From: Robert Powell <rpowell.nul> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:03:44 -0600 Archived: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:27:12 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film >From: John Donaldson <John.Donaldson.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 05:44:04 +0000 >Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film >Hi Robert, >I think the burden of argument issue is an important one, but I >also think it's very hard to compute the precise extent of that >burden. My primary point, though, was simply that radar-visual >cases look more likely to support the ETH than photographic- >visual cases. Hardly Earth-shattering, for sure, but I hoped to >show with a reasonable degree of rigour precisely why the latter >were to be preferred to the former. I would agree. Radar-visual cases are stronger unless you're so close to an object that your photo is good enough to remove any doubt as to the identify of an object. So you need an emblem that says something like, "Tau Ceti spaceship," not made in the U.S.A. :-) >I agree that investigation of the UFO phenomenon is worthwhile, >but it seems a reasonable question to ask "where are such >investigative efforts best directed?" People seem to agree that >unambigious photographic evidence has not, and seems unlikely to >be forthcoming. Given that, I argued, you will struggle to >produce arguments for the ETH which should persuade a neutral >observer; and struggle to such an extent that it calls into to >question the fruitfulness of such efforts - absent the >unambigious photograph. Moreover, merely adding further such >uncertain cases doesn't seem to help either (although they may >motivate efforts towards further investigation, if such further >motivation is required). >Therefore, given that radar-visual cases do not seem as >problematic, investigative efforts that hope to result in >evidence that will persuade the neutral seem best directed >there. NORAD should have the evidence that says "nay" or "yea." The question is either, "will they provide that evidence," or "have they even looked for that evidence." I know the latter statement sounds a little far-fetched, but I don't think it is. I can imagine a scenario where NORAD tracks space debris, potential ICBMs, air traffic,etc., but they ignore oddities that have speed/vector tracks that don't match up with the items with which they are interested. (For anyone who has analyzed radar data, they can appreciate the reason for this statement.) Unfortunately, NORAD is not going to provide information to answer either scenario. 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp