'Scanning' parts means you cannot claim to have read it, as you did. Once again you falsely accuse others while not being honest yourself. Anyway, we've already seen the effectivity of your 'scanning' with the plasma paper and its summary.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

I'd like to see that too, but I am also wondering why that detail is even relevent.
Who cares how many people believe? Even if 90% believe, what does that prove?

The internet is filled with "What you never knew" facts that work the same way. These are facts that have been misrepresented in some fashion over time. ET has a long history of misrepresentation, so it is safe to assume that this will sway the number of people who believe.

Just because X number of people believe George Washington Carver invented peanut butter, does that mean it is true?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Can either do things in a correct and scientifically responsible way? Sure, but, until their credentials are expert enough in all the aspects involved, then we must question their methods and findings.

Not sure what question you were seeking an answer to. But I essentially agree with you. This investigation was cursury with results suggest there is need for a more in depth one with a solid science foundation.

I do not mind if you close the thread or not as you wish. I have presented my observations and opinions. I have attempted to answer the questions as to what logic led me to conclusions.

In what way do I need to support that I make this claim.

Evasion noted. Your particular claim was that space aliens manipulated Clancy's subjects to make it seem as if there was another potential explanation for the effects attributed to abduction, so that such an attribution would seem improper. Support or withdraw this contention.

And that qualifies you for what?

To assess criticism of scientific inquiry on methodological grounds.

To accept your assertion that the study is absolutly true and valid...

Straw man. No such assertion was made. I reject your reasons for dismissing it.

I offer my opinion of the study.

An opinion based on ignorance. You neither read the study nor (by your own earlier admission) understand in general how such studies are made.

You reject the study on flimsy grounds. This contradicts your statement that you would acquiesce to a study that "proved you wrong." In fact such a study exists. But since you reserve the right to dismiss studies as "invalid" according to whatever arbitrary criteria appeal to your lay experience, your promise is demonstrated to be meaningless.

It is common for pseudoscientists to exercise an ad hoc revision approach: to say what they would accept, as a way of creating the illusion that they ar reasonable. Then when presented with what they had sought, they backpedal and establish new criteria designed to exclude what has been provided. You follow the pattern of someone seeking only to be seen as correct, not the pattern of someone who wants to be correct.

Your stamp of approval on the study does not impress me.

I gave no such "stamp of approval." I merely noted that the grounds upon which you propose to declare it invalid have no basis in scientific methodology.

I have been trained and have professional experience in scientific research methodology.
Which makes you what? Infallable?

Straw man. No such claim was made. It qualifies me to determine whether your attempt to invalidate Clancy's work on methodological grounds has a basis. It does not.

Peter Jennings is a large number?
No, but the ratings that keep the show in reruns do. No audience, no air time.

And all of that has what to do with space aliens and how many people believe in them?

You state that a "large number" of people believe that UFOs are caused by space aliens. I have asked you for a quantitative argument. You have provided only irrelevant handwaving. Support your assertion of a "large number" or withdraw it.

But there has never been a full comprehensive study...

Shifting the burden of proof.

I have asked you many questions about how such a study should be made, according to you. I have lost track of how many times I've asked. You simply sidestep every request.

Support that your qualifications are better or more informed than the physicist who was an integral part of the investigation.

I make no such claim. However, it is improper of you to invoke Hynek in your defense because he obviously cannot have seen your particular claims. Do not assume that his theories on space aliens are the same as yours. In fact, since he was unsure of the existence of ETs and that UFOs are their vehicles, I doubt he would have endorsed your claim that space aliens are manipulating our minds to make it seem as if the effects were mundane.

Declaring it circular does not prove it invalid.

It has been explained many times what makes it circular. It's not simply a declaration. And yes, circular arguments are invalid.

No where will you find the crux of my hypothesis on google.

I specifically did not claim that: I have many times said that it is your conclusion and therefore you must support it. However it is my contention that you did little to inform yourself both about Clancy and about Mack other than to consult the Web. You all but admitted that this was your approach with Mack. I suspect it was also your approach to Clancy, but you refuse to answer questions that would allow me to determine it.

