Battle of Los Angeles, new revelations, old biases

[tyder001]

Ya know I've been looking and watching all the skeptics vs believers stuff for a good long time now. From the Larry King messes where everybody smirks and yells and tried to get the last word before the hundredth commercial break. I've listened to wild eyed folks from the south and the midwest call in and explain the bigfoot they saw. I've listened to Philliph Klass types have total meltdowns and get really rude and nasty when the "rubes" just couldn't be persuaed by "logic." I've even come on here and been guilty of the same kind of desperation when my worldview has been challenged. Nobody likes to be called an idiot and nobody likes their life long work and hopes and dreams to be ground under foot of the smirky heathern or doe eyed believer. For me to be a strict materilist not only goes against everything that I hope for and much of what I have expereinced about life. It just makes no sense to even be in such a sterile march to total personal oblivion. To some the very idea that life and death are more than chemical by products of the glorious march of natural selection is not only Impossible but makes no sense at all and just can't be true. Who's right? I don't know. I think I am.

To some the thought of the space brothers/sisters and the idea of joining some humanistic/galactic Star Trek federation of species is the only real hope of humanity since this ball we are on is doomed to one day explode or collapse or whatever the presently accepted comology is. To others the very idea that us little "ants" could be the scope of a much more highly evolved species is just preposterous.

I say all that to say this. Who cares? Why do some skeptics have this incredible Need to debunk everything and everybody that even dares to look up? Why do some people insist on converting everybody to their revelation of truth and the reality of space folks? Ya know I grew up around the Southern Baptist. I would ask some of my relatives and others "why do you care if so and so goes to church or not?" The answer was always "Well, I'm responsible for the spread of the gospel and I'll have to answer if they turn their backs on Christ." I didn't totally buy it even then. I have asked atheist "why do you care if so and so believes that their loved one is looking at them from another dimension?" The answer is usally something along the line of "Because I'm responsible to fight unscientific babble that threatens to undermind the very fabric of humanity." I don't buy that either. The hell with it and let Natural Selection sort em out.

So my point is I have noticed that skeptics and true believers have one thing in common. Y'all all love your particular form of religion.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Why do some skeptics have this incredible Need to debunk everything and everybody that even dares to look up?

People love to prove others wrong. The internet is based on this.

Plus it gives us all something talk about. Wouldn't this forum be super boring if anytime someone presented a picture of a UFO, the second post was "cool picture, bro" and it ended there?
Discussion is important, especially in something where some people have made a living out of interpreting things incorrectly.

The first time I saw the picture we're discussing here, I was floored. I thought, "We have proof that UFOs are actual alien aircraft and we're doing nothing about it!" Then, I looked into it and the explanations based on more Earthly things, and I realized that this picture was not what it seemed.

That's what Lance is trying to point out here. We can't cling to things just because we hold them dear.

 

[tyder001]

I understand what you are saying Angel. But, my post was more to do with the irony of folks and the "need" to be right. But, I do agree that the forum would be super boring if everybody just patted everybody else on the back. Although I do find the self rightous name calling and personal attacks to be boring. I enjoy the "here's proof" and the "Wait, consider this" type conversation. But the "Your an idiot and you are unscientific and you are a blitering fool and let me take your scriptures and your hopes and grind em underfoot and let me take the scientic method and twist it to fit my worldview or prove aliens are real" to be kind of circular. But, I do keep coming back to post and read so I guess I better not ride my high horse to far.

I personally am very skeptical of ufo's. Matter of fact I'm skeptical of anything I have not experienced for myself. I'm also skeptical of things I have experienced myself. But, I don't have a "need" to prove or debunk. That is kind of where I meant to go with the post. I had a college prof who was very interested in why folks "believe" things. I have always been interested in why some folks have the "need" to "debunk" things as well as those who believe things. I love it when a scientist says (as a friend of mine has done a time or two) Yeah, that's interesting. I'll consider that and see how it holds up. I hate it when a scientist says "Wait, that can't be true and I'll prove my point." We will never get anywhere as long as the "true beleivers" continue to run out and "debunk" instead of actually considering the possibiltiy that the experience should be researched on it's own merit. No, this is not an attack on Lance. This is more about the Michael Shchermer types who seem to have a "need" to debunk. Of course the formally religious are often the most rabid materialist among us. Kind of like a born again alcoholic. They make for very rabid Christians. In my experience. I could be wrong and generalazations are more often wrong than right.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I understand what you are saying Angel. But, my post was more to do with the irony of folks and the "need" to be right. But, I do agree that the forum would be super boring if everybody just patted everybody else on the back. Although I do find the self rightous name calling and personal attacks to be boring. I enjoy the "here's proof" and the "Wait, consider this" type conversation. But the "Your an idiot and you are unscientific and you are a blitering fool and let me take your scriptures and your hopes and grind em underfoot and let me take the scientic method and twist it to fit my worldview or prove aliens are real" to be kind of circular. But, I do keep coming back to post and read so I guess I better not ride my high horse to far.

