Like many members of the skeptic community, I once did believe.
…and now you do not “believe”?
My point is that to either “believe” or “not believe” in UFOs is muddleheaded. Either position belies the very nature of the phenomena and indicates the person holding to either position to be a non-critical thinker and a fundamentalist. You do not believe. Ergo…
I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am simply intrigued.
We know of no prosaic set of explanations that cover all UFO “sightings”. The only explanations do we have are applied as post hoc rationalisations. We simply do NOT know what is going on here. We can only speculate in the face of our ignorance. We speculate that some are hoaxes. We speculate that some are born of faulty perception. We speculate that memory is faulty. And some may be, but when you look at the serious research that has been conducted (primarily by the USAF in its various guises – Condon included) we find that even they could not explain away ALL UFO encounters. Some simply remain a mystery: An intriguing mystery because they portend something entirely without our ordinary day-to-day and scientific knowledge.
…or reduced in its value to the point that it ceases to prove the existence of "UFOs".
But there NEVER has been evidence to “prove” the existence of UFOs. We have “suggestive” eyewitness experience and testimony. We have suggestive photos. But these in and of themselves are proof on nothing at all except some people have these types of experience. WHY they have such experiences is yet to be fully articulated by science. To argue that one should cease all investigation is antiscientific. It is in effect a Fascist point of view: That is - I am right, you are wrong, that’s all there is to the matter).
Don’t YOU want to know what is going on with all these people? I gather you have never had a “paranormal” experience yourself. I will tip my hand here and state that I have and I can tell you that despite my long years of training and experience in the fields of psychology and philosophy (or perhaps because of them!), no amount of “You are mistaken in your perception” or “You are a liar” or “You have a faulty memory” will satisfactorily explain my experience(s). Nor will they explain the experiences of the independent witnesses to my experience(s). The incontrovertible facts of my experience(s) stand. Believe me, I have spent many an hour researching possible explanations and have so far been left no closer to the truth.
One thing DOES stand out though – the implacable opposition to the fact that I might even show an interest in the subject (let alone wish to research it…). It has been made clear to me that I risk my livelihood if I pursue the matter too closely. I have to ask myself WHY this should be so.
What are people afraid of? What do they NOT want me to discover? If it is all baloney, then what is the harm in my pursuit of it?
Many famous explorers set out in a world where the Flat Earth hypothesis was popular. Did that stop them making startling discoveries in the face of dire warnings and strident ridicule?
Charles Fort? I have of course heard of him by reputation, but have never read anything of his, so I cannot judge his worth directly. I gather some cases he documented are intriguing, others are of questionable value. He seems to have been serious in his objective though.
Science seems to arrive at these conclusions on its own
Oh dear… “Science”, in the form of serious research has arrived at very different conclusions indeed. Serious research, bar none (even you precious Condon report – on which more below) cite many cases where no explanation at all can be found. ALL, bar none, conclude that there are many cases that warrant further investigation. Yet we have the debunkers claiming just the opposite. This is pure misrepresentation at the highest level.
Application of the scientific method, aka logic, filters out the true "truth" from the detritus of history.
Ummm … logic is not “science” and science often gets it wrong. Witness your own examples:
Phrenology. A mistake in the application of cause and effect. But was it really a “science”? Nevertheless I certainly do see parallels here. Aside from the obvious point that “science” often gets things wrong despite consensus opinion, you are applying the same mistaken belief set to UFOs. That is hoaxes, faulty perception and faulty memory cause certain experiences that we call UFOs. Unfortunately, serious research has ruled out these explanations for many cases (see Blue Book Special Report No. 14 and the Condon Report for example).
The Secret: What has that to do with science? Nevertheless, the power of positive thought is well documented and found to be efficacious in many areas of life. The obtaining of spiritual and material goods is enhanced by positive thinking. The methodology of The Secret IS questionable, but the concept is remains sound.
High temperature superconductivity: I am not familiar with the research and accordingly cannot form an opinion. However, if you state that there is evidence for it’s existence (and I have no reason to disbelieve you), yet cannot be explained, does that not describe the UFO experience too?
They may have laughed at Galileo but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Huh? Your point being? They laughed at each for different reasons entirely. Here is a serious point though. That YOU could somehow link the two to try and make a point shows up the true nature of your thought processes. You concatenate independent events as though they were somehow related. THIS is the spurious methodology of Randi and his ilk. THIS is why such people represent a danger to critical thinking and to science in general. THIS is where my serious objections lie. The illogical nature of such thinking is an anathema to careful and considered thought processes. That you can write such garbage makes me doubt all that you might have to offer. You have NOT shown your powers of critical thinking on this one.
Each individual event must be examined on its own merits. This is all I say, it is all any skeptic can say, it is all anyone with a brain can say, it is all Randi, in his gruff exasperated way, says.
But science does not work that way. Examining individual events in isolation is NOT science. One must explore all the permutations. One must look at similar events and draw parallels (or rule them out). Examining events in isolation is just plain stupid – perhaps wilfully ignorant. Science is nothing if not comparative. Results must be generalisable. Your ignorance of the scientific method is breathtaking in one who claims adherence to it. I suggest you read Chalmers’ “What Is This Thing Called Science” as at least a beginning of your enlightenment.
