Debunkers....roll up...roll up....

[ProphetofOccam]

My argument is that I agree with the statement and want to change the rules of the game. Rather than chase after cases and conjecture from the depths of time and memory, go out and get new, better data.

Short of catching a UFO in a giant butterfly net, how can we test certain pieces of data against any kind of standard or scale? That's where I'm going with what I'm saying. The only type of information we can collect, without actually having one of the things, if they are things, in our possession for study, is second hand. Not just indirect, but completely removed from central subject of observation. What type of new data are you thinking of?

 

[Randall]

Other people exist in the forums with whom i've not had the discussion ...

That's fair enough, but I'm still not sure why you want to make that specific point in the first place to anyone. Is it your personal benchmark that must be met before you think it's reasonable for you to believe something is true? Do you think it should be a benchmark that everyone else should also subscribe to?

 

[PCarr]

Now we're talking in circles.

Evidence gathered mechanically (i.e. radar tracks) isn't interesting to you even though by it's very nature it's objective.

Epistemological arguments over interpretation of visual evidence also doesn't get us out of the realm of science.

Empirical evidence is what drives science -- evidence that adds or subtracts credence to a hypothesis, and that follows sufficient rigour that it can usually be replicated by others.

Now, data replication could be an interesting facet to this area.

Evidence isn't evidence without context - it's just data. Evidence is evidence for or against a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a fairly meaningful notion - it means something that you understand well enough to make a reasonably good (doesn't have to be perfect) estimate from it of that the evidence should be.

If you don't understand the nature of x, then forming hypotheses about x is iffy at best. Best to form hypotheses about the data themselves, testing for patterns. That's what you do when you haven't got a paradigm.

 

[marduk]

Short of catching a UFO in a giant butterfly net, how can we test certain pieces of data against any kind of standard or scale? That's where I'm going with what I'm saying. The only type of information we can collect, without actually having one of the things, if they are things, in our possession for study, is second hand. Not just indirect, but completely removed from central subject of observation. What type of new data are you thinking of?

I'm thinking of wide ranging high Def triangulated video.

I'm thinking of civilian intercept flights loaded with sensing gear.

I'm thinking of coordinated quick response teams working in hot spot areas.

I'm thinking databases capable of statistical analysis, like crime databases.

I'm thinking of theoretical and experimental physicists trying to replicate propulsion systems.

I'm thinking we should wrap a nice neat bow on the fuzzy past and look forward. And do so in an active rather than passive way that doesn't look for disclosure or help from authority.

 

[Burnt State]

There has in fact been enormous data collection pertaining to the UFO phenomenon and it should not all be thrown out. If anything new and smarter data collection methods might descend from thinking better about what we have. If anything there's still oodles of data collected but not yet organized, or still sitting in file folders in someone's garage.

Past data patterns led to a number of different hypotheses including refutations of the ETH and prompted new ways to think about the origins of the data. Maybe closer examinations of past data will provide patterns that might indicate better ways to seek, record and understand the phenomenon.

Still too much energy is directed towards thinking about aliens from outer space when the subject s happening here on earth and interacting with us in ways that remind us curiously of ourselves. Maybe more self-reflection is required?

 

[PCarr]

I'm thinking of wide ranging high Def triangulated video.

I'm thinking of civilian intercept flights loaded with sensing gear.

I'm thinking of coordinated quick response teams working in hot spot areas.

I'm thinking databases capable of statistical analysis, like crime databases.

I'm thinking of theoretical and experimental physicists trying to replicate propulsion systems.

I'm thinking we should wrap a nice neat bow on the fuzzy past and look forward. And do so in an active rather than passive way that doesn't look for disclosure or help from authority.

I've thought of most of those things myself, although I don't hold out much hope for any propulsion system work near term. That's like Archimedes trying to build a satellite. He may be plenty clever enough, but he hasn't even got the basic concept, much less the technology.

The new drones are low cost enough (about $1000 for one with a decent range and a good camera) that intercept flights start to sound realistic. in fact, people are working on that, as well as the triangulated video.

 

[PCarr]

There has in fact been enormous data collection pertaining to the UFO phenomenon and it should not all be thrown out. If anything new and smarter data collection methods might descend from thinking better about what we have. If anything there's still oodles of data collected but not yet organized, or still sitting in file folders in someone's garage.

Past data patterns led to a number of different hypotheses including refutations of the ETH

I've yet to read anything like a persuasive refutation of the ETH. There are two reasons for this:

1. There is no ETH. Seriously. A hypothesis is serious business, and if we ever have one, we will probably have several.
   
2. The arguments made against the "ETH" are against the various strawman ETs. It's shooting fish in a barrel, but it's the wrong fish, wrong barrel.

