And Who Says Ray Doesn't Know What He's Looking At?

[Wade]

at the top of tonight's card is lance "immovable object" moody vs. chris " irresisitable force" O'brien

 

[SRL+]

I sense "Pay Per View"

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I sense "Pay Per View"

LOL you guys crack me up!!!

 

[Randall]

Umm, I've never considered my weird yellow chopper experience to include a dangling cow moo-ing in my head. I appreciate your humorous aside, but I take what I consider pivotal personal experiences very seriously and I don't appreciate the innuendo.

If anything it's about how my head works. Small things that go unnoticed to other people bother me. We have a little unfinished business there with the helicopter discussion. When I think about it ... well ... I actually do visualize an antique yellow helicopter, and because it was associated with cattle mutilations, my mind wandered with that idea and I visualized it carrying around a cow, at which point poof ! For some unexplained reason that perhaps I need some therapy for, my brain suddenly went 100% Gary Larson and I saw myself in cartoon form as a middle aged slightly overweight UFO nut with a black void inside his head in which a yellow helicopter was carrying around a cow. Just add in the sound of a helicopter and a cow going moooo, and well you almost get the picture. You see, I say "almost" because I left out the part about the cuckoo clock.

Yay! If you're right, at least we're making progress!!

On one hand, I couldn't agree more, but with that pseudoscience in there we're lucky if it doesn't backfire someplace.

OK, show us what doesn't add up scientifically... what exactly is "it?" The hypothesis? The math? The evidence? The presentation? The gall? I'm confused...

To preface, my initial point was for you not to count on this PDF convincing Lance that he should accept Ray as legit because it bears the hallmarks of pseudoscience. I have made no specific claim myself that the paper is in fact pseudoscience, only that it bears the "hallmarks of pseudoscience". The actual determination IMO would be for a panel of scientists to decide. In support of my statement two key factors need to be in place in order for a work to be considered pseudoscientific:

1. The work must be presented as scientific.
2. It must fail to meet the standards of accepted scientific standards of practice.

On point 1: There is little debate here that the work is being presented as scientific. It is evidenced by the scientific forum in which it was presented and the use of highly technical terms and calculations. Consequently the PDF is subject to evaluation according to accepted scientific standards of practice.

On point 2: We find almost immediately that the focus of the paper is on, " ... the propulsion of Unconventional Flying Objects of unknown origin ..." and this presents the first problem. Where is this object? If the writer had such an object and could demonstrate that it operated on a propulsion system, it wouldn't matter so much if its origin were unknown. However we soon find that the writer has no such object. In fact we have no proof that anyone has such an object. Because the author can't demonstrate with certainty that such objects exist, let alone that they have a propulsion system, there is a serious lack of verifiable material evidence, which is a serious but not entirely fatal blow to most scientific claims. Scientific claims that cannot provide verifiable material evidence are still accepted provided that the phenomena is verifiable ( e.g. astronomical or atmospheric observations ), however we also find that the phenomena is not verifiable either ... another serious, but again not necessarily fatal blow to any scientific claim. A lack of verifiable observational evidence can still be considered scientific if we frame the problem in a theoretical context ( e.g. theoretical physics ). However in this case there appears to be a claim that we are dealing with real material objects, yet all we have are bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence.

Next we move on to the propulsion method, which also turns out to be unproven. No working model exists that proves that theory works, let alone that it belongs to the objects cited above, for which there is no verifiable material evidence. What is offered is lumps of dirt and vegetation when what should be offered up is a working PEMP propulsion engine. At least if we had one of those Meesen could claim that it's feasible and that it could be put into some sort of craft.

Next we move on to the Faraday Effect and Magneto-refraction of EM waves. While this appears to be a valid scientific idea, no laboratory evidence is offered as proof of the theory. Instead we have anecdotal evidence from two people, one of which is Ray Stanford, who also has some film of one of the alleged objects. However this film is the result of a completely chance occurrence outside of laboratory conditions, is not verifiable by repetition and therefore we cannot be certain the image actually represents the effect that is claimed.

Next we move on to the sources. I don't know about all the rest, but I know Ruppelt's Report on Unidentified Flying Objects isn't a scientific treatise. It's a collection of stories, various bits of historical data, and the experiences and opinions of Ruppelt. It's certainly a classic in ufology and I personally tend to believe most of what it says, but that doesn't make it science. References to non-scientific works don't necessarily make a work pseudoscientific unless the citations are claimed to be evidence for a scientific claim, which in this case it is.

So to summarize, the PDF is presented as scientific but on no less than 4 counts and ( possibly more ) exhibits the hallmarks of pseudoscience, largely to do with the lack of verifiable material evidence and unsupported references. I submit that for these reasons, it is doubtful that a panel of genuine scientists at arms length from the issues presented would judge this PDF as meeting the accepted scientific standards. IMO it would therefore be wiser to present the information in an informal manner that provides the same food for thought, or in an entirely theoretical manner that leaves out the issue of scientifically substantiating claims about UFOs.

Hmmm I can't speak for Gene, but hey, just let us know! You have a standing invitation to appear whenever you feel ready and up to it! We both appreciate all your hard work, your contributions and insight and POV in the forum--we're ready when you are to book a show appearance!

Thanks Chris, I've been a guest on radio twice before, and done my fair share of call ins, so it doesn't spook me to be on air. Just don't make it this week because I think I'm losing my voice here with this lousy head cold. Hey there's an idea for a guest that would be something different from UFOs and the paranormal ... one of those flu shot conspiracy theorists. Some of that is pretty interesting. So would someone on antiaging and life extension ... you know like a Kurzweil futurist type. A few people here are a bit burnt out on UFOs right now and although I know airs on the radio too, I get the feeling our forum people would probably like to hear about something else and they've already had enough of me lately I think. But it sure is nice to hear your words of encouragement and know the offer is out there.