UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Dec > Dec 24

Re: UFO Photographs And Film

From: Robert Powell <rpowell.nul>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:37:57 -0600
Archived: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:28:33 -0500
Subject: Re: UFO Photographs And Film


>From: John Donaldson <John.Donaldson.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:41:04 +0000
>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

<snip>

>>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);

Actually, John, Option (2) has been the favored theory amongst
most people. I consider all possibilities, but I currently favor
Option (1); although it's not so simple as just one of those two
options. But I don't want to expand this further.

>but the question is - can ETHists hold (1) at all?
>This seems a reasonable argument:

>P1: Either option (1) or option (2).

With all due respect, I don't know what course in school taught
this type of argumentation method, but I would suggest
utilization of a different method.

>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.).

This P2 line of reasoning is not correct. First, you make an
absolute conclusion without providing any of your reasoning.
First, you need to establish what you think the frequency of
real visitations might be. Second, you need to explain "why"
frequency of ETH visitations has anything to do with the "lack
of" or the "existence of" a government conspiracy. You also need
to take into account that there might be a momentary conspiracy
to keep something secret by just two people, or there might be a
government agency conspiracy that exists for only a few years
and then is forgotten.

Your simplification of this issue is too extreme.

>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.).

Same thing as P2. Where is your proof of causality for the
conclusion that "frequent visits" (which you have not proven)
equates to "there must be a government conspiracy."

>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.

Your use of the term "only because" makes P4 false. There can be
other reasons that makes ETH plausible.

>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...

Untrue.

The Mashco-Piro tribe of Peru are unaware of the outside world.
The Peruvian Air Force could buzz them every day or once a year.
Either way, the existence of the Peruvian Air Force and their
frequency of visitations has no causality to whether the Mashco-
Piro "council" conspires to keep the information away from the
rest of the Macho-Piro people or not.



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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com