August 27, 2017 — Don Ecker with J. Randall Murphy

[SheaOlmsford]

Forgive this post that does nothing to move the conversation along. As a newbie, I am simply astonished at the level of intelligence and sophistication displayed on this thread. I am certainly no longer in a Coast to Coast dim bulb community! Reading a thread like this is a fascinating education. Thank you.

 

[Spectre73]

Forgive this post that does nothing to move the conversation along. As a newbie, I am simply astonished at the level of intelligence and sophistication displayed on this thread. I am certainly no longer in a Coast to Coast dim bulb community! Reading a thread like this is a fascinating education. Thank you.

I concur with the above SheaOlmsford. Since joining the forum, listening and reading posts from people such as Chris O'Brian and Randall - and others - has been an eye opening education.

 

[Randall]

Not true. There is documentation, multiple eyewitnesses and visual evidence.

There is really poor witness evidence because:

1. None had any relevant credentials that would make them better witnesses.
2. Even if they had relevant credentials, it seems unlikely that everyone could have had an equal view of the scene, and therefore fully corroborating each other based on their actual observations seems unlikely.
3. The witnesses were in a panic and panic distorts perceptions of events.
4. The sighting itself only lasted a very short time which also makes it difficult to accurately store details to memory.
5. None of the witness saw Walton board the alleged craft. So there is no corroborating witnesses for any of his time in the alleged craft.
6. Not all the witness accounts match as is often claimed, and as I've pointed out before, there is taped interview with Pierce who said he thought the light looked like spotlighting gear.
7. Not all witnesses passed lie detectors and Walton failed two of them himself.
8. The list goes on. I don't want to repeat it again.

I've known Travis for over 20 years. Do you know him?

Unfortunately that can be interpreted as having a personal bias. That might be honorable given the way you feel, and although I respect your opinion, if I'm to be perfectly objective, it doesn't add any weight to Walton's claims.

Have you met any of the other witnesses and listened to their accounts?

Hearing people retell the same flawed story in person doesn't add any further credibility.

Have you investigated the area's activity around the time of the "alleged" event? Interviewed witnesses? Gathered law enforcement reports?

Again, getting firsthand reports that reiterate the same flawed story doesn't add any weight to Walton's claims. There is already plenty enough information that when cross checked makes it reasonable for any objective ufologist to have serious doubts.

No, you just sit in your armchair lobbing potshots.

Whether the analysis of the information is done from an armchair or from an Lazy Boy recliner makes no difference to the value of the information itself. I totally respect your field work, but field work and critical and objective analysis of the information provided by excellent field investigators ( like yourself ) can certainly be accomplished without having to sit in the middle of the forest. In fact, it can probably be done better in a well equipped office with a desktop computer.

I agree! That's why I've spent considerable time and money attempting to install a multi-instrumented array of sensors in the San Luis Valley. What have you done? Let's critique your efforts (or lack thereof). Easy to criticize when you have nothing to bring to the table except your convenient anonymity...

Chris we all applaud your efforts with the SLV project. But to be perfectly objective, it doesn't add any weight to the Walton case. On a personal level I respect your conviction for sticking up for Walton. I know I'd certainly want you on my side if it were me, but I am concerned that your loyalty to Walton is misplaced, and if I were a true friend, I'd certainly feel obligated to relay that to you in that spirit.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Oh my. I do believe the gauntlet has been slapped across face and lies at the feet!
I shall step back safely as Chris draws his rapier and the duel begins!

 

[Randall]

Oh my. I do believe the gauntlet has been slapped across face and lies at the feet!
I shall step back safely as Chris draws his rapier and the duel begins!

LOL. Well I'm not attacking Chris on any personal level. Maybe he'll just dawn his "DO NOT ENGAGE" shirt like, who did he say it was? Bishop? But then again, all that implies to me in the context of that discussion is that someone isn't interested in hearing anything that doesn't agree with their agenda or confirm their personal bias. I hope Chris doesn't get too mired down in that sort of thinking. I've got a lot of respect for him and don't want to lose it.

