[PaulLogan's UFO thread]

[PaulLogan]

try this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTRSxzMgqs4

several witnesses call police and report the same sighting: a craft hovering above lake gosford in australia 1994 sucking up water from the lake. the sighting definitely cannot be explained away with the usual (birds, meteorites, planes, stars, etc). no physical evidence but according to police all callers independently reported the same sighting with no variations in the reports.

of course, you can (and most here probably will) discount the eye witnesses but that is just inventing a conspiracy where there's no indication for one.

[R.A.F.]

of course, you can (and most here probably will) discount the eye witnesses but that is just inventing a conspiracy where there's no indication for one.

Well, they either were mistaken in what they thought they saw, or they were perpetuating a hoax, or it was a secret military project, or it was an alien spaceship.

Which do you think more likely?


...oh and here's a clue...I listed those in the order of most likely-ness.

[PaulLogan]

try this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTRSxzMgqs4

you may have noticed that the audio is out of synch.
here's how to fix it:
1. download vid from youtube
2. play it back with a proper player that allows to adjust track synchronization (i.e. not crap like itunes or windows media player, but good players like vlc or zoomplayer)
set audio track to a delay of -1300ms

[PaulLogan]

Okay, direct question time. What were they trained in observing? Would that make them more or less likely to identify something with which they had no experience?

if you are trained and experienced in observing one particular thing (whatever it may be) or a range of things you automatically become more attentive in general.
not that you need particular attentiveness to see what he saw.

nobody is trained in seeing ufos. the question is pretty much irrelevant. if you have a healthy human sensory system and general health you are a qualified observer! the human system is designed to be that. survival depends on it.

[Strange]

If you have a healthy human sensory system and general health you are a qualified observer! The human system is designed to be that. Survival depends on it.

But, as we know, humans also make truly terrible eye witnesses.

[Swift]

if you are trained and experienced in observing one particular thing (whatever it may be) or a range of things you automatically become more attentive in general.
not that you need particular attentiveness to see what he saw.

Really? Do you have any evidence for that? I know people who are pretty expert bird watchers or amphibian spotters, but they don't seem to have any greater ability to spot anything else, even in the realm of nature observation.

[JayUtah]

...

if you are trained and experienced in observing one particular thing (whatever it may be) or a range of things you automatically become more attentive in general.

No. Reams of specific research prove exactly the opposite. Much UFO rhetoric is based on that supposition, but it is simply wrong. There is no such thing as a trained observer.

nobody is trained in seeing ufos.

Agreed. But the problem is that UFO enthusiasts assert that pilots, military men, and others should be given more credence when they report UFOs because they're allegedly better observers of the sky. Do you agree with that basic article of ufology faith?

if you have a healthy human sensory system and general health you are a qualified observer!

But just a few sentences above, you claimed that training and experience make some people better observers than others. On the one hand you're trying to say that anyone with eyes and a brain is an adequate observer, and on the other hand you're trying to say that observational skill can be taught. Which is it?

the human system is designed to be that. survival depends on it.

Specifically false. The human visual perception system retains a number of evolved features that provide for survival, but actually result in less accurate perception. For example, one strength of human perception is pattern recognition from incomplete stimulus. That may have helped our ancestors recognize and avoid a partially-hidden tiger on the savannah, but in the 21st century it makes us see things that aren't actually there. Our brains aggressively "complete" visual images based on partial patterns.

Ufologists almost completely ignore the science of perception, preferring instead to perpetuate a series of strongly-held myths that are compatible with their predetermined claims but utterly contradicted by actual scientific findings.

[Swift]

PaulLogan's UFO posts and the responses to them have been moved from this thread

[Garrison]

if you are trained and experienced in observing one particular thing (whatever it may be) or a range of things you automatically become more attentive in general.

Do you have anything that would back up that assertion?

nobody is trained in seeing ufos. the question is pretty much irrelevant. if you have a healthy human sensory system and general health you are a qualified observer! the human system is designed to be that. survival depends on it.

