My Problem With Debunkers

[Graphimancer]

The whole subjective viewpoint fails to address trace effects cases, crash recoveries (if real), photos & video (if real), etc. If all we are talking about is shamanic experiences, with no physical componant, then there is no point to ufology--it is just a religion, at that point. All multiple witness sightning would be mass hallucinations!

I'm not prepared to go there. The subjective reality is a big componant of all this, but there is something physical in the consensus reality happening too. Logically, the physical sightings can't be mental projections of some kind--if humans had this ability, and no control over it, there would be funky ass glitches in the matrix all the time! And, mentally ill people would especially distort the whole reality web!

 

[ArizonaWill]

The whole subjective viewpoint fails to address trace effects cases, crash recoveries (if real), photos & video (if real), etc. If all we are talking about is shamanic experiences, with no physical componant, then there is no point to ufology--it is just a religion, at that point. All multiple witness sightning would be mass hallucinations!

I'm not prepared to go there. The subjective reality is a big componant of all this, but there is something physical in the consensus reality happening too. Logically, the physical sightings can't be mental projections of some kind--if humans had this ability, and no control over it, there would be funky ass glitches in the matrix all the time! And, mentally ill people would especially distort the whole reality web!

Scott, I suspect that the "subjective Shamanic" crowd would simply say that the phenomena, although subjective in creation, does manifest physically. So this seems to be a marriage between the human mind and some "other" that manifests in accordance with the human mind's unconscious/conscious dictates. You have a good point about mass sightings though. I can't imagine a huge group of people (as in Mexico City) agreeing on anything, much less what an aerial phenomena would look like. Since Mexico, for example, is an extremely Catholic country, why don't the ufo's manifest like at Fatima, as the Virgin Mary? Why do they instead appear as disks with a blackness underneath that can be photographed? Since I am a big fan of the old FARSCAPE sci-fi TV show, how come my ufo's don't appear as Peace Keeper ships?

I'm sorry, but to me the Shamanic/subjective approach is yet another explanation that does NOT cover all the phenomena's aspects. How come there are reports of abduction by people at opposite sides of the USA where the aliens even wear the same shoes? Have the same insignia? Humans love to categorize things, which gives us some sense of control (like little kids putting the blue marbles in one pile and the red marbles in another pile). If subjective, I would think ufology would be an insane asylum of disparate experiences that only by coincidence have anything in common. If it is purely a shamanic subjective experience, how come alien wisdom has not been imparted by culturally embedded symbols, like Yoda? And if physical examinations MUST be part of this for some reason, why aren't they performed by Playboy Bunnies or Playgirl male centerfolds?

Thanks for letting this topic piggyback on your thread, because your question is extremely deep, when you think about it. What in fact are some people debunking? It gets to the roots of what this phenomena is, and a lot of folks disagree about this, sometimes viciously.

 

[ArizonaWill]

ArizonaWill: This sort of mirrors the debate we were having about ufology in general. Daniel Brenton and I worked on a plan to bring together serious researchers and ignore/debunk the snake oil salesmen. The opposition for this, besides the "it'll never happen" mantra, was that it's better not to get organized but to remain maverick researchers presenting data in books and lectures and let the people decide what's real and what's not for themselves.

After decades of isolated research groups and individuals what do we know? Anything? What can we know? Anything?

Would that change if we pooled data and cross-referenced in an interdisciplinary manner? We'll never know until enough people want to try this. That they don't tells me this isn't about getting to "Truth" or "fact." It's about exercising our imaginations--it's about keeping it as subjective as possible because this mystery has replaced Mystery for many of us.

Yeah, I agree. And as you know, some folks (who I would not name) react hysterically and viciously to such a suggestion, attacking Daniel Brenton relentlessly on their personal blog at an intrinsic level of human worth and intelligence, simply because he brought up the idea. So there are "elements" in the ufo community who are extremely threatened by the idea of such a group research approach, since they evidently think they or their favorite stance on the issue would be open to question. Unfortunately, us human beings at times equate a question with personal attack. My opinion is that if some responsible researchers want to create a new approach to this, sort of the way MUFON originally was set up before it became absorbed into the "space brothers" religion, they should just do so, and let the unhappy folks bellow. 8)

 

[Graphimancer]

Well, it's off the topic for the thread, but I think we are getting somewhere. The ufo experience is not a single source thing, but an umbrella topic for several different types of experience, those being something physical and objective, and some being subjective. Will covered it pretty well in his post, so there's no reason ot elucidate.

I guess I find it hard to believe that anyone can manifest material items from his mind. I know some trance mediums supposedly manifested spirits, but I seriously doubt there are some kind of hallucinations that make real, objective trace evidence. I know a good deal about magic(k), and there's not a wizard alive who could pull this off, to my knowledge. It takes a pretty super wizard and a group of adherants just to build up energy to the point that it becomes evident to the naked eye, and even that I have not seen personally. Magic sucks at special effects--it's not what it was made for.

 

[derekcbart]

Jeff and David,
Yes, Joe Nickell has had a "colorful" career that can be questionable outside of his investigations, but I still say that his actual research has been really professional and thorough. I've always felt that his investigations into religious iconography have been wonderful: Shroud of Turin, Weeping/Bleeding Statues, etc. Also, his investigation into the Winchester House Ghost is regarded as the example to follow in other ghost investigations.

BTW, thank you Jeff for those very kind words about me. And for the record, I learned how to ask those questions and do that type of research from Joe Nickell.
-Derek

 

[Filer of False Complaints]

Debunkers are a must in this F@#ked up field... of course you will find some people in it for the wrong reasons. This happens in every field or every industry.

 

[David Biedny]

Derek,

So can we assume that Nickell is the kind of "researcher" who pokes his little brain into cases that are highly questionable, and stays away from the tough ones? I mean, debunking religious icons is just shy of ridiculous, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. I would be impressed if he would fly down to Brazil to look into the Arigo case, which has so much documentation and surviving witnesses as to be truly significant. Derek, we've formed a nice friendship, I like and respect you, but let's get something out of the way: the position taken by many of the people you admire is really no better than the idiocy of the doe-eyed believer set, it's just the opposite polar extreme.

Jeff & I are relatively objective, intelligent people, we've both seen things that are so outside of the norm as to be disturbing. So are we hallucinating? I don't think so, in fact, F U C K no, I know what I have seen and experienced with others present. Are we making these experiences up for attention? Nope, it's only in the last couple of years I've gone public with some of my stuff, I've had enough attention and respect (and fear) from my peers in my professional life to quench the desire for visibility. So what would your skeptics make of a truly unexplained case? Just wish it away to the corn field? I understand that skeptical thinking plays an important role in the consideration of the paranormal, but people like Randi and Squirmer and McFuckHa are a serious problem, displaying psychopathic behavior and little-minded thinking when confronted with honest, credible people and compelling stories. When Shitmer says that commercial and military pilots are no more qualified as observers of visual phenomena than the average person on the street, he's either being incredibly obtuse, moronic or downright dishonest. I have EVERY reason to question his motives and methods. Randi states on his website that the Arigo case is a fraud because he had family living in the town that derived a benefit from all the folks who came looking for Arigo's healing abilities. Besides the fact that most small South American towns are set up like family affairs, Rando conveniently ignores every other aspect of the case. He's full of S H I T, and he knows it.

Anyway, I look forward to having you come on the show to discuss these issues with us.

dB

 

[derekcbart]

Derek,

So can we assume that Nickell is the kind of "researcher" who pokes his little brain into cases that are highly questionable, and stays away from the tough ones? I mean, debunking religious icons is just shy of ridiculous, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. I would be impressed if he would fly down to Brazil to look into the Arigo case, which has so much documentation and surviving witnesses as to be truly significant. Derek, we've formed a nice friendship, I like and respect you, but let's get something out of the way: the position taken by many of the people you admire is really no better than the idiocy of the doe-eyed believer set, it's just the opposite polar extreme.

