Not all UFO witnesses have experienced something which is nowhere near explained so far. If you want to argue about it that way then aliens can be considered mundane once they decide to show themselves properly, and so anything can end up becoming mundane. It is likely that the US military has technology kept classified that some Univerisity Professor’s don’t know of and defy what they understand as science, as we know this has happened in the past with stealth plane technology. So it would be likely that this is still the case today for newly developed technology, than it would be that this has stopped completely, given that black budget is around $32 billion.

So is this technology which exists but we know not of, considered mundane. Well it would be to those who have worked on it. It would be as normal for them as an internal combustion engine. But are you going to say because there’s no physical evidence for you to see, then it likely doesn’t exist, but we know it does, so that would be a wrong method of thinking. So you could be entirely wrong about your line of thinking towards ufos, we just don’t know for sure.

One could use the argument that aliens should be here, so they must be here. All other arguments against them (lack of physical evidence, not showing themselves etc) being here irrelevant, as any advanced race elsewhere which we accept is likely to exist will find a way to travel, just like we would expect our future descendants to find a way to travel long distances, as it’s in our nature to explore.

That is the line of thinking which Dr. Mitchell seems to be making apparent. This could be right or it could be wrong. Your reply will probably sound like “Yes anything could be possible but without physical evidence…. blah blah blah…..even flying purple elephant could be possible”. Sure anything could be possible but to dismiss alien visitation as myth like you would for Santa Claus is inaccurate, as we accept that aliens will most likely exist elsewhere. What scientists, are saying that Santa Claus or a flying purple elephant exist somewhere? None.

I see absolutely zero point in associating any form of ridicule towards alien visitation, when it should be something we expect to happen someday at the very least. What’s so funny about alien visitation anyway, I think those who ridicule it have watched too much sci-fi and assume that this is all imaginary. I think it’s due to the shallow attitude of some of the scientific community, who fear their careers due to the false perception of the general public that it is all just a joke. I know some do treat it as a serious subject, for example seti, but there are for example, those who make comparisons between ET and Santa Claus on these forums who are clearly not just sceptics, but anti-seti. That is a drastic flaw in lots of people.

Some even use seti for media attention, whilst not even considering the consequences – http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/digitalcontent/2008/07/bebos_latest_expansion_into_sp.html
Yes this could get young people into Astronomy, but why propagate space with radiowaves of spam, is it really so necessary?! In fact if an alien species are as nasty as humans beings are to each other then we should have more consideration of radio transmissions into space. I know we have satellite comms and other comms which already transmit outwards, but these are indirect, and of lower intensity.

“Keep these points in mind when thinking about UFO reports in the future.”

I am not dismissing any of those points at all, I’m just showing a broader range of view.

“Just because it is not something ordinary for you, doesn’t mean that it is in fact extraordinary.”

No it doesn’t always mean something is extraordinary, but an event can seem like it could be extraordinary, as a few other people are suggesting as well from their own accounts. I think anyone who is rational would say that is possible after witnessing something like that, and someone who doesn’t is either irrational, or hasn’t experienced an unexplained sighting which still remains unexplained by well-known science today.

My example is quite apt to the discussion. For someone who has never seen, either first-hand or in pictures/video, the Aurora, for them, it is most certainly not mundane. You dismiss it as a poor example of a UFO phenomenon because you know, and have always known, the lights to be a perfectly natural phenomenon. In essence, you are doing exactly as you accuse some skeptics.

Further, as regards children vs. adults, education most certainly does not equal any smarter. Talk to any magician, and they will most likely tell you that kids are much more difficult to trick, while adults are much easier. Why? Because children tend not to have a bunch of assumptions about the world built into their thinking. Adults, on the other hand, tend to assume a great deal, based on their understanding of the world. This leads to mistakes in interpretation of events in the world around them.

So, yes, I have experienced something out of the ordinary for me, just like any UFO witness has experienced something out of the ordinary for them. The fact that it really was something ordinary does not change that fact. Keep these points in mind when thinking about UFO reports in the future. Just because it is not something ordinary for you, doesn’t mean that it is in fact extraordinary.

Aurora has always been considered mundane in my lifetime. So you were a child and mistook something, that proves very little for cases where an educated adult has witnessed something. In actual fact you have never witnessed anything out of the ordinary then by your last post.

First, regarding weird experiences. Let me relate to you an experience I had as a child. I was outside at night, in the countryside, playing with my brother. All of a sudden, we saw these weird lights in the sky…greens and reds. It was eerily silent. We ran inside to get my parents, thinking it was a UFO. We went to the window to look out. The lights lasted a moment or two more, then were just gone.

So far, this sounds a lot like many of the UFO stories. Now, let me add in some details that came out after we got mom and dad to come look, as well as what might not occur to a kid (and even some adults). First off, this took place in northern Minnesota, in the summertime. Second, the lights had a wavy pattern to them. Have you guessed what it could have been yet? It was simply the Aurora Borealis. To someone who had never seen that before, it can be really freakin’ scary and be interpreted as something not at all natural and possibly alien in nature.

So, yes, I have experienced something really bizarre that I wasn’t able to make out any rational explanation for at the time. Since then, I have not had any experiences where I was unable to figure out what was going on, nor do I know anyone that has had such an event (or at least, no one has told me about it).

Now, getting to your answer to my question about changing your mind. So, you have never gone from a position of not accepting the explanation to accepting it? Or from accepting it to not accepting it? There have been no accounts of UFOs that you have started accepting one explanation (even if that explanation was “it’s unknown”) and, over the course of finding more information about it, switching to a different one?

I would give a word of caution that there is such thing as being too skeptical. Take a look at the current vaccine-autism brouhaha. Those claiming a connection between vaccines and autism tend to fall into the trap of being overly skeptical. Because there is no evidence that definitively kills the link (just too many variables, not to mention the trouble of trying to prove a negative), they maintain “but, it’s possible! So, we should do XYZ.”

The same thing occurs with the UFO camp, in particular when it comes to stories involving government involvement. A rational explanation is put forward, but then the “true believer” rationalizes it away, moves the goalpost and maintains that “but we just don’t know for sure.” There needs to be a point at which you (in the general sense, not you in particular, John) stop and examine the evidence again and your reaction to it. Are you really dismissing an explanation because it doesn’t fit the facts? Or, are you dismissing it because it doesn’t fit with your interpretation of the facts?

I say this as a generally warning for anyone involved in skeptical inquiry, as well as a specific warning for you, as you seem to be falling into the logical fallacy of being overly skeptical. Again, I may be wrong, but that is the impression that I get.

Do you or JustAl know anyone personally who have claimed a sighting who have always seemed rational, just out of interest?

Before I had a sighting I used to be less sceptical of reports of sightings and think a lot of them could have been alien, now I’m sceptical of just about everything. Reading sceptics comments on here has been refreshing in comparison to most ufo reports in the media or on tv. I find most reports unconvincing, whilst only a few which remain unexplained are worth more investigation, e.g. Stephensville, Guernsey, possibly Phoenix.

I will get straight to the point and say that for myself and maybe for some others who have experienced something possibly unexplained, this personal experience can be considered as real evidence by those people, even if sounding credulous. This is of course why people consider similar sightings to be at least a bit relevant, although not proof that the simlar sightings were definitely unusual. I also consider that it is possible that my sighting can still be explained as something mundane, but have yet to find anything remotely close to what I saw, after much checking. This conclusion has been made by my own thinking and I have not simply just accepted what any ufologist has concluded, and whilst you may find it similar, there are some differences between the “total believers”.

You may consider that a belief, but I have a gut feeling that it was definitely real (unusual in origin), and so I have to consider it as fact. I ask you again if you have noticed this occurrence in anyone you know personally? That is probably the only way you could understand what I mean, unless you experience something unusual yourself.

I know scientifically all I can claim is an unexplained sighting. Although the changing characteristics I have described of a witness could be used to determine which sightings are worthwhile for further study, and which some of those will turn out to be extraterrestrial if indeed that is what’s happening. However since I can provide you no proof of that, it’s likely to be ignored completely by sceptics requiring physical evidence.

Therefore I find it pointless to continue with any previous arguments. It’s fine, accept as crackpot if you wish (waiting for Just Al’s joke), but I only hope you and everyone else experience something which can be possibly interpreted as out of the ordinary, and the scientific community doesn’t regret it’s investigating methods in the future.

“regards the Venus explanation, you have also seemed to say that it is never a good explanation. My interpretation may be off, and please, feel free to correct me. Yet this explanation is not, I would venture to guess, used in every situation, and that in those situations where it is plausible, if not concluded, the evidence presented probably suggest it as a likely explanation.”

I agree that many cases are so unconvincing that they could be and even likely Venus as the witness sounded blind drunk. There was a report in the media in UK recently (can’t remember where) when a woman said she saw a bright light in the sky which couldn’t have been a star or planet as it was too close to the horizon. That is obviously ridiculous as you can see Jupiter clear enough right until it’s below the horizon, providing there’s no clouds of course. Jupiter can never be too close to the horizon to be seen on a clear night, and is only not visible whilst below the horizon. Atmospheric disturbance can cause some strange effects in those cases where a sighting is close to the horizon, and without any more information we can say this is likely Venus appearing strange really low on the horizon.

I meant earlier that Venus is offered as a possible explanation by sceptics for some sightings where it is unlikely, but not necessarily given as the most likely mundane explanation. That is what I think is rather silly, mentioning Venus in the list of mundane although unlikely for some sightings. This may not happen as often as I may have thought, and this is probably just the media taking the sceptics remarks out of context, but it still does happen.

I also feel that if witnesses didn’t say such contradicting remarks or restrained from explaining their sighting emotionally, and kept to what they were sure in their mind as pure facts, the idea of witness accounts having more weight would be considered, presuming it was obvious the witness in question wasn’t fully intoxicated. And I find it ridiculous that because someone has had a few pints even though not blind drunk makes it plausible that they hallucinated or misinterpreted a street-lamp. That is only my opinion though, as many light-weight sceptics would say “ohh 4 pints ohh dear that’s a lot of alcohol, maybe he was drunk”. Some people do have larger alcohol tolerances.

“Do you still dismiss it because it does not fit with what you believe?”

No I only accept knowledge and don’t believe in anything without some sort of evidence, whether that’s only from something I’ve witnessed or a credible scientific report and/or physical evidence. And no, I don’t think I am more important than anyone else on this planet.

“Have there been situations where you have changed your position on a story?”

No, not when involving any serious circumstances. Anyway, whether someone’s a credible witness or not, it’s not accepted scientific practice to believe unproven claims. Again for the third time I emphasise, check if you know anyone personally who have become what you consider credulous in a similar way, and consider all possibilities.

A quick note on maintaining a “it remains, at best, unknown/unidentified, and mundane explanations don’t fit.” John, would you be willing to accept an explanation of a UFO event that it was some ordinary event if the evidence suggested such? So far, your attitude has seemed to suggest that you think that just about all UFO events have “unknown” as the best possible conclusion, and that any mundane explanation falls woefully short.

The reason I ask this is because of how vehemently you have been rejecting the possibility that the officer fell asleep in the case you presented. You have maintained that it is a ridiculous conclusion because there is no definitive proof that he fell asleep or that he was tired. We have assumed that he was going home after an evening shift, which you have neither confirmed nor denied, possibly because you yourself do not have any information to verify that assumption. We do not know the length of the shift (typical 8-hour? shorter? longer?), how long he had been awake before the shift, nor how much sleep he had gotten prior to that. Without knowing any of this, it is premature to absolutely dismiss the possibility that he fell asleep, as you have done.

We have averred that he might have done so, not that he definitely did. Yet, even the mere potential, you dismiss. Why? On this and other matters that have been raised, you have seemed predisposed to discount any ordinary event as a possible explanation, in essence, equating doubt with being rationally skeptical and keeping the case open for further investigation, rather than coming to, well, a rather boring or uninteresting conclusion.

Also, as regards the Venus explanation, you have also seemed to say that it is never a good explanation. My interpretation may be off, and please, feel free to correct me. Yet this explanation is not, I would venture to guess, used in every situation, and that in those situations where it is plausible, if not concluded, the evidence presented probably suggest it as a likely explanation.

Perhaps it is all in who reaches the conclusion and the attitude in which they present it. Do you tend to dismiss explanations by people who come off as “skeptibunkies”? Do you tend to accept explanations from UFO researchers or witnesses? If they are a skeptic, but present their analysis in a rational manner, without a dismissive, condescending attitude, do you accept it or at least give it due consideration? Do you still dismiss it because it does not fit with what you believe? Have there been situations where you have changed your position on a story? I ask these questions seriously and want you to really take time to think about your responses to UFO explanations before you answer.

Sturrock’s interest traces back to the early 1970s when, seeking someone experienced with both computers and astrophysics, he hired Dr. Jacques Vallee for a research project. Upon learning that Vallee had written several books about UFOs, Sturrock — previously uninterested in UFOs — felt a professional obligation to at least peruse Vallee’s books. Though still largely sceptical, Sturrock’s interest was piqued by Vallee’s books. Sturrock then turned to the Condon Report (1969), the result of a two-year UFO research project that had been touted as the answer to the UFO question. Sturrock commented that, “The upshot of this was that, far from supporting Condon’s conclusions [that there was nothing extraordinary about UFOs], I thought the evidence presented in the report suggested that something was going on that needed study.” [1]

At about the same time that the Condon Committee was conducting its investigation, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) in 1967 had set up a subcommittee to bring the UFO phenomenon to the attention of serious scientists. In 1970 this subcommittee published a position paper also highly critical of how the Condon Committee had conducted its investigation and how Condon’s written conclusions often didn’t match the cases detailed in the final report. Overall, the AIAA deemed about a third of the cases still unsolved. Unlike Condon, they felt these unsolved cases represented the essential core of the UFO problem and deserving of further scientific scrutiny. [2]

Sturrock was curious what the general attitudes of the members of the AIAA might be and in 1973 surveyed the San Francisco branch of the AIAA, with 423 out of 1175 members responding. Opinions were widespread as to whether UFOs were a scientifically significant problem. Most seemed unsure or neutral on the question. Sturrock was also curious as to whether fellow scientists like the AIAA members ever reported seeing UFOs, i.e., anomalous aerial phenomena that they couldn’t identify. The survey indicated that about 5% had, which is typical for what is usually reported for the general population as a whole. [3]

In 1975, Sturrock did a more comprehensive survey of members of the American Astronomical Society. Of some 2600 questionnaires, over 1300 were returned. Only two members offered to waive anonymity, and Sturrock noted that the UFO subject was obviously a very sensitive one for most colleagues. Nonetheless, Sturrock found a strong majority favored continued scientific studies, and over 80% offered to help if they could. Sturrock commented that the AAS members seemed more open to the question than the AIAA members in his previous survey. As in the AIAA survey, about 5% reported puzzling sightings, but skepticism against the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) ran high. Most thought that UFO reports could ultimately be explained conventionally. Sturrock also found that skepticism and opposition to further study was correlated with lack of knowledge and study: only 29% of those who had spent less than an hour reading about the subject favored further study versus 68% who had spent over 300 hours. survey summary

Noting that many scientists wished to see UFOs discussed in scientific journals (and at the same time, an almost complete absence of such articles in journals) Sturrock helped establish the Society for Scientific Exploration in 1982 to give a scientific forum to subjects that are neglected by the mainstream. Their publication, the Journal of Scientific Exploration has been published since 1987.