Completely contradicted by years of psychological experiments and empirical observation. For example:

the invisible gorilla

Bugs Bunny at Disneyland

And a font of empirical data:

The Innocence Project

The above demonstrate the fallibility of human perception and memory, in essence eyewitnesses remember what they think they saw, which can be wildly different from the actual event, and is subject to endless and often unwitting later revision.

[R.A.F.]

Paul....could you respond to my question in (what is now ) post #2?

Thanks...

[Strange]

the invisible gorilla

Bugs Bunny at Disneyland

Two of my favourite examples.

I found out earlier when I was looking them up that the first one is known as "Gorillas in our Midst"

[Bobbar]

try this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTRSxzMgqs4

several witnesses call police and report the same sighting: a craft hovering above lake gosford in australia 1994 sucking up water from the lake. the sighting definitely cannot be explained away with the usual (birds, meteorites, planes, stars, etc). no physical evidence but according to police all callers independently reported the same sighting with no variations in the reports.

of course, you can (and most here probably will) discount the eye witnesses but that is just inventing a conspiracy where there's no indication for one.

What about Fata Morgana?

[AGN Fuel]

Being a long-time resident of the Central Coast where this is supposed to have happened, I must point out that there is no such place as "Lake Gosford" up here.

Gosford is the name of the town here and it sits on 'Brisbane Waters', (other waterways around here include Tuggerah Lake, Lake Macquarie, the Myall Lakes and, of course, the ocean).

If the report can't even get the name of the waterway correct, it's hard to put a lot of credence on anything that follows.

(Edited to note: the large bridge in the background early in the report is the Mooney Mooney Creek bridge. None of the subsequent footage shown was of Mooney Mooney Creek, which is a small and quite secluded creek with very few houses on it. Apparently that waterway must not have been public enough for the UFOs water sucking activities...)

[R.A.F.]

Thanks for that, AGN Fuel.


Man, I love this board.

[HenrikOlsen]

if you are trained and experienced in observing one particular thing (whatever it may be) or a range of things you automatically become more attentive in general.

Actually you become more likely to identify unknown phenomena in terms of the thing you've been trained to observe.
People trained to spot planes are more likely to identify things as flying objects even though they aren't, and to report the sighting in those terms even when they don't apply.

In some ways they actually become worse eyewitnesses of phenomena they haven't been trained to observe because they have a larger tendency to interpret their observation in terms of what they're trained to observe on things that aren't.

[PaulLogan]

PaulLogan does not have a ufo thread. it's a mod invention. i did not start a thread in ct, nor would i ever do such a thing.
the reasons are the way this thread (and all of their kind) proceed.

if you guys wanna post your 2 cents regarding the unreliability of eye witnesses (ews) - be my guest.

all i have to say about that is this:

- ews can be unreliable. it depends on the circumstances, tho. if we are talking very fast moving objects with little duration many mistakes will be made. if we are talking about a (more or less) steady object that was visible for minutes, ews are much more reliable. if you need ews to be always unreliable so you can continue to deny the ufo phenomenon - be my guest.

- to categorically dismiss ews as you are doing in this and other threads is madness bordering on fundamentalism. if you need it to sleep better at night, knock yourselves out.
in european courts (probably the most advanced and fairest on the planet) ews are admitted and used - with the proper caution of course. anything else would be madness.

there is nothing conclusive about the gosford incident that proves et visitation.
however, i for one cannot ignore this and many other such incidents where the usual explanations fail.
the logical conclusion is of course not: et visitation. only fundamentalists and madmen would suggest that.

what you guys are doing (categorically denying the phenomenon itself) is madness and skepticism gone horribly wrong.
and i will be no part of it.

there is a worldwide ufo phenomenon - i don't know what causes it, or even if it is one particular cause.
i will continue to be interested in it.
oh, before i forget: i know many of you can't resist but i don't need any of your arrogant and misplaced lectures on the scientific method.

thread closed as far as i am concerned.

[JayUtah]

...

it's a mod invention.

You'll have to take that up with the moderators.

if you guys wanna post your 2 cents regarding the unreliability of eye witnesses (ews) - be my guest.

