UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Apr > Apr 20

Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks

From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:21:12 EDT
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:44:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Sparks

 >From: Dennis Stacy <dstacy@texas.net>
 >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:28:15 -0500
 >Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:07:08 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

<snip>

 >One of the things that has always bothered me about some of the
 >best UFO cases (and by extension, the question of eyewitness
 >testimony/reliability) is their inherent lack of compatibility.

 >Viz, let's take four cases that I assume both Jerry & Dick would
 >take as indicative of the ETH:

 >1) Kenneth Arnold
 >2) Papua, New Guinea
 >3) Socorro
 >4) Coyne helicopter case

 >If we assume that all the witnesses of same were spot on, the
 >first thing that leaps immediately to mind is how disparate the
 >cases are, one from another. For example, apart from the UFO
 >aspect itself, I defy anyone to delineate any commonalities or
 >patterns in the above cases. [And further down:] Are you
 >then suggesting that we're being visited by four different
 >species of ET simultaneously, each with different types of craft
 >and kinds of behavior... or what?

Hi Dennis,

Congratulations! You just disproved the existence of the jet,
the helicopter, the Space Shuttle, and the hot-air balloon -
four "different types of craft" with "disparate" behavior/use
and little or no "commonalities" or "patterns" in their
activity!

Your comments remind me of Battelle's assertion in Blue Book
Special Report 14 that it could not come up with a "model of a
flying saucer," not "even a rough model" from a larger group of
12 "good Unknown" sightings, when in fact the drawings in Cases
6 and 8 are of highly similar rounded helmet-shaped objects.
Battelle conveniently put the drawings on different pages so one
could not instantly see the similarity. Cases 2 and 3 both show
aircraft-shaped objects, but shaded in awkward ways to try to
crudely differentiate them. Cases 4 and 12 show approximately
football-shaped objects. I won't belabor the discussion here
with Battelle's outright dishonest hairsplitting analysis and
mendacious criteria used to evade the obvious striking
resemblance in at least 6 of its 12 best cases selected from
about 4,000, such as suddenly declaring the similar cases _not_
to be "good unknowns" after it had already classified them as
"good Unknowns" in the first place - this was done obviously to
thwart the making of the connection and a "rough model."

Besides, your demand for "commonalities or patterns" runs
counter to the constant skeptic denial that pattern evidence in
UFO studies is meaningful or worthwhile. Do you or do you not
accept "pattern" analysis as valid Dennis?

Moreover, it is a general rule of thumb in statistics that one
needs a sample size of at least 1,000 approximately, in order to
do reasonably valid statistical analysis. Without quibbling over
the exact number needed for statistics, can we agree that 4 is
simply not enough for valid statistical analysis? Maybe a sample
size of 4 is sufficient for non-statistical pattern analysis but
we should at least be aware that there is a difficulty here.

 >The best one can do is to say that
 >entities of some sort were reported in both the Papua and
 >Socorro cases, but beyond that, what?

 >Plop those on the desk of any self-respecting, practicing
 >scientist, and I can almost guarantee that his or her first
 >response will be, "this is all very fine, but what am I supposed
 >to _do_ with it? Re-interview the witnesses involved?"

This demonstrates a tremendous failure of scientific vision and
imagination. You are prejudging what scientists would find if we
could get a full-scale study going, of something on the order of
magnitude of 100 James McDonalds working full-time on the
problem, as we now have more or less with problems in tracking
the mating habits of whales, plotting volcanic dust ejecta in
the stratosphere, etc. etc.

If you have the knowledge, experience and creativity of 100
McDonalds, Dennis, then maybe we should just hire you full-time
to investigate the UFO phenomenon. :) But I would doubt that as
prolific and astute as you are that you would be able to sustain
the output of 100 McDonald-level professional scientists working
full-time. I can only simulate this tremendous outpouring of
scientific work in a bare outline and give precedents or
examples, and here are a few:

On the Arnold case, Bruce Maccabee and I were able to develop
extensive calculations and estimates of the objects' luminosity,
done by way of responding to the pelican theory. This had never
been done before, not in 50+ years. A good physicist can pick up
a case that has been "plopped" on his desk and figure out
entirely brand new things like that. It is very unfair to
prejudge this kind of ability and deny it exists just because
you cannot think of things like this.

You can't put science in a straightjacket and demand to know _in
advance_ what it will find. It reminds me of the physicists who
said after Planck had discovered the quantum that physics was
now complete and no more work needed to be done! Should physics
have been shut down in 1900 when that happened and physicists
forced to explain what new discoveries could possibly be made
since now everything there was to discover had supposedly
already been discovered?

In the Bentwaters 1956 case, I discovered a height-finder effect
in the radar data that had been overlooked for 42 years, and it
confirmed the astonishing fact of the extremely low altitude of
the fast-track UFO that streaked under the C-47 at 4,000 feet
and the low altitude estimated by the ground observers.

