• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

My Problem With Debunkers

Free episodes:

Daniel, what I saw about ten years ago probably has nothing to do with any technology such as audio phase cancellation or holographic imagery technology, but it may in fact point to our having technology we know little or nothing, about, making your suggestion worthy of some consideration. I know, almost everyone denies that we have any of the more seemingly magical technological wonders as yet, but we also have a history of naysayers being proven incorrect over time.

So here's where I go a bit off topic. I was driving the roughly twenty-five miles into work in Houston where the land is flat and, save a few tall buildings scattered here and there, the sky was
wide open to the viewer. Storms were in the weather forecast so I kept an eye on the sky all around me. Around here it pays to know when to pull into a parking lot to avoid flash flooding.

What I noticed about the cloud cover was that it was broken into four distinct quadrants as to shapes of the clouds. I actually stood outside my car, when finally parked, to watch these clouds which weren't moving in any direction, but just hanging there.

One quadrant was occupied by what my girlfriend and I call "testicle clouds," the round spheres that seem to sprout from stems in an upper blanketed cloud layer. Another quadrant had a rippled look to it with extremely long, layered ripples extending for miles. One quadrant had regular looking thunderheads and the last, the smallest quadrant to my eye, because I wasn't under the center of whatever mechanism which created the four quadrants, was another set of rippled layers of clouds which extended in a different direction from the other set.

In the smaller, to my eye, set, a line seemed to have been drawn down through part of the layered ripples that eventually formed what began to look like huge wings attached to some center cord. Whatever caused the wing making was a slow process, but I watched it for quite a long time and that cord deepened as the wings took on greater shape and consistency. The ripples outside the wings broke up and I couldn't see where this process might have eventually stopped in the sky, but I know the huge wings hung in the sky as unmoving as the cloud formations in the rest of the sky. The ripples inside the wings were drawn down and didn't break up at all.

I eventually went into work and had a girlfriend come out to observe what I'd seen, just in case I'd flipped my lid and gone blind or something. She confirmed my visual and the clouds eventually broke into a normal stream of thunderheads that never issued a drop of rain.

I've been a sky watcher since I was a kid and I have never seen such an eerie display before or since that day, but I felt as though the sky were being manipulated by some technological wonder. For some time after, I watched never before seen cloud formations in my part of the country, but after a time, they stopped happening on a regular basis and have dwindled in part because I no longer make that long commute.

All that because I think we are working on things that will never get in the press. Those things are something to consider even if we can't be sure of what we think we see.
 
Poi said:
Daniel, what I saw about ten years ago probably has nothing to do with any technology such as audio phase cancellation or holographic imagery technology, but it may in fact point to our having technology we know little or nothing, about, making your suggestion worthy of some consideration. I know, almost everyone denies that we have any of the more seemingly magical technological wonders as yet, but we also have a history of naysayers being proven incorrect over time.

Poi --

Thanks for that.

I know from someone (who I thought was sincere, anyway) who actually participated in the late 1960s in Army field trials testing a hand-held laser weapon powered by a backpack unit that could etch steel around 100 yards away.

No telling what level this technology is at now, 40 years later, and what other rabbits have been pulled out of what hats.
 
To All --

Coming back to topic, it seems to me the debunkers I've seen "at work," are coming at whatever the subject under discussion happens to be without even the pretense of scientific integrity. It's always an issue of "what it can't be," as opposed to "what is this really?" which would be the correct attitude. This becomes patently obvious when they start resorting to the same kind of tactics that Stanton Friedman frequently enumerates ("Attack the person, not the evidence," etc.)

In my mind this is also indicative of a lack of ethical integrity. (Would you want your daughter to marry one?)
 
DanielBrenton said:
To All --

Coming back to topic, it seems to me the debunkers I've seen "at work," are coming at whatever the subject under discussion happens to be without even the pretense of scientific integrity. It's always an issue of "what it can't be," as opposed to "what is this really?" which would be the correct attitude. This becomes patently obvious when they start resorting to the same kind of tactics that Stanton Friedman frequently enumerates ("Attack the person, not the evidence," etc.)

In my mind this is also indicative of a lack of ethical integrity. (Would you want your daughter to marry one?)

Hi there.

As one of the skeptical investigators out there I have to add that this behavior is also applied to the skeptic from the believer. When I have demonstrated factual errors in a case more often than not I am treated to ad hominem attacks about me personally rather than discussing the issues I brought up.

It would be much better for the paranormal field as a whole if people on all sides would just stick to analyzing the evidence.

-Derek
 
derekcbart said:
As one of the skeptical investigators out there I have to add that this behavior is also applied to the skeptic from the believer. When I have demonstrated factual errors in a case more often than not I am treated to ad hominem attacks about me personally rather than discussing the issues I brought up.

It would be much better for the paranormal field as a whole if people on all sides would just stick to analyzing the evidence.

Derek --

I don't have an issue with approaching this range of subjects with skepticism. I've been attacked for not buying into a specific interpretation of the UFO subject (in the instance I'm thinking of, I was suddenly part of "the conspiracy") so I can empathize with your statement that there is irrationality on the "believer" side as well.

There's a semantic aspect I need to "cop" to here: when I think "debunker," I'm thinking of the folks who demonstrate the "what it can't be" attitude and never concede there may be more to the circumstance or event in discussion than they may know. In my mind, the "debunker" attitude is intractably dismissive, which is a kind of intellectual bigotry.

On the other hand, there are all manner of permutations of the word "skeptic" (seems like a new one each week) which imply that being skeptical is the same as being a debunker, but being skeptical of a subject range like this seems (frankly) the only healthy attitude one can have.

A personal take -- I took a peek at your site, at your article on seeing Dr. Greer presenting live. I doubt I would have been as balanced about the guy as you were, and in reality I probably would have had a hard time writing an article about the same experience at all. I have to disqualify myself when it comes to Greer: I have some very strong opinions about him, but I haven't done the legwork to really develop a defensible stance about him. The operative word here, of course, is "defensible," and that means a level of intellectual and ethical integrity.

The driving motivation with this subject range (and probably in anything) needs to be: "what is the truth of it?"
 
Im sure we could all assemble a traditional jigsaw puzzle if we were given all the pieces spread out in front of us.
and im sure most of the non mechanics would be able to re assemble say a lawn mower engine, if its parts were presented on a table.

the factors that would inhibit this would be if parts were missing, and or parts that were not part of the original engine were also included on the table.

provided you have all the correct parts spread out in front of you the human brain is pretty good at finding the corelations and assembling the whole.

skeptics have their place in the process, im far more dirty on the one armed swiss farmers part of the puzzle than i am on a healthy skeptic
 
Back
Top