Originally posted by Druscilla
I have not watched the video yet, but, nothing is beyond speculation, or even investigation to the point of criticism where the points of criticism
can outweigh any speculation for a 'positive' ufo' sighting.
Actually, there exist UFO cases that ARE immune to the kind of speculation and criticism you describe. (I'm assuming, of course, that you're confining
your 'speculation' and 'criticism' to an appropriate level of reasonableness?)
Hynek, the original and ultimate UFO skeptic, addressed your point over 40 years ago, when discussing the uncomfortably large number of
high-strangeness/high-credibility cases that remained in the Bluebook files despite his best efforts to construct reasonable explanations:
"These reports contain descriptive terms which collectively do not specify any known psychological event, object, or process, and which do not specify
any known psychological event or process. And, furthermore, THEY RESIST TRANSLATION into terms that do apply to known physical and/or psychological
events, objects, and processes. That is, as [Thomas] Goudge points out, TRANSLATION WOULD ALTER THE MEANING of the original report and hence
effectively violate the methodological criteria governing the advance of science: namely (a) that it must be possible for new observational data to
occur; that is, the existing conceptual framework of science, or the attitudes of scientists, must not rule out such new data a priori; and (b) the
existing conceptual framework must allow new concepts, principles, and laws to be formulated to interpret and explain the new observational data."
(Hynek, "Twenty-one Years of UFO Reports", from the AAAS 134th Meeting, Dec. 1969.)
That and the surrounding text is worth careful re-reading. What Hynek is saying -- and he was clearly as surprised by this as anyone -- is that some
small number cases do in fact involve levels of UFO strangeness and witness credibility that, combined, make the cases sturdy enough to withstand any
reasonable levels of "speculation" and "criticism".
The only criticism of these types of cases that might at first appear reasonable is that all witnesses, together, were either hallucinating, or lying.
And of course that can never be completely ruled out in an individual case, but in the context of the cases of which Hynek was speaking -- those
involving multiple witnesses of high community standing, with nothing to gain but much to lose by coming forward -- the hallucination / hoaxing
criticism becomes unreasonable (if not absurd) rather quickly, especially when looking at the surprisingly high number of these types of reports.
Are you familiar with the types of reports of which he was speaking? Many people, new to ATS or to the UFO topic in general, are completely unaware
that such cases exist.
Hynek's evaluation of the Condon Report ("Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists", April 1969)
touches on some of
these same points in a very effective way.
edit on 20-5-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: hyperlink