Skeptic's Corner

[J Randall Murphy]

SUNlite: Shedding some light on UFOlogy and UFOs

SUNlite is the Skeptical UFO Newsletter Tim Printy started on May 1, 2009.
In the link above you can find free PDF downloads of many issues.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Skeptical Inquirer

As we can see from their search results, The Skeptical Inquirer appears to be yet another victim of big pharma misinformation & propaganda.
Too bad — The SI team could have really proven themselves to be actual unbiased skeptics by including equally skeptical articles about vaccines.
Instead, they're being skeptical of the vaccine skeptics! The lack of balanced perspective is glaringly obvious.

Answering Vaccine Skeptics | Skeptical Inquirer

Here are some short answers to some of the most common objections to vaccines…

skepticalinquirer.org

 

[pigfarmer]

I used to enjoy MonsterTalk co host Karen Stollznow - a contributor to SI. The creator and primary host is Blake Smith and I enjoyed that show for quite some time but it sounded to me like Smith took up drinking and podcasting. I guess he had some bad teeth but there were a few episodes he just sounded tediously drunk and I lost interest. They used to bring a fresh and skeptical perspective but went too a Klass like somewhere along the line. I may have to give them another shot, it's been some time.

Listen to MonsterTalk and its like listening to Skeptoid with Brian Dunning.

Approaching a topic with a foregone conclusion either positive or negative gets tedious. I will admit to picking up some interesting stuff from them though. Todd Disotell being one of the more colorful.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Ah, The Skeptic's Corner! Brilliant! Might I suggest a cage? No, but skepticism is good.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

Might I suggest a cage?

Sounds good to me
Perhaps we could lure Shermer in with a vial of ectoplasm ?

 

[pigfarmer]

There was another podcast Antique Archaeology that was damned interesting that suffered from a sort of hubris that just didn't sit well with me. Skepticism is perfectly fine by me, its my beverage of choice you might say but the same knee-jerk 'that's BS and they don't get it' attitude isn't much different than listening to Ancient Aliens. Just as a genuine interest can turn into wide eyed Belief its equally true that healthy skepticism can turn into automatic Disbelief.

 

[pigfarmer]

.... those podcasts clued me in to the term 'environmental DNS' which has provided the best explanation so far of the Loch Ness monster sightings. I gather its an approach Disotell has shared with Dr. Jeff Meldrum regarding those alleged Sasquatch nests. Since I haven't heard anyone shout Eureka! recently I suspect the result is a Disoltell has already said "bear shit and more bear shit'.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

. . . those podcasts clued me in to the term 'environmental DNS' . . .

Maybe you meant "Environmental DNA"? Can you elaborate on that or post a link ?

 

[pigfarmer]

Maybe you meant "Environmental DNA"? Can you elaborate more on that?

I have to run out the door and get to work. This is an orbital view: Environmental DNA (eDNA) | U.S. Department of the Interior
I'll see if I can find the specific Disotell references, they go back a couple years.

 

[Todd Feinman]

There was another podcast Antique Archaeology that was damned interesting that suffered from a sort of hubris that just didn't sit well with me. Skepticism is perfectly fine by me, its my beverage of choice you might say but the same knee-jerk 'that's BS and they don't get it' attitude isn't much different than listening to Ancient Aliens. Just as a genuine interest can turn into wide eyed Belief its equally true that healthy skepticism can turn into automatic Disbelief.

Yeah, scientists and techies are people too, and if one chooses to only to accept certain forms of evidence and invalidate all others, one is flying blind. Honestly, I wouldn't even give a second glance to many of the videos debunkers try to take apart, but it is a good thing they do, because so many people immediately accept any kind of blurry video as evidence for aliens. But I'm pretty sure what the end result will be. I'm more interested in the psychology of debunkers, and how they will ultimately accept anomalous evidence when it arises. I'm pretty sure they will just go with the "we were doing our due diligence and providing a service" route, and they would be right, but we can't rely on them; they will be arguing long after any kind of real evidence is released, and I'm pretty sure many wouldn't believe it until they themselves were able to test the evidence. If court cases had to rely on physical evidence every time, we wouldn't have a society. For those of us who know that some UFOs are "real" we must try to understand the phenomenon by other means; looking at old reports and corroborative sightings and descriptions is one way to do that.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

. . . For those of us who know that some UFOs are "real" we must try to understand the phenomenon by other means; looking at old reports and corroborative sightings and descriptions is one way to do that.

Excellent point. I barely pay attention to current sighting reports because nowadays our own technology can either replicate or mimic pretty much anything we want it to.
This makes sightings from the Early Modern Era in Ufology ( 1947-1972 ) particularly valuable, because it was a period when people in general had become reasonably well educated compared to generations before, and although engineers had developed aircraft and rockets, witnesses were reporting craft that far exceeded the performance of such technology — and there was no technology around that could convincingly fake it.
So what else could it have been other than some kind of alien craft?

 

[Todd Feinman]

Excellent point. I barely pay attention to current sighting reports because nowadays our own technology can either replicate or mimic pretty much anything we want it to.
This makes sightings from the Early Modern Era in Ufology ( 1947-1972 ) particularly valuable, because it was a period when people in general had become reasonably well educated compared to generations before, and although engineers had developed aircraft and rockets, witnesses were reporting craft that far exceeded the performance of such technology — and there was no technology around that could convincingly fake it.
So what else could it have been other than some kind of alien craft?

