From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:28:01 -0400 Archived: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:19:35 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film >From: Robert Powell <rpowell.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:44:06 -0600 >Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film >>From: John Donaldson <John.Donaldson.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:46:07 +0000 >>Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film >>>From: John Donaldson <John.Donaldson.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:48:09 +0100 >>>Subject: UFO Photographs And Film >>>I am a PhD student in philosophy at the University of Glasgow >><snip> >>>I look forward to any and all responses, which I am happy to >>>receive off or on-list >>Dear List-Members, >>In August I posted with some queries about the strength of >>photographic evidence for the ETH. I received a number of very >>helpful responses, with which I engaged in some correspondence, >>before promising to post a general response to the list. Various >>other commitments postponed that response until now: >>I present some initial thoughts on some of the key evidence >>taken by many to support the ET hypothesis (and perhaps other >>non-prosaic theses). I assess such evidence from the perspective >>of the neutral who does not have any inside knowledge of the UFO >>phenomenon, has had no UFO experiences, and merely wishes to >>decide, based on the evidence presented by ufologists, whether >>or not the ETH is true. It seems to me that the non-prosaic >>theses remain unproven, but not to such an extent that belief in >>them is completely un-warranted. >>I focus on the two strongest types of witness case, (1) visual- >>photographic, and (2) visual-radar cases. On the former I think >>the jury will remain out, at best, but on the latter I think >>there is some prospect for settling the case one way or the >>other. ><snip> >>I hope that the members of this list find these thoughts >>worthwhile. >John, >The crux of your reasoning seems to boil down to the old adage: >incredible claims require incredible proof. Fair enough. But my >concern is that there is a mindset that says, "Without the >incredible proof we will not even investigate an incredible >claim". Unless the UFO phenomenon is properly researched then it >will always be a mystery and we will never solve it. Which raises the question, Robert; if we do provide credible proof; what the hell do we need these nebulous scientists for? The hard work is done. Don Ledger Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp