I think everything needs to evolve, especially philosophies and theories, otherwise, we’d still be in caves or wandering about looking for food.

2. The motive for placing extreme emphasis on the title of nuclear physicist is suspect. It is as if someone it trying to promote the logical fallacy that if a Rocket Scientist or Nuclear Physicist says there is a “Cosmic Watergate”, then by golly, there certainly must be a “Cosmic Watergate” because Rocket Scientists or Nuclear Physicists are so damn intelligent that it is physically impossible that they could be wrong or could be suckered (or sucker others) into a UFO cult…right? Out-of-date knowledge of nuclear physics is irrelevant to the topic of UFOs anyway.

3. The United States Air Force defines a U.F.O. as: “Anything that relates to an airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be identified as a familiar object.” (USAF Regulation 200-2).

4. A light is not an object. A reflection is not an object. A refraction is not an object. Can you tell the difference between those three things from a great distance away and without research? No, therefore an unidentified light is properly referred to as a phenomenon, not an object.

5. For a UFO to remain unidentified, one cannot claim it was an ET piloted craft or a flying saucer — that would be identifying it. It would also be an extraordinary claim and to NOT reject such claims would be illogical and unscientific since it would be the equivalent of saying it is okay for anybody to make a mountain out of a molehill. People should not tell us they have seen a mountain (radical interpretation) when the only evidence they have is of a molehill (mundane evidence). Instead they should tell us they have seen a molehill but it looked like a mountain to them. Mundane evidence should only be used to support mundane interpretations and extraordinary evidence should be used to support extraordinary interpretations. In other words, the degree of evidence should match the degree of the interpretation of that evidence and that is the heart and soul of science. Many people may not like it but it works far better than anything else that has ever been devised in the pursuit of truth.

6. The most common logical blunder that people in the scientific community, like Sagan, makes is forgetting that there is nothing to disprove where nothing has been proven in the first place. A report is not evidence of the thing reported and all we have in regards to UFOs are the mere words of a report.

7. Next time you have a chance to hear Stan’s worn out speech on The UFO Challenge, listen very carefully. While he claims that some UFOs are alien spacecraft, he never follows through by telling you which famous UFO sightings fall into that category. You know why? Because Stan is bluffing. Stan is a great entertainer and that is where it ends. Enjoy the show but dismiss it afterwards as nonsense, not science.

Then that is saying it is okay for anybody to make a mountain out of a molehill. People should not tell us they have seen a mountain (radical interpretation) when the only evidence they have is of a molehill (mundane evidence). Instead they should tell us they have seen a molehill but they are dreaming of a mountain. Mundane evidence should only be used to support mundane interpretations and extraordinary evidence should be used to support extraordinary interpretations. In other words, the degree of evidence should match the degree of the interpretation of that evidence and that is the heart and soul of science. Many people may not like it but it works far better than anything else that has ever been devised in the pursuit of truth.

BTW, Copernicus’ response to my question was this:

“red pill junkie wrote:”Do you feel your openness towards the possibilities glimpsed around the UFO phenomenon might be different, if you haven’t had that extraordinary experience—the UFO sighting—at such an early age of your life?”

One thing I have found, even with this openness, is that in my experience most (95%) of reported UFOs are really IFOs. This is why I have been so energetic in astronomy education. I suspect if people knew more about the sky and the objects there, they’d make fewer misidentifications. “

I thought I’d let people discover that for themselves, but you’re right to point this out. If he hadn’t seen something anomalous with his own eyes, he might be another fundamentalist, or at least not interested.

Sounds like another vote for “fiasco.” I certainly hope that Paul Kimball can get his UFO/ Anomalies debate program idea off the ground. Over at the UFO Updates list, he’s just had an exchange with Friedman about the new book .

“The difficulty in formulating UFO hypotheses, and interpreting UFO reports, is a first-hand experience for me. Not only have I investigated other people’s reports and published the results but I’ve observed a “UFO”myself. [emphasis mine] The incident occurred in March of 1962 while at the opening of a shopping center in Carol City, Florida. While awaiting the start of festivities I happened to look up at the night sky, being the amateur astronomer that I was. Amazingly, I witnessed a brilliant orange disc, at least the same diameter as a full Moon, moving rapidly from north to south.”

Luck even Stanton hasn’t had