Sorry Waarthog, I posted that link a few posts earlier, so I didn't bother posting it again. Here's the source. See page 34 of the PDF:
http://foia.fbi.gov/ufo/ufo8.pdf

While we're at it, let's read the official report on Rendlesham. Page 3:
http://www.rense.com/general31/ufofilepart1.pdf

I read a comment earlier about sites like Rense and such. Unfortunately, due to the nature of UFO research, and the fact that it is given no credibility by the mainstream, we have to resort to "sites like that" to archive all the data. And Rense does have an impressive collection of historical data on the subject of UFO's.

What does the First Ammendment have to do with this?

A lady by the name of Rose G had similar "Freedom of Speech" complaints. My response:

"I see the board more as abiding by a host's rules when you are in their home. If you go over to someone's house and start insulting them or acting terribly guess what - the host will ask you to leave. One can rant and rave all they want about Freedom of Speech but that doesn't mean you can say what you want in someone's home without consequences. Similar situation exists here. This is BA's 'home', if you would like to be in his home you must abide by his rules or he will kick you out."

However, this thread is getting a little heated. This would be a good time for everyone to reread this thread:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...orum=1&start=0

Before things get out of hand and the thread gets locked.

Not applicable. We are on Phil's board and agreed to abide by his rules.

Three things.
1. All I can get out of the recent correspondence between you and others is disputing others interpretations of what you have said and I felt it was descending into a shouting match thread which Phil HAS locked in the past. I don't want this thread to lock as I am enjoying the discourse I am having with HankSolo.

2. I did not direct you to stop posting and even if I did, I have no authority to do so.

3. Go read the First Amdendment and try to figure out what it means and why it doesn't apply in this case.

Hank, seriously buddy, have you read anything in the way of actual research on the subject? For example have you read any of the sources I posted earlier in this thread? If not, why not? In all seriousness, there is plenty out there showing the problems with UFOlogy. Even Tim admits to that and admits to having read that side. There is no scientific evidence, Hank, and if you would look into it closely that's exactly what you would find.

Or do you have a rebuttal of the sources I suggested?

Hank,

For some reason, I get an error on the FOIA link so I will have to try from my home computer. So I am not ignoring it, I just can't get at it right now.

Make sure you have Acrobat Reader installed. It's a free download from Adobe.

Edited to add link to Acrobat Reader:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HankSolo on 2003-03-18 16:24 ]</font>

Yes JS, there is no scientific proof. I admit that and always have. A scientist is going to want hard evidence in order to be able to judge something. A captured UFO or alien body, or something tangible like that. I can respect that. But when we talk about UFO's we are talking about possibilities, and what possibilities science can and cannot allow. An ETUFO can be science, but a scientist cannot accept an ETUFO (currently).

And therefore, perhaps a scientist is not the person who should judge the credibility of the soft evidence, since that evidence is meaningless to him/her. I understand that fully.

Edit: And yes I do intend to read the online book. The other one is out of print.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HankSolo on 2003-03-18 15:54 ]</font>

Well, Hank, I must say that was a very good post.

However, there's one thing that continues to nag on me... that is scientists evaluating "soft evidence".

I can't help but feel that Carl Sagan has a point: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's the word "require" that I think we should discuss. After all, that's why I am such an adamant foe of ETUFOs. As I said, the moment there is evidence for the subject I'll jump right on board, but for now everything has to be addressed in the same fashion.

If you want to believe in the ETUFO possibility, then you might have a problem with the scientific perspective, I'll grant you that. But then, how on Earth can you claim to be able to disbelieve anything? Hopw, for example, can you dismiss Nancy's Zetatalk? Is it just because it contradicts your tried and true beliefs or is it because it requires extraordinary evidence?

What I'm looking for is consistency. I say Nancy is wrong for the same reason that the ETUFOers are wrong: they have no evidence. You seem to have a different idea, but I'll be tarred-and-feathered if I can put my finger on it. Tim said something about a "court of law", but that's a completely subjective and up-to-interpretation thing. Everybody has a different "court of law" in their heads and so it is probably impossible for us to agree on any given verdict. This isn't science, rather it's game-playing, in my mind. The standardization of science provides and excellent way to separate the facts from the phonies. Can you point to a case where it has gone wrong? On second thought, that's a rough question because science, by definition, doesn't go wrong because it can constantly change to fit new data and better models.