In 1998, Sturrock organized a scientific panel to review various types of physical evidence associated with UFOs. The panel felt that existing physical evidence that might support the ETH was inconclusive but also deemed extremely puzzling UFO cases worthy of further scientific study. [4] Sturrock subsequently wrote up the work of the panel in a book The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence.

“I did take my story to the Pentagon — not NASA, but the Pentagon — and asked for a meeting with the Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and got it. And told them my story and what I know and eventually had that confirmed by the admiral that I spoke with, that indeed what I was saying was true.”

Here’s tasks for you Just Al which is relevant to this artice :

1. Find out who this Admiral is and the old-timers in the military circle Mitchell was going on about and push them for evidence.

2. Break into Area 51 and look for an alien body you so desperately desire as definitive evidence.

I can imagine some sceptics will be still shouting fake even if a real alien was in a cage or a huge ship flew right over their head. Now that would be in complete denial.

If you think I care about your daft challenge you are gravely mistaken. You are arrogrant enough to assume someone will spend their time doing something you requested which has nothing to do with this forum, and then whinge when they find something better to do. It’s even funnier that you are expecting me to produce some evidence and do your job for you, read my previous posts, I’ve said a few times that I haven’t got any evidence for you!

“There are millions of reasons to accept mundane explanations over Godfrey’s”

Sorry, the event is currently unknown as the best conclusion. I’ve already mentioned why, and the differences between accurate and inaccurate scepticism.

“That is exactly what Occam’s Razor proves. Terrestrial explanations are always more likely – they occur all the time.”

Big deal! What’s most likely cannot always explain an event you muppet. Some are still unknown.

“it simply shows that you’re not cut out for this, either logically or emotionally.”

Not so, I just don’t feel I need to tell you everything, nor have the time, plus not all comments have to be serious. Disagreements aren’t a problem, if you feel insulted maybe
you’re not cut out emotionally for this old man!

“Why would I feel a fool? This isn’t a religion to me, and I have no firm standpoint on aliens either way. I think it’d be great if we found some. But, you unknowingly have revealed even more of that psychological standpoint I was talking about. This isn’t a competition, and I’m not looking to be the one that wins by being “right.” ”

If you understand my post correctly I was saying how other people will react to your comments. I never said you were trying to be competitive just that many people on here will interpret them as that.

“or have someone read them to you”

I could say the same to you about my comments, as you’ve missed some points entirely.

“How about no?”

I wonder why, maybe one of your mundane explanation will not be as likely for Stephenville. And don’t bother claiming I said something other-worldly happened there, as I haven’t. It’s the same straw-man tactics you have used before yourself, and that you accuse others of doing. Does that make you a hypocrite then? I think so!

“I have established, quite distinctly I warrant, that you are credulous, a poor investigator, operate from the premise of requiring disproof of your wild speculations”

Again twisting what I said. So it’s a wild speculation to leave an event as unknown where likely mundane explanation are non-existant?

“I forgot – you operate from the standpoint of believing ridiculous stories, rather than entertaining the idea that something happened that happens all the time.”

No I said that most are mundane events while a few may be credible because of a possible sighting I’ve had, but don’t wish to claim anything more than some sightings remain unknown.

“Hmmm, the only proof I need for falling asleep is that he was tired. Don’t need it established for a fact. Can it happen? How many times has it happened in the past? Can you even count that high?”

Exactly, so where is your proof that he was tired? By using that kind of logic you demonstrated there can produce false conclusions, even if a real alien sighting has occurred. Yes I can count all the way from 0 to +/- infinity.

“create your enemies from thin air, and totally ignore the concept that you could be wrong even in slight respects”

What on earth are you on about here?… I am not wrong even if those events turn out to be proven mundane that I am calling unknown for now. Unknown means it can be anything. I have already outlined accurate and inaccurate sceptics, who have not claimed to experience anything unusual themselves. Then there’s those who have claimed experience of something, and are sceptical, and those who are believers.

“I trashed every report you’ve provided, and for no cost too. And you still can’t grasp that.
Enjoy your little stories, John. You’re not ready for reality.”

Well I wouldn’t want to waste money listening to you, you’d have to pay me to read your book, if you ever write one! I fully grasp your points, it’s a shame you don’t understand mine, but it’s not my fault you haven’t experienced anything possibly unexplainable to make you think some sightings are potentially usual, where no given mundane explanation fits and so I would say leave as unknown for now.

And last of all how do you feel after all of your precious time spent on researching, you still have zero evidence of aliens collected, it must be really awful for you, especially if some encounters were later proven to be alien, your psychology evidence would no longer be accurate, except for data collected on yourself. Whereas a viewpoint of unknown for some sightings can have no negative impact whatsoever! I can understand your discontentment when people even half your age have possibly experienced unexplainable events, and yet you are stuck at best, describing an event as likely mundane, but actually an accurate sceptic’s only real conclusion for the unexplained events is “unknown”. Haa haa hee hee, how many hours of work has it taken for you to get to that conclusion. And no question mark intended there, as I’m not really bothered as we all know it’s been too many hours, and you’ve achieved little more than someone who’s done f*** all research.

According to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

“One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.”

That definition of a skeptic fits critical thinkers who analyze both sides in the pursuit of truth or a broader perspective. Of course, there are many ways of being a skeptic, and many issues to be “skeptical” of. Some are skeptics of the paranormal, others are skeptics of anything conventional – established thought, government, etc. so not all skeptics are the same or on the same side.

However, the pseudo-skeptics like CSICOP members and Randi are definitely not open minded truth seekers, but rather their words and behavior are that of automatic dismissing and denying that which doesn’t fit into their paradigm. They are cynics who have closed their mind to anything that doesn’t fit into their world view, dismissing all else as misperception, delusion, or fraud. But don’t take my word for it, for if you read their own writing and hear what they say, it’s obvious from their narrow tunnel-view of reality, and their righteous indignation of what’s real and what’s “quackery” (a word they love to use). They do not seek to understand, but instead seek to discredit and invalidate. Their skepticism is what is called “pseudo-skepticism”.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the term “pseudo” means “False or counterfeit; fake.” Therefore, these debunkers exhibit a false mask of skepticism. In actuality, they are cynics, debunkers, and deniers. They deny and dismiss all evidence, scientific or anecdotal, no matter how credible or plentiful, and look for an excuse to justify it. They are not about seeking the truth or open-minded investigations at all, only in discrediting what doesn’t fit into their view.

Of course, every skeptic is going to say that they are open-minded true skeptics (just like every thief says they’re not a thief, every liar says they are not a liar, every high pressure salesman says they are not high pressure, etc.), but the proof of the pudding is in their actions, how they reason, and the system of philosophy they use. In fact, here are typical traits of true skeptics vs. pseudo-skeptics.

·True skeptics / open-minded skeptics:
Typical traits: honest doubt, inquiry and investigation of both sides, considers evidence on all sides and seeing their good/bad points, asking exploratory questions, acceptance of evidence, good common sense, nonjudgmental, seeks the truth

·Pseudo-skeptics / closed-minded skeptics (also known as pseudo-skeptics, debunkers, hard core materialists, scoffers, atheists):
Typical traits: automatic dismissal of all paranormal claims, predisposed to discredit all testimonials of a paranormal nature, denial of any and all evidence, scoffing, giving off an air of superior rationality, judgmental about things they know little or nothing about, quick to draw conclusions without evidence, using philosophical semantics to win arguments and invalidate paranormal or spiritual experiences.