Meaningless terminology liberally applied.

Not meaningless, and applied only where indicated.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I stipulated that I scanned and did not read word for word the parts of the report that I accepted as valid.

Ad hoc revision. You first said you "skimmed" the work. Now you wish us to believe that you nevertheless managed to skim all the important parts and omit only that which was immaterial.

It is only the subjective nature of the conclusion I object to.

No. You propose to reject it based on a claim that it was methodologically unsound. But having failed to read the entire book, and thus not being fully aware of its content, you cannot claim that your rejection is informed fully on the method.

Further, you previously admitted to a limited understanding of scientific methodology. You were asked in another thread to devise a proper scientific method to study plasma. Not only were you unable to do so, you thought it was improper that you, a "non-scientist," be asked to do so. Since you noisily protested that you should not be held accountable for designing valid experiments, I wonder why you think you have the prerogative to do so now. Your knowledge of scientific method seems to vary depending on whether your argument du jour requires you to have it or not to have it.

Kindly don't dismiss that contradiction as mere debate trickery. You are, in fact, trying to win this debate on principles of debate trickery and not instead from a sober and informed evaluation of the facts.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I do not mind if you close the thread or not as you wish. I have presented my observations and opinions. I have attempted to answer the questions as to what logic led me to conclusions.

No, you have been thoroughly evasive to questions and indifferent to analysis of your logic. BAUT does not close threads to save the claimant the embarrassment of retraction or relieve him from his responsibility. If you continue to participate, you will be held accountable for your claims.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

There is a very large portion of the population who believe in UFO aliens.

Nearly one-third of the U.S. population thinks the Sun revolves about the Earth; nearly one-half believe antibiotics kill bacteria.

bart5050, why do you think anybody should care what people believe when it comes to determining facts?

__________________
"Slapping a guy on the head is just as funny now as it was eighty years ago."

Your particular claim was that space aliens manipulated Clancy's subjects to make it seem as if there was another potential explanation for the effects attributed to abduction, so that such an attribution would seem improper. Support or withdraw this contention.

No I didn't and I cannot be responsible for your faulty assesment.
1. Space aliens supposedly mask their activity and promote false beliefs by masking memory with false screen memories.
2. Meomory regression brings an alternate memory to the surface. Essentually two memories of the same time frame. One as a discovered truth that directly conflicts with another the subject finds more comfortable.
3, It is the nature of the conflicting memories that introduces anomaly into the results, further aggrevated by the training to accept false belief.

Aliens exist / don't exist, is still subjective.

To assess criticism of scientific inquiry on methodological grounds.

Agreed. However your bias against alien existance specificly disqualifies you as an expert on all things alien.

You state that a "large number" of people believe that UFOs are caused by space aliens. I have asked you for a quantitative argument. You have provided only irrelevant handwaving. Support your assertion of a "large number" or withdraw it.

Diversionary and painting a falsehood of my statement to support the handwaving claim.

The belief and interest are supported by ratings. As noted by the ad I see this morning on the history channel for three shows running back to back beginning at 8:00 tonight. Shows are driven by ratings. Ratings are a poll of potential number of viewers. The many web pages and forum posters indicate the belief is genuine.

Only an in depth investigation of the alien claim itself would reveal if the belief is based on a truth or imagination.

I have asked you many questions about how such a study should be made, according to you. I have lost track of how many times I've asked. You simply sidestep every request.

Irrelevent and invalid question. I make no claim to be a scientist qualified to direct such an investigation. I do not need to be a scientist to recognize that a subject is porely understood and in need of more study.

I recognize that we don't know enough about galaxy formation. Does this recognition of a truth now require that I take charge of the study of galaxies?

I doubt he would have endorsed your claim that space aliens are manipulating our minds to make it seem as if the effects were mundane.

