UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Dec > Dec 23

Re: UFO Photographs And Film

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

>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

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com