One of the tell-tale signs of pseudo-skeptical mentality is in the words they use when describing believers. If they describe them as: “delusional, irrational, gullible, charlatans, superstitious, wishful-thinking, primitive and child-like thinking”, etc. then it’s a strong indication of their a priori mentality.

Skepticism should be a tool and method of inquiry to help one learn things and find truth, not as a cover to defend one’s own paradigms and cynicism. Doubting things and looking for answers will help one learn things, but trying to debunk everything outside your world view does not lead to learning. Therefore, the arguments I critique here refer to the arguments of pseudo-skeptics, not true skeptics.

It is interesting to note that while Carl Sagan is a great teacher of astronomy and science, he has a very inadequate knowledge of paranormal phenomena. This is demonstrated by the fact that in his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark Sagan devotes a big chapter to debunking the Alien Abduction phenomenon, however, not once does he even personally investigate or interview any abductees at all, like an honest open-minded investigator or truth seeker would. On the other hand, researchers like Harvard Professor John Mack (author of Abduction: Human Encounters With Aliens ) have done extensive interviews and investigations with abductees for their book, which led them to the conclusion that there was more to the phenomenon than just “all in the brain” or sleep paralysis. In fact, Mack has personally investigated 76 abductee cases during the course of four years. But how many did Sagan investigate? Zero. Therefore, one ought to give those researchers more credence than skeptics like Carl Sagan who just dismiss the subject off-hand without any deep investigation for truth.

Common tactics of pseudo-skeptics

1) Ignoring facts and evidence that don’t fit into their preconceived world view, rather than updating their beliefs to conform to the facts, which is more logical. (e.g. “It can’t be, therefore it isn’t!”)

2) Trying to force false explanations to explain a paranormal event regardless of whether they fit the facts. In essence, cynical skeptics tend to prefer inventing false explanations rather than accepting any paranormal ones. For example, using “cold reading” to explain the amazing accuracy of a psychic reading when no known cold reading technique could account for the facts and circumstances.

3) Moving the goal posts or raising the bar whenever their criteria for evidence is met. For example, a pseudo-skeptic wants evidence for psi in the form of controlled experiments rather than anecdotal evidence. When this evidence is presented, he will then raise the bar and demand that the experiments be repeatable by other researchers. When this is done, then he will either attack the researchers integrity and character, attack their methods, or demand a report of every detail and minute of the experiment or else he will contend that some unmentioned lack of controls must have been the culprit to explain the positive psi results, etc. He will always find some excuse due to his already made-up mindset.

4) Using double standards in what they will accept as evidence. They will not accept anecdotal evidence for the paranormal because they consider it to be unreliable, but not surprisingly they will accept anecdotal evidence when it supports their position. Also, they don’t accept anecdotal evidence for the paranormal, but when it’s against a paranormal claim, then they accept it as evidence against. (an unequivocal sign of bias) (e.g. “Others never reported any paranormal activity in the area”, “He/she saw something different”). For instance, when a psi experiment shows well above chance results, they will not accept it as evidence against psi. But when a psi experiment only shows chance results, they will accept that as evidence against psi.

5) Attacking the character of witnesses and undermining their credibility their evidence or testimonies can’t be explained away. As we all know, when politicians can’t win on the issues, they resort to character assassinations. Unfortunately, this is also what pseudo-skeptics and debunkers tend to do as well. When evidence or testimony from key people can’t be explained away or are irrefutable, pseudo-skeptics will find ways to discredit them such as character assassinations or grossly exaggerating and distorting trivial mistakes. This has especially been done with the direct eyewitnesses of the 1947 Roswell crash.

6) Dismissing all evidence for the paranormal by classifying it either as anecdotal, untestable, unreplicable, or uncontrolled. Pseudo-skeptics who wish to close their minds to any evidence, even after asking for it ironically, tend to do so by classifying it into one of the categories above. If the evidence is anecdotal, they will say that anecdotal evidence is worthless scientifically and untestable. If the evidence is in the form of scientific experiments, they will then say that it is unreplicable or uncontrolled.

These illogical ways of thinking are strange coming from people who pride themselves on their logic and rationality! Of course, flawed thinking such as the above can come from both believers and skeptics.

A common fallacy these pseudo-skeptics make is to assert that those who claim to have paranormal experiences do not consider other mundane explanations for their experience, and instead jump to paranormal conclusions. What pseudo-skeptics don’t understand is, if the possible mundane explanations don’t fit the facts or are too improbable to be believed, then they can and should be ruled out.

I argue that the evidence for any paranormal phenomenon should be CONSIDERED and INVESTIGATED rather than rejected automatically just because it doesn’t fit in with prevailing beliefs and world views.

This is a forum, not a playground, the only running away is in your head. It is ironic that you began with this kind of childishness, and expect someone just to leave just because of disagreement.

I was referring to your purposefully ignoring my challenge by pretending you didn’t understand it. And you’re still running from it.

“Considering that it was your own argument, fine, whatever. Try to keep up.”

No it wasn’t, why don’t you try to read people’s comments.

Actually, it was a direct response to a direct quote of your own, referring to skeptics insisting they had definitively explained away your amazing evidence. And again, I’ll belabor this point, because it’s one you completely fail to address (and keep running away from, I might add):

No one does what you claim they do. As much as you’d like to make it sound like your opponents are wildly irrational, in the end all you’re doing is inventing your enemies. That’s fantasy. Or delusion, if you prefer. Is that blunt enough for you?

I’ve pointed it out nicely, even given you the chance to respond with evidence. But it’s very clear you’re not able to see the flaws of your own approach, and instead try to pin them on someone else.

…so how can you know nothing new to science has been discovered, since you don’t even investigate them.

Question mark?

So, let’s see, how many responses can I offer to this one? Should we start with you demonstrating how you would even have the faintest idea what I do investigate?

Or should I bother to point out that you, quite clearly, aren’t investigating them yourself, and have shown not the faintest idea of what that word even means? Naah, that’s one of those cheap debating tactics where the argument is turned around. We don’t need that here.

Maybe I’ll simply stick with, I’m really not concerned about it. There are plenty of serious scientific establishments that would jump all over it, and they have a lot more resources than I do. After looking at hundreds of reports and finding that people are astoundingly credulous and abysmally bad at logic, and never once seeing anything that even looked compelling, and noticing that in fifty-some years of “serious” investigation we have provided not one smidgen of useful information to add to the scientific whole – whoops, let me restate that, because it’s patently false. We have added nothing to our knowledge of interstellar travel, ET life forms, physics, propulsions, government operations, and all the things that UFObees concern themselves about. We have added lots of information on psychology and mistaken perception, useless evaluation techniques like hypnosis (more on that later), and the power of suggestion. Things like that. As I said before, had I been in the field, I may have considered doing a few big papers on the behavior of UFObees.

Whether aliens visiting Earth exist or not this viewpoint is accurate, whereas you will feel a fool if it was announced to be true sometime in the future.

Why would I feel a fool? This isn’t a religion to me, and I have no firm standpoint on aliens either way. I think it’d be great if we found some.