Don't know, you make an assumption that he would or would not, i did not. I merely point out that he believed it needed more investigation. You buy into the whitewash that he claimed and say investigation closed.

And they don't manipulate to make it seem mundane. Quite the opposite. They make manipulations to make it seem extraordinary enough for the believers to be mesmerized, while they themselves remain hidden.

To fully reveal would be to despel the myth and bring direct question of their motive. They are like an anonymous phone caller that hangs up when you ask who this is.

And yes, circular arguments are invalid.

To prove it circular and invalid you would have to prove the aliens do not exist. If in fact they do exist then the argument is not circular but quite valid.

You cannot prove the don't. I cannot prove they do. So the circular argument becomes a midirection to impune without foundation.

I suspect it was also your approach to Clancy, but you refuse to answer questions that would allow me to determine it.

I stated my concerns about her study and why I have these concerns as clearly as I know how several times. I did not get those concerns from Google. The only thing I got from google was that there were objections, I saw no details as to why.

Due to the skeptical nature of your interrogatory I felt it prudent to investigate it for myself and make my own evaluation. Thus I took a time out and stated that I would get back to you. Had I found her conclusions objective I would have stated it as such and deemed my hypotheses as unsound.

I have changed my views in the past when I found the facts of merit to do so. You know this yourself. I am not a fanatic clinging to dogma I have set in stone. You proved your points to satisfaction on Roswell and A 20. Here you have not.

I still do not know the specifics of others claims against Clancey's study nor do I care.

UFOologist do not like my hypothesis any better than you. I have to call it as I see it.

Not meaningless, and applied only where indicated.

Would only be indicated if my hypotheses were proved false beyond all doubt and I continued to cling to it.

bart5050, why do you think anybody should care what people believe when it comes to determining facts?

I don't particuarly think that. Only pointed it out to say I have some foundation for my beliefs. It is here on BAUT that it became important as to exact numbers.

Personally, I do not care. However it became necessary for me to give this more attention because you insisted that I do so. You could have stipulated that public belief and interest existed. That would not have invalidated your arguments.

I belive the intent was not to ascertain the value but to try and attack my logic at all costs.

No, you have been thoroughly evasive to questions and indifferent to analysis of your logic. BAUT does not close threads to save the claimant the embarrassment of retraction or relieve him from his responsibility. If you continue to participate, you will be held accountable for your claims.

I have not evaded the questions, you reject the answers. So far your analysis of my logic has rendered no copelling reasons to abandon it.

The aliens exist or not. If they exist and become revealed to us I would ask them why they played the silly games of a snakecharmer. If they do not then I would seek to understand how so many could be so misguided for so long.

It was not I who suggested the thread be closed. I stipulate that I don't care.

Kindly don't dismiss that contradiction as mere debate trickery. You are, in fact, trying to win this debate on principles of debate trickery and not instead from a sober and informed evaluation of the facts.

Not true. I stated that the objectivity of the method was valid. I just feel that it could have had more study groups to make the conclusion less ambiguious.

I state my objection to the conclusion. Your arguments merly point out that I am not qualified to have conducted the study myself. Agreed.

You offer nothing more than the study itself to dispell my concerns.

I don't think the dabate is winnable in this biased forum and so do not seek a win.

You continue to ask questions and insist I answer.

If the aliens exist and abduct then my logic is valid.
If they do not then my hypothesis is smoke.

This debate has beeen going on for 60 years. It will not be settled here.

Is it so hard to believe that alien beings has made contact with human beings here on earth?

Personally, I don't think it's all that difficult to believe.

Even the Pope now says that it's okay to believe in aliens.

__________________
Frank Cunnane

That must be one of the shortest circular statement yet...
Since there has been no investigation that has revealed any proof of existance, then there is no proof that people currently can base their belief on.
Having no proof requires all current belief to be based on imagination.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

In others... I don't think it's possible for them all to be lying or wrong. Even under hypnosis and lie dectectors they aren't lying.

A lot of them have similar stories, corraborating one another.

Interesting stuff...