I personally am very skeptical of ufo's. Matter of fact I'm skeptical of anything I have not experienced for myself. I'm also skeptical of things I have experienced myself. But, I don't have a "need" to prove or debunk. That is kind of where I meant to go with the post. I had a college prof who was very interested in why folks "believe" things. I have always been interested in why some folks have the "need" to "debunk" things as well as those who believe things. I love it when a scientist says (as a friend of mine has done a time or two) Yeah, that's interesting. I'll consider that and see how it holds up. I hate it when a scientist says "Wait, that can't be true and I'll prove my point." We will never get anywhere as long as the "true beleivers" continue to run out and "debunk" instead of actually considering the possibiltiy that the experience should be researched on it's own merit. No, this is not an attack on Lance. This is more about the Michael Shchermer types who seem to have a "need" to debunk. Of course the formally religious are often the most rabid materialist among us. Kind of like a born again alcoholic. They make for very rabid Christians. In my experience. I could be wrong and generalazations are more often wrong than right.

Well, in the case of Michael Shermer, it's sort of his job. If you look at why he does what he does though, he has his reasons. I usually agree with him on a lot of stuff even if he can come off as being smug. However, if you listen to some UFO people, they can come off as just as smug. Listen to Hastings or Stanford talk - they're pretty smug in my opinion. It's part of the game. I like to draw my own conclusions. Just because I agree with one side or the other does not mean anything.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Here lance get your teeth into this one

 

[tyder001]

I have deleted some of the personal back and forth type posts I made above in favor of letting the facts speak for themselves. I sadly admit that I was the one who started some of the personal stuff. Lance

And it is to your credit that you can step back and "attempt" to look objectively at the back and forth and even your own participation. I know that when I am passionate about a subject I sometime will put it out there and some people misunderstand the passion and the intensity for rudeness. I honestly (as some of my above blather shows.) don't get all the reasons for the intensity on either side. But, on the other hand when it is something that moves me I get as intense as anybody. One thing I have found is that although I don't always agree I do enjoy the conversation and I think I understand a little better where you are coming from than I would if the only things I had read were "true beleiver" sites. Kind of like if some self styled "skeptics" only read the Randi type sites. The view is always gonna be skewed one way or the other.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Kind of like if some self styled "skeptics" only read the Randi type sites. The view is always gonna be skewed one way or the other.

After reading both sides I usually tend to agree with the "Randi type" sites, but I don't do so blindly.

 

[boomerang]

Okay, I admit to being lost in this carnival. Is the famous BOLA aerial pic available to the public in its original, non-retouched condition? Sorry if I have missed it. The Battle of L.A. has never seemed an especially solid case for the existence of anomalous objects anyway.

The problem with many de-bunking analyses of better documented UFO events is that they often rely on as much or more speculation than do conclusions drawn by UFO proponents. An example of this seems to be Tim Printy's very thoughtful analysis of Rendlesham.

My skeptical opinion about UFOs

Printy seems to collect selective opinions concerning the personalities and habits of major actors involved, then constructs a kind of "keystone cops" scenario to conclude that it was all so much horseplay by officers and enlisted personnel charged with guarding nukes during the height of the cold war. Perhaps Charles Halt becomes a buffoon at every mid-winter solstice and is therefore forgiven and even later rewarded with the rank of full Colonel? Are the major actors so embarrassed that they continue to explain and elaborate decades after the fact?

I could entertain the latent buffoon hypothesis. But it would badly shake my faith in the competency of those who guard and handle weapons of mass destruction. Likewise for incidents reported by Robert Hastings in "UFOs And Nukes". Mr. Printy's UFO blogs are thoughtful and intelligent and his credentials are impressive. But so are those of the one witness I happen to have known personally. And this still leaves me at Square One. Which is that very credible people report seeing very incredible things.

 

[boomerang]

My article, linked at the top of the page, includes links to the unretouched version of the photo. I didn't have the rights to the image and didn't secure permission to use it myself. I don't know if Frank got permission to release the retouched LA TIMES photo to the internet in 2002.

Thanks, Lance.

Just looked at the un-retouched photo. I have to say it still looks like a domed saucer, to my expectant and untrained eye anyway. Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong pic.