as thoroughly as necessary to conduct the proposed analyses.

Moreover, you are making it much more complex that is warranted. There is only a limited range of things that an object seen manoeuvring in the sky could possibly be.

No, I commit no such fallacy, I simply note that observations and reports can be in error…

Just because something is possible does not mean it is likely or even plausible.

…and to make the assumption that they are 100% accurate is unwarranted, just as much as the assumption that they are 100% wrong. I don't say that they are wrong or right, merely that they are prone to error and should therefore be treated with due caution.

I do not generally disagree with this contention, just your lead in to it. I would however have stated it more concisely. For example:

While all observations are prone to error, it is nevertheless fallacious to conclude that all therefore are in error. However, it does mean we must use caution in our analysis of any observation and must assess each on its own merits.

If there's an irony here it's that you seem to think that ruling out all known mundane causes automatically makes something non-mundane.

There is a difference between the statement that a case defies plausible mundane explanation and the claim to have ruled out all known mundane explanations means that the explanation in non-mundane. I had hoped the Brown Mountain lights case would highlight that difference. That case defied plausible mundane explanation for over a hundred years (if not more), yet it seems the ultimate explanation will be mundane.

Unless, of course, you are allowing for unknown mundane causes. Do you do that?

This points to a difficulty in the language. What exactly constitutes “mundane”? A common meaning would be that it is known to science, but in the case of Brown Mountain, while piezoelectric manifestations are known to science, the mechanism of their cause is shrouded in mystery. Can they then be said to be truly known by science? Sure, they are known in the sense that they have been observed and noted as a real phenomenon, but little is understood about their cause. Does not the same situation apply to UFOs in general?

It's sort of ironic that you equate the mentioning of oil well fires with the entire Campeche incident.

I think you will find it is the UFO debunkers who mention only the FLIR while completely ignoring the anomalous radar contacts!

I was only referring to the highly trained military observer who thought that he was being chased and surrounded by ground-based static objects. I use it merely as an example of how susceptible people are to such mistakes, even highly trained military personnel.

Sure, observers make mistakes, but it is fallacious to conclude that therefore all observations are mistaken. One must take each observation on its own merits. In the Campeche case there was a very specific set of circumstances that lead to a (potentially) mistaken observation. Those circumstances clearly do not apply in other observations. It is therefore fallacious to generalise from Campeche to other observations. That is it is fallacy to generalise it “ as an example of how susceptible people are to such mistakes, even highly trained military personnel.” Rather, it is an example of how situational factors can play a role in observational accuracy and it teaches us that we should not ignore the situational factors in any observation – and blanket generalisations such as you make here do precisely that.

Then you compound the error of your generalisation:

It's an example of a UFO with high maneuverability and intelligent control, observed by someone who should know it when he sees it, that turned out to be neither intelligently controlled nor even slightly maneuverable.

No observer (more than one) in the case ever described the lights as manoeuvring or as under intelligent control. I would have thought you might have conducted at least some basic research into the facts of the case wollery before making erronous claims.

And if he can get it wrong.....

…and there you go again with your fallacious (“hasty”) generalisation. What precisely is the generalised conclusion you wish us to draw from “ And if he can get it wrong.....”?

But of course, you just hand-wave this objection away, there's no other incident with exactly the same set of circumstances, so we can't use it in consideration of other incidents. Which simply shows that you entirely miss the point.

What precisely is the “point” that I am missing?

Moreover, as I stated, Campeche teaches us that we must not ignore the situational factors surrounding any observation. It teaches us that such factors must be accounted for in any assessment we might make. That is a valuable lesson – a lesson you seem to have missed.

You aren't saying that you don't know what it is, you're saying that it's lots of different things. If you really can't see the difference between those two statements then it's pointless for me to try to explain it.

First: I am saying that I have no explanation for UFOs – that is I cannot assign any known cause to them.
Second: I am saying that I suspect it is likely that UFOs will have multiple causes, rather than a single cause (such as ET).

How are those two statements incompatible?

I simply state that we don't know what they are because there isn't enough information to positively identify them.

There is a difference between having enough information to positively identify something and having enough information to rule out potential identifications. For example if I observe a spherical object moving at greater than jet plane speeds I do not need to be able to positively identify it to understand it is not any known aircraft.

The corollary of that is we do not need to be able to explain something to know that it is real. For example, historically, the tides and even waves on the ocean could not be explained, but no-one doubted their reality.

If there was then we'd know what they were. That's the difference between known and unknown. For a lot of cases we can say with some certainty what they weren't, but there is not a single UFO case that remains unknown where we have sufficient information to positively identify what it was. And that being the case, no conclusion can be drawn.

Conclusions can be drawn using the process of elimination. You even indicated this yourself. That is we can rule out potential explanatory hypotheses even while not being able to rule in any particular one. You seem to be concatenating observation with explanation and that is a fallacy.

Feel free to speculate, but that's all you can do.

Charles Darwin stated “ I am a firm believer, that without speculation there is no good & original observation.”( http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2192)

Science is all about speculation. It asks “what if..?” and then observes and investigates accordingly.

I have no problem with our views being similar, and if your only contention is that we don't know what UFOs are then our positions are practically identical.

Clearly that is not my only contention. Not only do we not know what UFOs are, they also positively defy what we think we know.

You mean where I did no such thing, but merely noted that we don't know what UFOs are?

Clearly that is not your only contention either. You also contend that all UFOs are the result of misrepresentations, misperceptions or hoaxes.

Who is going to pay for this study, and who is going to work on it? You need scientists to give up their time to do this, on a long term basis, and lose precious time on their own research. And for what?

Good questions! Who pays for any program of research? What might attract scientists into any field? What is the purpose of any research? These are primarily philosophical questions. Where do you draw the line between funding this research and not the other? At what point do you halt “blue sky” research to concentrate solely on ends driven research? Who do we trust as the arbiter of what research might be useful and what is not? These are questions that apply to any scientific endeavour – and they are not easily answered in any of them! I happen to believe that research into UFOs might yield surprising discoveries. Clearly you are of the opposite opinion. For example I stated:

“ Once a program of research is initiated it inevitable follows that new concepts and new ways of viewing the world emerge. Armed with those “fresh eyes” one can then re-examine “old” data in light of the new concepts in order to see what then emerges.”

I hate to break it to you, but the only thing that will yield will be more mundane explanations for old cases.