__________________
Frank Cunnane

That must be one of the shortest circular statement yet...
Since there has been no investigation that has revealed any proof of existance, then there is no proof that people currently can base their belief on.
Having no proof requires all current belief to be based on imagination.

Wrong. There are those making claims of physical proof. Their evidence comes under skeptical revue because they are not scientist. Science refuses to conduct an investigation itself because there is no proof.

How circular is that?

Unless science is willing to conduct a full study of the physical evidence, then we must judge on the only investigation available.

Your refusal is self defeating.

A claim of proof is by definition a belief that it is proof. So, any un-investigated claims is a belief.

Like what? You say there is physical proof left un-investigated, show us.

And, just who is "science" and where can I get his/her phone number.

What did I refuse?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Anybody is free to believe what they want. Fact is that there is no valid proof that aliens have made contact with humans on earth. This whole discussion thread is about proof.

No I didn't and I cannot be responsible for your faulty assesment.
1. Space aliens supposedly mask their activity and promote false beliefs by masking memory with false screen memories.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

However your bias against alien existance specificly disqualifies you as an expert on all things alien.

So you respect the expertise only of people who agree with you?

You are now attempting an affirmative rebuttal, which carries a burden of proof. Show that my disagreement is the result of bias as you say, and not perhaps of a legitimate application of expertise.

Diversionary and painting a falsehood of my statement to support the handwaving claim.

I'm repeating your statements verbatim. You first said "half the world" agreed with you. When pressed, you withdrew that statement and admitted lack of evidence. You replaced it with "a large number." When again pressed, you cannot provide a quantitative argument for a "large" -- or any other -- number of believers. You merely handwave about interest.

You claim that appropriate science is not being done because skeptics and those who would do such research are in denial about what it might uncover. Your claim of denial is in turn being argued (fallaciously, on two counts) on the basis that there is nevertheless widespread belief in the hypothesis to be studied.

That is why it is not diversionary.

The belief and interest are supported by ratings.

Asked and answered: interest is not the same as belief.

Only an in depth investigation of the alien claim itself...

Asked and answered: shifting the burden of proof.

Irrelevent and invalid question. I make no claim to be a scientist qualified to direct such an investigation.

False. You state that existing research has been directed improperly, and therefore has reached unsupportable conclusions. Having made that argument, you cannot then claim also that you do not know how to direct research properly; such knowledge would be required in order to make your earlier judgment. You are squarely in self-contradiction.

I recognize that we don't know enough about galaxy formation. Does this recognition of a truth now require that I take charge of the study of galaxies?

Red herring. "Not knowing enough" about galaxy formation is not the same as attempting to dismiss upon wholly ignorant grounds the current research on galaxy formation. Your criticism of Clancy without knowledge of her method and without the expertise to evaluate its correctness has nothing to do with the general state of the art of that research.

Don't know, you make an assumption that he would or would not, i did not.

By distractively asking me to pit my expertise against his, you imply that he would conclude differently than I because of it. You did this in order to try to defuse my expertise, but it has the unintended side effect of necessarily assuming that Hynek would have sided with you; otherwise the appeal to comparative expertise would be meaningless. (I.e., if Hynek and I had happened to agree, it wouldn't matter which of us is the more qualified expert, in terms of your argument.) Hence in order to have any efficacy your argument requires that Hynek be both a more qualified expert than I, and to agree with you.

However, in noting that Hynek does not necessarily believe that space aliens are visiting Earth in their little spaceships and messing with our lives, I simply express my skepticism that he would consider it a valid proposition that space aliens are messing with our minds as part of an effort to thwart their own detection. However, I necessarily concede that I can't ascertain what a dead man would have thought or said about your claims.

Your straw-grasping avoids the notion that the phenomena you refer to may lie in fields that lie outside Hynek's expertise.

It further avoids the question altogether whether Hynek would have bought into your particular circularity.

Shall we then stipulate that Hynek is, at best, irrelevant to this particular discussion?

I merely point out that he believed it needed more investigation.