Yep, me too. I am sure that certain old photos are indeed real. McMinnville among them (I don't have much of a choice about that one because of my first experience), and I think that Trudel's photos help to reveal an amazing secret.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Nothing new under the sun. This is one of my favorite UFO encounters:

HE SAW THE FIRST FLYING SAUCER OVER 100 YEARS AGO! - Chronicle (Adelaide, SA : 1895 - 1954) - 7 Jan 1954

Aamerican scientists are now studying a report on "Flying Saucers" made by an Austrian professor of geography in 1851—perhaps the earliest and certainly one of the most amazing Flying Saucer stories ...

trove.nla.gov.au

Skeptics would just dismiss it as an unverifiable story... That kind of thing is what will get them, in the end.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I think that these days, the number of "real" UFO sightings is quite low, perhaps 2-5%.
The rest is just misidentification, hoaxes, etc. I do think a number of skeptics, perhaps out of sheer frustration, deny any reality whatsoever to the phenomenon, to the point where I have seen some of them say that there can be no real UFO pictures, because UFOs do not exist. A circular, unscientific argument, that simply demonstrates the hubris of some humans, regardless of how many advanced degrees such apes have accumulated.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

So somewhere along the way, skeptic Ian Ridpath started his own website.

Ian Ridpath: astronomy writer, broadcaster, lecturer

Ian Ridpath: amateur astronomy, constellation lore, astrophilately, UFO skepticism

ianridpath.com

His UFO Skeptic's page starts off with a misuse and self-serving redefinition of the word "UFO". To quote:

"THERE is no doubt UFOs exist in the sense that people genuinely see things in the sky that they cannot identify. But the real question is: what do these things turn out to be on investigation? Not all reported UFOs can be extraterrestrial spacecraft, and no one pretends they are. Even UFO believers agree that at least nine reports out of every ten are readily explicable in known terms."

The above sounds innocent and sensible enough at first glance — but should read as follows:

People genuinely see things in the sky that they cannot identify. But the real question is: what do these things turn out to be on investigation? Not all UFO reports involve extraterrestrial spacecraft, and no one pretends they do. Ufologists tend to agree that most of the reported objects are explicable in known terms.

See the difference ? It seems inconsequential, but on closer examination is far from it. Skeptics tend to frame the subject in a manner that allows them to marginalize the subject and muddy the waters. Whether this is by design or intention I cannot say, but it's contributed to the notion that because the "U" in UFO stands for "Unidentified", UFOs could be virtually anything at all — including people's imaginations.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Bingo! I've noticed that too. It is clear from their language that their minds are already made up. I've mentioned cases like the Lubbock Lights, or the mass sighting in Florence, where photos were taken, and they brush those off with jokes or a claim that the original photos are not available for examination. I also have suspected that some of them are agents of deliberate misinformation or even spooks (and some might be). I think it might mostly be due to some folks being neuro-atypical, young, or just afflicted with the hubris I have seen from some other scientists I have known; who feel they are part of a "special club". I think Mick West's professed approach is a good one, and hubris and biases aside, the skeptics do provide a valuable service, like maggots consuming the dead flesh around a wound.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I'd add, that the most amazing thing about all of this, is that the average person doesnt even care about UFOs. They don't care. As long as their Prime order arrives and they can play with their cell phones. With skeptics and UFO folks at least, it is kind of like artists creating art for other artists (and not the public) because at least they can appreciate it fully or even care about it. I've even had people tell me they don't want to know! I used to make UFO presentations at the local community center to groups of 30 - 40 people, and I met experiencers and skeptics alike. Again, most people seem not to care very much, as it doesn't affect them and they will never see one themselves, and they know that.

So, it is alienating to go through the rest of your life with deeply affecting experiences which are just a bizarre, crazy story to most people. And then you are sandwiched between skeptics on one side and folks who really do have a few bolts loose, on the other. And that's when you consider the possibility that Scotty is actually repairing the transporter, and by the love of god, could beam you up.

...But Scotty doesn't ever come through, and should be court- martialled. So I am now to the point of not talking about UFOs unless someone asks about them. I have come to the conclusion after a lot of thought, that I would like to see them again before I die. I don't know if that will happen.

 

[J Randall Murphy]

So I am now to the point of not talking about UFOs unless someone asks about them. I have come to the conclusion after a lot of thought, that I would like to see them again before I die. I don't know if that will happen.

Well — Take some comfort in knowing ( as your avatar says ) — You are not alone !

 

[pigfarmer]

001 - Bigfoot DNA - MonsterTalk

This is probably where I got started with Disotell and his descriptions of Environmental DNA are likely in here or his next appearance. These are about ten years old. I hadn't noted anyone discovering Bigfoot in the last ten years or so, DNA or otherwise.

I knew a guy who spent hours and hours in cemeteries with a metal detector. I mentioned to him that there are those who might look askance at that behavior and he said that he's not looking for stuff that came from the dead, he's looking for stuff that visitors left or dropped over the years. That might fit as a layman's description of environmental DNA. When applied to Loch Ness they found the environment sat0urated with eel sauce. Lots and lots of really big eels that like the deep dark cold.

 

[pigfarmer]

So what else could it have been other than some kind of alien craft?

I understand and agree generally but that's a leap. Many, many times things just aren't as they appear at first. A lot of reports of various types fail to stand up under scrutiny.