Humility is called for.

 

[marduk]

I've thought of most of those things myself, although I don't hold out much hope for any propulsion system work near term. That's like Archimedes trying to build a satellite. He may be plenty clever enough, but he hasn't even got the basic concept, much less the technology.

The new drones are low cost enough (about $1000 for one with a decent range and a good camera) that intercept flights start to sound realistic. in fact, people are working on that, as well as the triangulated video.

You don't know if you don't try.

And Archimedes could have done a hell of a lot more if he already had a notion that orbiting the earth was possible... my point is that sometimes it's easier to start with knowing something is possible and figuring out how it works rather than not knowing it's possible to begin with.

Besides, we don't know that their propulsion mechanisms are 100 or 1000 or 100000 years in advance of us. They could be within our current understanding. Hell, for all they seem to screw up or fail to do anything effectively they could be behind us in several areas.

Imagine if we suddenly invented antigravity (or more likely a control of gravitational and inertial mass) in the 1920s. We'd have maybe been at other star systems 50 years ago.

And been completely stupid and colonial about it.

 

[Burnt State]

I've yet to read anything like a persuasive refutation of the ETH. There are two reasons for this:

1. There is no ETH. Seriously. A hypothesis is serious business, and if we ever have one, we will probably have several.
   
2. The arguments made against the "ETH" are against the various strawman ETs. It's shooting fish in a barrel, but it's the wrong fish, wrong barrel.

Humility is called for.

Vallée's five arguments against the ETH published in the 90's?

 

[PCarr]

Vallée's five arguments against the ETH published in the 90's?

Well familiar to me, and not at all persuasive, in no small part for the reasons stated. I have respect for Vallee and his work, but I think that it's not the time to worry about theories. A theory is the crowning achievement of a scientific enterprise, and we are far, far from that point.

 

[PCarr]

You don't know if you don't try.

And Archimedes could have done a hell of a lot more if he already had a notion that orbiting the earth was possible... my point is that sometimes it's easier to start with knowing something is possible and figuring out how it works rather than not knowing it's possible to begin with.

And yet, no one was available to clue him in, and it would seem that no one is going to do that for us, either.

In this case, I'm not even sure that "propulsion" is the right concept. Possibly very far off the mark.

 

[marduk]

And yet, no one was available to clue him in, and it would seem that no one is going to do that for us, either.

In this case, I'm not even sure that "propulsion" is the right concept. Possibly very far off the mark.

Based upon what?

We have objects seen by light reflection by observers and recorded on mechanical devices.

We have radar (and sonar presumably) reflections off of solid objects in our air/water.

Therefore, these objects exist in our universe.

Therefore, these objects should be subject to the laws of our universe.

Therefore, if they move, they require a propulsive mechanism to do so. I'm open to non-reactive propulsion mechanisms, but still... something's gotta make the things sit there in the air just like bricks don't.

 

[marduk]

Vallée's five arguments against the ETH published in the 90's?

And as much as I respect the man, his arguments are easily countered with similar degrees of speculation.

1. unexplained close encounters are far more numerous than required for any physical survey of the earth;

Counter argument: what if it's not a physical survey? I don't see why the ETH necessitates this. It could very well be for economic reasons.​

2. the humanoid body structure of the alleged "aliens" is not likely to have originated on another planet and is not biologically adapted to space travel;

Counter argument: what if they're designed species? I mean, we're on the verge of being able to design ourselves for whatever phenotypes we may need (within reason)... why would we not design ourselves to be able to go down to a planet and interact with the locals on their own turf? Or create avatars like in the stupid movie?​

3. the reported behavior in thousands of abduction reports contradicts the hypothesis of genetic or scientific experimentation on humans by an advanced race;

Counter argument: the ETH isn't equivalent with abductions, nor are abductions equivalent with genetic/scientific experimentation on humans. I think the motives are not altruistic and possibly economically motivated.​

4. the extension of the phenomenon throughout recorded human history demonstrates that UFOs are not a contemporary phenomenon; and

So? What if the universe is filled with species exploiting resources wherever they find them within some kind of limitations like we have on, say, whaling? OK guys take a few but try to leave the species still viable if you can?​

5. the apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests radically different and richer alternatives.

Groovy. ETH to me covers many possibilities, like FTL may necessitate time travel and vice versa. So? Does this not make it ETH?​