"It" meaning exactly what? We're talking about the specific phenomenon of so-called alien abduction.

And they don't manipulate to make it seem mundane. Quite the opposite. They make manipulations to make it seem extraordinary enough for the believers to be mesmerized, while they themselves remain hidden.

Either way it's still circular.

To prove it circular and invalid you would have to prove the aliens do not exist.

No. Your argument requires that aliens exist in order for it to be valid. Testing your argument further for truth requires that aliens have testable properties. Unless you can provide evidence that aliens do exist, you cannot make the argument in a non-circular fashion. Unless you can provide evidence of the actual properties of space aliens, you may not assert that the conclusion implied by your argument is testable.

Proving that aliens do not exist is to prove a negative. Therefore it can never incur a burden of proof.

If in fact they do exist then the argument is not circular but quite valid.

Yes. And when you provide proof of the existence of aliens, your argument will ipso facto cease to be circular.

You cannot prove the don't. I cannot prove they do. So the circular argument becomes a midirection to impune without foundation.

Hogwash. You have the burden to prove aliens exist and have testable properties. You may not beg the premise to your argument. It is not empty impugnment to point out that someone has argued illogically.

The only thing I got from google [re Clancy] was that there were objections, I saw no details as to why.

Again I ask why you referred us to a web page of reviews of Clancy's work and told us that "most of what she wrote was there." You specifically provided that link when asked to identify your source. If you didn't intend that to be the source of your absorption of Clancy's claims, then toward what purpose did you provide it?

I have changed my views in the past when I found the facts of merit to do so.

And you have just as often flip-flopped on those kinds of issues. You abandon one line of inquiry when disproven, only to embark upon a completely new one: all with the overarching goal of suggesting massive government coverup and unwarranted denial on the part of skeptics. You make calculated withdrawals without changing your strategy.

I have to call it as I see it.

And the problem remains with how you see it: you choose to see it only in terms of how you want to call it. If others happen to see it differently, you say they're ideologically motivated, distracted by supposed irrelevancy, or wearing blinders. You have a well-used rhetorical framework for marginalizing criticism.

Would only be indicated if my hypotheses were proved false beyond all doubt and I continued to cling to it.

Red herring. You continue to assert without basis that your proposals have merit enough to warrant serious study. This is so you can continue to paste the "denial" label on those who dispute your implied wisdom. You run away from the possibility that your proposals lack merit in ways you aren't prepared to consider.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Hey, Bart? The word is "impugn." You also only use "stipulate" correctly about half the time. Can I suggest a, spell check, and b, that you limit yourself to simpler words? It would help your communication. I promise.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

There are those making claims of physical proof. Their evidence comes under skeptical revue because they are not scientist.

No. There are people attributing observations and effects to a hypothetical cause. The attribution comes under skeptical review because there is no evidence the asserted cause exists at all. It is not the claimants' lack of scientific expertise that fails the review, but simply the lack of prima facie evidence.

When other hypothetical causes, which are proven to exist and to have testable properties, are studied, those who prefer the space-alien hypothesis a priori attempt to discredit those studied based largely on layman's misperceptions of scientific method. That is where scientific expertise comes into play.

Science refuses to conduct an investigation itself because there is no proof.

Science cannot conduct an investigation of the alien abduction hypothesis for these behaviors and symptoms because there is no prima facie evidence for the existence of the hypothesized cause and its testable properties.

How circular is that?

Not at all. Asking for prima facie evidence is how circular reasoning is avoided. Hence the skeptics request for such evidence prior to designing and undertaking a scientific study is well founded.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Yes, I doubt that Hynek really believed that UFOs were aliens, contrary to popular belief. He was merely trying to get a systematic category system of "strangeness-probability" to get a handle on this subject in a scientific way to cover the various cases. Within strangeness he had his "Close Encounters of the X Kind" . But by Close Encounters of 3rd kind, he merely means "animate beings" seen inside/outside a UFO but not necessarily aliens.