Jeff & I are relatively objective, intelligent people, we've both seen things that are so outside of the norm as to be disturbing. So are we hallucinating? I don't think so, in fact, F U C K no, I know what I have seen and experienced with others present. Are we making these experiences up for attention? Nope, it's only in the last couple of years I've gone public with some of my stuff, I've had enough attention and respect (and fear) from my peers in my professional life to quench the desire for visibility. So what would your skeptics make of a truly unexplained case? Just wish it away to the corn field? I understand that skeptical thinking plays an important role in the consideration of the paranormal, but people like Randi and Squirmer and McFuckHa are a serious problem, displaying psychopathic behavior and little-minded thinking when confronted with honest, credible people and compelling stories. When Shitmer says that commercial and military pilots are no more qualified as observers of visual phenomena than the average person on the street, he's either being incredibly obtuse, moronic or downright dishonest. I have EVERY reason to question his motives and methods. Randi states on his website that the Arigo case is a fraud because he had family living in the town that derived a benefit from all the folks who came looking for Arigo's healing abilities. Besides the fact that most small South American towns are set up like family affairs, Rando conveniently ignores every other aspect of the case. He's full of S H I T, and he knows it.

Anyway, I look forward to having you come on the show to discuss these issues with us.

dB

Hi David.

I'm looking forward to coming on the show too. Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later (for everyone else reading the delay is entirely due to me and my schedule).

As far as debunking religious icons being like shooting fish in a barrel, there are far many more people in the world who believe that Jesus or the Virgin Mary appear in a tree trunk, water stain, or food item then there are people who believe in UFOs, so there is definitely a need to investigate those claims.

I know that you are passionate about the Arigo case. Personally, I know nothing about it and the Wikipedia page on him doesn't provide much information either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arigo

Is there some other webpage that has a more detailed explanation of the history of the case?

Thanks.

 

[David Biedny]

Derek,

Contrary to popular belief, the majority of knowledge on this planet CANNOT be found on the web. In order to learn about the Arigo case, I highly recommend John G. Fuller's "Surgeon of the Rusty Knife". It's out of print, but can be found on Abebooks.com. I've personally purchased around 5 or 6 copies, one of which I've given to Ritzmann, who rejects it out of hand. What does he know, he's a metalhead freak who worships Iron MaidenForm.

As far as the issue of more people buying into the dope of religion, well, that means nothing. You're never going to convince people who live a religious lifestyle, that you have a more useful truth for them. And, given what little we really, truly know about the nature of our planet, reality or the Universe, the folks who find religion to be useful are likely to be as close to the Actual Truth™ as anyone else. Seriously. Belief can be applied to anything - you can believe that the human mind is capable of understanding the nature of reality, I know better than to buy into that nonsense - but when someone asks me if I believe in UFOs, I ask them if they believe in cars. Or water. I don't believe in much of anything, I KNOW that I've seen Unidentified Flying Objects. Do I know what they are, where they came from, what the hell they want? Nope. Do I KNOW that we have nothing in the sky that's a mile long, made by human hands? Damned right, I'm SURE of it. Belief never enters the picture.

Anyway, I think you're afraid to come on The Paracast.

I DARE you to do an interview with us next week.

So are you brave enough, or should I get you a nice chicken sandwich?



dB

 

[Filer of False Complaints]

lol, DB you are too much...

When you say you don't know if we have something a mile long in the sky... Is that in the realm of what we know exist on a non-classified level... or do you believe that we don't have any craft that large classified as well?

 

[David Biedny]

Kova,

A full-sized luxury cruise ship is around 1/5th of a mile long. The towers of the World Trade Center were around 1350 feet high. Imagine stringing four of them end-to-end: that's a little bigger than a mile long.

