*
                 THE
         TRUTH           ENGINE

                      TRUTH ENGINE HOME                              TO ROSWELL CONTENTS                                IKON                                COMPANY/CONTACT                    

to page:    1   1a   1b   1c   2    3   4    5   6   7   8   9    10   11   12  

To next page

to previous page

________________________________________________________________________

 

ROSWELL

 

PAGE 3

 

THE "FLYING SAUCERS WOULDNT CRASH" ARGUMENT

________________________________________________________________________

The skeptic may argue this way:

 

Skeptic. 168[vs. 89, page 1c.] Two decades ago, the average engine-failure rate for commercial jetliners was higher than it is today. Today's industry average engine-failure rate is very low. There is less than one failure per 100,000 flight hours. In fact, the chances of two engines on the same plane failing during a given hour of flight are less than 1 in 10 billion. 169 Similarly, today we have excellent radar systems, which we did not have in the past, for avoiding thunderstorms and their associated hail and lightning. 170 And, we have developed very efficient collision avoidance systems. 171 Also, modern systems are designed to be less and less vulnerable to operator error. 172 It also makes sense, in general, to suppose that problems encountered by intelligent beings tend to be diminished by these beings over time.

173 These examples and common sense shows that if a machine is the product of a highly sophisticated technology, then that machines reliability is very high, and the chances that it might fail are very low. The greater the sophistication of the technology, the greater the reliability will be. We can assume that if a machine is the product of an extremely sophisticated technology, then its failure rate would be near zero. [ 181]

174 Now, consider a flying machine that could make high-speed right angle turns, could make incredible accelerations and speeds, could fly without wings, a craft made by creatures capable of traveling light years through the void of empty space in a relatively short period of time: any such flying machine must be the product of an unimaginably sophisticated technology. *  175 Flying saucers appear to be flying machines that can make high-speed right angle turns, can make incredible accelerations and speeds, can fly without wings, and, if they exist, must be craft made by creatures capable of traveling light years through the void of empty space, presumably in a relatively short period of time.*  176 Therefore, any flying saucer would have to be the product of an unimaginably sophisticated technology. 177And therefore, the reliability of any flying saucer would be extremely high. It would not crash. The chances that such a machine would crash, break down, or collide would be all but zero. Saucers don't crash.* 178 So, the debris at Roswell didn't come from a crashed saucer.* [ 183]  179 And, as you agree (see 88, p. 1c.), if the materials were exotic, then they were from a crashed saucer. [ ] 180 Therefore, what was found at Roswell was not exotic.*

 

181 [VS. 173:] In response to this argument, some have claimed that the skeptic's argument in support of the notion that flying saucers would not crash is an extremely weak one, because it rests on a weak premise (173), namely,  that if a machine is the product of an extremely sophisticated technology, then its failure rate would be near zero. They say that as machines, such as aircraft, become more sophisticated, they become more reliable, but that this just means that the time to failure improves. Even sophisticated machines, they say, do still break, however, and still do fail due to operator error. Today, for example aircraft are designed to withstand lightning strikes, but such a strike apparently contributed to the recent crash of a commercial jet.*

181a The researcher Robert Wood has mentioned four possibilities that, he says, have little to do with reliability calculations that are made ahead of time:

First, the crash could have been caused by a lightning strike (There was thunder and lightning in the area on July 2)

Second, there could have been a collision of two extraterrestrial craft owing to electronic pulse caused by lightning.

Third, the crash could have been caused by "a near burst of a proximity-fused shell fired from a long-range radar-guided gun at White Sands Proving Ground; such weapons were in development there and then."

Fourth, the crash might have been caused by a "loss of navigation, guidance or control system caused by radar illumination from White Sands."* [ 182]

 

To this, the skeptic might say:

 

Skeptic. 182  [vs. 181] To say that the mean time to failure improves is to say that the chances of failure are reduced. So Believer is actually agreeing with me. I don't claim that high tech rules out failures completely; rather, what I'm saying is that a technology (perhaps millions of years old) as evinced by the supposed Roswell craft would imply chances for failure of near zero. Believer doesn't refute this.

