Reply to article by: Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A. <nospam@newsranger.com>
Date written: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:36:43 GMT
MsgID:<vCstb.29319$cJ5.4678@www.newsranger.com>
According to Dr. Sagan, there is no convincing evidence that UFOs are real.
Do you have any examples to the contrary?
Methinks Carl doth protest too much for a person who, as a young man, was at
least favorable toward, if not totally convinced by, the early UFO sightings:
"It seemed pretty believable to me...apart from a few harrumphs and giggles--I
couldn't find any counterarguments. How could all these eyewitnesses by
mistaken?"
Then Carl grew up and learned to think for himself instead of being the victim
of every passing fad.
After all, he is a proponent of listening via radio to the universe in order to
detect signs of intelligent life "out there." Hence he must be a believer in
life out there...enough of a believer to commit his and other people's time and
money to hours and hours of "listening."
I find it amusing that believers think that life out there is visiting us over
here, yet see no contradiction in denouncing those trying to look for life out
there because they also believe it won't be found.
Is there any evidence of life out there to listen for?
Not anymore evidence to look for than the story about life out there trying to
visit us in here.
Dr. Sagan points out that as he grew up and learned "how science works--the
secrets of its great success," he became skeptical of UFO reports. He decided
that "Essentially all UFO cases were anecdotes," just stories, by people "who
reported what they saw."
Unless there is more to the UFO reports than just stories, such as some actual
physical evidence on display somewhere, Carl is completely correct.
At the end of his article (in which he also discussed crop circles) he appeals
to skepticism as a counter to credulity and laments that the "tools of
skepticism are generally unavailable to the citizens of our society." The
implications is that anyone who "believes" in the UFO reality is not being
properly skeptical but, rather, credulous (willing to believe in "anything").
Again methings that Carl protests too much, for it was by using the "tools of
skepticism" that I arrived at the conclusion that UFOs are real.
But of course, you failed to properly define what those tools are, giving you
license to say anything and call it "using the tools of skepticism". That
implies that you are deluding yourself.
My "conversion" to "belief" (really, acceptance) of UFO reality was a result of
considering and analyzing explanations for UFO sightings.
Exactly how do you "analyze explanations"? Do you check for pronunciation of
words or spelling errors in the explanation? How do you prove when an
explanation is a fact and not a storytale, if you don't go outside of the
explnation and try to look for physically corroborating evidence?
I can tell you one thing, analying explanations is not a tool of skepticism or
of science, it is a tool of the self-deceiving.
I analyzed a number
of the classic (read, "older") sightings and the explanations for them and
realized that the explanations were unconvincing, at best, and just plain wrong,
at worst.
That isn't analyzing, that is mere opinion. In boths cases, any explanation that
cannot be backed up with facts is still called storytelling. You have got to
learn, like all UFO believers do, that a report of a UFO doesn't not prove UFOs
exist. You need something much more substantial than millions of reports, each
of which lacks even the slightest trace of physical evidence that what was
claimed to have occured, actually did occur. Physically real objects leave
physically real traces that they existed. UFOs never ever do that. Most reports
of UFOs are not even reports about Unidentified Flying Objects, but rather they
are only reports of visual anomalies, like optical illusions. Are visual
anomalies, 'objects'?
It was at this time that I became skeptical of the skeptics.
That is called the logical fallacy of polarizing the issue. You are boxing
everyone up into neat little boxes, with one box labeled 'believers' and the
other box labeled 'skeptics'...and then assuming beforehand that anyone in the
skeptic box is one of the 'bad guys'. Instead of boxing up facts, you box up
irrational predjudices. It doesn't matter what other people say or do, what
matters are, what are the facts. Whether believers or skeptics, if either one
has the facts, you should be listening for those facts, not pre-judging them on
whether they are worthy of listening to in your predjudiced opinion.
Consider, for example, Dr. Sagan's suggestion that some sightings were actually
of high altitude balloons. Is he aware that some of the earliest flying
saucer/UFO sightings were made in clear daylight by the scientists who launched
those balloons?
Are you aware that *SOME* UFO sightings actually did turn out to be
high-altitude balloons? He didn't say *ALL*, he said some and it is a fact that
some UFO sightings actually did turn out to be high-altitude balloons. Then you
turn around and try to claim that *NO* UFO sighting ever actually turned out to
be high-alititude balloon. Your ability to 'analyze explanations' is in
jeopardy.
So what if "many UFO photos" turned out to be fakes; not all are. Does Sr.
Sagan know about the cinetheodolite films shot on April 27, 1950 by technicians
at the White Sand Proving Ground?
As usual, the film of the alleged UFO was of very poor quality, so poor that
nothing alien could be made out as existing in the film. There were two
additional photos but they were of two different 'objects' at two different
times, therefore anyone who said they could 'triangulate' the alleged UFO is
either a liar or incompetent.
So what if many sightings could be explained by natural phenomena, as Dr. Sagan
suggested. There are also many which can't, such as the first widely reported
sighting, that of Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947.
That isn't a sighting, that only a report of a sighting...and reports do not
prove the existence of what was reported.
Many people have tried to explain Arnold's sighting; none has succeeded.
Which means it won't prove your case since no one has succeeded in explaining it
as a true UFO sighting either. It is a non-case since it neither adds nor
subtracts anything of significance from the debate.
The late Dr. J. Allen Hynek,
astronomer and consultant to the Air Force Project Blue Book, was initially a
severe skeptic of flying saucer reports. He was the first scientist to analyze
Arnold's report to the (Army) Air Force and attempt to explain it, in 1948. By
25 years later he had reversed his opinion about UFO reports and realized that
he hadn't explained Arnold's sighting.
That does not prove that UFOs exist, much less that it is a subject to take
seriously.
In November 1986, the Japanese pilot and two man crew of a jumbo jet freighter
flying over Alaska witnessed a series of sighting events, including radar
detections, which was investigated by the Federal Aeronautics Administration.
...Neither explanation was satisfactory in view of the descriptions
given by the three witnesses on the plane.
There is nothing to explain where nothing could be proven to exist in the first
place. Once again, all we have are poorly told storytales and not one shred of
actual evidence.
Try as he may, Dr. Sagan cannot get away from the fact that UFO sightings have
been reported under "unimpeachable" conditions, including multiple witnessed
daylight sightings of structured objects (seen well enough so that
identification would be immediately obvious if it were possible), multiple
radar/visual sightings, multiple witnessed photographic and video sightings and
sightings that involved landing traces (several thousand of these on record).
It is true that we, the civilian community of UFO investigators, do not have
something which we are positive is a piece of a flying saucer. However, there
is a mass of circumstantial evidence of the type which, if this were tried in a
court of law, would be sufficient to prove the case.
What is acceptable in many courts of law would never be acceptable to science.
The kinds of scientific things that would pass or fail in a court of law are
laughable. Remember OJ Simpson? Our justice system has failed us again...and you
want to place your trust in a justice system that doesn't work very well, just
so you can determine what is real or not for you? And if this unreliable justice
system hinges everything on questionable eyewitness testimony instead of
demonstratable facts, you want to be able to do the same?
If Dr. Sagan wishes to ignore all this, that is his choice. He can go back to
listening for aliens. But he should leave the ufologists alone.
Again, both of you are on the same side. If SETI finds ETs out there or we find
ETs in here, the end result is the same.
We have enough
inborn healthy skepticism to keep us from being overly credulous, while not
throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Furthermore, contrary to Dr. Sagan's
stated opinion that we might "have a vested interest in discouraging
skepticism," we encourage skepticism on 'both' sides of this issue.
How could you logically derive that conclusion when you don't even know what
skepticism is?
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================