J.C. Johnson January 26, 2014

[trainedobserver]

I just don't think there is one grand explanation that will cover both material flying craft and weird paranormal experiences.

Yes, I think the search for some sort of grand unifying paranormal theory is doomed to failure. The popular notion seems to be to try and bring UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts, aliens, and what have you under the umbrella of "consciousness studies" sprinkled with the semi-coherent pseudo-scientific use of "quantum" this and that. True enough though, if there is a common denominator it would seem to be the peculiarities of human perception.

 

[neophyte85]

I never cease to be amazed at how often this story of the "science conspiracy" comes up. Can't possibly be a flaw with the "researcher's" approach or the fact that a grant committee doesn't want to throw money away on total nonsense, nope the entrenched scientists are holding him down.

 

[manxman]

theres a absolute certainty with ufo's [in the context of alien craft], they exist, the only uncertainty is, if any other 'race' has ever visited or sent their technology to earth, that is the difference between the woo, and ufo research.

not even the staunchest ufo 'research' critic's/debunkers will deny the certainty of life out 'there' in the unfathomable depths of space, it's the distance's to travel that close their minds to the possibility of contact, so they use the 'one size' fit's all as a debating technique to belittle ufo research, and quasi researchers, you will never meet a dyed in the wool debunker with a shred of intellectual integrity ever, the 2 thing's cannot co-exist in the same person.

 

[bobodean]

bobodean said: ↑
Why do you say that? Do you not think it is worth one dead BF(it appears that they are everywhere) to settle this once and for all.... to show the scientific community that this is a real animal and needs to be studied? Really?

Have you got any proof it wouldn't be ?

Not quite sure what your question is.

 

[dyingsun]

bobodean said: ↑
Why do you say that? Do you not think it is worth one dead BF(it appears that they are everywhere) to settle this once and for all.... to show the scientific community that this is a real animal and needs to be studied? Really?

Not quite sure what your question is.

Well, a dead Bigfoot would prove a thing or two, wouldn't it. Not condoning anyone going out and shooting people in costumes though.

 

[BlackDogGrimm]

@BlackDogGrimm

You seem to misunderstand why science discards trash.

The possibilities you mention still need to be supported by evidence. That is the way science works. I know some of the great thinkers here on this chat forum pretend that science can't contain their own personal paranormal truth. But they don't offer any systematic means of evaluating their special evidence. This puts it into the realm of faith. And that is fine. If you need a Saucer Jesus, then by all means have him.

But don't pretend that it is skeptical thought or science holding down paranormal truth. Just take a look at the shockingly ridiculous evidence (Johnson is nowhere near the bottom of the barrel and his claims are too dumb to even mention). That steaming pile doesn't deserve much more than laughter.

Best,

Lance

I know quite well how science works.


I'm also very familiar with your personal brand of skepticism, which has led to some Class A debunking of questionable individuals and events in past. I appreciate your approach, I appreciate your willingness and ability to be transparent and congruent over the internet in general, and I'm even openly stating that we have clearly benefitted from your viewpoint on this forum.


I'm simply suggesting that rather than bifurcating to such an extreme degree that everything falls into the category of rigorous scientific evidence OR "Saucer Jesus", that we detach from having a death grip on one particular view in favor of a more open-minded form of skepticism. Here's why: when, as human beings, we are attached to a particular way of thinking, we will be primarily motivated by a need to defend that viewpoint and prove to others that it is right. The more and more frequently we defend that viewpoint, the more we begin to identify with it. We will do it so naturally, so seamlessly, that we aren't even aware that we're doing it. When the mind and intellect are pre-occupied with defending a viewpoint, it will miss all sorts of other information in the process.


When a particular viewpoint is rigidly held over a long period of time, identification with it forms a powerful attachment that literally closes the mind to other options. Ego identification with the viewpoint will cause us to reject any and all other viewpoints that pose a threat to the one we hold, limiting our ability to see anything beyond the well-worn groove we've created in our own grey matter over time. A threat to that viewpoint becomes a threat to the individual, and that is when attempts at dialogue become personal rather than rational. If you want evidence of it, look at what happens when people begin to talk about politics in the US at a social gathering. It can turn perfectly normal, clear-thinking individuals into crazed, angry, self-rigteous bigots in the space of 5 minutes or less. Sooner if alcohol is being consumed concurrently.


