5 Arguments Against The ETH And A Rebuttal

[dr_wu]

Dr Jacques Vallee's original points against the ETH from the Society For Scientific Exploration, a rebuttal from Dr Wood from the same org, and a link to a long piece examining the validity of the ETH vs the EDH and what Dr Vallee may have been attempting with his alternate ideas.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/js ... v4n1a9.php
http://www.scientificexploration.org/js ... v5n1a5.php
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/vallee5.htm

I'd like to see where all the regs here stand on this issue of how to classify the ufo enigma. Do you support the ETH, the EDH , the PSH or do you think it's all just rubbish?

 

[Analis]

I suppose EDH means Extra-Dimensionnal Hypothesis?
The 5 points of VALLEE's demonstration are only a rebuttal of "first degree" ETH. For example, "humanoids" might be only some kind of robot or controlled apparition, designed to interact with us. Part 3) is probably the weakest. And an EDH or UTH is only an enlarged version of ETH. It doesn't affect the problem of interaction between humanity and the UFO phenomenon. It is a strategic error to oppose them. Part 5) doesn't prohibit the possibility of classic, flesh-and-blood e.t.s, hidden from us but interacting via a magic-like technology. VALLEE himself is perfectly aware of those points, he made it clear on a number of occasions. Although this text was badly phrased and unclear relating to this issue. If his opinion varied with time (at one time he did seem to support a purely parapsychological approach), from 15 years he states that he believes in a non-human intervention. But if he was misunderstood, he shares a part of responsibility by opposing too sharply EDH/advanced ETH to ETH as a whole.

The critic is very interesting, cleverly stating the issues relating to a more advanced version of the ETH, adressing a number of points raised on other topics recently. Not relying on anathema or preconceptions such as "aliens would not act this way because of...". But questionning the stance we should adopt when confronted with a more advanced intelligence. A part of "absurdity" is to be expected, but it seems absurd only because we can't comprehend the whys and the hows. Personnally, I believe that some kind of control system is at work, from a very long time. But what is his goal? To promote the future integration of humanity to the galactic community? To exploit us, à la Fort's shepherd? To use Earth as a Disneyland? Or for some inconceivable, alien motive?

 

[Jerry_B]

One problem I have with this is that is seems to assume that everything is external, wheras I'd say we couldn't rule out what goes on in our heads as being a major factor in evaluating anything related to UFOs, etc.. I'm not implying that madness or mental problems are the root cause - I'm saying that how we perceive things is one important factor to be considered first before we start looking outwards for exterior forces being at work.

 

[dr_wu]

One problem I have with this is that is seems to assume that everything is external, wheras I'd say we couldn't rule out what goes on in our heads as being a major factor in evaluating anything related to UFOs, etc.. I'm not implying that madness or mental problems are the root cause - I'm saying that how we perceive things is one important factor to be considered first before we start looking outwards for exterior forces being at work.

Analis,
Dr Vallee does not completely dismiss the ETH. He has said that's certainly possible but that he would be disappointed if it turned out to be 'just aliens from outer space'. He finds the possibility that it might be some other form of sentience more intriguing from an intellectual point of view.
Based on his research over the years interviewing witnesses (and the often bizarre nature of the encounters with odd symbology that relates more to the 'occult' than science) he just doesn't see this as et's and his talked about this extensively in his later books like Dimensions, Confrontations, and Revelations.
I do see your point based on the old comment Arthur C Clarke made about advanced science seeming like magic to us. That's always a valid possibility

Jerry,
Can you elaborate a little on this idea? Are you taking the line that these ufo and ufo related manifestations might be created by human consciousness interacting with reality itself ala John Keel's 'ultraterrestrials' from the Superspectrum, Patrick Harpur's 'daimons', and Jung's ideas of archetypes?

 

[Jerry_B]

Jerry,
Can you elaborate a little on this idea? Are you taking the line that these ufo and ufo related manifestations might be created by human consciousness interacting with reality itself ala John Keel's 'ultraterrestrials' from the Superspectrum, Patrick Harpur's 'daimons', and Jung's ideas of archetypes?

Well, not really - although ideas about archetypes may come into play if we recognise that such things are malleable. My point was to wonder whether human psychology may come into play before a percipient thinks that they see something (i.e. archetypes, expectations, knowledge base) and how all of that evaluates what they think they perceive. It seems to me that alot of focus tends to be outwards as far as UFOs, etc. are concerned, and not enough on whether there are other inward mechanisms involved. I mean, what if a percipient experiences something with a mundane source but evaluates it as being something else? What sort of things are coming into play?

There's also another theme as to whether these outward projections about what UFOs etc. may be are still actually inward reflections on human psychology, and may not exist at all outside that. Is there something about our psychologies that makes us think a certain way about what we perceive as phenomena? Is it all perhaps essentially in our heads first and foremost?

I mean, I'm a self-confessed non-Fortean. What interests me is what people say they have seen/heard.etc.. I don't assume that this has any root cause that may be as exotic or strange as an account may sound. It's fascinating nontheless

 

[longhaircowboy]

You may want to take into consideration Michael Persingers work at Laurentian University. He claims to be able to stimulate the brain and simulate an abduction in subjects.
There is some controversy within the UFO community over whether his methods and results are reliable.
Noone has replicated his experiments so it's all still up in the air.
Oops no pun intended.

 

[dr_wu]

Jerry,
It sounds like you lean heavily towards the PSH. How do you account for the physical effects that often accompany ufo type events? Dr Vallee has noted that ufo encounters seem to have both a physical reality and a psychic one.

 

[Jerry_B]

Well, with physical effects one has to weigh up whether they actually are, or whether what's found is something which has that meaning ascribed to it? After all, it's difficult from a second or third-hand point of view to judge whether such 'evidence' actually is evidence of what's claimed. So, if someone sees a UFO land in a field and later finds marks in the area, how much of that evidence is being fabricated and assumed by the mind of the percipient? Perhaps he or she is looking at something mundane but is ascribing more meaning to things than is inherent in what they're looking at?

My basic point is that there's all sorts of things that come into play WRT how we assess the world around us and evaluate it psychologically. The view of the outside world just doesn't go into our eyes and brain and just sit there. It has to be processed by our minds and our psychologies even before it get's formed into an evaluation of what has be perceived. I think that to place things like UFOs entirely as an exterior process doesn't really explain things - apart from perhaps giving us an insight into those people who seek an exterior explanation. To me, even the ETH says more about how people evaluate UFOs as a subject than it actually does about the possibilities of ET life.

 

[Analis]

"Dr Vallée does not completely dismiss the ETH."
Yes. My point was to show that he shared responsibility in the false belief that he does (and that EDH is an extended version of ETH). Sometimes, he made heavy-handed remarks. But he agreed (in "Confrontations" or "Revelations", I'm not sure) that this other form of sentience could come from another planet in this universe as well as from a parallel universe or another plane of existence. Another example is Jean SIDER, who believes that there is an advanced, "immaterial" intelligence in our environment, existing in many dimensions. But probably from another planet, where it evolved in a distant past.

Jerry_B: Why should we assume that anyone seeing a disk is hallucinating? Because that's what it means. Hallucination = perception with no object. The average bystander doesn't hallucinate. Hallucinations occur from a number of unusual causes. With mentally sane people, they may be drugs, sleep deprivation, hypnagogic and hypnopompic states, extreme hunger, blindness (Charles Bonnett syndrom - well, it's on the verge of mental insanity)... Or from brain tumour or a number of mental illnesses. No people unafflicted with any such condition will hallucinate. This is an invention by psycho-sociologists to explain cases they can't account for, and goes against all established laws of sociology and psychology.
Bob to John: "Well, I just saw a nice big house."
John: "How can I be sure you saw a house?"
Bob: "What do you mean???"
John: "Perception can be twisted. Maybe it was only in your head."
Bob: "Excuse me, I saw a house."
John: "But it could be only an inward reflection of your inner thoughts. Maybe there is something in human psychology, that prevent us to see things the way they are and make us perceive them a certain way as a distinct phenomenon? Maybe you just imagined this house."
Bob: "Are you joking?"
John: "Why? After all, houses are a huge cultural icon. They're present in every aspect of the collective mind. People should be expected to see them wherever they go."
Bob: "..............."

And yes, if we have an instance of physical effects, we should ascertain that they have not a mundane origin. If all alternative explanatiuons are dismissed, then we have a good motive to conclude that an unknow phenomenon was present. But you seem to work from the assuption that such effects can't exist. That's not the way it works. In a number of instances, there is well documented physical evidence (Delphos, Everglades, Falcon Lake, Valensole, Soccoro, Dr X, Council Bluff...). But rest assured that I don't use CE3s to study e.t. life...

 

[Jerry_B]

Jerry_B: Why should we assume that anyone seeing a disk is hallucinating? Because that's what it means. Hallucination = perception with no object. The average bystander doesn't hallucinate. Hallucinations occur from a number of unusual causes. With mentally sane people, they may be drugs, sleep deprivation, hypnagogic and hypnopompic states, extreme hunger, blindness (Charles Bonnett syndrom - well, it's on the verge of mental insanity)... Or from brain tumour or a number of mental illnesses. No people unafflicted with any such condition will hallucinate. This is an invention by psycho-sociologists to explain cases they can't account for, and goes against all established laws of sociology and psychology.

No, I'm not assuming an hallucination = perception with no object. I'm saying that between the perception and the point of evaluation there are various other processes involved to do with the psychology of the percipient. This then frames how they evaluate and describe what they think they've seen. As I've said, I don't mean that people are mad, etc. either.

And yes, if we have an instance of physical effects, we should ascertain that they have not a mundane origin. If all alternative explanatiuons are dismissed, then we have a good motive to conclude that an unknow phenomenon was present. But you seem to work from the assuption that such effects can't exist. That's not the way it works. In a number of instances, there is well documented physical evidence (Delphos, Everglades, Falcon Lake, Valensole, Soccoro, Dr X, Council Bluff...). But rest assured that I don't use CE3s to study e.t. life...

Again, that's not an assumption I'm making. I'm saying that the label of 'evidence' being attached to an alleged UFO landing (for example) is a sort of construct. This construct is given to others by the percipient - we have to rely on their value judgement of it. The 'evidence' is then also framed within a certain context. This doesn't necessarily mean that (a) it was actually created by a UFO, and (b) it does not have a mundane source which is being warped by the construct being applied to it. This is also problematic as there is no standard template for UFO evidence WRT landings - they vary quite a bit. So we can't compare it to any known consistent model.

