The Great Debate: Scott Ramsey Versus Kevin D. Randle

[Jeff Davis]

You're partly right. During an individual investigation, or the analysis of a particular case, making assumptions that are equal to conclusions is bad form. On the other hand, making assumptions in order to test them is entirely reasonable. Regarding what UFOs are, the overwhelming evidence in history and usage indicates that the word UFO is used to convey the idea of an alien craft, therefore that is what the subject matter is about. But do all UFO reports involve alien craft? Certainly not. Do some UFO reports represent alien craft? Again the sum of all good reports indicates that it's reasonable to believe they do. Therefore it's reasonable to believe UFOs ( alien craft ) are real. Are they technological? That is a separate question.

We assume by the word "craft" that UFOs are some sort of manufactured object that equates to some sort of advanced transport. This is a fair assumption, but I also think that the outer limits of such things could conceivably include things like AI ( living machines ) or Kurzweilian entities that are more than simply machines. So the word "craft" in this sense is synonymous with the outer shell, or the body, the part that is responsible for transporting the intelligence, and not the intelligence itself. Even EBEs may not be the actual intelligence, but some kind of bio-gear that the intelligences inhabit temporarily in order to perform various tasks. But whatever the case is, those details aren't relevant to the issue of UFOs themselves. We know they're sufficiently beyond our means to duplicate and that no natural phenomena can reasonably explain them.

My point is that when we see things moving or stationary in the sky that we do not understand and cannot readily identify, influence suggests what that something is according to typical cognitive process. Influence is not evidence. Rather it's a product of our suggestible nature as human beings.

You have read me state here how many times I have fantasized (sometimes referred to as a hypothesis) about the various possibilities that UFOs suggest. Lately, discoveries in the Quantum Mechanics realm have suggested to me that UFOs demonstrate qualities often associated with our bizarre findings in this fascinating theoretical branch of physics. This is absolutely no less an influence than our own space pioneering efforts were on Keyhoe when he originally got on board. He merely aligned witness testimony with the influence of our best contemporary cutting edge scientific technologies.

I still truly believe, and therefore I truly do not know, that both QM, and studies in the nature of our interactive consciousness itself, will reveal the origin and definition of what is presently the UFO phenomenon.

I truly believe that Keyhoe's positioning on the UFO matter was due to the same precise sociological evolutionary effect of processed influence. I really don't think it was any different 2000 years ago when UFOs were being interpreted according to the times in which they presented themselves.

UFOs have always been here IMO, certainly not just since the 30s and 40s.

My faith is presently invested in the notion that we are growing up in their environment. Not that they are visiting ours. But see Ufology, that's the thing. I have ZERO problem using the terms faith, belief, fantasies, and convictions with respect to UFOs because as an individual that addresses UFOs as a phenomenon, I know all I really have are reports and observations of UFOs on which to build casual fictitious theories while I patiently or not so patiently wait for our own scientific advancements, or just plain luck, to come through. These theories are fun and constantly up for revision. I am not religious about them in the least. It keeps the process interesting and exciting for me as opposed to being frustrated, impatient, or the ever popular "blinded by the oversimplification of phenomenal matters diverse in nature"

 

[Jeff Davis]

I don't see sufficient evidence in these bits of metal to conclude that they are of alien origin. Remember how weird the Bob White artifact seemed? That was before an entirely Earthly explanation was found. I'm not saying that metal fragments can't come from UFOs or that I have conclusive evidence of a hoax, but until I see an analysis that shows something beyond our own ability to reproduce, something analogous to what Gene brought up ( an iPhone in 19th Century ), these bits of material evidence might be interesting, but are still far from sufficient.

@Gene Steinberg

Agreed.

 

[Randall]

My point is that when we see things moving or stationary in the sky that we do not understand and cannot readily identify, influence suggests what that something is according to typical cognitive process. Influence is not evidence. Rather it's a product of our suggestible nature as human beings.

