From: John Donaldson <John.Donaldson.nul> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:41:04 +0000 Archived: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:23:23 -0500 Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film >From: Robert Powell<rpowell.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:03:44 -0600 >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. Yeah, I've sometimes wondered about NORAD, and related government agencies in the US and elsewhere, in relation to the question of how best to formulate the ETH: Two version of the ETH seem distinguishable: (1) ETH with no government(s) conspiracy; (2) ETH with government(s) conspiracy. Option (1) is taken to be the more attractive of the two by many (not least because it does not require a surprising degree of competency over many decades from a diverse and fractious group of governments); but the question is - can ETHists hold (1) at all? This seems a reasonable argument: P1: Either option (1) or option (2). P2: If option (1) then ETs could *not* be visiting this planet anywhere near as frequently as some claim in the apparent manner in which they do (often showing up on radar, buzzing military vehicles and sites etc.). P3: If option (2) then ETs *could* be visiting this planet anywhere near as frequently as some claim in the apparent manner in which they do (often showing up on radar, buzzing military vehicles and sites etc.). P4: The ETH is taken to be plausible only because of the claims of frequent ET visitation including often showing up on radar, buzzing military vehicles and sites etc. C: Therefore, the ETH is plausible only if option (2). Some may respond at this point "but of course" - others may demure. But at the very least, it seems as if holding (1) is only compatible with an interpretation of the UFO phenomenon which downplays very significantly the number and type of visitations... 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