(I was having difficulty posting my comment reply to Paul, so I just bumped it up to a blog post. Actually, I am hoping that this final message brings our little debate to a close with each of us, essentially agreeing to disagree. We will see where it ends up...)
Paul, there is a lot to respond to here. However, I think we are converging towards a clarification of our views on this matter and, while I think we are very close on most things, these last few exchanges definitely highlight where we differ.
"Every time I look into a "What about this case?" example, I can construct a trivial mundane explanation, but it does take time to research, and there is no gain for me, since it's always trivial,"
Personally, when I research some of these cases, often times I do not find them to be 'trivial' at all. Clearly we differ in this view.
"and you, in any case, will never be convinced. (I'm sure this is why science has lost all interest--all the honest research comes to naught, every single time)."
I think science has 'lost interest' for a number of reasons, but the most important reason is simply this. The UFO phenomenon does not present itself in a form that is subject to the scientific method. A key component, probably the key component, of the scientific method is that a phenomenon can be reproduced by independent scientists on demand under controlled laboratory conditions. This is an extraordinarily powerful tool and provides us with our greatest certainty about how the Universe operates.
UFOs are a fleeting phenomenon which cannot be reproduced on demand. The only 'evidence' for them is witness testimony, sometimes radar, sometimes photographic, and sometimes trace landing data. You can only investigate them 'after the fact'. Therefore, UFO cases really only lend themselves to forensic techniques and the scientific method can't really illuminate the topic at all.
This is the reason that the subject is at 'the fringe'. It's elusive nature, the quality of the 'evidence', and the fact that none of it can be replicated. Where we can measure it's effects is in sociology and psychology; admittedly very 'soft' sciences.
"This all reminds me of your excitement over the Alien Autopsy film, which was a laughable fraud. I think you said it would change the world. I'm sure now you might attribute that to what, something like the global disinformation conspiracy?"
What I was saying at the time was that the alien autopsy, whether 'real' or 'not real' would have a major cultural impact; which I believe has been the case. I also had a theory that someone involved in this piece of performance art might be using the film as a 'disinformation' effort. That was only a theory, which has been proven false with time. The reason I posited this theory is that, in the past, intelligence agencies *have* used the UFO phenomenon to exercise disinformation campaigns, for motives unknown. (If you want references to this I can provide them, but I think this would be a diversion for now).
Over the years the 'alien autopsy' has become a dominant meme in our culture and reappears in numerous forms. My prediction then, and remains so today, that the alien autopsy film had the measurable effect of 'inoculating' the general population to these images and concepts. I believe the general population is inoculated to such an extent there were someone to come out with a 'real' alien autopsy film tomorrow, it would largely be met with a collective yawn. That's a long sight away from the kind of panic that was caused by the 'War of the Worlds' radio broadcast back in 1938.
To me the significance of the alien autopsy film is in how it impacted our culture and I would argue that the impact has been strong. Even today, after Philip Mantle so brilliantly dismantled the entire hoax in great detail, there are still millions of people who believe it's the 'real thing'. I find that development to be quite telling.
"(1) Lonnie Zamoro : Liar, and hoaxer (planted physical evidence)
* I am fine with this explanation. Case closed."
I understand that the case is closed for you. However, not so much for me. Having studied this case, including the time-line as well as Lonnie's testimony, I am not able to 100% accept a 'hoax' explanation. Lonnie died last year, and went to his grave never revealing his hoax, if that were the case. I found him to come across as an honest and sincere man, who dedicated his life to public service, so, I remain an agnostic on the Lonnia Zamoro case.
"(2) Travis Walton : Liar, and hoaxer. Disappeared for five days, put his co-workers at risk of a murder charge, all for a good laugh and a book and movie deal.
* I am fine with this explanation. Case closed."
Once again, I can see how you are comfortable with this explanation. I, however, am not. First of all Travis is my 'facebook friend', so we clearly have a deep, close, and personal relationship. Seriously, I have looked into this case and while 'hoax' is without question a valid theory, I am still not convinced that it is the ultimate explanation.
You say you are an 'open minded' skeptic but wouldn't a truly open minded skeptic allow for the possibility that Travis Walton, and his co-workers, told the truth? For myself, that is where I remain. Perhaps it was a hoax, though that has never been proven. Perhaps it happened as the principles say. I don't know for sure one way or the other. I continue to find the case interesting.
"(3) Paul Simington : Liar, hoaxer, made the pancakes himself.
