Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/2701-2800/2708

Internet Message Format | 1996-07-06 | 9.6 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!news-e2a.gnn.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [e-mail](Bill Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.paranet.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Re: Skeptical incentive structures
Date: 7 Jul 1996 04:46:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 208
Message-ID: <4rnff7$[e-mail]>
References: <4q21er$[e-mail]> <4q2c7i$[e-mail]> <4qlom0$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4rjnv1$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: frm-ma3-14.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Jul 06  9:46:31 PM PDT 1996
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.paranormal:21008 sci.skeptic:77687 alt.paranet.skeptic:4384 alt.alien.visitors:92232 alt.paranet.ufo:56006

It is, by now, pretty clear that Brian Zeiler is a monomaniacal
psychotic and I have stopped replying to him directly.  Nevertheless,
buried in his last verbose and hysterical rant are a couple of points
worth addressing -- not that I think I can communicate with Brian, but
for those who may have read the message and thought "Although he's a
raving loon, he may actually be on to something with this last point":

In <[e-mail]> Brian Zeiler
<[e-mail]> writes:

>.... the analysis of these radar-visual cases[I wonder, has Brian ever
actually operated a radar?] illustrated that
>the most likely explanation is that of a physical object...

Quite possibly.

>... under intelligent
>control,...

Maybe.

>with propulsion in excess of human capabilities.

Huh?  Who did this analysis? How did they reach this conclusion?  Were
they thoroughly familiar with all the performance characteristics of
the best fighter aircraft of the day?  Had they ever observed, by radar
or visually or both, the top fighter aircraft of the day operating for
sustained periods at the peak of their performance?  What is the basis
for the conclusion that the UFO was operating with propulsive forces
beyond human capabilities?

>"Special importance may be attached to cases in which both visual and
>radar observations were made, and in which these observations were
>consistent.  Such cases will typically involve several witnesses; they
>involve observations made at two or more 'channels' of the
>electromagnetic spectrum;  and the radar observations provide distance
>measurements and possibly height measurements also....
>"... Thayer, in his summary of radar-visual cases [for Condon],
states:
>'There is a small, but significant, residue of cases from the
>radar-visual files that have no plausible explanation such propagation
>phenomena and/or misinterpreted man-made objects.'

In other words, the vast majority of UFO cases were radar anomalies --
glitches, as we radar operators used to say.  A small number of cases
were probably (but not certainly) actual objects.

>'The probability that anomalous propagation of radar signals may have
>been involved in this case seems to be small.' [The researcher here,
it will be noted, is talking about ONE case in all the cases he
studied]

>  Later he adds:  'The
>apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a
>mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation
of
>this sighting.'

In other words, in ONE case, out of the hundreds (thousands?) studied,
the researcher concludes there was an Unidentified Flying Object, i.e.
an object that was flying and was not identified.  We radar operators
call that a bogey (as in bogey man, sort of an inside joke).

>"Case 2 (listed, rather oddly, as 'Greenwich, summer 1956' [this is
the
>same UFO case]), ...

In other words, we are still only talking ONE case here.


>" ...'At least one UFO was tracked by air traffic control radar (GCA)
at two
>USAF-RAF stations, with apparently corresponding visual sightings of
>round, white rapidly moving objects which changed directions abruptly.

The "roundness" seems a little odd.  Perhaps the observers were
mistaken.  Of course, objects not very round at all can look sort of
round when veiwed from some angles.  But the rest seems pretty
unremarkable.

>Interception by RAF fighter aircraft was attempted; one aircraft was
>vectored to the UFO by GCA radar and the pilot reported airborne radar
>contact and radar 'gunlock'.  The UFO appeared to circle around behind
>the aircraft and followed it in spite of the pilot's evasive
maneuvers.

Now, I don't KNOW, for a fact that this UFO was a Russian MiG, but if
it was a Russian MiG, this is EXACTLY how I would expect it to behave
when tracked by an RAF fighter.

>Contact was broken when the aircraft returned to base, low on fuel.