Stan Friedman is in my opinion the modern day version of Hynek. He merely refers to unexplained cases but admits he doesn't know what they are (but he sure goes way beyond the evidence in stating that these ARE aliens involved). He has written a good scientific study of UFOs "Flying Saucers and Science" ; but it in no way proves that UFOs are aliens.

I keep going back to the Carl Sagan original "EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE" . No such evidence has ever been proferred: photos? videos? hypnotic regression? accounts of "missing time"? vague accounts of "air force coverups" ? "physical trace" evidence? anything else?

__________________


'Just be a good team player in life', Andrew Evans

I don't think the dabate is winnable in this biased forum and so do not seek a win.
It is not a case of "winning" a debate. It is a case of solid argumentation. Actually, you should be grateful to having your theory stress-tested. Try and take it in a positive fashion. None of us like having our theories come under attack, but if you are truly looking for truth, be grateful for the members of this forum, especially Jay, for forcing you to think logically and thoroughly. What you gain ultimately from this exercise is up to you. The easy way out is to dismiss the feedback as coming from a "biased" forum. Another way is to really lean back and consider dispassionately the feedback. You might still remain unconvinced, but you will understand the problem others have with your viewpoint.


If the aliens exist and abduct then my logic is valid.
If they do not then my hypothesis is smoke.

This was mentioned around the beginning of the debate: prove the ETH, then it can be investigated in respect to other phenomena: alien abduction, crop circles, etc. You elected not to do so, but rather selected the alien abduction path (and stated specifically "alien implants" as the testable proof) to prove the ETH, which is heavily contested as being the valid way to do it in this forum.

Is it so hard to believe that alien beings has made contact with human beings here on earth?

It's not the hardness of the belief that thwarts science, but rather the testability of the belief. If you want to prove scientifically that aliens are responsible for this or that phenomenon, you need more than just belief.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Philosophy does not address my concerns on her study. Because it was conducted by a scientist does not mean her bias was not a factor.

Show that my disagreement is the result of bias as you say, and not perhaps of a legitimate application of expertise.



You cite studies done as your foundation that aliens do not exist. Those studies have come under serious concern as to bias.

That is why it is not diversionary.

Wrong. the only study I know of in this area is the Roper report. Do you know of another to which we may refer?

interest is not the same as belief.

Agreed. But the interest does indicate that the question is not a closed case as it is for you.

Having made that argument, you cannot then claim also that you do not know how to direct research properly; such knowledge would be required in order to make your earlier judgment. You are squarely in self-contradiction.

Wrong. I claim to be able to discern what kind of study groups would indicate a solid foundation free of ambiguity and subjective opinion. The technical implementation of such study should be left to the experts. Being able to recognize bas does not require a PHD in the field.

Just because it was conducted according to scientific standards does make it free of critical revue. If it did then any study with the science label would command blind opediance. If it did then only scientist would be qualified to govern or hold office.

Your criticism of Clancy without knowledge of her method and without the expertise to evaluate its correctness has nothing to do with the general state of the art of that research.

Asked and answered. Does a study require blind belief just because a scientist conducted it?

Shall we then stipulate that Hynek is, at best, irrelevant to this particular discussion?

Agreed. If you stipulate that you are not the final authority whose word should be accepted as above reproach. The Sturrock report was a minimal study conducted by a scientist and clearly disagrees with you.

"It" meaning exactly what? We're talking about the specific phenomenon of so-called alien abduction.

He was particuarly interested in the UFO phenomena. You know this as well as anyone else does.

Either way it's still circular.

Only if aliens don't exist. If they do it is a valid question.

Yes. And when you provide proof of the existence of aliens, your argument will ipso facto cease to be circular.

There are claims of physical proof. Without conducting a scientific investigation of this proof you nevertheless deny its validity.

I am forced to rely on the only investigation available and note that it is incomplete.

Again I ask why you referred us to a web page of reviews of Clancy's work and told us that "most of what she wrote was there." You specifically provided that link when asked to identify your source. If you didn't intend that to be the source of your absorption of Clancy's claims, then toward what purpose did you provide it?

