One of the classic UFO cases, the Brown Mountain lights, serves as a case in point for the need for research and also serves to demonstrate how the UFO debunker’s and (so called) sceptic’s out-of-hand dismissals, denial and ridicule is an utterly bankrupt position.
After observations of these mysterious lights going back over 100 years including credible, multiple eyewitness sightings and more recently video, the debunkers insisted on ridicule, denial and out-of-hand dismissal. Moreover, a
”US Geological Survey study began in 1922, which determined that witnesses had misidentified automobile or train lights, fires, or mundane stationary lights.” (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Mountain_Lights). Brian Dunning of skeptoid.com also states:
” So let's wrap up what we've learned about the two different manifestations of the Brown Mountain Lights. Regarding those that appear in the sky above a ridge, it's apparent that the 1922 USGS report solved it as described in the following conclusion. Today, nearly 90 years later, the lights are coming from different sources but this analysis probably still holds up:
"In summary it may be said that the Brown Mountain lights are clearly not of unusual nature or origin. About 47 percent of the lights that the writer was able to study instrumentally were due to automobile headlights, 33 percent to locomotive headlights, 10 percent to stationary lights, and 10 percent to brush fires."
As for the lights appearing on the faces of the hills, we find there are no historical references to such a thing, and only a few recent YouTube videos and modern claims reporting it, in this age of LED flashlights, lanterns, headlamps, and iPhone screens. So I'm confident calling this one unexplained, but also not especially interesting or surprising.
It is all too often that we eagerly accept wild and sensational phenomena, which causes us to shut out the real science behind what's going on. I find real wonder in mirage refractions, and I find great excitement in such perfect solutions as the correlation of the locomotive with the 1909 Lights reports. This wonder and excitement are lost to those who replace science with sensationalism.” (
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4226)
…and Robert Sheaffer weighed into the discussion with:
” Why do you say "Lack of serious investigation"? The famous UFO skeptic Philip J. Klass had a whole chapter about them in his book "UFOs Explained" (1974). See chapter 7, "Brown Mountain UFOs."
"The mysterious lights had been investigated in 1913 by D.B. Sterrett of the U.S. Geological Survey, who had concluded that they were simply distant locomotive headlights distorted by refractory atmospheric effects."
So the "lights" were debunked almost 100 years ago. But the Rubber Ducky Effect ("you can't keep a good yarn down") keeps bringing them back every few years.” (
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11985)
Now, after proper, lengthy and concerted, peer-reviewed scientific study, it turns out that the phenomenon has been discovered for what it actually is… reproducible plasma balls of geological origin similar to ball lightning! (
http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/brownplasma.html). See video coverage of the lights and investigation here (
http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/brownmountain2.html).
So in this case we can see how bankrupt the (so called) “sceptical” position really is. We can see clearly how the “sceptics” simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence. We can see clearly how their default position of ridicule and denial actually
prevents proper investigation (previous investigations obviously bought into the sceptic’s
“nothing to see here, move along” school of thought) and we can see how the “sceptical” position actually relies on the “received wisdom” beliefs from the bankrupt pronouncements of debunkers such as (the late) Phillip Klass. Finally, we can see clearly how the “sceptical” position is based not on the
evidence but on a mere faith based belief: “It cannot be, so it isn’t”.
Should we expect to see the debunkers and so called sceptics, in the face of the evidence surrounding this case, retract their ridicule and denial anytime soon? I doubt it. Faith based beliefs never die.
In response to my request for the name of the publishing journal I received a pm from Rramjet, explaining that his response to my post had been moderated. His post was basically an accusation that I had an ulterior motive in that I knew that the report had not been "published in a (recognised, peer-reviewed scientific) journal" and that I would instantly dismiss it on those grounds. I assured him that wasn't the case, because It isn't. Lack of peer review does not make research wrong, although it does raise questions, and requires that greater scrutiny be brought to bear. However, non-peer-reviewed work can be completely valid. In response Rramjet sent me a text copy of the report.
At this point I'd like to point out that I am not going to attempt to refute the findings of the report, or its methodology. There are two reasons for this, firstly I can find no specific problems with the report itself or the stated methodology, and secondly if there were any problems I would be unlikely to find them because the report gives insufficient detail of the field readings or experimental setup used. Their explanation of the phenomenon may well be accurate, but there really isn't enough information in the report to say for certain. However, it certainly sounds plausible enough. There are issues I'd like to raise if I were peer-reviewing the report, but they're really just details and not relevant to what I want to discuss. On the face of it the report seems reasonably written, and their conclusions are not overblown. They don't claim to have definitively solved the case, but suggest that their explanation is the most reasonable based on the available data.
What I want to discuss is Rramjet's presentation and characterization of the report.
He uses the report to, essentially, ridicule skeptics. He claims that the report represents a
"proper, lengthy and concerted, peer-reviewed scientific study" and that
"it turns out that the phenomenon has been discovered for what it actually is… reproducible plasma balls of geological origin similar to ball lightning!"
Let's consider the second statement first. The report states
to the best of our ability, we have pursued the mystery of Brown Mountain, and we feel our experiments in the lab, based on fifteen years of research, have yielded the only explanation for the lights that is consistent with the data we've gathered.
and
our current conclusion is certainly the most supportable based on obtainable data.
There's more detail in the report, but the conclusion is essentially that they believe the results are the best explanation based on available data, although it isn't definitive.
That's a reasonable conclusion to draw. They admit that their lack of funding limits their equipment and their ability to take measurements, and acknowledge that they are doing the best they can within their limits.
Let's contrast that with Rramjet's characterization of the report's findings;
it turns out that the phenomenon has been discovered for what it actually is
That certainly isn't what the report says. So Rramjet is overstating the conclusions of the report.