 

[marduk]

They seem to manage this on a Nuclear Submarine, with I would imagine much more limited space.
I think the biggest problem with being permanently underground would be a lack of natural sunlight.

I imagine that during the Nuclear standoff they investigated all contingencies, including relocating underground.
If they have developed advanced mining techniques that I have read about, then they could do all sorts of things, in much less time and with greater accuracy than is in practice in the commercial mining sector.

Nuclear submarines run pretty hot.

Their engines are essentially a steam engine that runs off a thermal differential with its environment.

The only reason they don't glow in infrared for satellites is because water is a very good insulator.

And they still need air for folks to breathe, they take on food, and they still expel human waste.

Even folks on the ISS need regular supply runs to keep the humans aboard alive. Wouldn't an underground base, especially a vast one, require a vast amount of resupply? Air ventilators? Power? Sanitation?

 

[marduk]

LOL. Well I'm not attacking Chris on any personal level. Maybe he'll just dawn his "DO NOT ENGAGE" shirt like, who did he say it was? Bishop? But then again, all that implies to me in the context of that discussion is that someone isn't interested in hearing anything that doesn't agree with their agenda or confirm their personal bias. I hope Chris doesn't get too mired down in that sort of thinking. I've got a lot of respect for him and don't want to lose it.

I think criticism when respectfully given is a gift. And I think that's what you're trying to do.

One doesn't need to compete with "who did more" to criticize. One must offer counter points to help the one being criticized to find weaknesses in the debate.

That's the dialectic process.

 

[Randall]

I think criticism when respectfully given is a gift. And I think that's what you're trying to do.

One doesn't need to compete with "who did more" to criticize. One must offer counter points to help the one being criticized to find weaknesses in the debate.

That's the dialectic process.

Exactly my intent. Thank you!

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Not true. There is documentation, multiple eyewitnesses and visual evidence.I've known Travis for over 20 years. Do you know him? Have you met any of the other witnesses and listened to their accounts? Have you investigated the area's activity around the time of the "alleged" event? Interviewed witnesses? Gathered law enforcement reports? No, you just sit in your armchair lobbing potshots.I agree! That's why I've spent considerable time and money attempting to install a multi-instrumented array of sensors in the San Luis Valley. What have you done? Let's critique your efforts (or lack thereof). Easy to criticize when you have nothing to bring to the table except your convenient anonymity...

What visual evidence is there? I would love to see it! (Genuinely)

I think you have proven my point here. Your rebuttal is largely emotional. Just because you have known him a long time does not in anyway make his account any more proof of anything, it's just your offended by it being brought into question.

'Activity in the area'...where is the instrumented measurement of this activity or is it more anecdotes? What evidence links the activity in the area to the Walton case?

Interviewing witnesses = anecdotes
Law enforcement reports = anecdotes

Why don't you critique the substance of my argument rather than trying to moral high ground on me? Logic works just as well from an armchair my friend

 

[Randall]

What visual evidence is there? I would love to see it! (Genuinely)

I think you have proven my point here. Your rebuttal is largely emotional. Just because you have known him a long time does not in anyway make his account any more proof of anything, it's just your offended by it being brought into question.

'Activity in the area'...where is the instrumented measurement of this activity or is it more anecdotes? What evidence links the activity in the area to the Walton case?

Interviewing witnesses = anecdotes
Law enforcement reports = anecdotes

Why don't you critique the substance of my argument rather than trying to moral high ground on me? Logic works just as well from an armchair my friend

I empathize, as you noticed above ( thank you for the like ) but also should point out that anecdotes are generally thought of as short and unreliable accounts and may include hearsay rather than firsthand experience. So technically, it's fair to say that the detailed reports from firsthand witnesses and more in-depth investigations qualify as something more substantial than sheer anecdotes. But at the same time, it is precisely all that same information and investigation that reveals the weaknesses in the story.

I personally don't believe The Sitgreaves National Forest incident represents a genuine alien abduction, but at the same time, I also have to admit that despite well founded reservations, there's a remotely slim possibility that it actually happened. That's probably a lot kinder than many skeptics would be, and the only reason I'll go that far is because of Chris' experience and reputation. So I think we've done what we can to balance the equation and that we need to let Chris follow his feelings on this and just leave it at that for now.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...Why don't you critique the substance of my argument rather than trying to moral high ground on me? Logic works just as well from an armchair my friend

I was referring to the MT nuke silo field cases. Walton will always be equivocal. I know the man and am convinced that he had a highly unusual, unexplained experience. I am a part of a team that is attempting to be a part of the solution. You are not. Continue to believe in the comfort of your armchair, revel in your anonymity, practice up on your sniffiness and leave the heavy lifting to others.

 

[Randall]

I'm going to shift gears here away from the SNF case itself to the issues that @Christopher O'Brien's comment ( above ) raises for me.

IMO @Greers Meeting Planner asked a perfectly legitimate question, and although he may not be part of "the team that is attempting to be part of the [Chris' ] solution", he is a member of this forum who is attempting to have what seems to me to be a legitimate discussion, and it seems rather hypocritical to level personal attacks ( e.g. making accusations of "sniffiness" ) while at the same time extoling one's own perceived superiority. I'd like to see something more positive happening than researchers barricading themselves inside their own paradigms and defending them by unjustly attacking the character of those who pose legitimate questions.

Maybe that's not Chris' intent, but that's certainly how it could be perceived on the surface. I would like to ask more about this "team" that is attempting to be part of the "solution". But now I wonder if it would be productive because it seems from the tone of the responses that the cause has been predetermined, and that unless everyone on the team agrees with it, they're going to be attacked or booted off the team. I don't see that as particularly constructive. It evokes a feeling of angst and fear, which is exactly the opposite of what one would think we would want.

Now to be perfectly fair-minded, I have to say that walking this tightrope isn't easy. I've had my intentions misunderstood and my character attacked as well. It's pretty much impossible to avoid if you're in it long-term. Chris is right when he has said in the past that we need a thick skin if we're going to explore these topics. Often times we have to damn-the-torpedoes, keep our heads-up, and rise to the challenge of maintaining a level-headed objective approach, while at the same time trying not to become so thick-skinned that we lose our sensitivity to others.

Maybe that's what's going on with Chris to some extent. I know the barrages I've taken. I imagine Chris has had more than his fair share too. And we're all human. So maybe these off-color comments are just his way of dealing with so many years of naysayers, skeptics, and critics. It is tempting to release that pent-up negativity by just lashing back. But if truth is the aim, then we're really all on the same side and we need to keep that in mind and consistently try to do better than letting negative feelings lower the quality of our answers.

 

[DaveM]

I appreciate the efforts that Chris O'Brien has made in getting out into the field to get some answers to the UFO question. Too many of us sit on our dead asses, me included, and make comments on what we feel is going on concerning the mysteries of UFOs. Smarmy comments by know-it-alls get my dander up in particular. Unfortunately, there aren't enough investigators trying to find answers.

 

[Randall]

I appreciate the efforts that Chris O'Brien has made in getting out into the field to get some answers to the UFO question. Too many of us sit on our dead asses, me included, and make comments on what we feel is going on concerning the mysteries of UFOs. Smarmy comments by know-it-alls get my dander up in particular. Unfortunately, there aren't enough investigators trying to find answers.

I have immense respect for Chris' field work. It's where the work begins. But it's not where it ends. Analysis needs to be done and that is better done in an analytical setting. The whole point ( I would hope ) is to share what can be learned with others, and forums like this one are IMO a positive way to do that, provided of course that the participation stays positive. It is entirely possible that because of your participation you'll come up with some really valid ideas that deserve further attention. The mind is a powerful thing. It's OK to use it. It doesn't get my dander up at all when someone who is well informed and shows genuine interest has something to say. Hell, that's why we're here!

 

[marduk]

I believe part of the reason this field has essentially gone nowhere is because bright minds get lost debating opinions instead of dealing in facts.

Thats what I describe in work circles as pushing the problem around instead of solving it.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

I was referring to the MT nuke silo field cases. Walton will always be equivocal. I know the man and am convinced that he had a highly unusual, unexplained experience. I am a part of a team that is attempting to be a part of the solution. You are not. Continue to believe in the comfort of your armchair, revel in your anonymity, practice up on your sniffiness and leave the heavy lifting to others.