>The
>preponderance of evidence indicates the possibility of a genuine UFO
in
>this case.  The weather was generally clear with good visibility.'

No argument from me.  There was probably an object, it was flying and
it was unidentified: an Unidentified Flying Object, or UFO.

>"This case [Still the same case, mind you] has been further described
by Thayer (1971) as one of the AIAA
>[American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics] cases.  It is
>interesting to note the conclusion given by Thayer, at the end of this
>article, which reflects his view after further intensive study of this
>case:
>
>" 'In conclusion, with two highly redundant contacts -- the first with
>ground radar, combined with both ground and airborne visual observers,
>and the second with airborne radar, an airborne visual observer, and
two
>different ground radars -- the Bentwaters-Lakenheath UFO incident
>represents one of the most significant radar-visual UFO cases.  Taking
>into consideration the high credibility of the information and the
>cohesiveness and continuity of the accounts, combined with the high
>degree of "strangeness", it is also certainly one of the most
disturbing
>UFO incidents known today.'"

If a Russian MiG or other unidentified high-performance aircraft could
penetrate this deeply into NATO air space before being challenged, at
the height of the Cold War, I can see why the both the US and British
Royal Air Forces would find the event, "certainly most disturbing."


>... When you call these radar-visual cases "anomalous events",
>that's a totally vague and worthless statement

These anomalous events are rather vague and of very little probative
worth.  They just don't seem to prove anything.

>... In reality, Bill, these radar-visual cases* show the following:
>
>1)  A physical object was in the area.
>
>2)  The physical object was likely under intelligent control.
>
>3)  The physical object featured technology that humans cannot
duplicate.

By radar-visual case, all that's implied is that at the time of the
occurrence of a radar anomaly, someone who happened to be in the area
looked in more or less the right direction and saw something.  This
does tend to confirm that there was a real object in the area.  Radar
and/or visual tracking data may or may not have supported the
conclusion that the object was a piloted vehicle of some sort, but what
would support the conclusion that the object exhibited technology that
exceeded human capabilities.


>Well, my dick probably is bigger than your dick.  That's why the
chicks
>call me "Three-Sigma" Zeiler.  But we'll save that for another thread.
>
>>
>> Once again, I ask, Where's the evidence?
>
>See above on radar-visual cases studied by numerous physical
scientists.

Numerous physical scientists have performed radar-visual analysis of
your dick?



>These are cases in which the presence of physical object is verified
>because all forms of anomalous echoes are eliminated by scientific
>analyses as was discussed above in the excerpt.

Remember, Brian has cited one case in which the original researcher,
the study's directors and a later commentator agree that glitches
(technical problems with the radar), ground clutter, operator error and
meteorological phenomena can be excluded and concludes

>[1] These physical objects
>are intelligently controlled, the incidents can last several hours,
>and [2] they will exhibit propulsion technology and vehicular
>maneuvers far beyond human capability.

I'll grant him 1 (which is the same conclusion the study's researchers
reached) but 2 is a long, long, long reach.

>>  None, that's what.  This is a very unique problem, but
>when you blindly apply the direct scientific methodology to an
elusive,
>nonreplicable phenomenon, you're going to get null results with a HUGE
>margin for classification error.

In other words, the Scientific Method cannot be applied to these
phenomena because they seem to be highly elusive and non-replicable.
This, of course, is the Skeptic's point in this argument.

>>
>>[BZ] >  Evidential criteria must be attainable conditional upon the
>> >premise of the existence of the phenomenon.  Right?
>>
>>[Me] Exactly.  If alien spacecraft are visiting the Earth, there must
be
>> evidence of the phenomenon.  Go out and find some.

>.... I just showed you evidence of
>physical interactivity in the form of radar-visual cases,...

Brian shows us evidence that UFOs exist.  No skeptic in this thread has
denied the claim.  It would surely be remarkable if, after nearly 100
years of manned flight, there weren't a LOT of UFOs appearing all over
the world.  Are the UFOs alien spacecraft?  Highly unlikely.