But, you unknowingly have revealed even more of that psychological standpoint I was talking about. This isn’t a competition, and I’m not looking to be the one that wins by being “right.” I don’t consider the whole UFO (or paranormal, or holistic healing, etc etc etc) thing to be my way of being special, and I’m not one of the chosen who knows the “real truth.” The only thing I have ever talked about here (and if you bother to read very carefully, or have someone read them to you, you’ll find this is true of perhaps all of those who have debated with you) is whether or not there is anything that can be considered useful evidence. Remember that grant challenge? Do you get it now? The idea is to think clearly and rationally, and look critically at the information. Not to dismiss it outright, but to recognize that, all too often, it really doesn’t mean much.

You would then be wondering why on earth you’d wasted all this time in your twilight years…

Sorry, was going to let this slip by, but decided to have some more fun. That’s the second derogatory remark you’ve made about my age, Captain Amazing Investigator, and it simply shows that you’re not cut out for this, either logically or emotionally. I’m 42, roughly Phil’s age. But keep jumping, maybe one of those conclusions you land on might be right through sheer chance

…as a nagging sceptic trying to convince others that Occam’s Razor proves that a terrestrial explanation is always more likely when you know zilch about the event you apply it to.

Crash and burn. Epic fail. Whatever you like. That is exactly what Occam’s Razor proves. Terrestrial explanations are always more likely – they occur all the time. As opposed to extra-terrestrial explanations which, ruling out things like meteoric events and such, have never been shown to have happened at all. That’s the entire basis of parsimony.

However, I don’t bother with Occam’s Razor – it’s a statistical concept, and the only purpose it serves is to remind people not to believe extraordinary events should be considered first. I really don’t care – I’m all about what can be proven. Speculation is useful only if you want to act on it.

I know that’s what sceptics just like you really enjoy doing – saying an event is more likely Venus just because they’ve decided that alien visitation or other wierd explanation is so highly improbable.

You would probably have served your time better looking at those actual reports where Venus was offered as an explanation, rather than taking the piss about them in the dark. How are you going to know unless you investigate?!?!? (I love using people’s arguments against them!) Those explanations, at least those in the serious studies I’ve read, have never been offered lightly or frivolously, and served as perfectly plausible for the minor sightings they referred to.

And yes, we are talking about things that are highly improbable. Truly extraordinary, in fact. And split boots is not enough evidence to think we’ve seen it. That’s the nature of skeptical thought – if you want to make grandiose claims, show me the grandiose reasons (evidence).

The likelihood of alien visitation is just not known, and without proper evidence to support any alternate and/or mundane explanation, no-one can accurately say what most likely happened. We can only say accurately that it is unknown.

Well, you’re both absolutely right and have it bass-ackwards. Don’t see that too often.

Yes, John, it’s unexplained. That’s been agreed on ad nauseum now, and in fact is the basis of the originating post. Glad you manage to get here with us from time to time. Though I suspect the only reason you bother to even make such statements is because you have no evidence to show why you think the way you do.

Because, the bass-ackward part, the evidence you should be after is the non-mundane explanations. We know mundane explanations happen. The part you seem to think is worth repeating is that they could be aliens/military secrets/pixies. It’s an infinite universe, John, they could be anything. So what? Why fixate on visitations? Why not Cosmic Care Bears? We even know Care Bears exist, as toys – they must have been a product of our universal subconscious!

And while that sounds like a stupid argument, it is exactly what has been proposed numerous times before – just not for Care Bears. But still a stupid argument.

Did you ever wonder why, if there’s so much evidence, no one can seem to agree on what it’s evidence of? Aliens, no no, government tests, no no, collective imagination, no, wait!

No, I bet you haven’t at that.

Here is case from November 1980.

Okay, first off, what exact point is this intended to establish? Yes, it’s a case file. Congratulations, you can cut-n-paste. Is there supposed to be something about this that’s special?

While Todd W. did a good job of demonstrating that nothing in this case served as evidence of anything even remotely extraordinary, I’ll add a few comments myself.

… when he saw a bright light in the air.

I personally call this OFFS evidence. The first two words are, “Oh, for” and the last is “sake!” I’ll let you puzzle out what the third word is.

… he could not account for a period of around 35 minutes when he had been in his car.

Ah, missing time! Good gravy, I didn’t realize you had THAT kind of evidence! That changes everything!

What time did you leave your home yesterday? The day before? And before that? No guesses, what time exactly? How long did it take you to eat lunch two days ago? When was the last time you were late for something because you stopped to chat to someone? “Missing time” is a ludicrous concept – we do it constantly. Until you can show me someone who can account for all of their time for any given day automatically, put this horse hockey where it belongs.

He also noticed that the soles of his boots were split – as if he had been dragged.

Except that splitting soles is about the last kind of damage that would have been done to boots by dragging. Scuffed heels or tops, soles peeled away from the sides, fraying, imbedded gravel? Anything?

No, no, wait, don’t go yet! So he was dragged hard enough to damage his boots, so there’s drag marks on the ground, right? Bruising in his armpits or across his chest? Clothes in disarray? Why didn’t they simply put him in his own car if they were going to drive it around, save themselves some effort and not ruin his boots?

Did anyone bother to look for corroborating evidence? And if the report doesn’t say, why do you consider it good enough to repeat here?

Alan’s story was picked up by the local press and UFO enthusiasts rushed to interview him.

I’m shocked. But don’t take that as sarcasm, because it ties in with the next bit…

He eventually agreed to undergo hypnosis, and astonished everybody when he described being brought onboard a spaceship.

Astonished everyone, eh? I guess “everyone” doesn’t somehow include anyone who has read a damn thing about hypnosis in the past decade. Or heard the Betty & Barney Hill story every time there’s a UFO special…

I’ll go a step further than Todd – not only has hypnosis proven to be completely worthless in witness interrogation, it is largely considered to be extremely damaging and has been discarded by most psychiatric practices. The mind is far too susceptible to suggestion to make hypnosis (which operates by increasing this trait) even slightly useful – it is extremely easy for the practitioner to introduce ideas and encouragement. And there are several who made a living doing exactly that, as abductee or child abuse “specialists.” In the US, some rather prominent court cases revolved around the malpractice of “revealed suppressed memories” and the lives that were ruined by the completely baseless accusations.

And, had you actually been paying any attention to your investigations and science, you would have known this. Go do a Google search, Captain Amazing Investigator.

I agree that to suggest a police officer has fallen asleep at the wheel 5 mins after leaving the station is absolutely absurd, because there is zero proof for that suggestion or that he fell into a trance.

And your opinion is so compelling!

Hmmm, the only proof I need for falling asleep is that he was tired. Don’t need it established for a fact. Can it happen? How many times has it happened in the past? Can you even count that high? Then what’s your feeble little point?

Oh, yeah! I forgot – you operate from the standpoint of believing ridiculous stories, rather than entertaining the idea that something happened that happens all the time.

I wonder how much PC Godfrey sold his story for?

There is no reason to accept that those explanations are any more likely than his own account of what happened.

There are millions of reasons to accept mundane explanations over Godfrey’s. What kind of a -… never mind, I think we’ve established that by now.

If you can provide any evidence from his colleagues to suggest any reason for him to fall asleep or go into a trance, i.e. medical condition, tiredness, drug use, stress etc, then fine, I would accept that as a more likely explanation,…

No you wouldn’t. Don’t lie to us, it’s insulting. You hurt our feelings.

I would also be interested if there were any proven cases of a police officer falling asleep within 5 minutes after leaving the station in the UK, as there aren’t any in Yorkshire to my current knowledge.

“My current knowledge,” hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee!

Sorry, that was my feeble old man cackle

Now how about giving us your take on the MUFON report on Stephenville, and give us a down-to-earth possible explanation to fit with the known facts.