 

[Analis]

"Again, that's not an assumption I'm making. I'm saying that the label of 'evidence' being attached to an alleged UFO landing (for example) is a sort of construct. THIs evidence is given to the others by the percipient - we have to rely on their value judgement of it. The 'evidence' is then also framed within a certain context. This doesn't necessarily mean that (a) it was actually created by a UFO, and (b) it does not have a mundane source which is being warped by the construct being applied to it. This is also problematic as there is no standard template for UFO evidence WRT landings - they vary quite a bit. So we can't compare it to any known consistent model."

But yes, by ignoring the facts and data of the inquiries, you make an assumption. The label 'evidence' is 'a sort of construct'? Well, it could be said of anything. If you say that the sun heats the Earth, the 'evidence' of it is a sort of construct. If you say that if somebody shoots at another man there is a risk that it kills him, the 'evidence' of it is 'a sort of construct'. If any lawyer defending a man accused of murder told that to the jury:
"well, there is much so-called 'evidence', ballistics say that the ball was fired with his weapon, his fingerprints are present at the crime scenery, witnesses testified that he was there, but it matters not, all this 'evidence' is a sort of construct. We have only the word and the work of a number of percipients to rely upon, and they might have framed the 'evidence' within a certain context. This doesn't mean that the 'evidence' was created by the defendant and there isn't a perfectly mundane source to explain it, as it is being warped by the construct being applied to the case."
He would be ridiculed, and probably disbarred. As should be any researcher using such weird and unscientific reasoning (true, this would mean a lot of people). Every claim is 'a sort of construct' . Every scientific theory, every journalistic, legal or mundane inquiry, every counter-claim too. There are only 'sorts of construct' standing to the test of trial. And those cases (and many other ones) stood it. No mundane explanation will account for healing of permanent injury, or applying a strenght of 30 000 newtons upon a railroad.

The problem of the difficulty of establishing a link between an unexpained mark and a witness claim was adressed by VALLEE. He warned against what he called the Transitivity of the Strangeness. One anomalous physical effect, if proved, doesn't necessarily corroborate a claim of an anomalous happening. But it leaves the problem of the effect intact. And it is of no use to stretch the argument to the point it becomes absurd. If a witness claims to have seen an UFO or a bigfoot and there are numerous marks relating to his testimony, what choice have we but to believe him? If we don't want to, we have to substantiate our viewpoint. In the instance of the Dr X/Guémard case, the witness described truly extraordinary events. But there was such compelling evidence, coming in numbers, that VALLEE had to conclude that, well, in all likeliness things took place as the witness claimed.

The use of pontificating argumentation often takes place as a way to dissuade any further discussion and examination of the facts. Giving a false sense of authority. Very useful to bury disturbing truths. But that shouldn't prevent us to conduct thorough investigation, even if effects vary. Or rather, above all things, more thorough investigations if things vary.

 

[dr_wu]

Interesting comments by both jerry and analis as to what a percipient sees and the conclusions drawn as to subsequent physical evidence seemingly related to the 'paranormal' event.
I have to agree with analis here and say there is no reason to doubt the percipient's testimony regarding the connection to the event and the physical findings unless it has been ruled out by post investigation that the evidence is not related to the event.

Some of these problems regarding evidence, eyewitness testimony, and connections were brilliantly explored up in Stanislaw Lem's novel (which involves the paranormal) , 'The Investigation'. I highly recommend it.

 

[Jerry_B]

But yes, by ignoring the facts and data of the inquiries, you make an assumption. The label 'evidence' is 'a sort of construct'? Well, it could be said of anything. If you say that the sun heats the Earth, the 'evidence' of it is a sort of construct.[...] As should be any researcher using such weird and unscientific reasoning (true, this would mean a lot of people). Every claim is 'a sort of construct' . Every scientific theory, every journalistic, legal or mundane inquiry, every counter-claim too. There are only 'sorts of construct' standing to the test of trial. And those cases (and many other ones) stood it. No mundane explanation will account for healing of permanent injury, or applying a strenght of 30 000 newtons upon a railroad.

You seem to have not understood my point. If a percipeint claims that a UFO landed and also claims that it left evidence behind, we have two situations in which we have to rely on some unknown factors. This isn't the same as the examples you've given, as (as I pointed out) we have no template to apply to UFOs. This is because UFOs aren't any sort of sceintifically (or otherwise) recognised process or object. So anyone investigating the event first has to rely on a (a) the possibility that the percipient did actually see a UFO land, and that (b) that UFO left behind evidence of it's landing. Both factors rely alot on a level of trust - we have to believe what the percipient said has happened. We can't look at any of the evidence and say scientifically 'Ah yes, a classic example of an 'X' type UFO, leaving 'X' type landing marks'.

Add to that the possibility that the percipient may not have actually seen a UFO, but has rationalised an event or experience in a way I've outlined previously. If they then look for 'evidence' of it's landing and find some marks that they believe fit into their experience, then such 'evidence' may be something mundane being made to fit into and explain what they think happened. WRT my previous paragraph, this doesn't also mean that a percipient is lying - he or she may be convinced that the event is a UFO landing, etc.. However, that evaluation should not be taken at face value from the outset.