That is your opinion – but you cannot know it to be true – just as you cannot know what the results of any scientific research program will be. Simply, we do not know until we investigate. But just because we cannot know the end result of any research, that does not mean we should not conduct research.

We've had such studies. You keep pointing to Battelle, the conclusion of which was that about 20% of objects are unknown. And this tells us what, exactly? Nothing more than we already knew.

(An average over all sightings of twenty one point five percent to be precise, noting that the more reliable the report, the higher the percentage) It tells us that there is a mystery at the heart of UFO sightings. Personally I am intrigued by mysteries and their potential to provide us with new knowledge that could transform the way we live. Some people (indeed most people) are conservative and fear change. I am the opposite, I welcome and embrace change.

… as you point out, there are "hotspots". And lots of people go to them, expecting to see UFOs and armed with high quality cameras and equipment. So which of these "hotspots" have yielded high quality results?

I’ll let you know when the properly constituted (“high quality”) research has been conducted.

 

[SOdhner]

Are you planning on responding to my post?

 

[Rramjet]

Are you planning on responding to my post?

I wasn’t planning to – but since I find I have a little time right now – why not…

Are you suggesting that you have NOT eliminated all plausible mundane explanations?

I have not claimed to have done so, but as I have pointed out to you, the evidence that all plausible mundane explanations have been eliminated (by independent research and analysis – I claim no personal credit) is to be found in the cases I have presented and the discussions surrounding them.

I stated:
“ First, RoboT said he did, but he has provided no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.”

He's presented as much evidence as you have. And unlike you, he hasn't been shown to be wrong.

You say that – but you have provided no evidence whatsoever to support those claims. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

A note of clarification:
On page 211, in response to a statement of yours about ETs, I stated:
“I have NEVER contended ET was a plausible explanatory hypothesis.”

And to that point in the thread that statement is absolutely true. To that point in the thread I had been proposing no explanations whatsoever (plausible or otherwise) for the cases I had been presenting. Latterly however, within the last page or so, I have reconsidered the question of whether ET is (or could be) a plausible explanation for some (but not all) UFOs - and I have come to the conclusion that it actually is a plausible explanation – given that there is nothing in our current knowledge of the natural or technological world that would rule it out as an explanation and also considering that many UFOs have characteristics that suggest intelligent control and are associated with observed “beings”. I have however been very specific in pointing out that just because the explanation might be plausible, that does not mean it is correct.

In reference to Venezuela (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG):

Are you suggesting that it is more plausible than the letter being factually inaccurate? If not, it's off-topic and we can drop it. If so, what are you basing that on?

I am suggesting that, in the absence of contrary evidence, the weight of evidence we do have indicates the letter has veracity. In approaching the letter our working hypothesis is therefore that it does have veracity. That does not rule out the possibility that it could have been a hoax – just that there is no evidence to support that hypothesis – while there is evidence to support the alternative.

Ah! Well, no problem. What about the letter being factually inaccurate? That's plausible, and would fit with what we know. Done!

I had asked you to investigate the meaning of “plausible” - For example: “Seeming reasonable or probable. Having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable…” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible). Can you please explain what it is about your hoax hypothesis that fulfils those criteria? Also what it is about the letter that does not fulfil those criteria?

In reference to some of your own claims I stated:
“ Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” To which you replied:

Okay, then present evidence for your outlandish claim…

If that is not shifting the burden of proof, then I don’t know what is!

Keep in mind that according to the sources you provided, the issue in question was published just one month after the letter was written. That means the letter got there, worked its way through whoever reads them and was typeset in time to get published. Now, within that time, you are suggesting that... what? They couldn't send letters to random hospitals in Venezuela asking for medical records of nameless characters in an anecdote, right? So surely they... what? Did they send a journalist to Venezuela in person? Did they rely on Cowgill to verify his own information (I would love to see that letter: "Are you sure?" Love, SciAm.)? You've got probably less than two weeks for this fact checking to take place. In Venezuela. In 1886. For a lousy letter, not an actual article.

Dear Mr Cowgill, we are considering publishing your letter, but before we do, for verification purposes, we wonder if you could provide us with a little background information We require the following information … our publication deadline is …Sincerely, SciAm.

They could typeset the letter but if no verification was received before the deadline they would simply pull it. No big deal, it happens all the time.

I stated:
“I was merely pointing out that a mere possibility does not equate to likely or even plausible.”

Why is it not plausible?

See all of the above (including my previous few posts).

What explanation is more plausible?

There is evidence for the veracity of the letter while there is no evidence for a hoax.

If you can't suggest one that is MORE plausible, then it's reasonable to say that this is the most plausible explanation. Right?

You keep flipping between the plausibility of an explanation of the phenomenon described in the letter and the veracity of the letter itself – and wrong. Just because we don’t have a plausible explanation for the phenomenon described in the letter does not mean that we must deny the reality of it. There are plenty of things that exist for which we do not have an explanation. Your logic in this regard is fallacious. There are many things we can observe as reality that we cannot explain.

Do you have one that is MORE plausible?

The more plausible hypothesis (compared to “hoax”) concerning the letter itself is that it has veracity. We have no plausible explanation for the phenomenon the letter actually describes.

In reference to the parallels between the victim’s symptomatology and radiation poisoning:

As I said, that's absurd. Since different TYPES and DOSAGES of radiation present with different symptoms, it makes no sense for you to say it "matches" if you don't even know WHAT it is that it matches. You're making an unfounded assertion, Rramjet. All you would have to do is take the time to do a little research and find out if these symptoms match any specific TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation.

Once again your logic lets you down. To reiterate: If you had read just a little more carefully you might have noted that I stated that I had no idea what type and dose matches the symptoms – I merely noted that the symptomatology in the case matches that of radiation poisoning – and that is an undeniable, objective fact. That is; immediate symptoms (vomiting, skin damage) – a latency period of some days – the appearance of more severe symptoms (virulent sores, loss of hair).

I stated:
“ No, your hypothesis is that the letter is a hoax.”

Are you arguing with yourself now?

? Are you now denying that your hypothesis is that the letter is a hoax?

I'll make this easy. Unless you can suggest an explanation that is MORE PLAUSIBLE than the letter being factually inaccurate, then by definition that's the most plausible explanation we have. Can you suggest a more plausible explanation?