How about no? Since I’m still waiting for you to answer any question at all I’ve posed for you in the past several days, I think you’ve used up your little requests. I have established, quite distinctly I warrant, that you are credulous, a poor investigator, operate from the premise of requiring disproof of your wild speculations, create your enemies from thin air, and totally ignore the concept that you could be wrong even in slight respects (much less the gross ones). And I’ve even established that in this post alone. I trashed every report you’ve provided, and for no cost too. And you still can’t grasp that.

Enjoy your little stories, John. You’re not ready for reality.

I’m sorry, but all of the police officers that I’ve met are just as human as every body else. If he got off work at 5am, after a long shift, its very likely that he was somewhat exhausted. He could have seen a light post, for all we know. Could have been a blimp, or a hot air balloon, or an alien spaceship, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or The Silver Surfer. The point is, without EVIDENCE, there is no way we will know for sure.

Now, in a related story, former Astronaut Edgar Mitchell allegedly admits that aliens have been visiting us, and there’s been a 60-year coverup. Interesting, if true.

First off, it seems like we’re slowly coming to an understanding. Now then,

““I don’t particularly see why it is ridiculous to think that he may have fallen asleep.”

It is unless you can provide real evidence to suggest that’s what he did. Just by saying its likely because others have fallen asleep at the wheel before is not enough.”

Please go back and reread the rest of the context you pulled that quote from. I think I was pretty careful to say that it is a plausible explanation, not that it was a definitive explanation. Certainly, if someone is saying that he definitely did fall asleep, then, yes, they should provide something to support that contention. But I think you may be protesting a bit too much. Has anyone said that he definitely, and without question, fell asleep at the wheel?

Also, I think you need to make a distinction between “skeptics” and the media in its various forms. The skeptics will generally conclude that an event remains unsolved and that an objects is still unidentified if the situation warrants such a conclusion. However, they will very probably maintain that aliens and/or secret government tech is a very unlikely, though not completely impossible, explanation, because there is just no precedent to jump to such an extraordinary conclusion. Also, unless there is some aspect to the case that really warrants investigation, they probably are not even going to bother with it. For example, in the case you presented, after reading the description of who saw and said what, it really doesn’t warrant the expenditure of time and money. If there were more than just the officer’s story, then maybe it would be worthwhile.

Contrast this with the media, who, eager for ratings, will take the extreme angle. Even if they concede that something remains unsolved, they will likely play up the unknown and mystery of it to suggest that it is anything but a mundane occurrence. This goes for mainstream news as well as shows catering to the fringe (e.g., UFO Hunters). They are the ones who will be more likely to jump to unfounded conclusions, suggest alien activity and so on.

From the way you have written, you strike me as being fairly rational (after narrowing down the arguments and getting a bit more specific), but you still seem to me to be somewhat credulous. It’s hard to tell, so far, where exactly you stand on the issue of UFOs, though you appear to give a bit more weight to the UFO supporters than their arguments necessarily warrant.

I’ve gone on long enough. Hope we’ve reached an understanding.

wait, wait, wait… did you just say:

It is unless you can provide real evidence to suggest that’s what he did.

Ok, now I’m really confused as to what your argument is… you’ve spent this entire thread arguing our one and only point: that we want “real evidence”… and then you have the nerve to demand the same as a defense against one of our own counter-arguments?

Irony… Ur doin it right.

“Let’s see, a few years on the UFO newsgroups playing around with people like you, large mouths in their attempts to discredit skeptics,”

Certain inaccurate sceptics deserve discrediting. Previous post describes why.

Now let me put this to you, if physical evidence was discovered tomorrow and was well documented and accepted. You are surely aware of how accurate sceptics (such as yourself) posts on forums, are often misinterpreted as meaning they have a lack of belief as a bad thing, or that they never label an event as unknown as a conclusion where no mundane explanation fits.

Therefore your numerous posts could be used against you by someone if something like disclosure occurred, by namely straw-men. That technique is used often and by the media, and taking such a risk as a person of science, could end up being damaging. Who knows how many people would be willing to do that, especially as your methods of discussion could cause offence to witnesses. I wonder if it’s really worth so much of your time taking that risk, which would be of your own making, and your own choice entirely.

“Okay, I’ll bite, since you gave a description of an encounter for which you feel a mundane explanation cannot possibly fit.”

No, just that all considered mundane explanation so far don’t fit. My point was that a lot of sceptics (not all sceptics) seem to go out of their way to emphasise that these mundane explanations have solved the case, and fail to mention it is actually unsolved. If someone produces an acceptable mundane explanation then that’s case solved.

“I don’t particularly see why it is ridiculous to think that he may have fallen asleep.”

It is unless you can provide real evidence to suggest that’s what he did. Just by saying its likely because others have fallen asleep at the wheel before is not enough. It’s not enough to convict a crime, and can even be considerd slanderous to the witness.

“Memories can alter very quickly, leading to new interpretations, addition or deletion of details and outright changes to other details. So, did his story change, either through altered memories, embellishment or outright falsification? If not, then there is slightly more credibility to his story, but he may still be wrong.”

He stuck to his original reported account. I know he could be wrong, but it is very cynical to just assume that he is. That was my problem with many investigative methods used by some sceptics. Of course a good investigator would say the event is unknown.

“It doesn’t really advance the UFO movement as a whole. It doesn’t serve as an argument against skepticism. So, what, precisely, was your point?”

I was arguing against incomplete or inaccurate scepticism. Whether or not certain mediums falsely interpret their views is another matter. But I have heard many many times sceptics refusing to acknowledge that the event remains unsolved.

I wouldn’t argue against properly done scepticism as that’s necessary for any investigation. If these events are properly interpreted as unknown as the only real conclusion to be made then it does advance the subject by at least removing ridicule by the media. Whereas the general public would then also operate by those same correct methods and accept a particular case is unsolved, as they will generally accept the media’s account of it.

Therefore if there is any truth to his account people won’t fear any ridicule and come forward with absolutely everything they think they know, with always a possiblity that evidence could be produced. I’ve had an experience myself that makes me think it’s possible that some of these credible witnesses may be experiencing something that’s not mundane. I am highly sceptical of all stories and reports, and I will need real physical evidence before accepting anything as fact.

So there you go, someone can experience an extrememly unusual event and remain highly sceptical. Not everyone who sees something is an instant believer, just like not every media sceptic truely accepts some events are unknown. I fully realise you are one of the good sceptics/investigators, and my intention was not to personally accuse you of being one of the poor ones, it’s just that there are always a these a few lingering in the media. If these people are being slightly misquoted then they should make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

Okay, I’ll bite, since you gave a description of an encounter for which you feel a mundane explanation cannot possibly fit.

To recap, officer leaves the police station at 5am. I’m going to make an assumption, then, that he pulled an overnight shift. Maybe I’m wrong, but that detail is lacking. A few minutes later, he sees a light, gets out of his vehicle, and sketches what he saw. Discovers that his truck has moved on without him. Doesn’t think much of it until he hears stories of other people seeing lights (which may or may not have been the same lights and, if they weren’t the same, may or may not have been related). Later (how much later we aren’t told), he claims that he cannot recall about 35 minutes of his time and notices that his boots are banged up. Once his story has drawn media attention, under hypnosis, he recounts being taken aboard an alien craft. Does that sum up the account?

First, I’ll just say right off the bat that what he claims he saw will remain unidentified, for the simple fact that it is only his story that we have to go on. There is no other evidence to substantiate his claims. We don’t even know if his experience even happened at all or if he just made it up after hearing about other accounts, since, according to what you wrote, he didn’t mention it until he heard about other officers seeing lights.

