It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This paper is about the elusiveness of evidence for
anomalous events. I will speak of UFOs because this
is the subject most familiar to me, but the underlying
theme concerns problems of knowing the unknown
and unaccepted, and the same arguments will apply
more or less equally well to other anomalies. My recent
preoccupation with evidence results from a crisis
in my long-time study of UFOs. It is not a crisis of
faith, because I am still convinced that an irreducible
residue of unknowns remains after all the conventional
cases are winnowed out of the mass of reports,
and that these unknowns hold their status not because
they are merely unidentified, but because they
possess a robust strangeness that seems beyond conventional
solution. The crisis is rather one of confidence,
a sense that I have taken too much for
granted, been too naïve in what I have accepted, neglected
too many subtleties and pitfalls in a landscape
I thought I knew. I suffer from disquiet and embarrassment—
disquiet that I am more uncertain than I
realized, and embarrassed that I—and my fellow
ufologists—overlooked weaknesses we had a responsibility
to notice.
The stimulus for my concern has been the recent
success of skeptics in shooting down some highprofile
UFO cases that once seemed unassailably
strong. Within the past two years or so they have provided
a conventional explanation for the 1997 Phoenix
Lights, a case with thousands of witnesses, including
the governor of Arizona, and highlighted in Leslie
Kean’s best-selling book, UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and
Government Officials Go on the Record. They succeeded
again with the 1996 Yukon “giant mothership” case,
advertised in a popular TV show as one of the “ten
best” UFO reports of all time. Most troubling of all
was an article in the Skeptical Inquirer by James
McGaha and Joe Nickell that offered a solution for
the “Incident at Exeter,” a 1965 classic that J. Allen
Hynek considered an exemplary close encounter of
the first kind, and a case that most ufologists counted
on to stand forever. I certainly thought so, since I included
it in my 2010 book as high on my short list of
favorite—and genuine—UFOs.
Within the past two years or so they have provided a conventional explanation for the 1997 Phoenix Lights
JimOberg
This is not an easy read, but it deals with constructive responses to several major case solutions discussed vigorously on ATS. For thoughtful students of this undeniably fascinating and baffling social phenomenon, I strongly urge putting in the effort.
paranthropologyjournal.weebly.com...
Most troubling of all
was an article in the Skeptical Inquirer by James
McGaha and Joe Nickell that offered a solution for
the “Incident at Exeter,” a 1965 classic that J. Allen
Hynek considered an exemplary close encounter of
the first kind, and a case that most ufologists counted
on to stand forever. I certainly thought so, since I included
it in my 2010 book as high on my short list of
favorite—and genuine—UFOs.
The Recent Fuss About The Exeter Case
..this is another example of the debunker's predilection for having a simple brain gush, disregarding massive amounts of the actual witness testimony, and force fit an inadequate thought into an inappropriate situation.
Let's also not forget that Bullard's comments work both ways and quite a few 'official' debunks for specific UFO cases are highly questionable to say the least.
My feelings are considerably more uneasy. Today’s skeptical attacks on UFOs belong to a different breed than the woeful Air Force concoctions of the 1950s or the armchair pontifications of Harvard astronomer Donald Menzel. The modern skeptics bring rigorous and informed criticism to their arguments and highlight inconvenient facts that ufologists overlook or ignore. This new caliber of skepticism is nothing to laugh at; when it’s on target, it kills. And their aim seems increasingly true.
Phage
Bullard addresses that directly.
'Today’s skeptical attacks on UFOs belong to a different breed than the woeful Air Force concoctions of the 1950s..'
Phage
The modern skeptics bring rigorous and informed criticism to their arguments and highlight inconvenient facts that ufologists overlook or ignore.
Perhaps so. But how does more "unknowns" help support the ETH? Isn't that exactly one of the points that Bullard was making? That high profile cases which are explained tends to indicate that the "unknown" designation is a matter of a lack of information rather than support for the ETH?
If USAF explanations on the 1950's (and 1960's) were 'woefull concoctions' as Bullard describes then I suppose that quite a number of casefiles should be reclassified and put back in the actual unknown category, if only for the intellectual honesty of future research.
Not really. There were plenty of political reasons to toss of ill concieved explanations no mundane ones were readily available.
Does make you wonder why Bluebook which touted itself as a systematic study which 'scientifically analyzed UFO data' would throw their objectivity out the window and force fit 'absurdly erroneous' explanations onto serious incidents though.
In some cases. However, those "inconvenient aspects" are more often than not based on a lack of solid evidence rather than the presense of it. More often they are based on witness reports and memories, something known to be somewhat fluid.
Yes I'm sure you'll agree that statement also works both ways and UFO researchers aren't the only ones to overlook certain inconvenient aspects of a case if it doesn't fit snugly with an existing opinion.
I'm not really familiar with them so I can't offer an opinion. But, with what you seem to know about them, do think they are more or less harmful to UFOlogy than Stephan Greer or Hoagland?
Would you count James McGaha and Joe Nickell as rigorous and informed?