Rigidly sticking to the idea that we need "evidence", and then rigorously debunking anything and everything that comes along because you can poke holes in the case being made by stating that there's a clear lack of "evidence" doesn’t make it scientific. Nothing in the field of UFO studies or the paranormal -- as we presently study it -- is in any way "scientific" in the first place. So employing the concept of science, evidence, and skepticism as an overarching viewpoint to debunk everything that comes along is unhelpful to the study of the subject matter -- again -- as we presently study it. Virtually everything in this field is conjecture and hearsay right now. There are no methods, there are no controls, no ways of testing the multitude of hypotheses roaming around out there, and nothing is consistent -- at all. It is not a field of scientific endeavor – right now. Right now, we do research, gather information, gather anything passable as evidence, and attempt to engage in rational dialogue employing critical thinking skills in order to come up with plausible theories that might eventually allow us to come up with a means of creating a scientific approach to study it. In order to engage with it in a way that is genuinely scientific, we would have to be able to anchor something down. This is where the dead Bigfoot comes in. Otherwise, what might once have served as evidence has been made impossible to verify in the digital age.


The only way we're ever going to get closer to understanding what we're dealing with is by continuing to ask questions and holding a flexible viewpoint. It's a total cliche, but creative, open-minded thinking is what enabled Einstein and others of his ilk to come up with some of the most groundbreaking scientific theories we've had as a society.


For the record -- I've had lots of experiences of all sorts of bizarre paranormal stuff. Wanting to get to the bottom of it means that I have had to question the events themselves, question my perception of what I experienced, question my own mind and its inner workings to see what may be going on in there that may have caused a perception in the first place, etc -- in addition to reading and researching everything I possibly can. I can honestly say after examining those experiences from multiple viewpoints over time that I still don't know very much. I can tell you what the event was, what my perception was at that time, what I have learned since, whether or not my view of the event has changed or been debunked as something else entirely, etc. But to say I have any hard and fast answers would be a total lie. I don't. Just more questions.

 

[manxman]

thats a great post, but wasted on lance, as he already knows it all, however lets be absolutely clear on lances crowning debunking glory, he unmasked a liar, but lets not be dazzled by something any competent back office secretary could do, when checking out a potential employee, lance is a recruiter of 'useful idiots' first and foremost, a moody debunker showman secondly for the dollar, we all got to eat.

 

[joeyk22]

I looked at this episode for purely entertainment reasons. What that says about the study of the anomalous activity or about the purpose of this radio show, I don't know. I enjoyed it for the most part.

I do know that no one has mentioned that J.C., near the end of the show said he slept an entire night 15 feet away from a mother and baby bigfoot and no one asked him, nor did he offer any evidence! That was frustrating. I guess bigfoot is sort of like a big-name celebrity and its children should be off-limits to the paparazzi.

 

[manxman]

ive been watching the bigfoot files on channel 4 [2 episodes] purely because of this thread, its the people making the claims that are more interesting than the claims, anyway every sample analyzed from the states and russia have been anything other than primate or unknown, ALL identified as one animal or another, i thought it very funny when they are awarded the bigfootologist handle, i mean that is pretty funny.

Another money spinner, with bigfootologist's giving guided tours for the gullible etc, books column inches etc etc, i dont know how they keep a straight face when on camera, one fella describing how he shot and buried a baby one, yet his samples were from a known animal, i forget what animal, how he held it up as it was dying and it looked at him with pitiful human eyes etc etc, all with a straight face, about how guilty he felt about killing it, yada yada, their more fun than their claims.

 

[Paleontologist]

In this week's episode (February 9), Chris begins with a rather limited defense of JC Johnson (he has a good heart) and then attacks the skeptics on this forum by claiming they don't get outside much and don't "help people" like JC does. Once again Chris promotes evidence-free paranormal claims by questioning the credentials and experiences of skeptics, which is a classic ad hominem. What does Chris know about us? I, for example, have made a career based on geological fieldwork around the world, including the southwest (where I grew up). As for "helping people", I'd first question how telling folks tall tales about their circumstances (like describing an adolescent Bigfoot sitting in a tree at night mooning after teenage girls) helps them at all. Second, what the hell do you know, Chris, about what we do? I spend a good part of my time educating the public in the field, lab and classroom. In the end, presenting campfire stories from a river guide (whose job it is to entertain greenhorns) as if there is some unknown number of truth-nuggets in there is foolish. Now telling stories, legends and myths -- that is interesting and part of culture's fabric. That's why I listen. The pseudoscientific pretensions, though, were over the top with JC Johnson. He should have been challenged far more than he was, and the skeptics here are keeping it honest.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...While I agree with your assessment of the field, many folks discussing this stuff pretend that there is a scientific basis to the ideas (like Chris, for instance) and that is what I am mainly fighting against. Bringing a false veneer of science to something is harmful to mankind...