They aren't my two cents; they're the findings of professional researchers on the subject, such as Elizabeth Loftus. You've made unsubstantiated claims that are disputed by research considered to be correct and valid. Doesn't that bother you?

if we are talking about a (more or less) steady object that was visible for minutes, ews are much more reliable.

And what published science supports this claim?

if you need ews to be always unreliable so you can continue to deny the ufo phenomenon - be my guest.

How is reporting the results of decades of peer-reviewed science an act of denial? You've made certain claims, and there is considerable, well-founded disputation against them. We'd like you to reconcile your claims with those findings, if you would be so kind.

You have guessed, incorrectly, that there is some a priori emotional need to reject UFO encounters, and that this is the motivation for denying your claims regarding eyewitness testimony. But in fact it is your misrepresentation of eyewitness testimony that motivates us to reach out to the relevant sciences. Most of the beliefs of the UFO community require certain suppositions about the authority and reliability of eyewitness testimony, and much of the relevant rhetoric focuses specifically on issues of witness credibility and reliability. That's fairly strong evidence that the UFO community are, in fact, the ones who require certain premises regarding eyewitnesses. And their almost complete indifference toward an entire branch of science is most revealing of motive.

to categorically dismiss ews as you are doing in this and other threads is madness bordering on fundamentalism.

No, it's simply the invocation of the relevant sciences, which notes categorizable behavior.

...ews are admitted and used - with the proper caution of course.

What "proper caution" would that be? Do European courts also accept documentary, circumstantial, and forensic evidence? Have any European courts studied UFO sightings?

only fundamentalists and madmen would suggest that.

Sorry, you don't get to call people names when they disagree with you for good reasons.

there is a worldwide ufo phenomenon

Indeed, but the question is how much of a psychological phenomenon it is.

i don't know what causes it, or even if it is one particular cause.

Then I submit it is disingenuous of you to insult those of us who disbelieve certain UFO claims. If you admit you can't identify the cause(s), then it's unfair of you to criticize people who don't believe in the specific causes proposed by others.

...i don't need any of your arrogant and misplaced lectures on the scientific method.

Clearly you do, since you've resorted to name-calling and mockery instead of the merits of your claims and their disputations.

thread closed as far as i am concerned.

Is that a concession, or simply an expression of unwillingness to address your critics?

[Van Rijn]

there is a worldwide ufo phenomenon - i don't know what causes it, or even if it is one particular cause.
i will continue to be interested in it.

They're dragons. Google "dragon sightings" or "dragon ufo sightings" - it's a quite popular explanation.

what you guys are doing (categorically denying the phenomenon itself) is madness and skepticism gone horribly wrong.
and i will be no part of it.

Huh? If you have a particular explanation in mind, I just want to see good supporting evidence. Take another example: I'll be jumping with joy, literally, if they verify tachyonic neutrinos, but I'm not going to accept that until it's well verified. That's the way science works. When I say the most likely explanation for the current experiment is a problem somewhere, it isn't because I want to deny anything. I'll go with the evidence, not what I'd like to believe.

[Swift]

PaulLogan does not have a ufo thread. it's a mod invention. i did not start a thread in ct, nor would i ever do such a thing.

...

there is a worldwide ufo phenomenon - i don't know what causes it, or even if it is one particular cause.
i will continue to be interested in it.
oh, before i forget: i know many of you can't resist but i don't need any of your arrogant and misplaced lectures on the scientific method.

thread closed as far as i am concerned.

It is a "mod invention" because it is a common trick among advocates of various non-mainstream ideas to hijack threads with their ideas, then refuse to defend them, or play other sorts of games. That being said, if you do not want to participate in this thread, that's your decision. However, if you bring up these or related topics or claims again, and refuse to defend them, you will be severely infracted.

The thread however will remain open for others to discuss the topic.

[Luckmeister]

PaulLogan, If you're still reading posts here:

Most posters on this forum adhere to the scientific method. Among other things, that means when there is a null hypothesis, it becomes the starting point when looking for answers to something mysterious. In this case, the null hypothesis is that ET visitation (ETV) is not occurring and that hard evidence must be presented to overturn that position.

