posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:08 PM
I feel two ways on this issue. I like to ‘go easy’ on people who are telling a story. If they are ‘freaked out’ and hesitant to tell their
story, the last thing they need is for people to immediately jump on them and declare a hoax. My reasoning is that if it IS a hoax, the person will
trip themselves up pretty quickly. This has happened twice here in the last couple of months. One was Ghost Raven; the other was a fellow who claimed
to be a member of a prison gang and had some experiences. Both tripped up within a few days. They both also were ADMITTED HOAXES; there is no middle
ground here. They did it on purpose and admitted it. There is no room for ‘believers’ in this scenario.
But this brings up an unfortunate FACT, and that is that ‘we’ as interested parties, are targets. For some reason some people delight in
concocting a story and trying to put one over on those who are interested. This is not just ‘government disinformation,’ it is largely comprised
of ‘regular’ people who think this behavior is funny or a test of their prowess. Who knows? But we have ample evidence (some above) that this
happens on a regular basis. There isn’t room to detail these occurrences, but there is ample evidence in the literature.
The fact that we are targets for hoaxers means we have to practice unusual vigilance. To the question, then: Assume a hoax. Test for it. If the story
stands up, let it happen. (Good example: Betty and Barney Hill.)
What I categorically and adamantly reject is this flawed notion that a skeptic must prove a case is NOT true rather than the other way around.
Gentlepeople, that is not how science works. You have an hypothesis. You test it. You present it for peer review. If your experiment is replicated
successfully, it has a chance to turn into a theory. Maybe at first your theory is rejected, even if it’s correct, but eventually, truth and science
will prevail. You will be vindicated. But for those people who take the point of view that “it’s real unless you PROVE to me it’s a fake,” I
say: You’re not in the running for the Rational Thought of the Year Award, sweetie. Go get Copi’s “Introduction to Logic” and report back when
you understand it. Until then you are on “Ignore.” You are not worth the time it takes to wade through your posts.
Now: how should you proceed? Just a couple of thoughts before this turns into a tome.
First, reject categorical statements. I know, that’s a contradiction like ‘eschew obfuscation’ but here’s the deal. Right now there are
statements on ATS that say: “The drones are a viral marketing campaign for Transformers.” And “Dr. Keith is our Isaac hoaxer.” On the first
page of Ghost Raven, “This is an obvious hoax.” And on a recent balloon attack: “That craft is under intelligent control.” All complete and
utter nonsense. None of those statements are true. (Notice they are on both sides of the issues.) So when people say things like that, you can rest
assured they have no idea what they are talking about.
Secondly, become familiar with the literature. Ufology is like any other field. It has a history. Stuff has already happened. You can’t expect to
come on here having read nothing and even understand what the issues are. If you haven’t read Timothy Good and Richard Dolan, you have no business
lecturing others about government disinformation. If you haven’t read a few books on Roswell, you have no business declaring whether it is fake or
real. If you laugh with derision at Hynek’s “swamp gas” explanation for what is truly a pretty good sighting, you don’t know what he actually
SAID was taken out of context because you’ve never read the entire quote, have you? I thought not. If you don’t know what George Adamski and
Truman Bethurum actually SAID you won’t recognize the commonality of their stories with modern writers such as Greer. If you come on here and start
to lecture others about what constitutes UFO evidence, and you don’t know the literature, that’s like a high school drop out purporting to be
qualified to remove my appendix. No, thank you. In this case, I’ll trust Greer, not you.
So, my take on all this is to be compassionately skeptical. That’s the safest and most productive approach.