The Perfect Balance...The Lance Moody Interview

[SRL+]

Lance, perhaps outside of your professional existence, you may want to consider entertaining these nuts & bolts, for sht’s, & giggles, as I seem to be at a complete loss as to grok what these lunatics are talking about.

Colares UFO flap 1977. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colares_UFO_fla

Stephenville TX .2008. Stephenville, Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

O’Hare Intl. 2006'

2006 O'Hare International Airport UFO sighting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NIDS Utah. BTW, I’m aware of the Pigasus Award, given out by Mr. Randi. Nice..,touching gesture.

Skinwalker Ranch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fun..fun..fun...

 

[Randall]

Happy to discuss the Washington flap ... In short, the skeptical take on the flap is that radar angels (false returns) caused by weather were the precipitating cause of the incidents. But the thing in whole is complicated. As you may see, UFO believers capitalize on the complication ... The weather on the night of July 19th fell from 93 degrees to 76 degrees. There caused a temperature inversion, which is a well-known cause of false returns, particularly on these early radars ...

Lance ... I figured you'd throw in the temperature inversions next. First off, these "early radars" weren't as unsophisticated as you suggest. Working radar had been proven in 1930 and by 1940 the US Navy was using it. By 1946 they had developed it significantly enough to measure the distance to the Moon, and by the 1952 Washington flap they were being installed in fighter jets. Trained military radar operators were skilled at distinguishing the signal from the noise, so although it is possible that a temperature inversion might be mistaken for a solid object under some circumstances, the multiple tracks by multiple radars in conjunction with concurrent visual observation do not lend credence to the suggestion that temperature inversions were responsible for the objects in question. Nowhere did I find evidence that any radar operator believed that the objects that they were tracking as UFOs were the result of temperature inversions. The temperature inversion appears to be a cover story that is exceedingly transparent.

As an aside, the incidence of reports of radar contact cases for UFOs fell precipitously (and now are virtually extinct) as modern, much more accurate radars were installed. Phil Klass showed that as larger airports got the newer radars, UFO radar reports began to show up mostly in smaller airports and (as they got the new equipment) eventually dwindled down to nothing.

Back in Washington, while all three radar installations that covered the area and overlapped each other picked up supposed UFO's, only on ONE occasion did all three radars pick up the same thing--and that was a single blip that lasted 30 seconds. This is a crucial point and it virtually eliminates the whole story and the pretend radar/visual corroboration that believers cite.

As an equal aside, the biggest change in radar to filter out clutter was the introduction of transponder technology ( special radio transmitters - not actual radar ). Military radar can switch that on and off at will. Also the multiple simultaneous 30 second radar contact is an interesting detail. Thanks for that.

An Andrew control operator said:

"All night [ARTC] was reporting objects near or over Andrews, but Andrews Approach Control could see nothing, however they could see the various aircraft reported so their screen was apparently in good operation."

The lights in the sky are also part of the story, of course. Around midnight, a captain at Andrews went outside and spotted the light apparently being reported by a Capital airliner. It changed color and appeared to move and hover. Interestingly (and I think tellingly) this light was NOT spotted on their radar.

As the night wore on, there were more reports and the captain went outside again (at about 3AM). He saw the same changing color light as before. But now it didn't appear to move. He decided that the light was only a star. And that its "movement" wasn't real.

Summary---lights were seen in sky but their connection to radar is not well established.

There is always room for some error and misperception, but there was more going on than the above, and there remains the issue of Patterson's intercept. Granted it may not constitute sufficient scientific evidence, but a ground radar vectored jet interceptor radar/visual confirmation is far from "crappy" evidence.

Still, after this night the Air Force did feel that the targets were real.

On July 26th, the second part of the "invasion" began. Again, the area was experiencing a temperature inversion.

In this case, slow moving targets were seen on radar and airliners reported seeing orange lights in a row.

A B-25 was directed to each of the radar targets. Each time the target turned out to be over a busy highway or intersection etc.

A pair of F-94's were scrambled and directed to the radar targets. Only one of the pilots reported seeing any lights in the sky but even at top speed, he could not close on them. This disconnects his experience from the supposed radar contacts since he flew through those. And yet believers still pretend that the radar and lights were well-corroborated.

A second pair of F-94's was scrambled and went to several targets with no results, no contact and nothing visual.

Compare the above to the way a UFO zealot above tried to pretend that I had chosen only one incident.

One pilot used the tower to guide him to one of the targets. He passed through the target several times. All he could see was a Wilson Lines steamship on the Potomac.
The pilot said, "the radar was sure as hell picking up the steamboat." He also commented on the lights, saying that there were so many lights around Washington that it was easy to see a "mysterious" light in any direction.

Summary---lights were seen in sky but their connection to radar is almost non-existent.

Usually UFO buffs end the story here, hoping for maximum Ooga Booga. But the Air Force spent a lot of time, a year, investigating.

According to their report (which covered a three month period and all unknown radar targets):

"It was discovered that a temperature inversion had been indicated in almost every instance"

UFO buffs will ignore this basic science, of course but I hope that I have, at least, outlined the skeptical side of the case. I'm happy to try to discuss it. I am not an expert on this case and owe much to several books for the above outline, particularly Curtis Peebles', Watch the Skies.

There is no way to conclude with any certainty that "almost every instance" was a temperature inversion. Certainly it could not be done with any scientific precision. To provide sufficient scientific evidence that the radar tracks in question were actually temperature inversions, "basic science" would have required scientists to have been there at the time to perform independent scientific measurements using their own equipment and then correlate it with the tracks being seen by the military equipment and weather data being transmitted somehow from the exact location the returns were coming from. And even then, if we are to respect the scientific method, that would still only be weak scientific evidence because the scientific method requires multiple corroborated experiments to be performed under controlled conditions. Clearly what we're seeing above is the typical tactic of exaggerating the evidence against while downplaying the evidence in favor.

If we are to grant any scientific validity to any evidence, what is being ignored over and over again is that trained specialists who were there at the time using proven equipment did not indicate that the objects in question acted like or looked like temperature inversions. If I recall correctly, they were actually not to happy about that suggestion at all, and public access to the radar was heavily restricted. In this case the temperature inversion theory is about as believable as Hynek's classic swamp gas explanation.

Lastly, Patterson's intercept has yet to be debunked.

 

[Randall]

... Compare the above to the way a UFO zealot above tried to pretend that I had chosen only one incident ...

Uh Lance ... another question here: Zealot? Isn't that a bit subjective? What "excessive enthusiasm" ( Encarta ) are you referring to? What in your mind makes it "excessive". It seems to me that sometimes you just throw in suggestive and provocative language in an attempt to prop up your own credibility.

 

[Muadib]

Uh Lance ... another question here: Zealot? Isn't that a bit subjective? What "excessive enthusiasm" ( Encarta ) are you referring to? What in your mind makes it "excessive". It seems to me that sometimes you just throw in suggestive and provocative language in an attempt to prop up your own credibility.

I dunno I'd say it's pretty fair to say that you have an excessive enthusiasm for UFO's. You have your own website about UFO's, your own UFO investigation group or whatever, you post all day defending UFO's whenever someone brings them up, you have a heart attack every time someone doesn't conform to your particular definition of the word UFO, you went to the JREF forums to try and convince a bunch of hardcore skeptics that ufology wasn't pseudoscience, etc etc. I'm not trying to be insulting but I think excessive enthusiasm applies and keep in mind this is only my opinion. We all have things we're excessively enthusiastic for, I wouldn't consider it an insult, even though it may have been meant as such...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I agree with Muadib - Ufology, you seem to get personally insulted when someone does not define UFOs like you do.

 

[Randall]

I dunno I'd say it's pretty fair to say that you have an excessive enthusiasm for UFO's ...

Hmm ... if making a statement in my own defense won't be construed "zealous", I was once likened to Rowdy Roddy Piper in John Carpenter's classic sci-fi film They Live ... was Rowdy Roddy a zealot ... nahhh ...

"Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can!"​

​

​

 

[ZenBug]

When Lance asked Chris if he'd seen the video of the cameras being destroyed at the Skinwalker Ranch and Chris had to sheepishly answer "I haven't seen it...but I believe it" - That was the single greatest moment I've ever heard on this podcast. Chris really had his ass handed to him. That exchange exemplifies everything that's wrong with Chris's paranormal research: he puts far too much faith in anecdotal evidence and is far too willing to accept a claim as genuine. And appeals to authority (e.g. "such-and-such a researcher has a PhD in yada-yada-yada") do nothing to support the evidence, by the way. Experts can be deceived - or deceitful - just as often as laymen.

I remember an episode a while back with Rosemary Ellen Guiley I believe, where she recounted an investigation of a "haunted house". She told some ridiculous story about poltergeist activity and supernatural beings running around in there (with no documented evidence of course) after which Chris exclaimed "Wow!" and giggled with excitement. Why? She just told you a story! Thus far, you have no reason to believe a word of it and every reason not to.

This is why the paranormal field gets nowhere.

 

[Muadib]

I like Chris so I wouldn't be that hard on him but I have to agree with you on the appeal to authority thing, it really bothered me when he kept referring to the guys at NIDS as world class scientists. Let's be real, Biggy may be a rich man, but money doesn't get someone anything they want and money isn't enough to make most serious scientists give up their career in their chosen field to come investigate the haunted ranch in Utah. Most real "world class" scientists don't touch the paranormal with a 10 foot pole, it's practically career suicide, which is unfortunate in my opinion but it is what it is. Kelleher has an impressive resume in things like virology and biotechnology, but world class? I don't know about that. Even if he is, if there's no evidence to present, who cares? That's one thing that gets on my nerves about this field, either put up or shut up, quit running your mouth about something that isn't available for public scrutiny and expecting everyone to take it on faith.

Or the thing at the end with Ray Stanford, we get it, he's a dinosaur expert, that doesn't make him an expert on UFO's and the man's background is shady to say the least. I'm not saying Ray doesn't have the amazing footage that he says he does, but I'll believe it when I see it. Talk is cheap, I don't care who it's coming from. I honestly hope the guy proves everyone wrong and releases amazing footage of UFO's so close you can see inside the saucer but until then, Chris needs to stop getting pissed when people are skeptical. He can't expect everyone who doesn't have the benefit of a close relationship with the guy to take it on faith and I honestly feel like he does expect that because of Ray's accomplishments in another field. Maybe I'm misinterpreting.

Anyway, we shouldn't be that hard on Chris because, in the end, he's a journalist, not a scientist and journalists are taught to report what they're told if they can get confirmation and I think Chris sticks to that rule, it's whether you're willing to take someone's word for it or not and I think that's up to the individual.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

@zenbug: Thanks for listening... We all have to suspend our disbelief everyday zenbug. It's a fact of life. Do I believe that car will stop when I cross the road? Is my girlfriend being faithful? etc... In regards to investigating claims of the "paranormal," one must make value judgements on what (and whom) to "believe" when it comes to accepting, at face value, any aspect of a witnesses' anecdotal experience or the reporting of said event(s). In case you hadn't noticed, these types of perceived events are ephemeral and are not easily replicated. As an investigator, one must make a value judgment as to the veracity and accuracy of a witnesses' account of their experience and suspend one's disbelief based on the quality of the witness and the account of the experience. It's called trust. You trust your banker, your priest, your lawyer, your elected official? Right?

If George Knapp and Colm Kelleher state publicly in their book that the camera event occurred at the ranch (based on Colm's direct involvement w/ the event, btw), hell yeah I believe them... I've known George since the mid '90s--he's a multiple Emmy-Award winning journalist whom I look up to. I first spoke w/ Colm in1996 and worked w/ him in 99 to set up my SLV veterinarians for field necropsy protocols and he also helped me obtain funding for lab work from NIDS. They are both professional, stand-up guys IMO. FWIW I also suspect (believe?) that NIDS was truly attempting to compile scientific data at the ranch. Do I know for sure? Of course not! Yes, I think the camera incident really happened. Why? Because I trust the veracity of Knapp & Kelleher's account. I also realize that this event may have perfectly illustrated to NIDS (and the scientific community) the futility of their efforts to capture definitive data defining the jinni, trickster, alien, demon, ghost, MIB or whatever other term would best apply to the situation.That makes it even more believable to me.

z-bug: If what gets you off about the show are your perceptions of my deficiencies and my style of logic--be sure to tune in every week to the Paracast for more adventures in how we determine what, where, who and why to "believe" (whatever) about the "paranormal" and then make up your own mind... We aren't telling you what to trust & believe, we trust that you are smart enough to make up your own mind.