The hypothesis that the letter has veracity is more plausible that the hypothesis that it is a hoax. There is evidence for veracity, there is none for hoax (You're right - it was easy).

 

[RoboTimbo]

Are you planning on responding to my post?

I wasn’t planning to – but since I find I have a little time right now – why not…

Are you suggesting that you have NOT eliminated all plausible mundane explanations?

I have not claimed to have done so, but as I have pointed out to you, the evidence that all plausible mundane explanations have been eliminated (by independent research and analysis – I claim no personal credit) is to be found in the cases I have presented and the discussions surrounding them.

I stated:
“ First, RoboT said he did, but he has provided no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.”

He's presented as much evidence as you have. And unlike you, he hasn't been shown to be wrong.

You say that – but you have provided no evidence whatsoever to support those claims. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Well, no. (chuckles, shaking head sadly) I have actually presented more evidence than you. You've presented no evidence whatsoever for your claims. I will note when your unsupported claims are dismissed.

A note of clarification:
On page 211, in response to a statement of yours about ETs, I stated:
“I have NEVER contended ET was a plausible explanatory hypothesis.”

And to that point in the thread that statement is absolutely true. To that point in the thread I had been proposing no explanations whatsoever (plausible or otherwise) for the cases I had been presenting. Latterly however, within the last page or so, I have reconsidered the question of whether ET is (or could be) a plausible explanation for some (but not all) UFOs - and I have come to the conclusion that it actually is a plausible explanation – given that there is nothing in our current knowledge of the natural or technological world that would rule it out as an explanation and also considering that many UFOs have characteristics that suggest intelligent control and are associated with observed “beings”. I have however been very specific in pointing out that just because the explanation might be plausible, that does not mean it is correct.

Well, no. You decided long ago that ET is your hypothesis. You've simply been trying to shoehorn anything you can find into that hypothesis. ET is not a plausible explanation for any of the cases you've presented. Why did you think it was? Was it the oil well fires UFOs at Campeche that tipped the scale for you in favor of the ET hypothesis?

In reference to Venezuela (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG):

Are you suggesting that it is more plausible than the letter being factually inaccurate? If not, it's off-topic and we can drop it. If so, what are you basing that on?

I am suggesting that, in the absence of contrary evidence, the weight of evidence we do have indicates the letter has veracity. In approaching the letter our working hypothesis is therefore that it does have veracity. That does not rule out the possibility that it could have been a hoax – just that there is no evidence to support that hypothesis – while there is evidence to support the alternative.

Well, no. The purported letter is evidence of a hoax. Your failure to do the least bit of research is evidence means that your assertion is unsupported and is therefore dismissed. The null hypothesis is that the letter is a hoax. Now, you will need to present evidence of... what exactly are you wanting to prove with this purported letter case? UFOs? Or aliens? Or "aliens"? You've not presented any evidence for any of those hypotheses.

Ah! Well, no problem. What about the letter being factually inaccurate? That's plausible, and would fit with what we know. Done!

I had asked you to investigate the meaning of “plausible” - For example: “Seeming reasonable or probable. Having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable…” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible). Can you please explain what it is about your hoax hypothesis that fulfils those criteria? Also what it is about the letter that does not fulfil those criteria?

You will recall that you had homework to do. I know it involved research and you haven't shown ability in that direction but did you do your due diligence yet and learn which fallacies you've been overusing?

Also, how did your version of a process of elimination eliminate hoax in this case and at Delphos? Where do you think you went wrong?

In reference to some of your own claims I stated:
“ Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” To which you replied:

Okay, then present evidence for your outlandish claim…

If that is not shifting the burden of proof, then I don’t know what is!

Your unsupported claim is dismissed.

Keep in mind that according to the sources you provided, the issue in question was published just one month after the letter was written. That means the letter got there, worked its way through whoever reads them and was typeset in time to get published. Now, within that time, you are suggesting that... what? They couldn't send letters to random hospitals in Venezuela asking for medical records of nameless characters in an anecdote, right? So surely they... what? Did they send a journalist to Venezuela in person? Did they rely on Cowgill to verify his own information (I would love to see that letter: "Are you sure?" Love, SciAm.)? You've got probably less than two weeks for this fact checking to take place. In Venezuela. In 1886. For a lousy letter, not an actual article.

Dear Mr Cowgill, we are considering publishing your letter, but before we do, for verification purposes, we wonder if you could provide us with a little background information We require the following information … our publication deadline is …Sincerely, SciAm.

They could typeset the letter but if no verification was received before the deadline they would simply pull it. No big deal, it happens all the time.

Your unsupported assertion is dismissed. Letters get published all the time without fact checking. What fact checking have you done to ensure the veracity of the purported letter? Anything at all?

I stated:
“I was merely pointing out that a mere possibility does not equate to likely or even plausible.”

Why is it not plausible?

See all of the above (including my previous few posts).

The question still stands. You didn't answer it. You engaged in wishful thinking. Try research for a change.

What explanation is more plausible?

There is evidence for the veracity of the letter while there is no evidence for a hoax.

Your unsupported assertion is dismissed. The reality is that there is evidence that the letter is a hoax and none for the veracity of the letter. When do you plan on doing your due diligence in ascertaining the veracity of the letter?

If you can't suggest one that is MORE plausible, then it's reasonable to say that this is the most plausible explanation. Right?

You keep flipping between the plausibility of an explanation of the phenomenon described in the letter and the veracity of the letter itself – and wrong. Just because we don’t have a plausible explanation for the phenomenon described in the letter does not mean that we must deny the reality of it. There are plenty of things that exist for which we do not have an explanation. Your logic in this regard is fallacious. There are many things we can observe as reality that we cannot explain.

But we do have a plausible explanation for it. Why do you continue to handwave it away and wish it into the cornfield? Hoax is a plausible explanation. Note that nobody is proposing hoax as the expalanation, just that it is plausible. I have used the process of elimination to rule out plausible non-mundane explanations but if you ca think of any, let us know and we'll exmaine them on the evidence.

Do you have one that is MORE plausible?

The more plausible hypothesis (compared to “hoax”) concerning the letter itself is that it has veracity. We have no plausible explanation for the phenomenon the letter actually describes.

Your unsupported assertion is dismissed. You've presented no evidence for the veracity of the letter. Your new homework assignment will be to do your due diligence in ascertaining the veracity of the purported letter.