The use of pontificating argumentation often takes place as a way to dissuade any further discussion and examination of the facts. Giving a false sense of authority. Very useful to bury disturbing truths. But that shouldn't prevent us to conduct thorough investigation, even if effects vary. Or rather, above all things, more thorough investigations if things vary.

Well, if you think that I'm here spending my time trying to dissuade discussion and examination, you're very much wrong. I've already pointed out to you elsewhere the reasons why I'm not a skeptic, debunker, etc..
What I'm trying to do is point out that there may be no exterior process that isn't mundane that causes reports about UFOs, ETs, landings, etc.. IMHO we have to consider first and foremost what goes on in the mind of a percipient when he or she thinks they see a UFO, UFO-related entity, etc.. After all, what they're claiming to have seen is absolutely remarkable in terms about what we know about the world, and so we should be therefore on our guard about evaluating what's being described to us. You seem to be saying that evidence speaks for itself and that what's described must be something real. It may be real, but what it actually is may not be what a percipient describes it as being.

The problem for me is that there's a tendedncy to place UFOs, etc. outside in the exterior material world, and not to wonder whether there is some process that goes on within the mind of the percipient when they think they see something they can't explain, is odd, etc.. And this doesn't have to have any roots in madness or mental illness.

 

[Jerry_B]

I have to agree with analis here and say there is no reason to doubt the percipient's testimony regarding the connection to the event and the physical findings unless it has been ruled out by post investigation that the evidence is not related to the event.

How can that be asserted when, for example, those investigating the evidence did not see the event which created it? After all, the percipient is describing an extraordinary event, one which has no known precept. One has to take into account that UFO investigators are working pretty much in the dark - their only point of reference is something for which we have no template. We also have to rely on the percipient's claim that the evidence and the sighting are linked, even though we would have no reason to believe this.

We always have to rely on what a percipient has said to have happened, and therefore base things on their prior evaluation. If there are possible mitigating factors behind the percipient's experience and evaluation of that event, we cannot simply take any given account at face value. It seems to me that this subject is seen as pretty much a product of functions in the world outside of the percipient's mind and psychology, whereas I'd argue that we first need to rule out various other things first. After all, what's being described is something extraordinary, if one thinks about the subject matter itself.

 

[dr_wu]

Jerry,
I understand what you are saying, but I think you are over analysing the case. If an 'anomalous event' happens, call it whatever you want, ufo, ifo, paranormal event, unknown scientific phenomenon, and then we have an associated immediate physical evidence, there is no reason to think they are not connected.
I'm not saying it's a ufo as in space craft ,but I do think we can safely say the 'anomalous event' that the percipient 'saw' created the physical evidence. As to what it really was or how the witness 'saw' it does not negate the fact that something occurred. Otherwise we are left trying to explain two separate phenomenon which imo violates Occam's razor and logic since we now have to explain what happened to the witness as well as show how the seemingly connected physical evidence was created if it was not from the event.
A good example of this is the Valensole case in France which all of us are aware of. The farmer saw a 'ufo' land in his field and it left a well demarcated burn mark that was later confirmed by GEPAN to have been created by very intense heat but with no traces to show how it was done.
If we assume it was not from the 'anomalous object' then we have to show what else may have caused it at the same time or within a short time after.
If after investigation we conclude (and GEPAN did) there was no other source to explain the mark then we must conclude it was from the 'ufo', whatever one thinks they are and it certainly could have been an unknown natural phenomenon that the percipient 'saw' as a 'ufo'.

 

[Jerry_B]

But the correlation between the UFO and the evidence (in that case and in others) relies on the percipient linking the two things together. There may not be an actual link. The link between the two is not absolute. As I've said, the initial event experienced by the percipient may have no basis in reality outside the mundane, and the only thing that ties the two things together is the percipient's perception and evaluation of a given event. In cases like Valensole, the evidence does not prove the percipient's version of events - all we have is the percipients' evaluation of what went on and a mark in a field. If the mark cannot be explained, that doesn't automatically prove what the percipient claims to have seen.

In such situations one needs to step back from everything and analyse what's being said and ascribed to a situation, especially because one is dealing with an allegedly extraordinary event.

 

[Analis]

Jeryy_B: "The link between the two is not absolute".

Yes, but still the same answer: if there is no good reason to doubt the witness' testimony, why do it? You made a discourse on the way to ponder evidence and testimony and to avoid the dangers of prompt conclusions. But any good scientist, journalist or police investigator is aware of it. And it may come as a surprise, but a number of serious ufologists too (yes, they exist). They investigated according to those rules. You say you don't want to confuse the issue. But then why labour the point? Those people already know it. If they concluded that on those cases it was wise to accept the link, well that's because their close examination of what was said favored this conclusion. So, I see no need to step back and analyse what's being said, since it was already done. Except if you think that there can be nothing beyond 'what's being said'. It seems that's what you suggest. And, excuse me if I say it again, that you try to divert attention from the true issues by harping always on the same circular argumentation.