Then, ask yourself: That's my mom, but is that really my dad? Has my education & life experience taught me everything I need to know to make proper value judgements and where to place "trust" in my life? Or, let's get politically-conspiratorial: was there a lone gunman in Dealy Plaza? Or, did the "plumbers" really break into the Watergate? Or, is the USA government really looking out for my community's best interests? Were their "WMDs" and did we REALLY win the "War in Iraq..." etc Sometimes it comes down to a qualified sense of trust...

...and trust can be a fragile thing...

 

[Randall]

Woah dude, relax, I really didn't need your life story. Like I said, everyone is excessively enthusiastic about something, and you are definitely excessively enthusiastic about UFO's, I simply used your definition of zealot to point out that you do exhibit some of those characteristics and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Now you want to redefine it? Relax man, like I said it's just my opinion. I could be considered excessively enthusiastic about video games and other things...

Uh ... OK ... Too much info ... Consider it revised ... Now only the important part is left.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I am certainly with the hardened skeptics when it comes to claims of evidence that the 'rest of us' don't get to see, or certainly not so far.

But I will say that skeptics can be as guilty as anyone else of using other peoples work. For example, Skeptic A says that Case X was totally debunked by Skeptic B. Fair enough, but all the checking was not done by Skeptic A. Unless he actually goes and finds out everything for himself, he is relying on the work of someone else and promoting that as fact surely?

Another thing is that I find that some skeptics tend to bring 'little green men' into the discussion, when no-one else is, especially some Ufologists. I saw Bill Nye on Larry King once, I think it was the episode talking about UFOs and Nukes etc. Anyway, all the guests did was to relate their own experiences about whatever lights/objects they saw and maybe the equipment malfuntions that happened concurrently. No mention whatsoever of alien beings and the observed phenomena being from wherever. But Bill Nye kept on insisting 'oh but it's a huge stretch to jump to alien spacecraft.' -Yes Bill, it is and you are the only one even mentioning aliens!

It is deliberate muddying of the water by some skeptics. I totally understand that Ufology is absolutely choc full of people making ridiculous leaps and blaming every little landing light on ET. I totally thing such people deserve to be shown up and have the truth shoved down their throats but when sensible men are only relating what they actually saw, and no more, it is just not on for people to try and make on that they are claiming ET visitation when they are not. It is along these lines that my question for Lance about dishonesty in the skeptical community was aimed at. I find plenty 'dirty tricks' and outright misdirection in the skeptical community as well as in Ufology. If a skeptic is convinced a case is mundane etc - he/she should never have to resort to such tactics.
As I said in another post, my own personal definition of debunkers are skeptics who knowingly use falsehoods to put a case to bed. Before anyone says otherwise, I am not accusing Lance himself of that.

 

[Muadib]

Uh ... OK ... Too much info ... Consider it revised ... Now only the important part is left.

Lol, now that's funny! Nice one.

 

[not even wrong]

I have to say, I enjoyed Lance Moody's take. I have always been interested in the paranormal but I do disagree with Chris during the broadcast. It isn't Lance's job to prove something doesn't exist, it is the person making the claim that needs to show proof. Unfortunately, time and time again when things are dug in to we find that they aren't what was represented. I think it is refreshing to have someone out there as a fact checker.

On a separate note, the Skinwalker Ranch has always bugged me. I keep going back to that email the mufon director got from someone on the NIDS advisory board regarding those rods found at the site and how they weren't element 115 but were in fact arc rods used for lighting. I don't know the rules about linking to other sites but if you google John Schuessler and skinwalker you will probably come across it. I would love to see Lance look into the Skinwalker Ranch case and maybe have a podcast to discuss both sides. The fact that Bigelow has govt ties makes me makes you wonder if it wasn't that he was investigating unknown phenomena but testing perceptions of a govt project with the scientists as unknowing guinea pigs.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I like Chris so... it really bothered me when he kept referring to the guys at NIDS as world class scientists....

