Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:

By UFO Iconoclast
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Indiscernibility/Discernibility between IFO and UFO Cases by Gilles Fernandez

Thursday, October 3, 2013 9:36

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

In two recent blog entries accepted by my friend Rich Reynolds, I addressed Jose Antonio Caravaca’s ”Distortion Theory”.

Among my “arguments” shared in private with José, I pointed to the fact UFO/IFO cases share the very same “components,” no matter what the narrations/tales by the witnesses present as low or high strangeness for ufologists.

In other words, the elements alleged by witnesses are more or less the same between identified cases (IFO) and non-identified cases (UFO): speed, size, colors, physical “evidence,” physiological effects or impressions, animals reacting, cars stopping, et cetera.

There is, so to speak, a sort of “twin corpora” when you examine the two categories (UFO and IFO).

There is no valid reason for UFO-Skeptics (like me) to invoke exotic causes for UFO cases as explicative variable(s).

The difference between IFO and UFO cases could be only a different of status (identified/non-identified status), but not a difference about the nature of the causes and processes (Socio-Psychological to be short) involved between the two corpora.

Like other disparate corpora, such as planes, cars, domestic accidents/incidents, conflagrations, murders, rapes, and so on, they contain their own not-solved cases (residual cases); if they are not solved, it is not due to an “exotic or Fortean” cause or entities.

It is the inept processing why such cases are not explained.

In other prosaic or conventional actions (i.e., bad investigations, lack of the luck to identify the prosaïc candidate, lack of information, bad documentation, lack of experts who could solve the case) the same processes are involved between explained and non-explained cases.

To have residual cases in similar corpora, is logical and statistically inherent.

Why take different approaches to UFO corpora? And why consider “UFO residual cases” differently?

In essence, the ETH would be “useless” to explain UFO sightings or events; they are potentially reducible to composite and conventional causes I listed in the bibliography to my previous article in Rich’s Blog (only for the French texts, sorry).

Concerning RR3, take a look (for one example) to an Ian Ridpath article about a Spanish case I chose as a “wink” to José Caravaca):

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/serena.htm

Car’s lights began to fail, a protagonist was sick… elements we have in several not-solved UFO case’s.

For this one, it seems the UFO was Venus… (I have a plethora of cases where the UFO was in fact Venus or the Moon or space-re-entry gear.)

In IFO cases we find more or less the very same “components” as in the narrations of UFO cases.

The ETH is unnecessary to explain UFO cases when were take a look on IFOlogy (the cases where UFOs are presented as part of the ETH a priori but are actually explained otherwise afterwards).

Why make the UFO phenomena so “complex” as ufologists do, when they (ufologists) could take into account what we learn by IFOlogy?

http://ufocon.blogspot.com – The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Source: http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2013/10/indiscernibilitydiscernibility-between.html