There is no finer scrutinizing tool we have than science, methinks. Why shouldn't we hold objective reality up to the highest standards? Why should we waste our time with all the "soft evidence" if there's phenomena out there with "hard evidence" that go unexplained. Perhaps that's a value judgement.

I'm interested in what people believe purely from a curiousity standpoint. It amazes me that people will believe things and fly in the face of all evidence and refuse to be convinced otherwise. Anybody who has been involved in the scientific community that this we as scientists are not immune from this sort of behavior either. That's why I study the stuff, as insurance against blind allegiance to a theory.

Every question that the UFOlogist has had I have asked, and in every case I have been given an answer that seems very robust. I love to see answers ripped to shreds just as much as the next guy, but it has to be done using actual evidence and not lame-o excuses, AFAIAC.

Hank, Timothy,

while I sometimes disagree with JS's tone, and perhaps some of his assertions, I have to second his last post. There's a lot of extraordinary things happening - both in the world around us and in our heads - that have extraordinary but for-real evidence to back them up. And together, they account for just about every UFO.

The extraordinary claims made by those who think that alien spacecraft have already been here don't have the extraordinary evidence to back them up. Which leaves us with hearsay. It doesn't require the intellectual dishonesty of a John Mack, but even honest and intelligent people can be wrong.

Hey, like the poster in Mulder's office says, I want to believe. But life isn't the X-Files.

I couldn't agree more. I want to believe aliens are visiting us. Could you imagine? It would mean interstellar travel is possible; the fields of physics, biology, astronomy and computer science would be blown wide-open; there would be another intelligent race that could view human psychology from a truly objective view.

I want aliens to exist. Sadly, I don't see any solid evidence that they do. But sometimes people want it so badly that they are willing to 'fill-in the cracks' in the evidence to conclude that they are right. Sometimes the desire is so strong it causes outright delusions (ex. aliens telepathically contact Nancy), but for most people it just leads us to accept evidence which in a different situation we may not find credible.

I think this is why posters like JS can get so adamant against pro-UFO people, the 'evidence' is clouded with their desire to want to see the connection, and JS (and others) will take you to task on it.

The question is, how much of ones belief in the existance of aliens is based on solid evidence and how much is based on 'want'.

I don't believe we can disbelieve anything, not completely. That goes hand-in-hand with accepting possibilities. Those possibilities do not have to be very high, but they exist nonetheless. A scientist uses 'hard evidence', but possibilities are based on logic. Logic is my 'baloney detector', and what else can we use when we are talking about possibilities?

Perhaps PlanetX arriving next month will happen, but I don't give it much of a chance. Logic tells me so, because of several factors, which I can go into if necessary but I don't think it's necessary right now. The same about psychic phenomena. I have thought about it quite a bit, and I certainly think it has a possibility, and I really wish it was true. But I don't see the logic in how it could work, so that possibility is very low to me.

It's all about weighing and balancing all different possibilities, which fluctuate throughout our lives. And those possibilities that appeal to my logic and explain observations in a logical way, are given a higher chance than those that don't. I don't even dismiss religion.

Okay, this is getting to the meat of it, then Hank. Logic is what you use, so you seem to think that you can "deduce" whether something is credible or not.

In order for "deduction" to work, you need to have a set of assumptions. These assumptions need to be plain as day, or we will get nowhere. If I "deduce" something in science it is always from a particular model. For example, when I "deduce" the precesssion of the perhelion of Mercury using Newtonian assumptions, I end up an observation that contradicts my deduction. When I "deduce" the precession from an Einstein GR model, the observations agree with the deduction.

That's the only way someone can be said to deduce something in science.

Scholasticism, an ideal that the Greeks adhered to as did the medieval theologians, is the belief that one can deduce the rules of the universe simply by sitting around and thinking about it. Problem is, as a general rule the scholastics are not clear as to what their assumptions are. That's when you end up with arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (I know, I know, no such argument ever took place: it' an illustrative example, OK?)

So, this is what we now ask for whenever someone claims to be able to "deduce" what can or cannot be true: "What are your assumptions?" And you obviously cannot say you have no assumptions for then you wouldn't be able to deduce anything.

So, Hank, what are your assumptions?

Maybe what HankSolo is talking about is probability, rather than logic per se.
Scientists are used to demanding solid proof, but in real life we often must make decisions based only on incomplete information.
Of course, in some contexts probability is subjective, which creates a problem. But perhaps there's another take on the issue. Hank, why don't you believe Nancy's predictions in ZetaTalk, or (say) that Elvis is dead? Would you say that past experience has some bearing on you appraisal of those 'possibilities' which you mentioned?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2003-03-18 18:34 ]</font>

"Three things.
1. All I can get out of the recent correspondence between you and others is disputing others interpretations of what you have said and I felt it was descending into a shouting match thread which Phil HAS locked in the past. I don't want this thread to lock as I am enjoying the discourse I am having with HankSolo.

2. I did not direct you to stop posting and even if I did, I have no authority to do so.

3. Go read the First Amdendment and try to figure out what it means and why it doesn't apply in this case"

Man it's not even safe to agree with anyone in this place...WOW talk about uptight and defensive!

I don't have to read the First Amendment or any other part of the U.S. Constitution, I know it well.

On 2003-03-18 14:11, Timothy wrote:
Oh well, so much for the First Amendment.



For God's sake people it was a joke!

"while I sometimes disagree with JS's tone, and perhaps some of his assertions, I have to second his last post. There's a lot of extraordinary things happening - both in the world around us and in our heads - that have extraordinary but for-real evidence to back them up. And together, they account for just about every UFO.

The extraordinary claims made by those who think that alien spacecraft have already been here don't have the extraordinary evidence to back them up. Which leaves us with hearsay. It doesn't require the intellectual dishonesty of a John Mack, but even honest and intelligent people can be wrong."

Very well put.

Thanks for seconding the seconding of one of my posts Tim. It means a lot to a ornery scientist like myself. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

as i read through the posts on this forum i can feel that there is a certain hostility (i dont know if this is the right word) towards anyone who tries to put the UFO matter in the probabilities arena.

the most used argument from the skeptics side is the necessity of proof. "extraordinary" proof nonetheless.

but what is the praticality of this demand? in my opinion it only serves to avoid considering the UFO subject alltogether.

its not like those spaceships (if thats what they are) will land and leave behind some piece of extraordinary technology for us humans to marvel upon. what kind of proof do you required? maybe witnessing for yourselfs one of this things flying above you would do the trick of changing your bias?

i've never witnessed an UFO appearence myself. but i know of bona fide people, that arent selling any UFO books or t-shirts that have seen these things.
i know of comercial airline pilots that have seen these things. they know, despite the skeptics more "earthly" explanations that these things are highly manouverable flying crafts and not natural phenomenon.
and they know because they're familiar with aerodinamics and they're used to flying and know when they see something out of the ordinary.

thats why, despite the fact that there is no known proof, i cannot ignore that there's something weird going on in our skies.

Well, this is an astronomy forum.
Astronomy is about science, not speculation.

This is just common sense. If I told you that your house was in danger of falling apart, would you accept that without any evidence?

They don't have to land.
Positive proof that they flew by would be nice already.

Unexplained does not equal alien.
UFO does not equal flying saucer.
UFOlogy detractors have convinced me that it's rather common to not recognize or misinterpret visual phenomena -- a lot more common than most people think. That's the simpler explanation.

"it's rather common to not recognize or misinterpret visual phenomena -- a lot more common than most people think. That's the simpler explanation."

yes, its possible to misinterpret visual phenomena. but you seem to forget that there are witnesses to the UFO phenomena that because of their expertise would not be so easily mistaken.

you seem to put every UFO testimony to the same bag. just because there are weirdos and fakers attached to UFOlogy, that doesnt mean there are no real events.

i remember to read an article recently, about a well known arqueologist in Japan. he was attributed the discovery of several important finds and was well regarded and steemed by mainstream arqueology (at least in Japan). it was latter found out (with photographic evidence) that this man planted faked artifacts at the arqueological site just to dig them later and take the credit.

so, my point is. just because there are fakes (and i believe there are these in every human science) that does not mean that we go around thowing them all into the same bag. just IMHO, of course.

ps: there is also a recent scandal with a physics engineer or something. couldnt find the articles, though.