In reference to the parallels between the victim’s symptomatology and radiation poisoning:

As I said, that's absurd. Since different TYPES and DOSAGES of radiation present with different symptoms, it makes no sense for you to say it "matches" if you don't even know WHAT it is that it matches. You're making an unfounded assertion, Rramjet. All you would have to do is take the time to do a little research and find out if these symptoms match any specific TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation.

Once again your logic lets you down. To reiterate: If you had read just a little more carefully you might have noted that I stated that I had no idea what type and dose matches the symptoms – I merely noted that the symptomatology in the case matches that of radiation poisoning – and that is an undeniable, objective fact. That is; immediate symptoms (vomiting, skin damage) – a latency period of some days – the appearance of more severe symptoms (virulent sores, loss of hair).

And your notation continues to be incorrect. Your unsupported assertion is dismissed. It has been noted that you expound the most on the subjects you know the least about.

I stated:
“ No, your hypothesis is that the letter is a hoax.”

Are you arguing with yourself now?

? Are you now denying that your hypothesis is that the letter is a hoax?

I do. I make no hypotheses myself but I do note that the case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation leaving only "mundane". Note that when I say "mundane" that I don't mean mundane. It does mean well within our common range of experience and quite ordinary. Or unknown. "Mundane" also means unknown as I've defined it. Do you deny that you believe the answer is ET?

I'll make this easy. Unless you can suggest an explanation that is MORE PLAUSIBLE than the letter being factually inaccurate, then by definition that's the most plausible explanation we have. Can you suggest a more plausible explanation?

The hypothesis that the letter has veracity is more plausible that the hypothesis that it is a hoax. There is evidence for veracity, there is none for hoax (You're right - it was easy).

Your unsupported assertion is dismissed. Hoax is a plausible explanation. Wollery also explained to you why heavy metal poisoning is plausible. Not surprisingly, you handwaved away that explanation as implausible but didn't handwave away radiation poisoning as implausible. Interesting. Not unexpected since heavy metal poisoning doesn't fit with your aliens hypothesis, but interesting.

 

[SOdhner]

I have not claimed to have done so,

Yes, you have. I even quoted you. Did you read the post you are replying to?

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You keep saying that, but you ignore evidence I present and refuse to give any of your own. Anyway, on this particular topic - can you provide evidence to back up your claim that I'm wrong? All you would have to do is show one case where he has failed to rule out all plausible non-mundane explanations. Just one, Rramjet.

I have reconsidered the question of whether ET is (or could be) a plausible explanation for some (but not all) UFOs - and I have come to the conclusion that it actually is a plausible explanation

Despite all the reasons why you're wrong and ET isn't remotely plausible. I already provided the link to the part where you dropped that conversation, feel free to go back and continue it.

I am suggesting that, in the absence of contrary evidence, the weight of evidence we do have indicates the letter has veracity.

What evidence? You haven't provided any. Here, let's ask Rramjet what kind of evidence he would require for this letter to be taken at face value:

No, in all circumstances, at a minimum, I would require evidence of witness reliability and the verified results of an independent, external investigation.

Okay! So, evidence of witness reliability (nope, don't have that) and the verified results of an independent, external investigation (nope!). Well, Rramjet, it looks like this falls short of your own requirements. Are you prepared to offer up evidence of witness reliability and the verified results of an independent, external investigation?

I had asked you to investigate the meaning of “plausible” - For example: “Seeming reasonable or probable. Having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable…”

Yup. That's the definition. Hey, Rramjet - what about "a UFO irradiated a bunch of people" fits with the definition above? I'm not seeing it.

Can you please explain what it is about your hoax hypothesis that fulfils those criteria? Also what it is about the letter that does not fulfil those criteria?

Here, let's do a side-by-side comparison! (Er, above and below, technically. I'm not going to mess around trying to make columns.)

AN "ALIEN" UFO IRRADIATED PEOPLE​

Is this plausible?

No. First, it presupposes some kind of "alien" presence, which is a huge leap of logic. No evidence of such a thing is present, and by the very definition of "alien" as presented by Rramjet this would require some very solid evidence indeed to get to the point where it is plausible. Note that while the specific type of "alien" has not been speculated on, all plausible non-mundane explanations have been ruled out. Lacking any evidence other than an anecdote which doesn't even mention a UFO and idle speculation by Rramjet, this is not even remotely plausible.

Does it fit with the evidence?

No. The symptoms described don't match any TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation, so radiation can be ruled out entirely. The UFO part is, as I mentioned above, not even mentioned in the story so this doesn't even have any anecdotal support. This theory seems to have no basis at all.

THE LETTER IS FACTUALLY INACCURATE​

Is this plausible?

Absolutely. We have numerous confirmed examples of tales being either fabricated entirely or distorted through retelling. There is no corroborating evidence that would indicate that would indicate the event happened as described (or at all) or that any research was done into this story at the time.

Does it fit with the evidence?

Absolutely. All of the items in the letter are things that can be made up (light, sound, smoke, a seemingly random list of symptoms).

If that is not shifting the burden of proof, then I don’t know what is!

Asking you to give evidence for one of your claims is shifting the burden of proof? How do you figure?

Dear Mr Cowgill, we are considering publishing your letter, but before we do, for verification purposes, we wonder if you could provide us with a little background information We require the following information … our publication deadline is …Sincerely, SciAm.

Setting aside for the moment the points you still haven't addressed (there's no evidence that they ever did any fact checking, and it's implausible that they ever would have done so for a letter (as opposed to an article)), this is still completely absurd.

You really think it would count as "fact checking" to ask, essentially, "are you sure"? What in the world would that prove? They would need to go to another source, not Cowgill himself. They would need to get some sort of independent verification for it to count as fact-checking.

I wrote an amusing example of why this is silly, but I worry that it may run afoul of the moderation for being more humor than logical argument so I'll say it in a serious way instead: Nobody is going to suddenly say "whoops! You caught me!" if you ask them to verify a story they told you. They'll just verify it.

You keep flipping between the plausibility of an explanation of the phenomenon described in the letter and the veracity of the letter itself – and wrong.

I think you may be missing a word there. At any rate, the two are the same thing. The letter being factually inaccurate IS a plausible explanation for the supposed phenomenon.

Just because we don’t have a plausible explanation for the phenomenon described in the letter does not mean that we must deny the reality of it. There are plenty of things that exist for which we do not have an explanation. Your logic in this regard is fallacious. There are many things we can observe as reality that we cannot explain.

