Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [UFOnet] Fwd = Lack of evidence is the most important objection to the ETH (Harney)

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    ... briefly discussed the Trindade Island case of 16 January 1958, in which a UFO was allegedly seen and photographed from the Brazilian navy vessel Almirante
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 31, 2002
      >>>>>. In the first issue of this newsletter, I
      briefly discussed the Trindade Island case of 16 January 1958, in
      which a UFO was allegedly seen and photographed from the Brazilian
      navy vessel Almirante Saldanha, and noted that there was no agreement
      as to how many witnesses there were. (1) Anyone who reads the
      literature on this case will also note that there are no statements
      available from these witnesses. It was simply asserted that there had
      been many witnesses, even though the US Assistant Naval Attaché, when
      he boarded the ship, could not find anyone who claimed to have seen
      the UFO.
      Since I published this, no one has been able to produce any statements
      made by these alleged witnesses, only statements by the principal
      witness, and by one or two people who were not even there at the time,
      assuring us that many of those on board the Almirante Saldanha
      actually saw the object.

      I think I read somewhere that the Trindade UFO was a sub launching a
      Trident-type missile.

      >>>>1. "Failure of Sophisticated Surveillance Systems to Detect Incoming
      or Outgoing UFOs."

      As well as the other excuses. If there are ET crafts then may be they have
      some type of Star Trek 'cloaking' - which is sometimes on, sometimes off.

      >>>2. "Gravitational and Atmospheric Considerations." Extraterrestrials
      could not function on our planet as the beings in CE3s are said to do.
      They could not walk about with ease or inhale our air or, even more to
      the point, levitate.

      If they have some sort of Holodeck virtual reality interaction with our
      reality, what then?

      >>3. "Statistical Considerations". Distant worlds would not - could not
      - dispatch as many spacecraft in the numbers UFO reports indicate.

      Could be a mother ship with scout ships? Star Trek has one big star ship
      housing shuttle crafts.

      >>>4. "Elusive, Evasive and Absurd Behaviour of UFOs and Their
      Occupants." The beings and the craft that bear them do not act as we
      would were we to travel to a faraway planet.

      Which means they have alien ways instead of human ways?
      >>>>5. "Isolation of the UFO Phenomenon in Space and Time: The Cheshire
      Cat Effect". UFOs appear and disappear, staying visible for no more
      than brief periods of time; their being observed at Point A does not
      mean that they will be seen at Point B even if last spotted heading in
      that direction.

      'cloaking' again?

      6. "The Space 'Unworthiness' of the UFO". Most UFOs are too small to
      sustain a crew over the vast distances of the cosmos.

      seeing the shuttle crafts instead of seeing the mother ship.

      >>>7. "The Problem of Astronomical Distances". Extraterrestrials could
      not get here in any reasonable time. (Hynek considered this to be a
      fatal objection.)

      The official version of physics is based on a misunderstanding.
      Historical records show that before Einstein, modern physics arose from an
      18th century theory. The 20th century physics is based on a corruption of
      that physics.

      >>>So far we have only one valid objection to the ETH which is that UFOs
      are not detected entering or leaving the Earth's atmosphere. If such
      observations were obtained and authenticated it would surely go a long
      way towards convincing many sceptics that we are indeed being visited
      by ETs.

      Unlikely.
      >>>The main practical objection, which we have not yet dealt with, is
      that after 55 years of UFO investigations we not only have no verified
      observations of UFOs entering and leaving the Earth's atmosphere, but
      we also have no other clear, accurate and undisputed observations
      which strongly suggest ET visitations, and no undisputed physical
      evidence to be linked with the alleged activities of ETs and their
      spacecraft. We should also take into account the fact that all those
      who have claimed contact with ETs - whether they are called contactees
      or abductees - have failed to provide any new and important facts
      about other planets, etc. which were not already known and which could
      eventually be verified.

      What if they provided a Unified Field Theory?

      >>>Thus, while many objections to the ETH have been put forward, it is at
      least logically possible. The only valid and important objection to it
      is simply lack of evidence.

      Evidence exists and is misinterpreted.

      A person interprets what he sees within the context of what he believes. If
      what he believes is wrong, then what he thinks he sees is wrong also.
      For example: if a person believes that the earth is the centre of the
      universe, then he will interpret everything else to try to conform to that
      belief. Such a person has a different version of physics to the person that
      believes in the sun centred theory. When Galileo presented his evidence for
      the Copernican Revolution, those who looked through the telescope
      interpreted the evidence in the wrong way and rejected it.