Yeah, the San Luis Valley Camera Project is a great example of pretend science. Two triangulated hi-def video camera arrays at known distances from each other with a seventh 180 degree sky cam that establishes quadrant data. The sky cam sends the event data to the other cameras--all equipped with motion tracking software and they all focus in on the event (36X optical zoom). And also slave a robotic platform w/ an active radar unit to further establish data. Yeah, that's pretend science at it's least evolved, right Lance?

Lance loves to pick on me. Perhaps he is still sore that I exposed his role in a Cincinnati debunker group in the 90s where he was in charge of writing boiler-plated responses to claims of the paranormal in the media. Or that Gene and I decided to break the Imbrogno story after I confirmed it. I'll be interested in what Lance has to say about Stalking the Herd and all the "pretend" scientific reports and results of pretend scientific testing I cite in the book. Then we can pretend to have a pleasant conversation and talk about the pretend scientific results.

 

[manxman]

thats pretty interesting chris, wheres the expos'e, i would like a read of that, but lances training has been obvious to me as a studier of the claimant rather than the claim, for many years, nearly every claim made, needs to be looked at for motive.

secondly have the triangulated camera setup ever caught anything interesting, cos frankly all ive ever seen is bunk, but ive hardly give it a second thought, and something that would make me give it a second thought would be pretty interesting.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...have the triangulated camera setup ever caught anything interesting, cos frankly all ive ever seen is bunk, but ive hardly give it a second thought, and something that would make me give it a second thought would be pretty interesting.

We have been handcuffed by lack of bandwidth issues that have been resolved. We have a contract for our second camera tower location at the Great Sand Dunes oasis and have the necessary bandwidth. We're waiting for the weather to warm up and plan on having the second camera up this spring. We need an additional $15K to place the other four cameras and install the skycam at our base station location. On our test run w/ the first camera we captured a perfect illustration of how a small two man helicopter can appear to be anomalous when sunlight hits the rounded bubble at just the right angle to produce a light bloom that makes the craft appear to be a silvery ball of light. If I was a pretender I could have edited out the first couple of seconds and passed this clip off as a "real" UFO.

 

[manxman]

yes you could of indeed, and ALL the tim printy's of this world would howled balloon, long and hard, and we would be idiots to disagree.

but in all fairness there would have been alot of believers going of half-cocked aswell.

now how about the expos'e, i want to know who else was involved, i want to connect the dots to/in my own personal theory of the war on ignorance banner.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

The pseudoscientific pretensions, though, were over the top with JC Johnson. He should have been challenged far more than he was, and the skeptics here are keeping it honest.

Next time he's on, contribute some questions in the Question Bank, and I'll be sure to ask them. And (for you and Lance) I'll play your attack dog, snarl a bit more and go on the attack w/ teeth bared. "JC, many on the forum think you are a bald-faced liar and a charlatan. What do you say to people that don't belief a single word about the many over-the-top claims you make?" Good starting point?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

now how about the expos'e, i want to know who else was involved, i want to connect the dots to/in my own personal theory of the war on ignorance banner.

Ask Lance. This is old news and we addressed this subject on the Forum back in early 2012 and again when Lance was our guest on the Paracast December 16, 2012 -- Lance Moody

 

[Paleontologist]

Next time he's on, contribute some questions in the Question Bank, and I'll be sure to ask them. And (for you and Lance) I'll play your attack dog, snarl a bit more and go on the attack w/ teeth bared. "JC, many on the forum think you are a bald-faced liar and a charlatan. What do you say to people that don't belief a single word about the many over-the-top claims you make?" Good starting point?

Yes, let's start there!

 

[manxman]

It all fits the pattern

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

No Lance, I am not saying you are lying about your involvement in the skeptics group. Interesting how you selectively ignore my comments every time I mention conducting "real" science (as in the SLV Camera Project) or when I mention citation of "real" scientific work. You predictably impugn my efforts of helping move that proverbial ball-of-understanding down the field and instead choose to attack me personally. Skeptical tactics 101: If you cannot impugn the work, disregard it and attack the person.

I say AGAIN: we'll see what you have to say about my unexplained livestock death work after you've read the book. I will be interested in your comments and thoughts after you read about the results of real scientific/diagnostic work conducted by "real" scientists. But, I won't hold my breath because I'd be willing to bet you will completely ignore what they present--unless you only select the equivocal or dismissive results which I also present as objectively as possible.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Why and how so? Why would it not be a good idea, and how would it result in injury to yourself and others around you?

I have heard tales of hunters who have had one in their scopes but could not pull the trigger, as it felt too much like "murder" or that the creature had too many human features -each described a deep sense of "hunting man' vs "animal"