It is not even a 50/50 proposition that an unidentified light in the sky is either a mundane object or an ET craft. If posters on this forum are unable to explain that light by mundane causes, it only means it remains unidentified rather than taking the leap in logic to assume it must be ETV.

You have stated more than once here that you are not an ETV believer and yet your postings have consistently belied that claim. You seem willing to accept anecdotes as serious evidence of ETV and express anger when others don't agree. From that, it seems you consider ETV as the null hypothesis and birds, balloons, etc. as extraordinary claims.

In my opinion, you have it backwards.

[Strange]

- to categorically dismiss ews as you are doing in this and other threads is madness bordering on fundamentalism. if you need it to sleep better at night, knock yourselves out.

To categorically dismiss perfectly good research just because it disagrees with your emotional desires and beliefs is very narrow minded.

however, i for one cannot ignore this and many other such incidents where the usual explanations fail.

No need to ignore them. Just accept "we don't know" or "unidentified" as an answer and don't project your own fantasies on to them.

what you guys are doing (categorically denying the phenomenon itself) is madness and skepticism gone horribly wrong.
and i will be no part of it.

No one is "denying" that people claim to have seen something. And may even have seen something. What people are not doing is leaping to conclusions about what that might have been. You may not like rational discussion of what people claim to have seen, but that is too bad.

And there is no "phenomenon"; there are many very different claimed sightings of things that cannot be identified. Pretty much the only thing they have in common is the fact they are unidentified. Lumping all these different things together as evidence of a single "thing" (whatever you choose to believe that to be) strains credulity and is not a rational approach to using evidence.

[PaulLogan]

PaulLogan, If you're still reading posts here:

reading yes. and i might respond to a considerate post like yours.

Most posters on this forum adhere to the scientific method. Among other things, that means when there is a null hypothesis, it becomes the starting point when looking for answers to something mysterious. In this case, the null hypothesis is that ET visitation (ETV) is not occurring and that hard evidence must be presented to overturn that position.

i am with you so far and in principle.

If posters on this forum are unable to explain that light by mundane causes, it only means it remains unidentified rather than taking the leap in logic to assume it must be ETV.

of course. i have said so many times.

You have stated more than once here that you are not an ETV believer and yet your postings have consistently belied that claim. You seem willing to accept anecdotes as serious evidence of ETV and express anger when others don't agree. From that, it seems you consider ETV as the null hypothesis and birds, balloons, etc. as extraordinary claims.

no. first, i am absolutely open to the idea of etv. i do not reject that claim off hand, simply because it doesn't fit my world view. personally, i have not seen any and i don't know anybody (who i trust completely) who has. that's what it would take to convince me completely and so far i am not.
it sure is (currently) an extraordinary claim and i require very strong evidence to take it as fact.

where we differ is that i don't reject eye witnesses off hand, as most of you seem to be doing. they are error prone - no doubt - but when people all over the world report similar incidences again and again then it is fundamentalist madness to reject all of them because sometimes ews don't get it right. that is not a logical step, nor a scientific one.

furthermore, when so-called skeptics come up with alternative (i.e. mundane) explanations, it seems to be they more often than not throw their skepticism out of the window, and accept completely nonsensical mundane explanations that do not fit the descriptions at all. and as long as they sound mundane enough many others here seem to simply accept such "explanations".

to sum it up:
1. with so many people reporting similar incidences it is absolutely unacceptable to outright reject all such eye-witness reports, as critical as (i agree) one has to be towards them.

2. something is going on here. what it is - i really don't know. imo, it certainly could be alien visitations. i don't find that hypothesis too far fetched to reject it, as most of you seem to do.