I'll go on the record and make this statement:

There is NO human tech currently capable of putting something equivalent to the length of 5 cruise ships in the sky in one piece. Seriously - we don't have any vessel that large in the water, either, so the notion that we have something that big in the sky is ludicrous. Classified or otherwise. I'm glad I make you laugh, but the idea that anyone thinks that we've built a solid, structured craft a mile long that can move in the air, without sound, is just silly. You can quote me on that...

dB

 

[Graphimancer]

David really brought the two lines of debate--objective reality and debunkers--back together in this thread. Bravo.

At the sake of being obtuse, I take issue with anyone who says that humans have a mile long aircraft. Put very simply, we do not have any conventional material that could form a superstructure for a mile long aircraft that could 1) withstand the stresses of flight and moving throught the atmosphere, and 2) wouldn't require a massive, massive power supply just to keep it stable, let alone move it around at any reasonable rate. Think of the electrostatic charge it would build up. Think of the terrific forces of wind shear. It would be able to fly pretty fast, subsonicly, because of the massive air displacement, but it's so totally impractical, especially in a world where everything is getting smaller all the time. Think how much more effective battlefield drones are than a mile long aircraft that would make the biggest damn battlefield target on the planet if used in war. It's insane.

The largest zeppelin ever made was the Graf Zeppelin II, which just edged out the Hindenburg, and neither of them exceeded 1000' in length. The Spruce Goose is damn big, as darn as solidbody aircraft go, and it is made of plywood and there's a good reason they only flew it once. Consider the hassles Airbus had to get it's latest jumbo passenger jet off the ground; they even had to reformulate the paint to get weight down.

So, no, if anyone has mile long ships sailing around, they are not ours. Maybe little versions of the TR3B and the TR3A are ours, but not the big ones. I'm not even convinced the so-called TR3 A & B are ours.

Edit: David made the same point as me at the same time--cool.

 

[mike]

actually i dont think theres too much difference between the UFO question and religeon after all.
(and before you login, insults are the last refuge of the incompetent as the old saying goes)

when i think about the premise behind religeon i find the beleif that "something" lives in the heavens, thats its directly interacting with us, even shaping us, jesus was a hybrid half human half whatever it is that lives in the heavens. prophets and saints are just experiencers whove been profoundly changed by an interaction with these hosts of heaven. primitive, limited labels for the same gestalt.

i dont think the question should be do we have craft a mile long, the question should be COULD we, and the answer to that is yes. Why ? well there are some reasons i can think of why i would do so if i were in "power", primarily keeping that power.

zeppelin tech was only in its infancy when it was "abandoned".
i see no practical reason why they couldnt be 2 or 3 times the size of the original craft, compare the kitty hawk to a 747................

take 3 hindenbergs and strap them nose to tail into a triangle, not only is this possible its practical the triangle giving more stability as a structure.

have we done so ? my answer is i dont know and you can quote me on that, can we do it ? could we actually build an airship of that size ? you betcha.

i once read an article on man made ufo's (pre internet, poss omni mag)
where the craft would travel on microwave beams, they would go so fast that human passengers would have to be "drowned" in that oxy water first to prevent the lungs from collapsing , but the advantage was new york to london in a matter of minutes.

whats interesting about this story is that the majestic autopsies on both the obviously alien and the possibly enhanced human embryo creature, neither had developed lung systems

 

[Graphimancer]

Yeah, OK. But--I triangle zeppelin is not more stable than a lozenge shaped one. The losenge shaped one, much like an egg, is superior in its ability to withstand shearing forces.

Plus, if you've ever seen film of combined zeppelin bodies trying to maneuver, you would know it was a deadly, unstable mess and crashes pretty quick. I know there's a new one in devp (I guess) for high altitude use, but I doubt its very stable.

Remember, this is a lighter than air aircraft we are talking about, NOT a flying wing. The physics are much different.

Nor is this a mile long truss bridge of some sort, because those are specifically designed for certain stresses, not moving around. (Note: I am not a bridge expert, so I'm guessing here. Anyone in the know?)

Could we make a mile long aircraft of some sort with existing materials and technology? Even Kevlar, or it's variations like Dyneema? Maybe. Could it fly very well, or survive very many flights? No. I even doubt that we could hide such a vehicle from the public.