* I am fine with this explanation. Case closed."
That is most likely the case. However, it was investigated by the USAF and it remains an infamous project blue book case. It remains on the books, and to this day, 'unexplained'. I consider primarily just two possibilities in all three of these cases. Either the principles themselves conducted a hoax, or they did not. There isn't a whole lot of wriggle room in between. I remain an agnostic on each case but I do note that no one has every been able to definitively prove the hoax hypothesis in any of these three instances. I particularly like this case due to its extreme high weirdness.
"(4) Japan Airlines - Alaska Flight : Liars, reports of radar confirmation, lies as well.
* No one was lying. Mistaken crew (Not uncommon, as I mentioned before, pilots make errors far more dramatic than this, even resulting in their death) coupled with anomalous radar display (that today can not be examined!). Case closed."
Well, that's one theory. Another theory would be that they are accurately reporting an incident that occurred. While you find the case 'closed', I find that it remains wide open and squarely in the corner of the unknown.
"(5) Iran F-14 UFO dogfight. Liars, radar confirmation reports, more lies.
* Fabricated historical event, none of the actual information or people are available. One liar, --the person who fabricated the event. Case closed."
Actually, the people involved are available, and have testified openly and publicly on this incident a number of times. As well, one of the pilots involved in this case has an entire chapter in Leslie Kean's new book describing the incident in first person. So, it is not true that the people involved are not available. Additionally, there are documents obtained through FOIA, dated to the time of the incident, detailing these events. So, it is absolutely by no means a 'fabricated historical' event.
I don't find this case to be 'closed' in any way. It's just old.
(6) Betty Cash : Liar, faked illness to try to win a lawsuit.
* I am fine with this explanation. Case closed.
In fact, I find that explanation to be a bit difficult to swallow. This incident remains purely an unknown to me, though I think testing of a military aircraft a possible explanation for the incident.
"(7) Rendelsham Forest Incident : Tons of liars, liars everywhere. Everyone lied, top to bottom."
"* 5 people made first-hand reports. I can believe they perpetrated fraud. The radar confirmations may not match the event in question, because the time of day seems not to align, and the hard evidence was never recorded. The rest are second-hand reports. Depressions in the ground, and burned spots are easy for 5 people to stage. Case closed."
I don't find this case even close to being closed. It is incredibly well documented, with live audio tape recording of the people involved in the incident at the time. This case is by no means 'closed' in my book.
In summary, the skeptic believes:
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
Since all the explanations are sufficient, these cases are closed. They may not be likely events, but the reports are extremely rare, so the unlikely, because it is sufficient, it the best explanation.
So, I think I grasp your view of the situation. Personally, I find that response entirely unsatisfying. My quest for knowledge does not end simply because I can imagine, no matter how tortured or in conflict with the facts of a case, a 'natural cause'.
In the world I live in, I try to remain an agnostic. I am willing to allow for the possibility of the unknown. Does that make me a gullible fool? Perhaps so..but I find my life to be more interesting if I consider all of the evidence rather than dismiss it out of hand, or simply refuse to look at it at all.
In other words, we have a clearly distinct difference of opinion about how to consider reports of anomalous phenomenon.
That's ok, the world is big enough for both of us. However, I do not think I am being irrational by being open to considering the possibility that anomalous phenomenon might exist in the world. Maybe you do, that's ok, I get that. From my perspective I don't really believe in the 'supernatural', I like to think of the 'supernatural' as being that part of the natural world we haven't figured out yet.
Each of us has a different sliding bar that we are going to use to accept or reject as forming the basis for our reality. For some people, all they have to do is read something written in a book by a desert tribe from 3,500 years ago and they accept it as fact. I think you and I are in agreement that this is probably not a very good way to understand and describe reality.
I think we both also agree that the scientific method is the most powerful tool in human history to describe and understand the Universe.
Where we disagree is that I am willing to consider as 'evidence' human experience and forensic evidence after the fact as another contributing factor to a way of viewing and interpreting reality.
That's fine, I think we have identified where the two of us part on this. However, I don't personally feel that the fact that I am willing to consider such data as possibly comprising some aspects of reality we do not yet currently understand, as tantamount to making me a Mormon, Scientologist, Hare Krishna, or New Age bubble head.
I truly don't know 'what' the UFO phenomenon is, or what it ultimately represents, but I am not yet completely satisfied with any theories, including the 'mundane' explanations you are happy with yourself.
0 comments:
Post a Comment