Error on my part. After getting the book I went to an online source that was merly a sales pitch for the book. I actually don't have an on line source that covers the material in the book. With the book as my refernce I did not look past the headings in the online source.

You abandon one line of inquiry when disproven, only to embark upon a completely new one: all with the overarching goal of suggesting massive government coverup and unwarranted denial on the part of skeptics. You make calculated withdrawals without changing your strategy.

I made a brief excursion into government coverup that I do not strongly believe in. However the interview with the FAA investigator does suggest some level of denial but that is not explicit proof of a cover up. The UFO alien theme has a lot of proponents and the issue of coverup is a universal theme and hard to avoid.

Reason to classify might be diverse, but actual coverup as implied by most proponents is that the government works against public interest. This I vehemenently reject because their reason to exist on the public dime is to protect our society. So it becomes a slippery slope hard to negotiate.

And the problem remains with how you see it: you choose to see it only in terms of how you want to call it. If others happen to see it differently, you say they're ideologically motivated, distracted by supposed irrelevancy, or wearing blinders. You have a well-used rhetorical framework for marginalizing criticism.

Yes I do. I have some strong beliefs and sometimes lose objectivity. This does not mean my concerns are unfounded.

Red herring. You continue to assert without basis that your proposals have merit enough to warrant serious study. This is so you can continue to paste the "denial" label on those who dispute your implied wisdom. You run away from the possibility that your proposals lack merit in ways you aren't prepared to consider.

Disagree. If ET exist and remains hidden while continuing to interact, then motive should come under extreme scrutany.

Not at all. Asking for prima facie evidence is how circular reasoning is avoided. Hence the skeptics request for such evidence prior to designing and undertaking a scientific study is well founded.

Disagree with the premise in this case. Abductees claim implants. Objects found where the abductee claims they were implanted. At least one doctor claims these implants are unusual in nature. The resources available to the investigators are insufficient to do any better.

It will remain so until science brings a more comprehensive study with better resources to the table.

This is testable evidence. That the evidence is micromineature and possibly of superior technology requires extraordinary investigation. You don't study a microchip with a hammer and anvil. Methodolgy of study would need to consider the rammifications.

Testimony of witnesses is valid enough for a court of law... Granted, evidence is what we're looking for here...

I believe that earth has been visited. I also believe that there are beings that can communicate with us and the military does so. The Pentagon has files and has conducted studies on the threat that UFO's present to the nation. Big tax dollars being spent for no reason??? I think not.

__________________
Frank Cunnane

You can believe what you want, as I said. Air force studies found no threat to national security (Project Sign/Grudge/Bluebook), confirmed by the Condon Report.
More: http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/

Philosophy does not address my concerns on her study.

The phrase quod erat demonstrandum is meant to identify that which was to have been proven. You disputed my evaluation in one statement and provided evidence of it in the next.

You cite studies done as your foundation that aliens do not exist.

No. I do not claim aliens don't exist. I note that there is no proof aliens do exist. Proof of the latter is your burden.

Nor would I cite that or any other study as evidence of absence. As I noted, proving a negative is not possible.

Wrong. the only study I know of in this area is the Roper report.

Red herring. You said my response was a distraction. To show that it was not, I reproduced your line of reasoning to show how what you claimed to be distractionary was actually the premise to your conclusion.

Agreed. But the interest does indicate that the question is not a closed case as it is for you.

Irrelevant. You were asked for proof of majority belief. You declined. You were asked for proof of plurality belief. You declined; you provided only evidence of interest. The line of reasoning does not thus automatically convert to what can be inferred from interest. If you cannot prove your claims regarding belief, then withdraw them altogether and apologize for the disparaging comments you made toward us based on your wrong assumption of majority belief.

Further, I do not claim it is a closed case. I claim your proposal has no merit.

I claim to be able to discern what kind of study groups would indicate a solid foundation free of ambiguity and subjective opinion.