"Positive proof that they flew by would be nice already."

also there is that kind proof. there are hundreds of writen accounts, even official ones. if one cares to look for them.

True, but it does mean that the "evidence" presented is shaky.

Written accounts of what?

"True, but it does mean that the "evidence" presented is shaky."

why is that?
its a phenomenon that deserves proper and serious investigation. its just ridiculed because it doesnt fit into some people mind frames.

you should notice that every time the UFO phenomenon is brought to the media attention its usualy related to some whacko with a fantastic tale. the media never shows the serious part of UFOlogy. i believe thats what contributes to the general misinformation.

But such proof is, at best, weak. I'm sure you can search the net and find hundreds of accounts of people who have spoken directly to God. Are you ready to believe God exists now based on that?

You are? Uh, oh, there are probably thousands of accounts of how prayers to Krishna healed the sick, so now which one do you beleive in?

Wait, maybe they are both wrong because there are hundreds of startling eye-witness testimonies in India of how a temple to Siva(?) cures the insane, hmmmm I guess Siva must exist then too.

Hey, I think there are also hundreds of people willing to fork over thousands of dollars for free-energy machines. Should we conclude Newton was wrong?

How about an astronomy twist. There must be thousands of people who will swear on the accuracy of astrology. But for some strange reason science does not accept such overwhelming testimonial evidence.

See my above post regarding using 'want' to fill-in-the-cracks. I want aliens to exist too, but I'm not willing to believe that they are currently visiting us based on testimonials and fuzzy pictures. The evidence has to be more solid or science will have to accept all the items mentioned above.

"Thanks for seconding the seconding of one of my posts Tim. It means a lot to a ornery scientist like myself."

Remarking that a statement is well put does not imply agreement, just to be clear. It simply meens I found it to be a valid piont and well said.

Like I've more or less said, JS, we do agree on many parts of this debate, just not on what is evidence.

At best in regards to evidence we should agree to disagree, as politicians seem to do.

Politicians! Oh man, theres a can of worms!!! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

"Well, this is an astronomy forum.
Astronomy is about science, not speculation."

True, and I think most of us respect this. However, this string is titled 'UFO's & Nibiru.' I don't think you can have much of a debate/conversation on UFOs if you don't expand the subject somewhat into speculation.

Speculation can be the seeds of a good theory.

Another can of worms? Boy, I bet you folks will be glad when I'm off line for a month or so.

"also there is that kind proof. there are hundreds of writen accounts, even official ones. if one cares to look for them."

I agree with some of what you have said, Outcast, but I think it's important to note that accounts, firsthand or other, no matter how credable are evidence, not 'proof.'

"yes, its possible to misinterpret visual phenomena. but you seem to forget that there are witnesses to the UFO phenomena that because of their expertise would not be so easily mistaken.

you seem to put every UFO testimony to the same bag. just because there are weirdos and fakers attached to UFOlogy, that doesnt mean there are no real events."

You said a mouthfull here, very true!

__________________
"Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent" -Adolf Hitler

Expertise means nothing except for the fact that the person should be able to understand what they're observing better, but if they can't provide evidence we are back to square one. Personal testimonies are just too unreliable to be used as scientific evidence.

Of course there are "actual" events. Its what causes said events that is up to debate. To date, there isn't one credible, independelty verified observation of a craft that could be determined to be of "non-earthly" origins. Until that observation is made, there is no falsifiable evidence in support of the ETUFO position. Therefore we cannot evaluate it, for it is basically taken on the faith of testimony.

There are commercial airline pilots that believe in all kinds of things. Just because they're flying a plane doesn't mean that they are given free reign to say whether something is an ETUFO without providing evidence.

No, there is no "same bag", it's simply a matter of what you define as evidence. Archeology rises and falls on evidence just like any other science. The evidence this guy was using was determined to be "faked" because it could be examined. In the case of UFOs, we don't have any evidence to examine. Therefore we are in a worse situation. That's why we insist on evidence, for HOW ELSE are we supposed to judge an idea?

Yes, and all these go to show why you shouldn't trust the "argument on authority". You should evaluate the evidence yourself.

And if there is no evidence, there's nothing to evaluate. The case is there is no evidence for ETUFOs. And that's that.