And yes McDonald very profitably re-interviewed witnesses by the
hundreds (or interviewed them for the first time in poorly
investigated cases). A skilled scientific investigator can coax
a tremendous amount of information out of a good case that might
otherwise be overlooked, and we're not talking about IFO
screening either, but potentially useful scientific data or
possibly even some overlooked physical trace evidence that no
one had ever thought to look for.

 >Even if the initial interest _were_ there, the plot thickens
 >almost immediately. "OK, let's say we're being visited. Are you
 >then suggesting that we're being visited by four different
 >species of ET simultaneously, each with different types of craft
 >and kinds of behavior... or what? And that the government has
 >successfully managed to keep this covered up for over 50 years
 >in the bargain? Ah, now I see!"

How would the government discern that there were "four different
species of ET" from four different UFO cases? I'm confused here.

 >Multiply this by hundreds of similar "non-standard" cases, and
 >ufology's ultimate problem should be better appreciated by its
 >own proponents: most so-called "patterns" are in fact
 >non-existent.

See above. Look at the similarities in just 6 cases deliberately
evaded by Battelle.

Or consider the RB-47 case from 1957. See next (below).


 >Arnold reported silvery objects travelling as a group at high
 >speeds, the New Guinea case involved a single UFO that hovered
 >over sequential nights, Socorro flames and a roar, and the Coyne
 >case some kind of weird, green tractor-beam. Add in the Hill
 >case, Roswell, Rendlesham Forest, RB-47, Cash-Landrum, Delphos,
 >Trans-en- Provence, you name it, and the Rimmer Ploy is revealed
 >for the transparency it is.

Yes, let's take the RB-47 case. In the 1957 case the UFO emitted
a radar-like beam at approximately 3,000 MHz, and it followed
the aircraft on its tail for long periods over Texas and
Oklahoma. In the 1955 RB-47 cases in northern Canada, the UFO's
also liked to follow on the tails of the jets but transmitted at
about 9,000 MHz (oh wow! a difference! a difference! big deal, a
flip of the dial or whatever on the transmitter frequency). In
the 1957 case, the initial UFO encounter involved the
radar-emitting UFO crossing over in front of the RB-47 from
right to left. In 1951, three B-36's had a series of similar
incidents in northern Canada including one radar-emitting UFO
that crossed over the front of the jet from right to left.

 >In other words:

 >1) If you accept these cases (or you can name your own) as more
 >or less valid, based largely on anecdotal testimony, then

You mean that the ELINT readings of UFO radar transmissions in
the RB-47 case and the medical records in the Cash-Landrum case
are just "anecdotal testimony"? Please tell us what is NOT
"anecdotal testimony"? Do you have androids or robots that can
collect data and analyze them so that there is no human element
involved at all? Otherwise I have to break the bad news to you
that every form of scientific and technical instrumentation on
earth has some human element involved in the collection and
processing of data.


 >2) how do you propose to make even a semi-consistent or coherent
 >"whole" out of them? (That is, come up with a testable
 >hypothesis that can actually be tested?)

See above. If you close your eyes of course you won't see.

Here is where ignorance of the literature - a basic first step
in all scientific endeavors - is biting us in the butt. Going
all the way back to Vallee in the 1960's testable hypotheses
were set up and tested, beginning with Aimé Michel's provocative
"orthoteny" theory which even drew the interest of none other
than Donald Menzel who actually wrote a scientific paper on it
for Flying Saucer Review. Please re-read Vallée's Challenge to
Science (1966).

 >And notice that we haven't even addressed abductions yet.
 >Remember when they supposedly displayed internal patterns and
 >consistencies, too?

 >As far as Jerry and Dick are concerned, the Rimmer Ploy is
 >really quite simple: put your names behind, say, the ten best
 >UFO cases in the voluminous UFO literature to which you have
 >both contributed, rather than referencing said literature as a
 >whole and witness reliability in general.

Dick has already put forward 18 cases from his ISSO article.
Before you insist it has to be pared down to 10 for some
unfathomable reason please explain whether or not somewhere
along the way you're going to shoot it all down on the excuse
the number is not large enough for a statistical analysis of
"patterns." You already seem to be heading that way. Which way
do things have to go, up to a list of say 1,000 cases or down to
10 or 4 or what?

 >Both of you have
 >countless cases (if the evidence is indeed that strong) on the
 >tip of your collective tongues, so a response shouldn't be that
 >long in coming.

Indeed Dick beat you to it by anticipating you in advance, on
April 7 with his posting on the 18 cases in his ISSO article,
conveniently listed out by Bob Young. See the UpDates posts:

http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m07-007.shtml
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/2001/apr/m06-009.shtml

 >Now, make a coherent argument for ET visitation that
 >incorporates and accommodates all ten of those cases, as opposed
 >to saying they're simply "suggestive" of ET visitation. Include
 >any physical evidence.

Explain what a "coherent argument for ET visitation" looks like.
Does that mean a sign on the side of a UFO saying "Made in Zeta
Reticuli"? Would we believe it even if we saw such a sign?


Brad


\


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com