In my opinion, you have it backwards.

no, i really don't think so. i remain skeptical but open to etv and that is a proper and healthy position.
and i am not alone with that position at all. there are plenty of scientists who agree. do they all need your (general you) unwarranted lectures in the scientific method? no, they don't, and neither do i!
and that is (mostly) what makes me angry. many here post with an uncalled for "authority" and arrogance and think they have the right to declare what is science and what is not. guess what? you do not have that right!

your "arguments" of rejecting all eye-witnesses because you find etv as a hypothesis unbearable (or whatever) is not convincing at all.
i am not suggesting anybody write a scientific paper declaring proof of alien visitation. i am not aware of such evidence.

but to simply reject etv as a viable hypothesis in the face of so many sightings is just healthy skepticism gone tragically wrong. it needs to be investigated and the prevailing attitude of self-proclaimed skeptics (and the ridicule that goes along with that) is a serious obstacle for a proper scientific investigation. it is not the likes of me who are a "danger" to science. it is the likes of (general) you, the fundamentalist deniers, who are a "danger" to science.

[Strange]

your "arguments" of rejecting all eye-witnesses because you find etv as a hypothesis unbearable (or whatever) is not convincing at all.

I don't think anyone is "rejecting" eye witness accounts, just applying some level of scepticism to what people think they saw. For example, people may make claims about it being a certain distance away and travelling at a particular speed. Things they have no way of knowing. They may also say (perhaps based up those impressions) that it must be a "machine", but that is their interpretation of what they saw not what they actually saw. Because of that interpretation, they may then "add" or misidentify further details (e.g. seeing highlights or shadows as "windows").

We know people are unreliable, we know memories of what people saw can be created or changed after the event. Therefore we need to be very careful about what people report and try to extract only the bare facts rather than their interpretations of those facts. From that we can try and derive an explanation. Or decide it is (yet another) unidentified case.

but to simply reject etv as a viable hypothesis

It is a viable hypothesis. But there is no evidence for it yet.

[tnjrp]

Indeed observation cannot be divorced from interpretation as long as the observer is a human being. This problem is alleviated in science by the requirement of repeatability and by collecting other evidence apart from merely human sensory observations stored in associative memory of the witnesses. But in a typical UFO case all you have is eyewitness testimony, which is to say interpretation of the phenomena observed.

[chrlzs]

Here's the bit I have a BIG problem with, and am, in fact, somewhat insulted by..

where we differ is that i don't reject eye witnesses off hand, as most of you seem to be doing. they are error prone - no doubt - but when people all over the world report similar incidences again and again then it is fundamentalist madness to reject all of them because sometimes ews don't get it right. that is not a logical step, nor a scientific one.

So, I'm fundamentally mad? I may not reject all of them, but certainly the vast majority are explainable, highly questionable or simply mundane and uninteresting. And I see none that point unquestionably to ET.

Some questions that I suggest you might like to ponder...

In what specific respect are all these incidences 'similar'? That they are skyborne, most often lights at night?
Well, isn't that pretty much what a UFO is, and the time at which they are most likely to be unidentified?

In what way can you quantify such things?
- How many UFO's *should* there be?
- What other explanations are there, apart from the ETH?
- Are there other motivations/reasons (eg fun, slow news days, chinese whispers..) for embellishing/making up stuff?

Have you, Paul, never misidentified something? Have you seriously never 'seen' something and then suddenly (or slowly) realised that what you 'saw' was in fact that marvelously efficient pattern recognition that Jay referred to above, rather than something real? I have, plenty of times - and yet I regard myself as a very experienced and knowledgable observer (I am a keen amateur astronomer, I live near two airports, love identifying aircraft/ satellites/ birds/ RC's/ sky lanterns/ ad infinitum..). I have a very healthy respect for my brain's ability to fill in gaps, and make a lot of stuff up, particularly if tired/stressed/etc. In fact the more observing that I do, the more careful I have become to not jump to initial conclusions...

How do you take into account hoaxes (particularly well-planned 'group' efforts)?

Can you think of any (and there are MANY) motivations for the general public and/or the military (or individual pilots, etc) to create/add to the ETH (and allied threats to national security, etc) as a way to _________, or_________, or _________ (you fill in the blanks..)

How much effort did you put into checking out this particular story, especially given the comments above?

furthermore, when so-called skeptics come up with alternative (i.e. mundane) explanations, it seems to be they more often than not throw their skepticism out of the window, and accept completely nonsensical mundane explanations that do not fit the descriptions at all.