Strawman.

The more plausible hypothesis (compared to “hoax”) concerning the letter itself is that it has veracity. We have no plausible explanation for the phenomenon the letter actually describes.

The letter being factually inaccurate IS a plausible explanation for the supposed events.

If you have a more plausible explanation, by all means tell it to us. Otherwise the most plausible explanation we have is that the letter is factually inaccurate (for example, a hoax).

Once again your logic lets you down. To reiterate: If you had read just a little more carefully you might have noted that I stated that I had no idea what type and dose matches the symptoms – I merely noted that the symptomatology in the case matches that of radiation poisoning – and that is an undeniable, objective fact.

First of all, it's bizarre that you are implying I didn't notice you said that you have no idea what TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation the symptoms match, since I specifically referred to that. Second, you have failed to understand the most basic concept here. I've tried analogies, I've tried wording it different ways. I don't know what else to say. I'll give it one last shot:

1. Different TYPES and DOSAGES of radiation present differently.
2. Because of this, there is no one set of symptoms for exposure to radiation.
3. For something to match the symptoms of radiation exposure, they must match the symptoms of some specific TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation.
4. These symptoms do not match any specific TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation.
5. It is therefore nonsensical to insist that they match radiation at all.

If you think the symptoms match, you would have to specify the TYPE and DOSAGE that they match for this to make any sense. Yes, I did see that you stated you have no idea. What I am suggesting is that you should take the time to do some research prior to making these claims.

Are you now denying that your hypothesis is that the letter is a hoax?

Not "now", always.

What I am saying is that the letter being factually inaccurate (for example, a hoax) is a plausible explanation.

Since you have said that you have eliminated all plausible mundane explanations, I assume you have some evidence that the letter is factually accurate? You haven't presented any such evidence yet.

 

[Rramjet]

In reference to the Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) and in light of the last few posts, in the interests of clarity, here is what we have:

A letter, from a USN trained career diplomat, Warner Cowgill, attached to the US Consulate in Venezuela, is published in Scientific American which matter of factually describes a “curious incident” which Cowgill assumes is “a recent strange meteorological occurrence (which) may be of interest to your readers as an addition to the list of electrical eccentricities”.

The letter goes on to describe how “nine persons” of a single family were awoken by “a loud humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house.” There was no associated heat.

The occupants were “terror stricken” and fell to their knees and “commenced to pray”. Their appeals were “were almost immediately interrupted by violent vomitings, and extensive swellings commenced to appear in the upper part of their bodies, this being particularly noticeable about the face and lips.”

“No special pain was felt until the ninth day, when the skin peeled off, and these blotches were transformed into virulent raw sores.” and “ The hair of the head fell off…”

There are other details included in the letter such as the “house was uninjured” and “Another curious attendant circumstance is that the trees around the house showed no signs of injury until the ninth day, when they suddenly withered, almost simultaneously with the development of the sores upon the bodies of the occupants of the house.” and more.

Cowgill states “This is perhaps a mere coincidence, but it is remarkable that the same susceptibility to electrical effects, with the same lapse of time, should be observed in both animal and vegetable organisms.” and concludes “I have visited the sufferers, who are now in one of the hospitals of this city; and although their appearance is truly horrible, yet it is hoped that in no case will the injuries prove fatal.”

So that’s it in a nutshell. As has been described, many researchers have noted the parallels between the victims symptomatology and radiation poisoning (the “immediate” vomiting and skin damage, a latency period, followed by the appearance of virulent sores and loss of hair).

For the UFO debunkers there are only two ways out. First to claim a hoax. However, as has been pointed out, that mere possibility does not make it a plausible hypothesis. Besides, what reason would Cowgill have for hoaxing, especially when he would have been almost certain to have been found out - by at least his consular colleagues - and then would have certainly suffered a serious loss of reputation and most likely his job as well. The matter of fact tone of the letter, the type and amount of detail, the publication in SciAm… all point toward the veracity of the letter, while there is absolutely nothing about it whatsoever to suggest a hoax.

The second way out for the debunkers is to question the accuracy of the reporting in the letter. The grounds for this is that the most parsimonious explanation, radiation poisoning, does not seem to be able to be reconciled with any specific type or dose of radiation. Therefore – according to the debunkers – the letter cannot be factually accurate. This is of course a version of their old standard – the “It cannot be true, therefore it isn’t” argument. However, as I have pointed out, just because we cannot explain something, does not mean we must necessarily deny its existence (just because we cannot positively identify something does not mean that something does not exist).

Oh and of course the other way out form them is to “shoot the messenger” by attempting to demonstrate inconsistencies in the messenger’s contentions in other matters. The assumption being that if this can be done, then whatever the messenger is presenting must be erroneous. This is of course (as are both the aforementioned) a fallacious approach.

When all this is pointed out to the debunkers they begin to “twist in the wind”. They begin claiming “Oh, but we have not contended a hoax, just factual inaccuracy”, and they simply go on to repeat their unfounded claims, despite the evidence to the contrary (“…but hoax IS plausible!”), and attempt to shift the burden of proof (“ Since you have said that you have eliminated all plausible mundane explanations…”) and to make false claims (“ You haven't presented any such evidence yet.””) and so on…

Quite simply, the debunkers cannot accept the letter for what it is - for to do so would destroy their faith-based belief system – that is that all UFOs can be accounted for as misrepresentations, misperceptions or hoaxes – and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them. That is just the nature of faith-based belief systems. No matter what I say, or what evidence or logical argument I might present, they will maintain their original beliefs regardless.

It is of course up to the reader to assess and form their own beliefs about this matter. All I can do is present the evidence and logical arguments as best I can. I will leave it to the readers to assess what my opponents have presented.

 

[Cuddles]

All I can do is present the evidence and logical arguments as best I can.

So, when do you plan on actually doing that?

 

[GeeMack]

All I can do is present the evidence and logical arguments as best I can.

So, when do you plan on actually doing that?

(Bolding mine.) Indeed the alleged evidence has been wholly unconvincing, the research has been mediocre at best and often deplorable, and the arguments have been almost completely lacking in sound logic, sometimes ridiculously illogical. The failure to make a reasoned, compelling case does not mean all the evidence and logical arguments haven't been presented to the best of his ability.