You have read me state here how many times I have fantasized (sometimes referred to as a hypothesis) about the various possibilities that UFOs suggest. Lately, discoveries in the Quantum Mechanics realm have suggested to me that UFOs demonstrate qualities often associated with our bizarre findings in this fascinating theoretical branch of physics. This is absolutely no less an influence than our own space pioneering efforts were on Keyhoe when he originally got on board. He merely aligned witness testimony with the influence of our best contemporary cutting edge scientific technologies.

I still truly believe, and therefore I truly do not know, that both QM, and studies in the nature of our interactive consciousness itself, will reveal the origin and definition of what is presently the UFO phenomenon.

I truly believe that Keyhoe's positioning on the UFO matter was due to the same precise sociological evolutionary effect of processed influence. I really don't think it was any different 2000 years ago when UFOs were being interpreted according to the times in which they presented themselves.

UFOs have always been here IMO, certainly not just since the 30s and 40s.

My faith is presently invested in the notion that we are growing up in their environment. Not that they are visiting ours. But see Ufology, that's the thing. I have ZERO problem using the terms faith, belief, fantasies, and convictions with respect to UFOs because as an individual that addresses UFOs as a phenomenon, I know all I really have are reports and observations of UFOs on which to build casual fictitious theories while I patiently or not so patiently wait for our own scientific advancements, or just plain luck, to come through. These theories are fun and constantly up for revision. I am not religious about them in the least. It keeps the process interesting and exciting for me as opposed to being frustrated, impatient, or the ever popular "blinded by the oversimplification of phenomenal matters diverse in nature"

That was an excellent post! I particularly liked this part, to quote: "My faith is presently invested in the notion that we are growing up in their environment. Not that they are visiting ours." It's not that it's denying that UFOs aren't visiting our environment in one context, rather it pulls us outside the ketchup bottle long enough to get a glimpse at the phenomenon from another perspective, one that is equally valid. Like you, I also don't have a problem using words like belief. In fact you'll recall the Gant chart I made recently. Belief based on faith is entirely valid within a non-religious context, e.g. faith in our fellow human beings. That's not to say we should take everyone's claims at face value, but at the same time it's pure denial to claim that every witness must be misled, under some form of misperception, or fabricating. Please excuse me for using the word "reasonable" so much here, but between the two extremes ( pure faith and denial ) is enough reasonable evidence from reasonable people to justify a belief in UFOs.

 

[tom1961]

What good is first had witness.
I can claim I saw anything.

 

[Jeff Davis]

What good is first had witness.
I can claim I saw anything.

You know why I "liked" your post? I don't.


Just/Jest kidding! I liked the common sense straight forward question, that's precisely why. Frankly, it's a bit invigorating. It's become so valid in this day and age of an all too available informative overabundance. With positively no guarantee of informational accuracy.

This is one possible answer to your question. I believe it to be quite valid: Phenomenalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The investigation of UFOs as phenomenon insists on observation based Witness Testimony/Documentation, and Reporting, pertaining to the the realm of the witness' subjective experience. Naturally, as with all philosophical/scientific disciplines, information derived through *skillful , methodically *critical, investigative practice yield tremendous value. Frankly, with the proper filters in place, the sum of such a process throughout history could define at least one verifiable evolutionary firmament of sociological communications progress. There is tremendous value in witness reporting my friend. There is even greater value in how it's treated. *(learned through the education of institution as well as experience)

 

[Randall]

What good is first had witness.
I can claim I saw anything.

Quite frankly, it would be obtuse to equate a single hypothetical example with thousands of real cases. This is how it works in real life: Without sufficient evidence, we may not have cause to believe that a single credible firsthand account is true or false. However as more and more credible people start having the same type of experience, it becomes harder and harder to deny that such experiences are taking place, until after so many hundreds or thousands of credible reports of the same type of experience, simply dismissing them all as though they were a single claim becomes unreasonable. Add to that the circumstantial evidence from instrumentation and investigation and the probability that there is a real causal factor for the reported experiences becomes a virtual certainty. At this point we may not know exactly what the causal factor is, but we can be reasonably certain that it is real and we may even be able to funnel it into a broad class of experience. Such is the case with UFO reports.