 

183  [vs. 178:] I, myself, am inclined to agree with the skeptic that flying saucers wouldn't crash, but I disagree with him when he claims (179) (And note that, on line number 88 on page 1c, I provisionally agreed with the same claim) that if the materials were exotic, then they were from a crashed saucer. Granted, the material wasn't from a crashed saucer, but it still might have been exotic. For instance, the aliens may have staged the "crash." [ 184, 416]

 

But the skeptic might say in response to my claim that the "crash" might have been staged::

 

Skeptic. 184 [vs. 183] That's obviously true. Of course, its within the realm of possibility that it was staged by aliens. But when I said (214) that it wasn't alien, I meant, of course, that the chance of its being alien was miniscule, and not worth considering. [214 clarification] 185 Yet you seem to be suggesting not merely that the idea that it was staged is possible, but that it is actually plausible, and that's ridiculous. Ockham's Razor simply rules it out. You have no reason to attribute the Roswell incident to aliens.* [ 186]

 

186  [vs. 185:] Actually, if that was all there was to my argument, then the idea of alien staging would, indeed, be ruled out by Ockham's Razor. But the following argument forces us to accept alien staging:

First, lets assume that you're correct in saying (94a) that if the material was exotic, then a saucer crashed, and see where that gets us: 187  i If the material was exotic, then a saucer crashed, but ii if the material was not exotic, then the testimony of Major Marcel and the other witnesses is unreliable. 188  Either i the material was exotic or ii it was not exotic. 189 Therefore, either i a saucer crashed or ii the testimony of Marcel and the others is unreliable.*

190  But 189 seems (probably) false--that is, it seems that both 189i and 189ii are (probably) false. (You showed (see 178) that the debris at Roswell (probably) didn't come from a crashed saucer, and BELIEVER showed (see 86) that the witness testimony (probably) is reliable).*

191  But if the conclusion (189) is false, then at least one of the premises (187 or 188) must be false. 192  The false premise can't be 188, because its just simply true that the debris was either exotic or not. 193  Therefore, it is 187 that is probably false--but which part of 187? 194  Clearly, 187ii is true: its simply true that if the debris wasn't exotic, then the witness testimony was not reliable. 195 Therefore, probably, what's false is187i; i.e., it must be false to say that if the debris was exotic, then a saucer crashed. That is, its true that the debris was exotic, yet there was no crash. 196 This forces us to conclude that the "crash" was staged by exotic beings. [ 197]

 

Skeptic. 197 [vs. 196] You can solve this dilemma in one of two ways: first, you could do as you do, and question the truth of 187i; but, alternatively, you could say, contra your 190, that 189 is not false, that, even if it seemed improbable, the witness testimony is, in fact, unreliable. 198 It seems more reasonable to do it the second way. [ 199]

 

[vs. 198:] But I think that its more reasonable to do it the first way. The idea of alien staging was rejected (185) only because of Ockham's Razor, it was not deemed improbable. That the witness testimony is unreliable, however, is improbable.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Notes

 

174.  form: All M are T.

175.  form: All S are M.

176.  form: All S are T.    174, 175 CS-AAA1

177. 173, 176 MP

178. Logical Principle?

180. 179, 178 MT.   This argument is adapted from an argument by Kent Jeffrey:  J p.5.  Jeffrey's argument has been refined by the Truth Engine book editor in response to objections to Jeffrey by Stanton Friedman, "Kent Jeffrey and Roswell," July 21, 1997.

181. Adapted from an argument by Kevin Randle: "Randle Responds to Jeffrey on Roswell," MUFON UFO Journal, July 1997, #351, page 8

181a. From an argument by Robert M. Wood. "Critique of Roswell--Anatomy of a Myth" Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 127-140

185. Ockhams Razor

189. 187,188 ECR

190. Thus, this Constructive Rule pattern turns into a Constructive Dilemma.  

 

____________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

to page:    1   1a   1b   1c   2    3   4    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12  

To next page

to previous page

 

© Richard Crist, 2007