Persisting in your contradictory approach does not justify it. You are purporting to design an experiment in the social sciences. Asserting that design to be somehow straightforward does not excuse you from the need to first understand how to design experiments -- especially in avoiding the pitfalls that aren't intuitive.

Just because it was conducted according to scientific standards does make it free of critical revue.

No one claims it is free of critical review. The issue is your review of it, which has been demonstrated to be ignorantly undertaken.

Asked and answered. Does a study require blind belief just because a scientist conducted it?

No one is advocating blind belief. The issue is your reason for disbelief, which you purport to be due to an error in Clancy's method. What you identified as the error was in fact an appropriate part of any scientific inquiry.

The Sturrock report was a minimal study conducted by a scientist and clearly disagrees with you.

Same problem, different names. Invoking people who may disagree with me does not mean they agree with you.

You are stuck on the wrong notion that all who oppose skeptics agree with you. You have made specific propositions for which you alone are responsible. Alluding to others' (perhaps more defensible) propositions does not prove yours.

"It" meaning exactly what? We're talking about the specific phenomenon of so-called alien abduction.
He was particuarly interested in the UFO phenomena. You know this as well as anyone else does.

Yes I do know that. However, in a discussion specifically of alien abductions it is improper to handwave about the larger topic as a way of skirting specific concerns.

Only if aliens don't exist. If they do it is a valid question.

Thus establishing your burden to provide prima facie evidence of alien existence as a condition of asserting your approach to be valid.

There are claims of physical proof.

...none of which can establish the existence of aliens without falling into circular reasoning.

Error on my part. After getting the book I went to an online source that was merly a sales pitch for the book.

That does not explain why you supplied it upon request for your sources, and identified it as an appropriate summary of her claims. I remind you that you supplied and characterized the link after you had claimed to have absorbed Clancy's material and would thus be expected to know whether a web link did or did not summarize it appropriately.

The UFO alien theme has a lot of proponents...

But it has no evidence.

...and the issue of coverup is a universal theme and hard to avoid.

It's hard to avoid becuase it's the only excuse offered by its proponents for why there is no evidence for their claims, yet somehow the claims should still be considered seriously. It's not an "issue" -- it's a conjectural side-step.

I have some strong beliefs and sometimes lose objectivity. This does not mean my concerns are unfounded.

But it does mean that your accusations of bias are inappropriate. Kindly stop poisoning the well by that means.

It will remain so until science brings a more comprehensive study with better resources to the table.

Asked and answered repeatedly.

[Implantation] is testable evidence.

No. There is no means of testing whether it is or is not the product of alien technology because there is no prima facie knowledge of alien technology. The hypothesis is left intentionally open-ended so that it can fit any claim. That's precisely what makes it unscientific.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Testimony of witnesses is valid enough for a court of law...

Valid enough to be introduced as evidence, yes. Not so valid that it exists above scrutiny. As anyone who has witnessed an actual cross-examination in court can attest, no eyewitness testimony is taken immediately at full face value.

The Pentagon has files and has conducted studies on the threat that UFO's present to the nation.

To be specific: that there is no discernible threat. "Is this a threat?" is not exactly the same question as, "What is that?" Similar, perhaps, but not identical.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

No, the use of a Latin phrase here is meant to confuse and dominate your debate opponent with pretentiousness. Let's call it what it is, shall we?

I am still reading this thread even though I have (until now) bowed out of active participation. Couldn't let that one pass, though. Don't make me start throwing in obscure Celtic phrases...I have them and am not afraid to use 'em.

Carry on. Tapadh Leibh.

(peeks in)

I agree with Jay, at least as far as I can follow the conversation.

I also agree with Daffy (sort of). Earlier in either this or another thread, I mentioned that Jay does sometimes come across as intimidating. The use of Latin phrases (and the particular terms for logical fallacies), while "correct" DOES, in my opinion, color things as a bit pretentious and intimidating. I am sure they weren't meant that way, but that's how they can be misunderstood.

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants