UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Apr > Apr 5

Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 22:15:35 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 21:48:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 10:02:58 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

>>Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 17:36:57 +0100
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: John Rimmer <magonia@magonia.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate


>>I know it's a hopeless question, and Serge Salvaille has
>>specifically ruled himself out from answering it, but I'll try
>>again: can we have a list of the ten UFO cases giving the best
>>evidence for an extraterrestrial origin for the UFO phenomenon?.

>>I won't hold my breath.

>John seems to forget that we went through this exercise a number
>of months ago - in two ways. 1) Lists of cases were advanced.
>and 2) The nature of the provability of the ETH was discussed,
>and it did not include the "10 case" strawman.

>John also seems to hold the odd idea that failing to prove the
>ETH renders the whole phenomenon moot.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that I
think that if one is unable to prove the ETH then the UFO
phenomenon is not worthy of study? This is obviously not the
case, otherwise why would I be spending my time publishing a
magazine and wearing my fingertips away replying to these
postings? My dictionary defines "moot" as "debatable" or
"discussion of a hypothetical case", in which case I certainly
think the whole phenomenon is "moot" - isn't that the whole
point of this debate and discussion forum?

>As he and most of the
>readers on this list know, while I am not an ETH proponent, I am
>an OEH (Objective Existence Hypothesis) proponent. Objective
>existence is the most parsimonious explanation of a phenomenon
>whose many highest quality cases include the hundreds in the
>Project 1947 EM Effects catalog, the BUFORA and CUFOS vehicle
>interference studies, the Schuessler catalog of medical effects
>from UFOs and the Phillips Physical Trace catalog.

Yes, we did go through this a few months ago, but only one
person came up with a list of ten cases. Rather more replies
were in the nature of Mark Cashman's response above; that there
were "hundreds" of cases which could not be explained in mundane
terms and so must represent some novel (if not necessarily
extraterrestrial) phenomenon. Does Mark Cashman think that
_every_one_ of the cases in the BUFORA, CUFOS, Phillips, etc.,
catalogues has been so thoroughly investigated at source that
all more parsimonious explanations can be ruled out? Surely not!
No, he simply thinks that because lots and lots of people have
been unable to come up with plausible explanations for lots and
lots of cases, this somehow proves that a novel and previously
unknown object is present.

Nevertheless I do give credit to Mr Cashman for coming up with a
list of cases claimed to be evidential for a physical phenomenon
- although not indicative of an extraterrestrial origin, which
is what I asked for - and I am sure that we will take a longer
look at some of them in Magonia or the Monthly Supplement.

John Rimmer
Abandon hope all ye who press Enter here

[ 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