I would agree that the camera project is absolutely part of the solution and instrumented data is the only way to go to move the debate forward.

Not part of the solution for me is promoting the Walton case just because you trust him, that's not scientific, and is part of the problem as it will never pass the scientific method test and will never move past first base of the debate. E.g. the UFO debate stagnates on cases like this as we argue their merits and no empirical data is there to help settle things (see Mufon progress as a result of collecting anecdotes).

Personal attacks don't really help either, i have not attacked you personally, I have posted thoughts on the strengths of arguments. Disappointing to see you throwing mud

 

[Walter Bosley]

OK guys, here's the deal: There are things analysis brings to the table, but analysis in itself cannot replicate the experience of being in the field, nor can it provide the analyst with a comprehensive grasp on the data in every case. Where weird things are concerned, sometimes they must be experienced or viewed from the field to gain the more complete dimensional perspective of what might be going on. That said, field guys have to remember that the value of analysis from the objective distance is very important.

What we have going on here is a classic conflict one encounters in the operational world: The field guys indeed feel those balls of steel they've earned and they like to clank them a little, and the analysts, who are often arrogant by nature, like to wield their intellects (actual or perceived). The reality is that each can accomplish much with the other BUT the edge is in favor of the field guys -- because a field guy CAN be a great analyst while there are not a lot of analysts who can cut it in the field. Not saying that to negate analysis, just stating a fact.

Naturally I'll be disagreed with, though it won't change that I am right.

 

[Randall]

OK guys, here's the deal: There are things analysis brings to the table, but analysis in itself cannot replicate the experience of being in the field, nor can it provide the analyst with a comprehensive grasp on the data in every case. Where weird things are concerned, sometimes they must be experienced or viewed from the field to gain the more complete dimensional perspective of what might be going on. That said, field guys have to remember the value of analysis from the objective distance is very important.

What we have going on here is a classic conflict one encounters in the operational world: The field guys indeed feel those balls of steel they've earned and they like to clank them a little, and the analysts, who are often arrogant by nature, like to wield their intellects (actual or perceived). The reality is that each can accomplish much with the other BUT the edge is in favor of the field guys -- because a field guy CAN be a great analyst while there are not a lot of analysts who can cut it in the field. Not saying that to negate analysis, just stating a fact.

Naturally I'll be disagreed with, though it won't change that I am right.

I think that you've made some great points there, and generally speaking, I would have to agree that when you get an excellent analyst and field guy wrapped up in one package, you have the best possible combination, and Chris is about as close to that as I've seen anyone get. But that still doesn't invalidate the points made above on how to have a better discussion when there seems to be a conflict of opinion. Even the best minds can have blind spots that someone less experienced might catch simply because they're not as far inside the ketchup bottle.

And even if less experienced people reiterate what we already know, it's still OK. IMO anyone who makes a genuine and constructive effort to participate, even if it's only sharing their views in a forum, deserves fair minded consideration and some level of appreciation.

 

[marduk]

Ok Chris.
You claim that you and your 'team' are 'attempting' to be a part of the solution.
Let us assume that you are not in the comfort of your armchair, and as you state are doing the, 'heavy lifting'.

Please enlighten us all as to what you have achieved this year that gives you the right to tell people that they are not being a part of the 'solution'.

Or maybe just respond in a belligerent way as you seem to do whenever there is any ounce of criticism thrown your way...

How about we cut him some slack?

He does his own field work. He produces his own data. He comes on the show every week.

And gets zero dollars and perhaps even less credit for doing all that. And that's gotta drag on a guy.

We are having two different conversations here. One is academic where anything goes. The other is pragmatic with a dude's life's work being debated. Two different things.

He may get pissed every once in a while, but I've never seen him swing the ban hammer even once at any of us.

So how about we lighten up on the guy a bit?

 

[Richard Hawkins]

I think Chris is only to be applauded,and do not see how anyone could think otherwise.