I find this very insulting, and would ask you to provide some examples, or withdraw it. Those examples should include an explanation of why you would take such opinions seriously, and how you judged the authors as 'skeptics' (or scientists or investigators).

Because if all you are saying is that you have seen some 'so-called skeptics' make silly claims on da Interweb ....well, that ain't much of a revelation, is it? If, however, you have seen someone who you believe is respected in this field making 'nonsensical mundane explanations that do not fit', then please quote the examples and let's discuss. I can quote many examples of exactly the reverse...

1. with so many people reporting similar incidences it is absolutely unacceptable to outright reject all such eye-witness reports, as critical as (i agree) one has to be towards them.

So, who is doing that? And is there one report that, above others, you think is most worthy of investigation, and where the eye-witness report is unquestionable?

2. something is going on here. what it is - i really don't know. imo, it certainly could be alien visitations. i don't find that hypothesis too far fetched to reject it, as most of you seem to do.

Could it not be a terrestrial technology you are not aware of? (There definitely are technologies you are unaware of..)
Could it not be an atmospheric phenomena you are not aware of? (ditto)
Could it not be a misidentification you are not aware of? (ditto)
Could it not be badly misreported? (if it isn't, I think it's time you provided some better documentation/corroboration)
Could it not be a carefully contrived hoax? (how have you eliminated that possibility?)

Now let's add the alien hypothesis in.. But wait, can you spot the difference?

Hint - all of the first five 'hypotheses' are not only plausible, they are also things that are KNOWN to exist/happen.

Aliens? ..not so much. Their existence in the Universe is plausible, but there is zero evidence of them getting here, to date.

And sciency types like me tend to lean towards all the known possibilities, and in fact we don't throw in the unknowns until we can back 'em up. It's actually, sort of, a rule...

i remain skeptical but open to etv and that is a proper and healthy position.

Well, to be fair, invisible pink unicorns (or fairies, or interdimensional beings, or...) have an equal amount of actual *evidence*... So let's toss them in too... No?

there are plenty of scientists who agree.

You mean that the ETH is the most likely, or even in the top few 'choices'? Which scientists, and in what context?

do they all need your (general you) unwarranted lectures in the scientific method? no, they don't, and neither do i!

Why so angry? If scientific method isn't being applied (and in many of these 'cases', it isn't) ... then would you not agree that is a bad thing?

If you argue that it IS being applied, then I simply invite you to supply a decent analysis of your favorite case..

Doesn't have to be yours, any decent analysis will do.

[iquestor]

Hint - all of the first five 'hypotheses' are not only plausible, they are also things that are KNOWN to exist/happen.

I think this point is the root of the issue.

If we had any concrete evidence of ET, any at all, then ETV might move upward on that list in some cases where no other explanation fit a well documented event with witnesses and other evidence.

However, we don't have any evidence of ET at all, so their very existance is conjecture that presupposes a lot more than I (and most people) am willing to presuppose.

I would love to have evidence of ETV. I would be the first one to rejoice at the proof of their existance and visitations. I hope it happens before I die. I want it to happen. However I want it to be real and not imaginary.

so, when I hear of a case like this where we have many separate witnesses who describe the same things independantly, sure it sounds intriguing, and I dont have a guaranteed explanation as to what actually happened, but I can tell you I would exhaust all the things that have precedents here (ie weather, mirage, military, hoaxers, etc) before I could give any credit to the ETV explanation.

Not that I'm saying ETV isnt possible, but based on current evidence, not at all plausible.

[Strange]

Actually you become more likely to identify unknown phenomena in terms of the thing you've been trained to observe.
People trained to spot planes are more likely to identify things as flying objects even though they aren't, and to report the sighting in those terms even when they don't apply.

In some ways they actually become worse eyewitnesses of phenomena they haven't been trained to observe because they have a larger tendency to interpretate their observation in terms of what they're trained to observe on things that aren't.

You only need to look at the various threads on this forum (outside of CT) started by people asking "what did I see". They frequently start off with "it looked like a star ..." or "At first I thought it was a satellite..." before going on to describe the anomalous behavior; their brains insisted on interpreting it in terms of more familiar things.