 

[RobDegraves]

Easily debunked.

1. Cowgill does not specify where the information he is presenting comes from.

2. Cowgill met the people but did not inspect the house or surroundings. If he did, the letter does not mention it.

3. We know little about Cowgill himself and his beliefs. UFO reporting surged in the late 19th century, along with theories like the Hollow Earth and psychic spiritualists. The Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882 in London and a fair number of very reputable scientists were firm believers.

Ergo... there is simply not enough in the report to base any conclusions. It could be anything from aliens, to ghosts to leprechauns. Basically it's not evidence of anything.


BTW... this sort of thing...

Quite simply, the debunkers cannot accept the letter for what it is - for to do so would destroy their faith-based belief system – that is that all UFOs can be accounted for as misrepresentations, misperceptions or hoaxes – and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them.

is just empty rhetoric. The same could be said about your position and the fact that you bother bringing it up is rather ironic.

 

[RoboTimbo]

In reference to the Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG) and in light of the last few posts, in the interests of clarity, here is what we have:

A letter, from a USN trained career diplomat, Warner Cowgill, attached to the US Consulate in Venezuela, is published in Scientific American which matter of factually describes a “curious incident” which Cowgill assumes is “a recent strange meteorological occurrence (which) may be of interest to your readers as an addition to the list of electrical eccentricities”.

How did your version of a process of elimination determine that it actually was Cowgill who wrote the letter? Obtaining stationery from the consulate would have been a trivial matter.

The letter goes on to describe how “nine persons” of a single family were awoken by “a loud humming noise and a vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of the house.” There was no associated heat.

The occupants were “terror stricken” and fell to their knees and “commenced to pray”. Their appeals were “were almost immediately interrupted by violent vomitings, and extensive swellings commenced to appear in the upper part of their bodies, this being particularly noticeable about the face and lips.”

Just the type of sensationalistic details that a hoaxer would put into a letter.

“No special pain was felt until the ninth day, when the skin peeled off, and these blotches were transformed into virulent raw sores.” and “ The hair of the head fell off…”

There are other details included in the letter such as the “house was uninjured” and “Another curious attendant circumstance is that the trees around the house showed no signs of injury until the ninth day, when they suddenly withered, almost simultaneously with the development of the sores upon the bodies of the occupants of the house.” and more.

I can tell, you haven't done the homework assigned to you. You haven't looked up the word "verisimilitude".

Cowgill states “This is perhaps a mere coincidence, but it is remarkable that the same susceptibility to electrical effects, with the same lapse of time, should be observed in both animal and vegetable organisms.” and concludes “I have visited the sufferers, who are now in one of the hospitals of this city; and although their appearance is truly horrible, yet it is hoped that in no case will the injuries prove fatal.”

Well, someone states that in a purported letter to the editor. We don't know that it was Cowgill. Unless you've done your minimum of due diligence in researching? No? Which hospital? Why would the real Cowgill not have included that detail in the letter so that fact checking could be done? It is the type of detail that a hoaxer would leave out.

So that’s it in a nutshell. As has been described, many researchers have noted the parallels between the victims symptomatology and radiation poisoning (the “immediate” vomiting and skin damage, a latency period, followed by the appearance of virulent sores and loss of hair).

So, heavy metal poisoning, you think? Or details made up out of whole cloth? Are you beginning to see why your version of a process of elimination is fatally flawed?

For the UFO debunkers there are only two ways out. First to claim a hoax. However, as has been pointed out, that mere possibility does not make it a plausible hypothesis. Besides, what reason would Cowgill have for hoaxing, especially when he would have been almost certain to have been found out - by at least his consular colleagues - and then would have certainly suffered a serious loss of reputation and most likely his job as well. The matter of fact tone of the letter, the type and amount of detail, the publication in SciAm… all point toward the veracity of the letter, while there is absolutely nothing about it whatsoever to suggest a hoax.

For the creduloids there are only two ways out. First to claim that the letter is genuine. However, as has been pointed out, the merest bit of research hasn't been done to determine the veracity of the purported letter. The creduloids' method of "research" is to take every anecdote at face value. That is, after all, the creduloid way.

The second way out for the debunkers is to question the accuracy of the reporting in the letter. The grounds for this is that the most parsimonious explanation, radiation poisoning, does not seem to be able to be reconciled with any specific type or dose of radiation. Therefore – according to the debunkers – the letter cannot be factually accurate. This is of course a version of their old standard – the “It cannot be true, therefore it isn’t” argument. However, as I have pointed out, just because we cannot explain something, does not mean we must necessarily deny its existence (just because we cannot positively identify something does not mean that something does not exist).

The second way out for the creduloids is to claim the accuracy of every anecdote. The letter says "the house was uninjured", therefore it was aliens. If they can imagine it, it must be true if you cannot positively identify what the explanation is to their satisfaction. The most parsimonious explanation is hoax and that's the fatal flaw to the creduoid argument.

Oh and of course the other way out form them is to “shoot the messenger” by attempting to demonstrate inconsistencies in the messenger’s contentions in other matters. The assumption being that if this can be done, then whatever the messenger is presenting must be erroneous. This is of course (as are both the aforementioned) a fallacious approach.

Of course, the other way out is for them to "shoot the messenger" calling them debunkers all the while ignoring inconsistencies in their own "evidence"! Their assumption is that if there are so many anecdotes, there must be aliens.

When all this is pointed out to the debunkers they begin to “twist in the wind”. They begin claiming “Oh, but we have not contended a hoax, just factual inaccuracy”, and they simply go on to repeat their unfounded claims, despite the evidence to the contrary (“…but hoax IS plausible!”), and attempt to shift the burden of proof (“ Since you have said that you have eliminated all plausible mundane explanations…”) and to make false claims (“ You haven't presented any such evidence yet.””) and so on…

When this is pointed out to the creduloids, their duck and dodge tactic is to bluster and bloviate, repeating the same tired and discredited "evidence" and repeating their same unfounded claims that they are unable to back up with evidence. Their most used fallacy is to attempt to switch the burden of proof. "I've eliminated all plausible mundane explanations so it must be aliens! But I'm not saying it is aliens, just that it can't be anything else. Now you have to prove that it isn't."

Quite simply, the debunkers cannot accept the letter for what it is - for to do so would destroy their faith-based belief system – that is that all UFOs can be accounted for as misrepresentations, misperceptions or hoaxes – and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them. That is just the nature of faith-based belief systems. No matter what I say, or what evidence or logical argument I might present, they will maintain their original beliefs regardless.

Quite simply, the creduloids cannot accept any answer that isn't "aliens". That would destroy their faith based belief system in ET and aliens. No matter the lack of any compelling evidence, no logic will sway them from their religion like belief in our little space buddies. Ask them for extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim? They will waffle and dance to try to make anecdotes be the gold standard of evidence. Show them the evidence that they had been trying to hide that would prove a story to be a HOAX? They will forget all about that one in their shame and throw up another story. And another story. And another story.

It is of course up to the reader to assess and form their own beliefs about this matter. All I can do is present the evidence and logical arguments as best I can. I will leave it to the readers to assess what my opponents have presented.

Of course, they will never present compelling evidence for any of their claims. They have their stories to keep them warm during the long winter evenings. As Sagan so rightly said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." We see why this is such a visionary statement when a wide-eyed creduloid comes under our scrutiny with their over-heated imaginations.


Let's go back to Delphos. You've never said why you think your version of a process of elimination utterly failed there. Do you think it was because you were hiding the details of his other hoaxing stories? Or were you genuinely not aware of them because you hadn't done the barest bit of research?

 

[SOdhner]

in light of the last few posts, in the interests of clarity, here is what we have:

Whee, another summary, complete with pointless recapping of what we've already read a million times along with some blatant attempts to pretend it's more credible than it is.

many researchers have noted the parallels between the victims symptomatology and radiation poisoning

So are you using the word "researchers" to mean "credulous UFO enthusiasts"? If so, it's not exactly convincing. If not, I would really love a link.

all point toward the veracity of the letter, while there is absolutely nothing about it whatsoever to suggest a hoax.

As I've shown, that's completely untrue. You seem to want to avoid addressing my points by making new posts rather than replying to what I've said, yet again.

You should really try responding to my post, Rramjet.

I will leave it to the readers to assess what my opponents have presented.

Rramjet, just for the record your above statement (and really, your whole post) comes off essentially as: "I'm unable to counter the valid points you have raised, but am also unable to admit I was wrong. Instead, I will avoid replying to these posts entirely."

I feel certain that's not the impression you intend to give, but surely you must see how bad it looks when we raise valid points and you refuse to respond to our posts and discuss them?

 

[Rramjet]

Easily debunked.

1. Cowgill does not specify where the information he is presenting comes from.

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.

2. Cowgill met the people but did not inspect the house or surroundings. If he did, the letter does not mention it.

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

3. We know little about Cowgill himself and his beliefs. UFO reporting surged in the late 19th century, along with theories like the Hollow Earth and psychic spiritualists.

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. He comes across as a down to earth, pragmatic, intelligent and curious person, interested in providing information that could potentially add to the common wealth of knowledge and presumably in providing information that might provide clues to a resolution of what these "electrical eccentircities" might actually be.

The Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882 in London and a fair number of very reputable scientists were firm believers.

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.

Ergo... there is simply not enough in the report to base any conclusions. It could be anything from aliens, to ghosts to leprechauns. Basically it's not evidence of anything.

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

In reference to my statement:
“Quite simply, the debunkers cannot accept the letter for what it is - for to do so would destroy their faith-based belief system – that is that all UFOs can be accounted for as misrepresentations, misperceptions or hoaxes – and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them.”

is just empty rhetoric. The same could be said about your position and the fact that you bother bringing it up is rather ironic.

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. For example:

Indeed the alleged evidence has been wholly unconvincing, the research has been mediocre at best and often deplorable, and the arguments have been almost completely lacking in sound logic, sometimes ridiculously illogical. The failure to make a reasoned, compelling case …

Yet, when pressed, they never seem to be able to support those assertions with evidence or logical argument…

So, heavy metal poisoning, you think?

Heavy metal poisoning does not have “immediate” symptoms, nor a latency period. It also has other major symptoms, such as on brain function, that are not noted. Nor are virulent sores or loss of hair noted, general symptoms of heavy metal poisoning. Remember all nine persons were affected in the same way.

The letter says "the house was uninjured", therefore it was aliens.

The letter does not “say” that at all! The facts of the letter cannot be plausibly explained by any mundane cause. That does not mean it was aliens, or anything else. We just don’t know. The interest comes when we note that the victim’s symptomatology most closely matches that of radiation poisoning…

"I've eliminated all plausible mundane explanations so it must be aliens! But I'm not saying it is aliens, just that it can't be anything else. Now you have to prove that it isn't."

…of course one of the other tactics open to, and liberally utilised by, the debunkers is misrepresentation. I have never claimed (personally) to have eliminated all plausible mundane explanations – just to have presented evidence that has done so. I have never claimed that, in the absence of plausible mundane explanations, ET is therefore the answer – merely that, (noting ostensible technological craft, intelligent control and associated beings) ET is a plausible explanation – not that it is the explanation or even that I believe it to be the explanation (looks can be deceiving). I have never asked the UFO debunkers to prove anything except their own claims. If I make a claim I support it with evidence or logical argument – when the UFO debunkers make a claim - that is as far as they are willing to go. When the UFO debunkers make a claim and I ask for them to support it – they immediately state that I am shifting the burden of proof! For example watch carefully what happens in the following:

Let's go back to Delphos. (…) Do you think it was because you were hiding the details of his other hoaxing stories?

You have implied that Ron Johnson has hoaxed “other” stories and that I have “hidden” the details of those stories. Do you have any evidence to support those unfounded assertions?

Then watch what happens in the following. I stated:
“ …there is absolutely nothing about it whatsoever to suggest a hoax.”

As I've shown, that's completely untrue.

Can you provide the evidence or logical argument to support that unfounded assertion? Please note that the mere assertion (or linking to a post where you merely assert) the possibility of a hoax does not constitute evidence or logical argument – it is merely another unfounded assertion.

..and in the following:

…surely you must see how bad it looks when we raise valid points…

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

…and you refuse to respond to our posts and discuss them?

Clearly I am responding to and discussing your posts.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Easily debunked.

1. Cowgill does not specify where the information he is presenting comes from.

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.

Or, the letter didn't come from Cowgill at all. I missed where you had eliminated that possibility with your version of a process of elimination and you failed to address it the last several times I've asked. I'm beginning to think as others do, that you don't do any research at all and just rely on your religious like belief in aliens.

2. Cowgill met the people but did not inspect the house or surroundings. If he did, the letter does not mention it.

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

It is unlikely that he wrote the letter. If he had he most likely would have mentioned which hospital they were in. Which hospitals in Venezuela have you checked? Which Venezuelan newspaper archives?

3. We know little about Cowgill himself and his beliefs. UFO reporting surged in the late 19th century, along with theories like the Hollow Earth and psychic spiritualists.

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. He comes across as a down to earth, pragmatic, intelligent and curious person, interested in providing information that could potentially add to the common wealth of knowledge and presumably in providing information that might provide clues to a resolution of what these "electrical eccentircities" might actually be.

The writer of the letter comes across as a hoaxer. I'm not proposing that as the explanation, just that it matches the evidence.

The Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882 in London and a fair number of very reputable scientists were firm believers.

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.

Ergo... there is simply not enough in the report to base any conclusions. It could be anything from aliens, to ghosts to leprechauns. Basically it's not evidence of anything.

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

Your unfounded assertion is dismissed. The only conclusion that we have consensus on is that the case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation, leaving only "mundane". The evidence points to it being a hoax. The verisimilitude of the letter, using consulate stationery and hijacking an official's name, the lack of details that could be corroborated such as the name of the hospital. Yes, based on the evidence, I'm leaning more towards HOAX as the explanation, though I don't propose that, just note that it fits the evidence and the case positively defies plausible non-mundane explanation.

In reference to my statement:
“Quite simply, the debunkers cannot accept the letter for what it is - for to do so would destroy their faith-based belief system – that is that all UFOs can be accounted for as misrepresentations, misperceptions or hoaxes – and no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them.”

is just empty rhetoric. The same could be said about your position and the fact that you bother bringing it up is rather ironic.

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. For example:

Indeed the alleged evidence has been wholly unconvincing, the research has been mediocre at best and often deplorable, and the arguments have been almost completely lacking in sound logic, sometimes ridiculously illogical. The failure to make a reasoned, compelling case …

Yet, when pressed, they never seem to be able to support those assertions with evidence or logical argument…

As others have noted, your assertion is empty rhetoric.

So, heavy metal poisoning, you think?

Heavy metal poisoning does not have “immediate” symptoms, nor a latency period. It also has other major symptoms, such as on brain function, that are not noted. Nor are virulent sores or loss of hair noted, general symptoms of heavy metal poisoning. Remember all nine persons were affected in the same way.

So what TYPE and DOSAGE of radiation did they suffer? Remember, it has been noted that you expound the most on the things you know the least about and you engage in empty rhetoric. Of course, hoax is the most likely explanation rendering the question moot. Which hospital's records have you checked in Venezuela?

The letter says "the house was uninjured", therefore it was aliens.

The letter does not “say” that at all! The facts of the letter cannot be plausibly explained by any mundane cause. That does not mean it was aliens, or anything else. We just don’t know. The interest comes when we note that the victim’s symptomatology most closely matches that of radiation poisoning…

Well, no. Your unfounded assertion is dismissed. It is interesting to note that this is actually evidence that the letter is a hoax.

"I've eliminated all plausible mundane explanations so it must be aliens! But I'm not saying it is aliens, just that it can't be anything else. Now you have to prove that it isn't."

…of course one of the other tactics open to, and liberally utilised by, the debunkers is misrepresentation. I have never claimed (personally) to have eliminated all plausible mundane explanations – just to have presented evidence that has done so. I have never claimed that, in the absence of plausible mundane explanations, ET is therefore the answer – merely that, (noting ostensible technological craft, intelligent control and associated beings) ET is a plausible explanation – not that it is the explanation or even that I believe it to be the explanation (looks can be deceiving). I have never asked the UFO debunkers to prove anything except their own claims. If I make a claim I support it with evidence or logical argument – when the UFO debunkers make a claim - that is as far as they are willing to go. When the UFO debunkers make a claim and I ask for them to support it – they immediately state that I am shifting the burden of proof! For example watch carefully what happens in the following:

You are the only person claiming anything. You've never provided evidence for your claims. ET is not a plausible explanation. I've asked you numerous times how you arrived at your unfounded religious like belief in aliens but you've never answered. The truth is, you believed in aliens first and now you see aliens everywhere. I'm not proposing that, it just fits the evidence.

Let's go back to Delphos. (…) Do you think it was because you were hiding the details of his other hoaxing stories?

You have implied that Ron Johnson has hoaxed “other” stories and that I have “hidden” the details of those stories. Do you have any evidence to support those unfounded assertions?

You have implied that Ron Johnson saw an alien spaceship. Do you have any evidence to support your unfounded religion like belief? I've shown the evidence that you were trying to hide his other hoaxes but actually, I asked you which it was. Were you hiding his other hoaxes or are your reaserch skills so sadly lacking that you honestly missed what I easily found? The fact that I've asked you the same question before and you didn't answer is evidence that you were hiding it. I'm not proposing that, only that the evidence insists on it.

Then watch what happens in the following. I stated:
“ …there is absolutely nothing about it whatsoever to suggest a hoax.”

As I've shown, that's completely untrue.

Can you provide the evidence or logical argument to support that unfounded assertion? Please note that the mere assertion (or linking to a post where you merely assert) the possibility of a hoax does not constitute evidence or logical argument – it is merely another unfounded assertion.

I did. In the post that you are quoting me from. Why do you make these baseless falsehoods when they are so easily shown to be false? You've never done the barest bit of research to ascertain the veracity of the purported letter, despite my asking you numerous times to do so. You simply believe it's aliens so now everything about the story to you is evidence of aliens.

..and in the following:

…surely you must see how bad it looks when we raise valid points…

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

…and you refuse to respond to our posts and discuss them?

Clearly I am responding to and discussing your posts.

But you clearly don't answer. You've never answered for where your version of a process of elimination failed so miserably with the Venezuela case and the Delphos case. You've never answered for why your version of a process of elimination is so fatally flawed. Is it because of your religion like belief in aliens and wanting to shoehorn anything you can find to fit your preconceived beliefs?

Do you have any extraordinary evidence at all to support your extraoardinary belief in aliens visiting our planet?

When will you be doing your due diligence in researching the Venezuela case to ascertain the veracity of the purported letter?