So, no way. The big ones aren't ours.

 

[Graphimancer]

Aint' she a beaut.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3n5cUaG5fg&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W3n5cUaG5fg&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[ArizonaWill]

I assume DB "believes" we have nothing a mile long that can float around in the sky. There is no way to KNOW this as fact. Personally, I agree with him, but I know this is a belief on my part. The older I get, the more weird this place seems, so nothing would ultimately surprise me. I can see Bill Gates having commissioned a mile long craft for a few billion. I think the guy lives in a 50,000 square foot house - would he really be satisfied with a mere private jet? Puleeze!

 

[David Biedny]

Will,

Your assumption is incorrect. I know enough about materials science and engineering to KNOW that we've got nothing a mile long in the sky (and I don't include tethered blimps - the thing I saw in the sky in Caracas in 1974 was thousands of feet long, and it was NOT one of ours). If you are someone who believes that ANY problem can be solved with money, well, there you go. You're wrong. George Harrison had many millions of dollars, but when his time arrived, he died. All his money couldn't buy him one more moment of life than what he had coming to him. I always reserve the right to be wrong, but in this case, I severely doubt that this is the case.

dB

 

[ArizonaWill]

Will,

Your assumption is incorrect. I know enough about materials science and engineering to KNOW that we've got nothing a mile long in the sky (and I don't include tethered blimps - the thing I saw in the sky in Caracas in 1974 was thousands of feet long, and it was NOT one of ours). If you are someone who believes that ANY problem can be solved with money, well, there you go. You're wrong. George Harrison had many millions of dollars, but when his time arrived, he died. All his money couldn't buy him one more moment of life than what he had coming to him. I always reserve the right to be wrong, but in this case, I severely doubt that this is the case.

dB

Of course, I do not believe any problem can be solved with money. How many billions do we spend per day in Iraq? And we all know the success of the crusade to cure cancer after 30+ years and huge sums of money. I guess I should have used face symbols to ensure it was obvious that my post was in jest in regards to Bill Gates. However, although I don't buy into all the wild eyed conspiracy theories (although they are great fun - try Dr. Bill Deagle for the most amusing and horrendous), I would not be surprised if some Black Ops project (maybe with alien technology) had solved the gravity problem. If there really is a nuts & bolts alien presence on the planet and if the myths are true about government Black Ops men/women being in bed with the Greys (man, what a vision - the porn profits alone would be incredible on the internet), then all bets are off about what is possible.

No, I don't take any of this seriously, but it is possible.

 

[schticknz]

Just a thought:

If say we had the ability to shield gravity (which is my mind is how UFOs may work), in theory we should be able to build anything of any size, shield it from the gravitational pull of the earth (would just be a case of scaling up the anti-gravity bubble or whatever??), and fly the bejesus out of it.

I guess the only real restraints would be the know how to build something so big (maybe just a time thing after all we can build some bloody big things now), where to build it without being noticed (maybe in space??) and resources (black budget anyone ???).

[Digression: In a Harry Harrison book I read once (The Daleth Effect), a small black box held the way to shield gravity, and the protagonists used a submarine connected up to this box to fly around in ... hmmm ... cigar shaped ufo, anyone??? ... hmmmm ]

schtick ... just trying to say that nothings totally impossible

 

[Filer of False Complaints]

Kova,

A full-sized luxury cruise ship is around 1/5th of a mile long. The towers of the World Trade Center were around 1350 feet high. Imagine stringing four of them end-to-end: that's a little bigger than a mile long.

I'll go on the record and make this statement:

There is NO human tech currently capable of putting something equivalent to the length of 5 cruise ships in the sky in one piece. Seriously - we don't have any vessel that large in the water, either, so the notion that we have something that big in the sky is ludicrous. Classified or otherwise. I'm glad I make you laugh, but the idea that anyone thinks that we've built a solid, structured craft a mile long that can move in the air, without sound, is just silly. You can quote me on that...

dB

quoted... lol.

I also agree.