How much money do you think is required to "properly" investigate UFOs? What would be done that has not been done?
And there’s the rub. You now show your ignorance of previous research. All such research has called for further investigation (For example, READ the Condon Report – not just the “summary” – which is at complete odds with the content. I think you would be surprised at what the content of the Condon Report contains).
I am not prepared to carry on a debate about "proof" and "reality" in this thread
But YOU raised the issue, now you back away from it?
You really should get not your aphorisms from your memory (but, amusingly, your misremembering does prove at least one of my points). It was Johnson who refuted Berkeley -- at least according to his friend Boswell.
So you missed my point entirely! You should learn to READ critically as well Gord. Not just what you want to see… Who cares who refuted Berkely, THAT was not my point, My point was that “realists” (represented in my example by Berkeley) have not “proved” reality, counter-examples exist and can be thought of, therefore your implacable belief in “reality” is uncritical and belies immature thought processes.
Thus you can write:
Reality is at least constant. The pieces fit together. As I said, this is not a discussion that needs to be here.
I am beginning to feel sorry for you Gord. Where are the colours in your world?
Where then is the "preponderance of evidence" for UFOs not having mundane explanations?
I start with Blue Book Special report No. 14 and continue through the Condon Report…perhaps I throw in COMETA for good measure… I include my own experiences… I certainly do not include Wikipedia… anyone can write anything they want there… that should be enough for any beginner wanting to get going…
I can only assume you did not listen to the podcast, or you found nothing in it to object to.
So I don't get that hour of my life back? I had pretty much "heard" it all before. Did you listen to the end? I did. Why give any credibility to the speaker /author who claims that on his recent return to the long closed Bentwaters airbase he wandered out into the woods and sees dozens of UFOs. What? Of course he had forgotten his camera at the hotel. Are the local residents so cowed by the MOD that they dare not speak up? And I gathered that the developers of the site had not discovered the underground rooms yet.
Ughh…Yes I apologise for some some misleading direction here – the podcast I actually wanted to refer you to was the 22 Jun 09 Paracast. Here John Burrows, who was an eyewitness to the events describes his experiences. This is an eyewitness account, not a secondhand “researcher” account (as the 3rd May 09 Paracast was). I seem to have shot myself in the foot… Owww. I don’t blame you for the “pretty much heard it all before” comment. That is a legitimate comment when listening to “second-hand” accounts and commentary. Peter Robbins DOES waffle on about nothing a fair bit…so…
I THERFORE RETRACT MY COMMENTS ABOUT YOU NOT LISTENING TO THE PODCAST AND APOLOGISE FOR THEM UNRESERVEDLY. We were talking at cross purposes here and that was entirely my fault. SORRY Gord. I cannot directly give you your “hour” back but I am willing to provide you an hour of my time in return – perhaps you have some small research task or the like?
I would nevertheless very much like if you could give the 22 June 09 Paracast a go (
http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/4854271). It really is intriguing and is a “straight from the horses mouth” account. I really cuts through and shows up some of the …shall we say…BS… spouted by Robbins…
Now…Back to normal service
No. The Rendlesham incident is not (originally) a tall tale. It is a few people mistaking a flashing light house, lights at a farm house and lights on five (note the number) radio towers, possibly a meteorite, and the mistake of looking at a bright light through a night scope. Then it is tall tales.
Now I cannot berate you for stating this when you have not examined the first-hand accounts – the “evidence” in other words. Unless you do this – then we cannot debate it further… If you explore the first hand accounts you will see how ridiculous your statement “It is a few people mistaking a flashing light house, lights at a farm house and lights on five (note the number) radio towers, possibly a meteorite, and the mistake of looking at a bright light through a night scope” really is. There is nothing in these accounts that would lead one to believe such nonsense. The witnesses were close enough to TOUCH the “UFO” . House lights, lights on radio towers, farm house lights, meteorites, etc do not come THAT close…
Oh "a research psychologist and philosopher" go hence and research on the fallibility of human memory. Of course I would get all the details right at every telling, remember additional facts and not embellish the story in any way. But that is only me. All other humans (with the exception of some savants with truly perfect recall) seem to have problems with this. Having a wife present does seem to restrict one's story telling ability considerably.
Now this statement is actually a point against your argument Gord. The Rendlesham eyewitnesses, because of human memory fallibility, got some of the minor details wrong (and in fact, as we know that time is an entirely subject experience, accounts of timing can be expected to differ). However, the substantive account of the experience is consistent between all witnesses. They all describe the events consistently between them, the only difference is in the timing. YOU should do some research on HOW memory is fallible and under what conditions. It is obvious you have not.
Has the “story” grown in the way I describe or has the story grown according to your fundamentalist misperceptions of psychology? Remember I am not interested in the (often) overblown commentary and speculation from various sources (including Peter Robbins), I am only interested in the first hand accounts and if you can find serious flaws or inconsistencies in those accounts that would negate them, I would like to hear them.