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s analyze this under the assumption that something actually did happen. First, as to dismissing him falling asleep at the wheel. The story suggests that he may have been heading home after an overnight shift. I don’t particularly see why it is ridiculous to think that he may have fallen asleep. For myself, there have been times that I have felt perfectly awake, then gotten into a car and started driving only to have to pull over and stop because I am so tired. That was after a full night’s sleep, but waking up early to get on the road. So, sleep and either a dream/sleepwalking seems a plausible explanation. He’s driving, falls alseep or starts to, stops his car but doesn’t put it in park, gets out (either to get fresh air or because he’s sleepwalking), car rolls down the road a bit, he wakes up, tries to make sense of what just happened, etc.

Now, supposing that he did not fall asleep. The lights may have been a number of things: star or planet low on the horizon, lanterns (unlikely), airplane far enough away that it couldn’t be heard, some atmospheric phenomenon, alien craft (also unlikely, as there has yet to be produced credible evidence that aliens have been to Earth). As to what it actually is, we won’t know because it happened once, only he saw it (the other reports, remember, may or may not have been the same lights or even related at all), there are no recorded images other than the officer’s sketch, and no physical evidence was left behind. So far, no reason to jump to any assumptions about what it may have been, let alone that it was an alien craft.

Now, onto the media circus. People generally have a tendency to puff themselves up and embellish things once they start to get lots of attention. Not everyone does this, but the temptation is there. It garners more attention and makes a person feel important, if only for a short while. With that in mind, we need to ask whether or not even the slightest detail of his story changed from the very first telling of it (perhaps to his wife the same day?) and when he started to appear in the media. Also, how much time passed between the event and media attention? Memories can alter very quickly, leading to new interpretations, addition or deletion of details and outright changes to other details. So, did his story change, either through altered memories, embellishment or outright falsification? If not, then there is slightly more credibility to his story, but he may still be wrong.

The hypnosis bit doesn’t really add anything to his credibility. There is a good bit of science on both sides that support and detract from whether or not the technique actually works or if it’s just the subject “playing along” as it were. There are numerous cases where people have made claims under hypnosis (e.g., sex abuse charges), but it has later turned out to be false. So, any stories of going aboard an alien craft, told under hypnosis, really does not carry any weight.

Ah, but what about the boots? you might ask. Well, what about them? How often did he examine them? Had they been scuffed up before? He said the wear looked like what would happen if he had been dragged. What exactly does that look like? How does it differ from other means of scuffing up boots? Did anyone else see this wear and tear right after the event? Did he purposefully distress the boots to lend credence to his story? All valid questions.

In the end, this story is just another in the long line of “someone saw something they couldn’t make out” tales that have little significance in the grand scheme of things. As to advancing scientific understanding, it doesn’t, because there is no way to verify any aspect of the event. All of the details are based on a single, subjective account. We do not know what, if any, the officer’s motives were. We have no additional witnesses to the event (and before you go, “Aha! You want more witnesses!”, let me just say that additional witnesses help bolster a case, but they do not clinch it and are susceptible to all the same questions and limitations I’ve already touched on). There is no physical evidence to examine. There are no objective visual recordings of the event. In short, the evidence, such as it is, is utterly lacking and amounts to a “so what?” conclusion. Someone says they saw something and didn’t know what it was. They got apparently got spooked by it. Big deal. Let’s move on.

If your point was simply to describe an event that remains unidentified and to which a mundane explanation cannot definitively be fixed, congratulations, you did. Any decent inquirer/skeptic/invetigator would reach the same conclusion. It doesn’t really advance the UFO movement as a whole. It doesn’t serve as an argument against skepticism. So, what, precisely, was your point?

“Yep. Run away, John. Nobody’s fooled.”

This is a forum, not a playground, the only running away is in your head. It is ironic that you began with this kind of childishness, and expect someone just to leave just because of disagreement.

“Considering that it was your own argument, fine, whatever. Try to keep up.”

No it wasn’t, why don’t you try to read people’s comments.

“No one sees any need to explain away your events. They aren’t compelling enough to worry about. ”

Those events are much more than your pathetic tree chopping example, and you have said yourself that you ignore some of these events, which happen almost on a daily basis worldwide, so how can you know nothing new to science has been discovered, since you don’t even investigate them. Because of these extremely recent reports which occur fairly regularly, you will know zero facts at all about them. Therefore they are completely unknown to the best of your knowledge, and it is impossible to say what likely happened either.

Of course I’m not claiming anything new has been discovered yet that I know of, I’m saying the unknowns are just unknowns for now. Whether aliens visiting Earth exist or not this viewpoint is accurate, whereas you will feel a fool if it was announced to be true sometime in the future. You would then be wondering why on earth you’d wasted all this time in your twilight years as a nagging sceptic trying to convince others that Occam’s Razor proves that a terrestrial explanation is always more likely when you know zilch about the event you apply it to.

I know that’s what sceptics just like you really enjoy doing – saying an event is more likely Venus just because they’ve decided that alien visitation or other wierd explanation is so highly improbable. The likelihood of alien visitation is just not known, and without proper evidence to support any alternate and/or mundane explanation, no-one can accurately say what most likely happened. We can only say accurately that it is unknown.

It is no better to accept an explanation given by a sceptic as most likely Venus than just to believe word for word the eyewitnesses opinions, when the Venus explanation doesn’t fit at all with any facts of the case, apart from saying that Venus was in the sky at the same time. Well duh, most clear nights stars and planets are both visible at some point, and having that assertation is about as silly as saying any light in the sky is Venus, even a bright star just because it was observed near Venus.

Here is case from November 1980. PC Alan Godfrey had a close encounter that was to change his life. At five o’clock on a wet Yorkshire morning, he was driving on a country road outside the town of Todmorden when he saw a bright light in the air. Stopping his car, Alan tried unsuccessfully to radio for help, before sketching the object in front of him. “It was eerily silent – that does stick in my mind,” he recalls. The next thing Alan remembered was that the car had moved 100 yards down the road and the UFO was gone.

It was only later that Alan realised he could not account for a period of around 35 minutes when he had been in his car. He also noticed that the soles of his boots were split – as if he had been dragged. When he learnt that several other officers had seen lights in the sky over the Pennines at the same time, Alan filed an official report.

Not long afterwards, Alan’s story was picked up by the local press and UFO enthusiasts rushed to interview him. He eventually agreed to undergo hypnosis, and astonished everybody when he described being brought onboard a spaceship. Alan has no recollection of what he said during the hypnosis.

The sceptics around that time suggested that he had fallen asleep at the wheel 5 minutes after leaving the police station, or suggested he had fallen under a trance of some sort. The reaction of Alan Godfrey tell us what he thinks of that. I agree that to suggest a police officer has fallen asleep at the wheel 5 mins after leaving the station is absolutely absurd, because there is zero proof for that suggestion or that he fell into a trance. There is no reason to accept that those explanations are any more likely than his own account of what happened. The lack of evidence to make a proper conclusion means that it’s unknown what happened that day.

If you can provide any evidence from his colleagues to suggest any reason for him to fall asleep or go into a trance, i.e. medical condition, tiredness, drug use, stress etc, then fine, I would accept that as a more likely explanation, but from searching I have found none. It’s funny that there are so many cases like this that we cannot say have a likely mundane explanation, and you keep insisting that none are worth your time or either they don’t happen. That is your typical sceptic in denial viewpoint, and oh no you’re not at all special, there are almost as many stupid sceptics as well as crackpot believers.

I would also be interested if there were any proven cases of a police officer falling asleep within 5 minutes after leaving the station in the UK, as there aren’t any in Yorkshire to my current knowledge. Maybe in the US where obese cops are too fat to get out of their car they fall asleep regularly like Homer Simpson. Where people in Yorkshire are rugged and down to earth people, they don’t just fall asleep without any reason (list given previously), which in this case none of those reasons apply.