An other part being this problem of the variety of data. This is a classic pseudo-scientific argument. Variation is what we should expect from a complex phenomenon. Using such simple argumentation, a Fuegian could easily "prove" the non-existence of aviation. There are so many shapes, some with wings, some wingless. Some with one or two or three propellers on their wings, or one on their nose, or one big horizontal on the top. Or none at all. Some leave a trail, some not. They are fast, or slow. Some can perform stationnery flight. Their ground tracks vary etc. So, diversity in testimonies and tracks should not be used as an excuse to discourage studies and discussions relating to the physical aspects of ufology.

 

[dr_wu]

Jerry,
You aren't really saying anything specific and haven't explained what else might be the mechanism for the evidence if not the event.
You are just going around in circles imo. You keep saying we don't know what the percipeint saw. It doesn't matter how they experienced the unknown if physical evidence is left after the event.
I agree with analis here that there is no good reson to not connect both aspects into one anomalous event albeit an unknown one.

 

[Jerry_B]

Yes, but still the same answer: if there is no good reason to doubt the witness' testimony, why do it?

Because the witness is claiming something extraordinary. It's not at all the same as, say, witnessing a crime of some sort. Think about what the witness is actually saying that they saw.

I think one problem in having an interest in Forteana (UFOs or anything else) is that one's 'credibility buffers' get worn down and we are less likely to step back and think about what someone says. After all, someone saying that they saw, for example, an unusual structured craft of some sort, which landed and from which perhaps stepped some rather odd occupants isn't a normal situation by any means. Is it?

I think it's a mistake to take these things as wrote and not question what's being said. It seems to me that alot of UFO-related events aren't given enough of a arm's length evaluation simply because those who are interested in the subject are less able to do so.

And, excuse me if I say it again, that you try to divert attention from the true issues by harping always on the same circular argumentation.

Nope - that's absolute nonsense. What on earth is the point of doing anything like that, especially when I have a long-standing interest in ufology? It simply seems to me that you're trying to paint me in a certain amount of bad light because I perhaps don't share your particular views on the subject.

 

[Jerry_B]

Jerry,
You aren't really saying anything specific and haven't explained what else might be the mechanism for the evidence if not the event.
You are just going around in circles imo. You keep saying we don't know what the percipeint saw. It doesn't matter how they experienced the unknown if physical evidence is left after the event.
I agree with analis here that there is no good reson to not connect both aspects into one anomalous event albeit an unknown one.

One good reason is that neither we nor the investigators actually saw the event. Any evidence is framed into a context by what the percipient alleges. As I've said, we have no readily available way of judging whether evidence is actually something left by a UFO, as no-one can agree what a UFO actually is. So all we have is an alleged event, and some alleged evidence. If we cannot prove the latter, we cannot prove that it gave rise to the former.

Note that this isn't the same as investigating a crime scene - this is because various aspects of forensics are known and used to ascertain the nature of the evidence, and thus help form a picture of what happened. We do not have that option with UFO landing sites, as we have no establihsed frame of reference WRT UFOs. As I said, a scientist could look at a landing site and say 'Ah yes, an x-type of marking made by an x-type UFO' etc..

 

[Jerry_B]

I think I should also add to this the fact that I am not here seeking to debunk things or obfuscate anthing to stifle discussion. Quite the contrary, in fact. My long-standing interest in UFOs has simply led me to a point where I've found myself less able to just accept what is alleged by someone and work forward from that. My immediate response nowadays is to say 'Hang on a minute..' and consider what is actually being said. This is because I've gotten to the point where what's being said by various people does seem extraordinary if one actually considers it.

 

[Graylien]

Some of the rebuttals to Vallee's points aren't particularily well thought out IMO:

if there such thing as extra-terrestrial intelligence with a space travel technology, then there are probably not two, but a large number of these civilizations,

I don't agree that "if there are two of something then there are probably a lot more than two of something" is a particularily logical argument.

While there are no proof that only the humanoïd lifeform makes sense when it comes to developping a technology, there are even less proof the other way round.

This is just doggerel. At least Jacques Vallee can write coherent sentences.

Everyone should bear this is mind: "a more advanced technology would appear as magic to us."

This is a much overused quote and demonstrates rather lazy thinking. You might as well say that aliens actually use magic to - for example - travel faster than light than say that they use "advanced technology" to do so. Eithier way, you're not actually advancing a plausable theory to account for how they achieve faster-than-light travel.

 

[Analis]

Maybe you're not trying to obfuscate anything. But by acting like the proverbial Fuegian, you're not helping us to think otherwise. Stating the obvious like "no-one can agree what a UFO actually is" will not help to change it. You act as if you were content with this situation.

You moved to focus around the 'it's an extraordinary claim' arguement. It adds little to the discussion. First, the meaning of 'extraordinary' is subjective. But this problem put aside, you make a heavy mistake. Studying an extraordinary event doesn't mean that rules of investigation have to be different. The scientific modus operandi remains the same. It means only that more caution has to be used. If the investigation was conducted taking this precaution (and in many instances I discern no motive not to believe it), we can think of the following step: to gather data and analyze it, as in any scientific survey. The advance of knowledge usually resulted from the examination of extraordinary claims. Now, when dealing with UFOs, we are in the situation of discussing the evidence, and what caused ground traces or 'miraculous' healings. So, any discussion putting the emphasis on the witness while ignoring that will be useless. So, what caused them?