Let's move on to the first statement, the one in which Rramjet describes the report as the result of
proper, lengthy and concerted, peer-reviewed scientific study
So, how does this statement marry up to the report.
Was the study proper? Well, it's hard to say for certain. Although their basic approach seems to have been sound enough their equipment (as they admit) was less than ideal. Again, I must note, this does not invalidate their finding, and is certainly not sufficient to dismiss the study. Without more details I must conclude that the study appears to have been conducted in a reasonable scientific manner with scientific truth as the principal objective, so I'll come down on the side of this being a "proper" study.
Was it lengthy? With 15 years invested (although it should be noted that that's on a part-time basis) it most certainly does constitute a long term study.
Was it concerted? 15 years? I'd say that's a definite yes.
Okay, next we have to ask, was it peer-reviewed? Here we start to run into problems. The reason I asked which journal the report was published in is because almost all peer-reviewed scientific research is published in journals. Peer-review generally refers to the process by which journals accept or reject scientific reports.
So what is peer-review? In simple terms, peer-review is where a scientist in the same (or closely related) field of study reviews the methodology, results and conclusions of a scientific study and makes recommendations to the journal and / or the author(s) of the study. These recommendations can be to publish the study as is, to publish it subject to some minor changes, or to refuse publication until major changes are made and / or further research has been conducted. There are other important aspects of peer-review. First, the reviewer should be someone with a good publication history of their own, i.e., someone who knows what should be included in a valid study, knows what previous literature on the subject is relevant and what the author(s) may have failed to include, knows how to present the findings in an appropriate manner, and knows what conclusion can be legitimately drawn from the results. Secondly the reviewer must be guaranteed anonymity if they want it. Thirdly, the reviewer should have no immediate connection to the study or any of the study participants - you cannot review a study in which you have been involved, you cannot review a study by someone with whom you have recently (usually within the last 3 to 5 years) conducted a study, and you cannot review a study by anyone who works in the same department or institution as you do. This is because all of these introduce potential bias.
So, to recap, a peer-reviewer should be an acknowledged published expert in the field, guaranteed anonymity and not involved in the research or a close colleague of any of the authors.
So how do the "peer-reviewers" measure up to those standards in this case. To start with, I must say that the report does not claim to be peer-reviewed, that's Rramjet's claim. The report states that they
consulted with numerous experts in specialized fields
who
provided valuable guidance and feel our current conclusions have merit.
The author names four of these experts; David Hackett, Charles A. Yost, John Connor and Robert E. Messick.
The following is not meant in any way to diminish the standing, demean the characters or in any way belittle the people it refers to, it is simply an assessment of their qualifications to act as valid peer-reviewers for a scientific report.
David Hackett is listed in the report as
a former nuclear engineer at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and member of the ORION--Oak Ridge Isochronous Observation Network--team that researched the lights in the 1970s and 80s
which sounds very impressive. Unfortunately he doesn't appear to be a published scientist (I couldn't find any papers by him, or to which he contributed, although my search was not exhaustive) and ORION is not associated with ORNL, but is actually an amateur astronomy group in the Oak Ridge area. That doesn't mean that he isn't an experienced experimentalist, and he would have been very useful in helping to design the laboratory experiments, but he isn't qualified to properly peer-review a scientific report, and he was involved in the project which disqualifies him as a peer-reviewer anyway.
Charles A. Yost is described as
a NASA engineer, in the NASA Hall of Fame, who worked on the Apollo projects and now operates the "Electric Spacecraft" lab and scientific journal
. Very impressive, although he never published any peer-reviewed research, instead setting up his own journal called "
Electric Spacecraft Journal". His personal research interests were in electric phenomena, and hence his involvement in this project. As far as I can tell, and it's difficult because there are no direct references, it is Yost's ESJ that published this report. So from a peer-review standpoint he wasn't an acknowledged published expert in the field, he was involved in the project, and he was the founder of the journal in which the report was (apparently) published. Again, this doesn't mean that he wasn't useful in helping to design experiments or offering constructive advice, but he most certainly isn't qualified for peer-review.
John Connor is described as
a professional geologist in North Carolina
which sounds far less impressive. And indeed, he is a private contractor working out of his own home, with no published research history. Again, this doesn't mean that he isn't extremely familiar with the geology of the area of Brown Mountain, and able to supply great detail about the local geology which would be invaluable to the project, but he isn't qualified for peer-review.
Lastly, Robert E. Messick, who is described as a
Primary Forest Researcher
although I can find no listing for him anywhere outside the report.
This means that Rramjet's purported peer-review consists of four people (maybe more, although apparently not noteworthy), only one of whom appears to have a PhD, none of whom published a peer-reviewed paper, all of whom were involved in the project to some extent, and one of whom is the founder of the journal in which the report seems to have been published.
This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, peer-review, although Rramjet insists that it absolutely, definitively, was properly peer-reviewed. I can only conclude that he has no idea of what constitutes proper peer-review.
However, I must stress again, that this does not invalidate the findings of the report. I can find no fault with the report itself, the methodology used or the conclusions reached, which are properly given the relevant cautions of the limitations of the project.
No, my problem is with Rramjet's presentation of the findings of the report as certified fact (something the report doesn't state), and his characterization of the report as a "peer-reviewed scientific study" (which it demonstrably isn't). He presents this report as though it were carried out by seasoned professional scientists, experts in the field, and a properly peer-review published work. It isn't.
Again, that doesn't make the report wrong, but it does make Rramjet's presentation of it, and by association his use of it to ridicule "skeptics", misleading at the very least. Had he presented it simply as "a plausible mundane explanation derived from scientific research" I would have no problem, but he went out of his way to overstate the strength and validity of the report's findings, well beyond the conclusions of the report itself.
, assertion.