They're "world-class" in my estimation if they are willing to put their professional reputations on-the-line to conduct ground-breaking (possibly paradigm-shifting) research into so-called "paranormal" events.

Or the thing at the end with Ray Stanford...Maybe I'm misinterpreting

Yeah, you and most everyone else. Ray is a stand-alone case and it is not by accident that I so enthusiastically support his efforts in the realm of AAO studies....

Anyway, we shouldn't be that hard on Chris because, in the end, he's a journalist, not a scientist and journalists are taught to report what they're told if they can get confirmation and I think Chris sticks to that rule, it's whether you're willing to take someone's word for it or not and I think that's up to the individual.

Thanks for that. Trust is a fragile thing and after you've interviewed hundreds of people about unexplained events, you start to trust your instincts... oh, my-- did I say THAT? How so UNSCIENTIFIC of me!

 

[Muadib]

Yeah, you and most everyone else. Ray is a stand-alone case and it is not by accident that I so enthusiastically support his efforts in the realm of AAO studies....

Fair enough, I can only go by what I hear and it sounded to me like you were ready to rip Lance's head off his neck for doubting Ray Stanford

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Yes Muadib, in another post I ribbed Lance that he just learned you don't dis' Ray in front of Chris!

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Yes Muadib, in another post I ribbed Lance that he just learned you don't dis' Ray in front of Chris!

You don't "believe" me about Ray? Give him a holler, be yourself, make friends and find out the real deal for yourself. You can sit back and lob pot-shots forever--but until you become fully briefed, you don't have a clue. Just say'in...

 

[SRL+]

@SRL: Thanks for the comments. I know you are trying to make a point but you should realize that whenever a skeptic brings up good points about a beloved case (which I hope I did above) a believer always brings up another case. I can't handle every case personally but you can certainly find skeptical material on most any of them.

You should be able see 10 things wrong with the O'hare case right off the bat, some of which are fatal to case from my perspective.

Let me emphasize that my outline of the Washington case is not definitive and does not settle every issue. I only hope that it provides a pause and a counterpoint to those who suggest that the case is clearcut OMG Aliens!

Lance

Lance, in the past you have made extremely good points, as you have made some today, as I have very little interest, (at this point in time), in the Washington case. I am not an experiencer, and have not a vested interest in whether, (or not), aerial anomalies exist .I’m not a believer, (if that is what your inferring), by any stretch of the imagination. However, what I will state with certain clarity is that there are sane, intelligent, and highly educated people out there, (more so than you, or I will ever be), who are. With that being said, I as yourself, find a fascination within this genre. Forget about O’Hare, as that only leaves you three. Out of all the cases, you only have three to look at. Why not give it a shot, as you have nothing to lose, other than the remotest possibility of some of your scepticism. I would tend to think that Jim Moseley would have found this thought agreeable.., don’t you?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

You don't "believe" me about Ray? Give him a holler, be yourself, make friends and find out the real deal for yourself. You can sit back and lob pot-shots forever--but until you become fully briefed, you don't have a clue. Just say'in...

There is no believe or dis-believe. I am not anti-Ray in any way. I am just another guy who wishes the likes of Ted Phillips and Ray Stanford kept quiet about all their fantastic evidence! It is the ultimate tease. I understand Ray's reasoning in that he sees no benefit in prematurely releasing tidbits for the consumption of the UFO community until he has the backup of others. He wants his science to be taken seriously.

I get all that, I'm just saying that for us mere mortals who have never seen a UFO, yet believe there is evidence for their existence, when I hear someone 'has the goods' I can hardly contain my excitement! It's not a position of malice in any way Chris. It is total and utter jealousy, impatience and curiosity on my part. Nobody will be more happy to see Ray's work and footage. I just want it NOW but know that is not going to happen!

If I could, believe me I'd be knocking on Ray's door asking for the full show and tell!

 

[SRL+]

?