In my eyes the problem of humanoid body shape is a rather good argument against the 'first-degree' ETH. There is no suggestion in the history of life on Earth that the emergence of an humanoid was foreshadowed from the beginning. This shape is not present in other lineages. It is true of related ones, as old-world and new-world monkeys, or lemurians. As well of more distant groups. And intelligence is not linked to it. It increases in animals with a widely different body shape, as parrots, rodents or octopuses. None of them acquired sentience, but they're in some ways, similar to higher primates. Some reproached "The Future is wild" series for not having explored more extensilevy a possibilty of evolution of the amazonian land monkey into a planet-dominating humanoid. First, there is no adaptative reason that it would become bipedal and lose its tail. But what I liked with this approach is that it showed that there is no inevitability in the course of evolution. Our hominid ancestors could have become extinct too.

 

[Jerry_B]

Maybe you're not trying to obfuscate anything. But by acting like the proverbial Fuegian, you're not helping us to think otherwise. Stating the obvious like "no-one can agree what a UFO actually is" will not help to change it. You act as if you were content with this situation.

How am I not 'helping us to explain otherwise'? Because I don't share your views?

You moved to focus around the 'it's an extraordinary claim' arguement. It adds little to the discussion. First, the meaning of 'extraordinary' is subjective.

I beg to differ. To all intents and purposes that doesn't detract from the fact that what is being claimed is highly unusual. It is in no sense 'ordinary'.

Studying an extraordinary event doesn't mean that rules of investigation have to be different. The scientific modus operandi remains the same. It means only that more caution has to be used. If the investigation was conducted taking this precaution (and in many instances I discern no motive not to believe it), we can think of the following step: to gather data and analyze it, as in any scientific survey. The advance of knowledge usually resulted from the examination of extraordinary claims. Now, when dealing with UFOs, we are in the situation of discussing the evidence, and what caused ground traces or 'miraculous' healings. So, any discussion putting the emphasis on the witness while ignoring that will be useless. So, what caused them?

If we have no sources about what created the evidence other than what the witness says happened, we don't have very much to go on. All we can say from the alleged evidence is that any marks have x, y and z characteristics, but the mechanism which created it is unknown. We still thus have to rely on the interpretation of what created it from the percipient's testimony. This in itself may not be based in any actuality. If the evidence produces an 'unknown', it's a dead end - unless somehow one day the characteristics of UFOs are understood and formally recognised and quantifiable by science.

 

[ComptrollerAlpha]

Jerry_B, I have a couple of queries regarding your argument:

You state that witness testimony should be questioned if it claims something extraordinary. However, extraordinary things can and do happen. Does the nature of the occurence prevent it being accepted as having a grounding in reality, despite the reliability of a witness? The eye witness testimony of someone is enough to convinct another of a crime, or even lead to the execution of another. Yet if the same person sees something that defies explanation by conventional science, their word should be questioned?

I don't see how this is any different than witnessing a crime, to use your comparison. It's just that a crime is a more conventional and acceptable thing to witness than a purported UFO. This is something I am regularly frustrated by when it comes to relating UFO reports/stories to others. Just what does it take for a witness' word to be worth something when it comes to a sighting of such a fantastic nature? What position of authority do they need to hold, what qualifications do they need to have?

As far as the forensics comparisons go, this is of course true. However, are there not certain patterns that have emerged over decades of investigation into the subject? Obscure details that would only be known about by hardened ufo-buffs and thus not explainable as having their source in popular preconceptions or some sort of media contamination, details the like of which John Keel came across during his travels and documented in Operation Trojan Horse? Of course, data derived from historical consideration of the phenomenon is not enough to construct a sort of 'science of UFOs' from, but serious investigators are not entirely in the dark about the nature of that which they study. While there is no standard template for UFO landings, for example, there are usually precedents that can be considered.

 

[Jerry_B]

The eye witness testimony of someone is enough to convinct another of a crime, or even lead to the execution of another. Yet if the same person sees something that defies explanation by conventional science, their word should be questioned?

I don't see how this is any different than witnessing a crime, to use your comparison. It's just that a crime is a more conventional and acceptable thing to witness than a purported UFO. This is something I am regularly frustrated by when it comes to relating UFO reports/stories to others. Just what does it take for a witness' word to be worth something when it comes to a sighting of such a fantastic nature? What position of authority do they need to hold, what qualifications do they need to have?

Every witnesses word should be questioned - it is so in legal cases pertaining to crimes, etc.. UFO witnesses are not under the same legal constraints as anyone giving evidence in court, of course. Word alone isn't enough to get someone convicted if there are issues with the content of witness testimony. What tends to cause problems is that there is no agreed upon frame of reference WRT UFOs - they aren't recognised or quantified by science, let alone anything else. This is why even pilot testimony is questionable. We can't place it into any known reference point(s), and so it's doubtful that it could be said to be proof.

As far as the forensics comparisons go, this is of course true. However, are there not certain patterns that have emerged over decades of investigation into the subject? Obscure details that would only be known about by hardened ufo-buffs and thus not explainable as having their source in popular preconceptions or some sort of media contamination, details the like of which John Keel came across during his travels and documented in Operation Trojan Horse? Of course, data derived from historical consideration of the phenomenon is not enough to construct a sort of 'science of UFOs' from, but serious investigators are not entirely in the dark about the nature of that which they study. While there is no standard template for UFO landings, for example, there are usually precedents that can be considered.