Without any example of a police officer in Yorkshire falling asleep 5 mins after leaving the station in normal condition, the chances of that happening are arguably the same as an alien encounter, since we don’t have any credible documented accounts of either of them, meaning the chances of either of them happening are only an approximate guess with approximate error. Now you may argue that surely an alien encounter must be less likely, but that’s just your opinion and has the same amount of fact as a belief – none at all!

Now how about giving us your take on the MUFON report on Stephenville, and give us a down-to-earth possible explanation to fit with the known facts. I wonder whether that explanation is likely at all, or whether you will admit the lack of a likely mundane explanation means that it is unknown what occurred. Can you prove that your given conventional explanation is more likely than a flying saucer theory, or would admit you don’t have the data to make that determination.

Thereby making my interpretation the most accurate, labelling the event as unknown, without having any more likely conventional explanation. And no, you cannot assume correctly that all events will always have a more likely terrestrial explanation – that’s the difference between investigating properly or just being utterly lazy.

Are you done playing sceptibunkie as someone else called you. You surely realise by now that if your silly assumptions are wrong you will feel a complete fool for wasting your time trying to convince others to think like you. But actually I’m sure you enjoy it as you have nothing else useful to do. You could play golf or something else the elderly enjoy doing. Or finally go and retire yourself into a nice retirement home at long last!

It is irrelevant whether someone has said that, or not.

Considering that it was your own argument, fine, whatever. Try to keep up.

You or anyone else can say what’s most likely until your head falls off but it doesn’t explain the event. It’s not acceptable for anyone to use the most likely explanation as a factual account where there are many unknown variables for an event. This is how many sightings are portrayed – where that incorrect explanation sticks. That’s almost as unscientific as the witness saying it was definitely aliens because it looks like a flying saucer.

At no point do you actually intend to argue valid points, is that it? Is there some alternate universe you inhabit where people keep doing these things? Or is it just you and your persecution complex?

Not sure how many times in this and other threads someone has to say this, but I’m game, because it destroys any vestige of credibility you might have had. No one sees any need to explain away your events. They aren’t compelling enough to worry about.

Let’s say someone chops down my neighbor’s tree. No axe is found, no witnesses. Certainly unexplained, isn’t it? Woo, spooky! Do you expect clusters of people to demand extensive scientific investigations, or are you happy claiming the secret military complex did it – “What other possible explanation could there be?!?!? Have you explained it?!?!? NO?!?! Well, then, how can you be sure it WASN’T them?!?!!”

Face it. You find something compelling in the huge numbers of stories, as long as you don’t look for patterns or even consider other options. Those of us who have bothered to look at the specifics, and countless others in the past, don’t share your viewpoint. We’ve been nice and pointed out the flaws in your arguments, but that’s been wasted time – there is no questioning John’s experience, is there? And I suppose we’ll simply have to take your word for it, because you’re certainly dodging all the questions you’ve been given concerning this fantastic evidence. So far, your arguments have all boiled down to, “You can’t ignore ALL eyewitnesses!” and, “You’re too arrogant to get it!”

Yeah, whatever.

I really don’t know what to say about this apart from maybe you should go seek professional help – are you going a bit senile in your old age!?

Yep. Run away, John. Nobody’s fooled.

Hello, Randi. Good to have you back. Now tell me: when are you going to honor your commitment and give that million dollar to Billy Meier, since it has been established that he has satisfied your conditions?

Wait, what? You said Billy Meier, right? That’s not a typo, you meant Billy Meier. Just wanted to be sure you were referring to the Billy Meier I know, and not someone else.

Thanks, Carl. I think that answered any questions about your qualifications as an investigator quite handily!

“It is irrelevant whether someone has said that, or not.”

I would disagree that it is irrelevant. You specifically twisted my words, making it seem as if skeptics take the “if the evidence is lacking, then it must be mundane” approach.

Let me just reiterate some points, since those who have argued against me seem to have missed them.

1) No skeptic worth their salt is going to say that eyewitness accounts are totally and completely useless and should be ignored. If they do, well, they’re just dumb. Eyewitness accounts can be, as I stated before, a useful tool for identifying areas which need further investigation.

2) Eyewitness accounts =/= proof of what something was. At best, it is a personal interpretation of what may or may not have actually happened. It is possible that the witness is mistaken in what they saw (misinterpretation of visual stimuli), hallucinating, lying, or they actually saw what they described.

3) Skeptics might jump to the assumption that when someone says UFO, they mean alien spacecraft now and then. The two concepts have been rather tightly associated in popular media that, even if the skeptic thinks of UFOs as strictly flying objects that have not yet been identified, the general populace tends to think “alien” when they hear or use the term “UFO”. As a test, go out and ask random people on the street what they think of when they hear the term “UFO”. My guess is that a majority would mention aliens. So, moving to that assumption, while possibly presumptive and incorrect, is still understandable. Those in the UFO movement should, therefore, be careful how they use the term and should avoid mentioning aliens or anything similar unless they really and truly mean to associate the two.

4) A true scientist (whether defined as a “skeptic” or a “UFOlogist”) will accept what the data and evidence show. If the evidence is lacking, then they’ll leave the label of “unidentified” and, if time, funding and leads allow, continue investigation of the event. However, to jump to the conclusion that it is “definitely mundane” is just as premature and unwarranted as “definitely bizarre/otherworldly/secret gov’t tech/etc.”. If further investigation is not possible, then just leave it at “unidentified”. If the evidence quite clearly points to a mundane explanation, exhausting all other possiblities, then accept that. Sure, let others validate the conclusions, but if replication yields the same results, don’t go making excuses to keep the event “special”. If the evidence clearly points to otherworldly/secret tech/etc., exhausting all possible mundane explanations, then accept that. Similarly, validate the results. If it comes out that it is indeed something never seen before, great! Add it to the wealth of scientific knowledge.

5) Should something actually be validated as otherworldly/secret tech, that does not equate to all other reports being of a similar nature. Each event must be judged on its own merits and evidence. Yes, take into account current knowledge and innovative research, but remain careful not to simply co-opt some other event to say “See! It’s happening all over the place!” unless the evidence actually supports such a conclusion.

Thus far, the evidence presented by the UFO community is of a quality that generally precludes definitive answers. Grainy photos, blurry videos, eyewitness accounts…at best these suggest that something happened. However, that something may be anything from someone tossing a hubcap into the air to letting Chinese lanterns float off into the sky to mistaking a reflection in glass as a UFO to something that really and truly defies explanation according to current knowledge. Unfortunately, the quality of the evidence submitted just isn’t very good.

Furthermore, I don’t care how many people you have saying they witnessed some event. All they amount to are stories of what people think they saw. It is entirely subjective. Now, present objective evidence (e.g., physical objects, multiple sources of clear visual imaging), then maybe we’re onto something. But, please, stop harping on how there are so many tales of people seeing things they couldn’t identify. Big deal! So they couldn’t identify them. That, in and of itself, does not necessarily warrant the expenditure of time and money needed to figure what it was that they saw.

To use the Venus-on-the-horizon example, if researchers spent money and time to investigate claims of UFOs only to find that, time and time again, it was just Venus (or a plane lying straight away before turning, or some other natural explanation), how likely do you think they are to continue investigating these things? Can they afford to jump at every single claim? Furthermore, as I stated before, did the event actually happen? That, itself, is the very first question that should be answered before anything else. Once that is satisfied, then ask what happened. Once that has been answered, only then can the “why did it happen?” be asked.