…and please don’t quote Wikipedia as a reliable source for any of this stuff. It is simply a gossip site. I am especially concerned that you quote Wikipedia when you seem to hold the scientific method in such high regard…
Jim Penniston claimed that he did a 45 minutes full investigation of the craft on the ground, touched the craft and took photos of the craft. However, in a separate interview in Robert Stack's Unsolved Mysteries, John Burroughs described that after suddenly encountering the craft on the ground, "we all hit the ground, and it went up into the trees".
I think you have been mislead again by sourcing second-hand commentary from somewhere…have you listened to these YouTube interviews. You will realise your grave error in trusting second hand sources if you do. The two statements you ascribe are actually not inconsistent when seen in context. Penniston decribes the generalities of what occurred (on the first night), in essence that the people involved spent some time investigating the UFO and then the area after it left, what Boroughs is not inconsistent. There is a clear edit point in this story where it cuts from them discovering the UFO immediately to his description of what happened when it left the ground. What is missing from this heavily edited and contrived TV show – what has been so obviously edited out – is John’s description of what occurred between the time they came across the UFO on the ground and the time it departed. All witnesses (when telling their unedited stories) describe the experience in broadly similar terms as Penniston on Larry King did. They ALL investigated the UFO, some closer than others. Again Gord, get your facts straight.
Oh "a research psychologist and philosopher" go hence and research on the fallibility of human memory.
…but I have Gord. I am an expert in the field. Human memory is indeed fallible, just not in the way you pretend it is… Can you describe to me your formal education in the subject? I have had years of formal education directly related and specifically studying human memory. Your descriptions of how it works are of the kind commonly termed “folklaw”. You are seriously misrepresenting how memory works if you think it can explain away many UFO cases.
When a later telling contradicts a previous telling surely even you would cry foul?
I would cry foul if there were serious contradictions AND I had investigated to see how the contradictions are manifest in the unedited testimony of eyewitnesses. Not before. You jump too easily to conclusions based on second-hand accounts Gord. Research Gord. Research is the key.
I am not trying to cause doubt. I only do it for my amusement. Oh. And, by the way, I am a fan of HL Mencken. You have heard of him in your studies?
I gather you believe him to be a “debunker” of your own ilk? But what has he to do with anything discussed here? You really are all over the place with your ideas Gord.
The "best" witness accounts are contradictory. Other witnesses said nothing much happened. Do you believe the Majestic 12 document is true? Is Bob Lazar telling the truth? Did Betty and Barny (the Hills, not the ones from Bedrock) really get carried off in a space ship? Where is the independent confirmation?
As described above, the “best” witness accounts are in no way contradictory. Majestic 12? The consensus opinion is that they are faked…I have no reason to disbelieve that opinion. Bob Lazar was a nutter but he has some intriguing confirmations of his tale. Betty and Barney Hill I presume you mean. One of the first of the so called “abduction” cases. Has anyone contradicted any of the facts as stated in the eyewitness accounts? Not as far as I am aware. All the “debunking” seems to have been to cast aspersions on their relationship to each other. Not that I “believe” Betty or Barney, I just know of no contradictory evidence to their statements. Perhaps you can point some out to me?
My claim is only that no UFOs have been proved to anything but mundane.
Wow Gord. You really should get a handle on your logic. Have you (or anyone) proved all UFOs to be mundane. I’d like to see that proof. I repeat “proof”. Not speculation but proof.
So on that basis, YOU should believe in the Book of Mormon? It does not have the audio tapes but it does have affidavits.
I don’t think you should be casting aspersions on the Mormons Gord. What if they are RIGHT? Have you evidence to suggest they are wrong?
No my point was that money was available to research Rendlesham. If they had proved it to be true, what a wonderful show that would have been.
I still don’t get your point Gord. A TV show that has a purely commercial motive has NO interest (NONE) in “proving” stories one way or another. The truth matters not to them. I am touched by your naivety Gord.
Let's hear you slander the Condon Report then. Huge sums of money have been spent. Saucerists just don't like the answers.
Have you READ the Condon Report Gord? Methinks not. In it you will find many cases the researchers admitted they could NOT explain in any mundane or prosaic way. It is you and your ilk Gord who refuse to see the answers as presented to them in black and white. READ the Condon report Gord. Ughh…
The folks in this forum spent a large amount of time debunking all sorts of silly woo-ish beliefs from Astrology to Zen Buddhism by applying exactly the same methodology I am applying to UFOs. Deal with it!
But I AM dealing with it Gord. You state that uncritical thought processes, non-investigation of evidence and nonsensical logic is the method of yourself and fellow forum members. I feel sorry for you now.
Show us proof that just one single UFO incident that cannot have a mundane explanation.
There you go again. Asking for a categorical where none can exist. Yet you do not want to have even THAT debate. What an antirational fundamentalist you are Gord!
Oh...and Brody
You seem to think there might be money in serious UFO investigation. Believe me there is None. Ask the creators of the Paracast how much money they get for doing what they do. People do not get seriously involved in this area for the money. Very few people indeed make very much out of it at all. That is simply a fact of the matter. That is the bottom line. There is no money in it for researchers whatsoever.