But such things are only perhaps recognised by those interested in ufology - a subject which itself has various categorisations for various things (but these have all been invented by ufologists). This however, isn't any sort of recognised science, and so any evidence it assesses and brings forward isn't of any substance until the wider subject itself is recognised by science. At best it's just data - and perhaps some scientists would even question that. The same goes for various other aspects of Forteana.

 

[ComptrollerAlpha]

Every witnesses word should be questioned - it is so in legal cases pertaining to crimes, etc.. UFO witnesses are not under the same legal constraints as anyone giving evidence in court, of course. Word alone isn't enough to get someone convicted if there are issues with the content of witness testimony.

Yes, true. What I am driving at is this: let's say that a man witnesses a murder in broad daylight and at close range. He provides eye-witness testimony in court and this is, in part at least, sufficient for the accused to be convicted of the crime.

The next day, the same man witnesses a pulsing red & orange ball the size of a barn fly past 20 feet overhead. Let's say that there's some sort of environmental change that reflects the physical reality of the object, like a tree swaying as it passes and animals in a nearby field reacting violently to its presence. The man takes careful note of every element of the sighting and writes it all down as soon as he gets home.

The report given by the man on the witnessed murder would be taken seriously enough to be used as evidence in a court of law. Yet a UFO sighted by the same person, in circumstances of the same quality, should be questioned just because what was seen can not be explained by conventional science?

Sorry if I'm labouring the above point, but I'm not sure I communicated it clearly enough in my original post.

What tends to cause problems is that there is no agreed upon frame of reference WRT UFOs - they aren't recognised or quantified by science, let alone anything else. This is why even pilot testimony is questionable. We can't place it into any known reference point(s), and so it's doubtful that it could be said to be proof.

What would be required for UFOs then to be 'recognised by science'? Merely for establishment science to collectively (publicly?) accept that UFOs (however you define them) exist? Or for science to have exhaustively investigated and made sense of every element of the phenomenon? If the former, acceptance or otherwise by the scientific community has no bearing on the reality of a phenomenon (their late-in-the-day acceptance of the reality of meteorites springs to mind). If the latter, how can any phenomenon be understood or properly quantified without study, a vital part of which would surely stem from eye-witness testimony? Just because reports are being compiled and studied by ufologists rather than scientists doesn't mean the results are any less valid (depending, of course, on the veracity/professionalism of the ufologist in question).

 

[Jerry_B]

The report given by the man on the witnessed murder would be taken seriously enough to be used as evidence in a court of law. Yet a UFO sighted by the same person, in circumstances of the same quality, should be questioned just because what was seen can not be explained by conventional science?

His evidence for the murder would still be open to question, as I said. It would be up to the court process to determine if this evidence is valid and supports the case for the prosecution. And because witness testimony is open to question, it's always possible that further questioning could show that the witness was mistaken, or may actually have been lying. Legally, it's assumed a witness is telling the truth, simply because they are legally bound to speak the truth - this doesn't mean, however, that their testimony is automatically truthful or reliable. This is why witnesses in trials are cross-examined. For want of a better term, murder cases are more cut and dried than those regarding UFO sightings. We understand the processes involved WRT forensics, etc.. As far as UFOs are concerned, we don't really have any sort of working hypothesis to apply to whether testimony is reliable or not. So it's very difficult to assess what may have happened just from what the witness says - we can't really question it fully as we have no working hypothesis to base our questioning upon. So deciding whether it's true or not could reach a dead end.

What would be required for UFOs then to be 'recognised by science'? Merely for establishment science to collectively (publicly?) accept that UFOs (however you define them) exist? Or for science to have exhaustively investigated and made sense of every element of the phenomenon? If the former, acceptance or otherwise by the scientific community has no bearing on the reality of a phenomenon (their late-in-the-day acceptance of the reality of meteorites springs to mind). If the latter, how can any phenomenon be understood or properly quantified without study, a vital part of which would surely stem from eye-witness testimony? Just because reports are being compiled and studied by ufologists rather than scientists doesn't mean the results are any less valid (depending, of course, on the veracity/professionalism of the ufologist in question).

How can a ufologist be a professional? Ufology is not a profession, after all - not one that's actually recognised formally anyway. In order for science to recognise UFOs, it would have to involve the phenomena being studied and quantified by science. To lead on from what you said about meteorites - there were various eyewitness reports of meteorites, and meteorite 'landings'. But as the processes involved in both weren't recognised, studied or accepted by science until a certain point in time, all anyone had was those reports. As the mechanism behind these events was not understood, on their own all they really amounted to were anecdotes. Evidence to some, but not to others, depending on one's outlook. They were perhaps an indicator of some sort of phenomenon - but what lay behind that was not understood. One could argue that UFOs are even more problematic in terms of this, because they rarely have any conformity - at least, not any that seem readily apparent aside from a few small factors. Yes, there is alot of collected data on various UFO-related events, but some of it is rather bizarre and so one could be forgiven for wondering which angle any scientist could approach it from.