[Strange]

On the reliability of eye witnesses: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....distress-flare

[JayUtah]

...

no. first, i am absolutely open to the idea of etv. i do not reject that claim off hand, simply because it doesn't fit my world view.

Straw man. We reject the extraterrestrial-visitation hypothesis as a likely explanation for specific UFO sightings because there is no testable evidence in favor of it in all the cases we've seen. In all those cases, that hypothesis is mistakenly put forward as the null and argued indirectly. Perhaps you'd like to suggest a non-affirmative method of testing the visitation hypothesis.

We're giving you the good scientific reasons why we don't consider that hypothesis to be very likely. You in turn are just calling us closed-minded. Why won't you address the argument instead of the rhetoric surrounding the argument?

where we differ is that i don't reject eye witnesses off hand, as most of you seem to be doing.

No, where we differ is that our evaluation of eyewitness testimony is based upon the best science we can obtain on the nature of eyewitness testimony while your approach is to make up things as you go. You assert various properties of eyewitness testimony that are soundly contradicted by the relevant scientific inquiry, and you refuse to reconcile your claims with the science. So in short, our approach to eyewitnesses has a rational basis while yours does not.

...it is fundamentalist madness to reject all of them...

Where is your proof that we reject all of them? What specifically is being rejected in any particular case: the witness's claim to have seen something, or the witness's interpretation of what he saw? What have you done to determine whether our approach to eyewitnesses is categorical as you claim, but is in fact based on comparing the nature of the testimony to the specific known ways in which human perception is known to err?

furthermore, when so-called skeptics come up with alternative (i.e. mundane) explanations, it seems to be they more often than not throw their skepticism out of the window, and accept completely nonsensical mundane explanations...

Please give an example or two. What I'm seeing here instead is that people are quite happy to leave sightings unexplained, if no explanation presents itself. Where is your evidence that skeptics assert mundane explanations at all costs?

with so many people reporting similar incidences it is absolutely unacceptable to outright reject all such eye-witness reports, as critical as (i agree) one has to be towards them.

You've twice now alluded to taking a critical approach toward witnesses, once just now and one other time referring to European courts. Since the pivotal point of your argument seems to be how witness testimony is treated, it would seem important for you to elaborate on what that means to you. Please tell us what the proper way is to critically evaluate an eyewitness, and show us the body of science that supports your method.

With so many sightings that have no determined root cause, it is unacceptable to assert that they must be related. The argument-from-numbers approach doesn't work. It presupposes a common, external cause.

i don't find that hypothesis too far fetched to reject it, as most of you seem to do.

No. You keep trying to say we dismiss the ET visitation hypothesis because of some worldview problem. What we dismiss are the claims of UFO fanatics who say that extraterrestrial visitation is the most likely (or indeed, the only) explanation for some particular sighting simply because no ordinary cause can be specifically identified. In other words, they set their desired hypothesis up as the null and require an affirmative rebuttal. That's patently unscientific and irrational, and that is what we reject.

If you were to calm down and ask, you'd probably find that most people here believe in the abstract likelihood of extraterrestrial life.

...and think they have the right to declare what is science and what is not. guess what? you do not have that right!

Of course we do. Science polices itself, and you aren't being remotely scientific. You refuse to reconcile your claims with prior art. You refuse to listen to the real reason behind your criticism. And you don't seem to be able to come up with a scientific test for the ET visitation hypothesis because you admit there's a lack of evidence.

...your "arguments" of rejecting all eye-witnesses because you find etv as a hypothesis unbearable (or whatever) is not convincing at all.

Then it's a good thing that isn't our line of reasoning. You're falling all over yourself trying to paint us all as irrational skeptics, whose little minds explode at the mere thought of space aliens. That is exactly the same straw-man caricature that UFO fanatics paste on all their critics. If you don't want to be treated like a UFO fanatic, stop using their arguments.

[R.A.F.]

Paul...since you have decided to participate in this thread, you are required by board rules to answer direct questions.


I really would like an answer to post #2....Which explanation do you think most likely??