      For the geocentric believers - different weights fell at different rates.
      For the Galileo - all weights fell at the same rate.--- and so he required
      a completely different physics to that which was existing.

      For the geocentric believers to convert to heliocentrism, they had to accept
      that nearly everything else that they believed in was wrong.

      Humans engage in the same pattern of behaviour - when they insist in
      believing some nonsense, they try adding compensating errors, until they
      have built up an entire world-view based on mistakes.

      -Roger
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Frits Westra" <fwestra@...>
      To: <UFOnet@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:37 PM
      Subject: [UFOnet] Fwd = Lack of evidence is the most important objection to
      the ETH (Harney)


      >
      > Forwarded by: fwestra@... (Frits Westra)
      > URL: http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/ms41.htm
      > Original Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:54:03 -0800
      >
      > ========================== Forwarded message begins ======================
      >
      > MAGONIA SUPPLEMENT 41
      > 22 October 2002
      > _________________________________________________________________
      >
      > EDITORIAL
      >
      > In this issue we return to the theme of the ETH, which this newsletter
      > was originally started to discuss, with the aim of getting believers
      > in the ETH to present the best evidence for it in a clear and rational
      > manner and to list those UFO incidents which they thought should be
      > presented as the most promising indications that the ETH might be
      > true, and might eventually be shown to be true. It was all in vain, as
      > most ETH enthusiasts greatly resent having their favourite UFO reports
      > subjected to critical examination and seeing all the flaws and
      > inconsistencies in the stories laid bare. However, we intend to
      > persist in exposing the weaknesses of the case for ET spaceships and
      > their occupants, in the hope that some ufologists will eventually see
      > sense.
      > _________________________________________________________________
      >
      > LACK OF EVIDENCE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OBJECTION TO THE
      > EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS
      >
      > John Harney
      >
      > IT IS generally agreed that most UFO reports can be explained if
      > sufficient and accurate information about them is available to
      > investigators. It is said, though, that a small number of reports
      > remain unexplained despite careful investigation, and that it is
      > reasonable to suppose that these are sightings of extraterrestrial
      > spacecraft. This is known as the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH).
      >
      > The ETH is superficially attractive and apparently rational. Among the
      > great mass of UFO reports are some genuine sightings of ET spacecraft
      > and these are discovered by a process of elimination, rather like
      > separating gold from gravel. Problems arise when a report seems
      > impressive and is touted by believers in the ETH as definitely or
      > probably a genuine sighting of an alien craft. When this happens, any
      > further investigations or critical examination of the evidence and
      > testimony tend to be unwelcome.
      >
      > In cases where seemingly impressive reports have been subjected to
      > further investigation, though, evidence usually emerges to show that
      > there are mundane explanations available, or that there are serious
      > flaws and inconsistencies in the evidence and testimony.
      >
      > We are often told that certain cases can not be explained as
      > misperceptions or hoaxes because there were multiple witnesses, so
      > they must be genuine UFOs. In the first issue of this newsletter, I
      > briefly discussed the Trindade Island case of 16 January 1958, in
      > which a UFO was allegedly seen and photographed from the Brazilian
      > navy vessel Almirante Saldanha, and noted that there was no agreement
      > as to how many witnesses there were. (1) Anyone who reads the
      > literature on this case will also note that there are no statements
      > available from these witnesses. It was simply asserted that there had
      > been many witnesses, even though the US Assistant Naval Attaché, when
      > he boarded the ship, could not find anyone who claimed to have seen
      > the UFO.
      > Since I published this, no one has been able to produce any statements
      > made by these alleged witnesses, only statements by the principal
      > witness, and by one or two people who were not even there at the time,
      > assuring us that many of those on board the Almirante Saldanha
      > actually saw the object.
      >
      > This is the way UFO events tend to be treated when investigators wish
      > to bolster their belief in the ETH. They are inclined to accept any
      > details which point to exotic explanations and do not inquire too
      > closely into the reliability of the evidence and testimony.
      >
      > Perhaps it would be helpful to those who are puzzled by the rejection
      > of the ETH by many ufologists, if I try to set out the serious
      > objections to it. Some of the objections which are made are false or
      > irrelevant, so I think it is a good idea to try to compile a list of
      > genuine ones. I'll start with a list which includes what seem to me to
      > be a mixture of valid and invalid objections, given by Dr J. Allen
      > Hynek in a lecture in 1983, (2) with my comments added:
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.