 

[ComptrollerAlpha]

His evidence for the murder would still be open to question, as I said. It would be up to the court process to determine if this evidence is valid and supports the case for the prosecution. And because witness testimony is open to question, it's always possible that further questioning could show that the witness was mistaken, or may actually have been lying. Legally, it's assumed a witness is telling the truth, simply because they are legally bound to speak the truth - this doesn't mean, however, that their testimony is automatically truthful or reliable. This is why witnesses in trials are cross-examined. For want of a better term, murder cases are more cut and dried than those regarding UFO sightings. We understand the processes involved WRT forensics, etc.. As far as UFOs are concerned, we don't really have any sort of working hypothesis to apply to whether testimony is reliable or not. So it's very difficult to assess what may have happened just from what the witness says - we can't really question it fully as we have no working hypothesis to base our questioning upon. So deciding whether it's true or not could reach a dead end.

Okay. The point I was trying to make is that seems wrong to label testimony as questionable simply because the witness has seen something out of the ordinary. However I agree that, when it comes to an event/phenomenon for which we have no hypothesis to base our questioning on, it would be difficult to confidently declare the accuracy or otherwise of said report.

But then what of cases where there are multiple witnesses to the same thing? Or photgraphic or video evidence to further back up the sighting? Hypothesis or not, if there is a large volume of evidence to suggest the presence of something, it makes more sense to conclude that said thing exists/existed than otherwise.

How can a ufologist be a professional? Ufology is not a profession, after all - not one that's actually recognised formally anyway.

Off topic maybe, but who decides such things? Recognised formally by who? How do we define 'profession'?

In order for science to recognise UFOs, it would have to involve the phenomena being studied and quantified by science.

But in what way would this study be any different from that performed by the more capable and level-headed of ufologists? Besides, respected scientists have worked in the field in the past, e.g., Hynek, Vallee. Where does the study stop being an amassing of baseless data and start being a process of scientific investigation & quantification?

Please note, I am not trying to attack your position on this matter, I am just trying to understand it better.

 

[Analis]

Jerry_B: How am I not 'helping us to explain otherwise'? Because I don't share your views."

No, never this kind of conceit. But because you kept on resorting to the same arguements, these same basic rules of epistemology I am aware of. As I had made it clear in previous posts, I didn't understand why you repeated them. I don't see why you believed that I antagonized your stance only because of that. The reference to the metaphor of the Fuegian arguementation was easy to understand, I had a problem only with the reasoning, certainly not with the fact that someone does not think like me.

"If the evidence produces an 'unknown', it's a dead end - unless somehow one day the characteristics of UFOs are understood and formally recognised and quantifiable by science."

The problem arose from the repeating of such sentences. Few people have a problem with this assertion. Except some contactees who pretend to know everything about flying saucers... No one on this thread contradicted it. That's why I don't know why you keep on insisting on it. If you were on a forum dominated by gullible nuts-and-boltists, roswellians, followers of S. GREERS, alien-human hybridization and other nonsense believers, etc. you would have a point. But here, they are not numerous, or don't make themselves known. During recent discussions relating to Roswell and the new REDFERN's take on it, no proponent of e.t. craft crash came to contradict it.
Coming back to the methodology problem. The day when the characteristics of UFOs will be understood and quantified will come only if there is study of it. Harping on this kind of basic arguementation will only delay it. And there's still the problem that the UFO phenomenon tries to evade and mislead us. This is not fanciful thinking, but a very real possibility if we confront an intelligent phenomenon. But this is not synonymous with the impossibility of any study.

The comparison with legal field is double-sided. When applied to ufology and general forteana, it can be enlightening. Forensics matters are quantified, but it was a difficult work. Criminal acts vary, and may leave very different evidence (including in the murder field). An early student might have become discouraged, and said 'it varies too much, it makes no sense'. The emergence of patterns came only from the cross-examination of numerous instances. And applyIng them to a given occurence remains a difficult task. There are frequent deviations from the norm. Investigators on a case have to ponder what could cause such deviations, and how they could be interpreted to solve it. With some dangers. Despite all this, some legal affairs remain unsolved. Forensics science is a complex matter, and has difficulty to explain many instances. UFOs may be more complex. Even if we knew of the solution, adressing the problem of UFOs would still be a difficult task.
If UFO witnesses are not under the same legal constraints as people called to testify in court, a number of ufologists apply the same set of impositions to their inquiries. I recently watched a documentary, featuring a sceptic astronomer (I say sceptic, not skeptic). He was honnest and had to acknowledge that the mass of evidence in favour of the existence of UFOs would stand the test of legal trial (and then of science, as the rules of evidence admission are the same). If non-prejudiced scientists refuse to examine the files, it has less to do with a so-called absence of evidence than with pusillanimity and bureaucratic clumsiness. I don't see how an occurence like the Crosia case on 23.5.2006, with a hundred of witnesses and a film, could not be called evidence. EDIT: the date was 30.5.1987


Gildas BOURDAIS gives another take on ETH/UTH/EDH with his review of "Hunt for the Skinwalker" ( http://www.ovni.ch/home/frame4.htm ). An interesting twist from a more nuts-and-boltist oriented viewpoint. I disagree with this ufologist on a number of points, notably Roswell. But he tries to reconcile the different approachs.