125 lines
5.5 KiB
Plaintext
125 lines
5.5 KiB
Plaintext
![]() |
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1) Take one element of a case completely out of context.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2) Find something prosaic that _could_ conceivably explain that one element.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3) Declare that therefore that one element has _been_ explained.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4) Call a press conference and announce to the world that the _entire
|
|||
|
case_ has been explained.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
NOW YOU DON'T SEE IT, NOW YOU DO
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Imagination can be positive or negative; it can see what's not there,
|
|||
|
or contrive buffers against seeing what is. It all depends upon one's
|
|||
|
predispositions and assumptions, and the amount of care one is willing
|
|||
|
to give to the process of observing -- and to testing one's
|
|||
|
observations honestly. Most fundamental scientific discovery and
|
|||
|
innovation has hinged upon noticing what, according to the conventional
|
|||
|
wisdom, "wasn't there."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
INVISIBLE FORCES? WOOOOO-WOOOOOOO...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Cynics seem to take pleasure in ridiculing the idea of "invisible
|
|||
|
forces" or "extrasensory realities," forgetting that science has
|
|||
|
always inquired into the invisible and the extrasensory. If everything
|
|||
|
presented itself to our senses, what need would we have for science?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IN A KLASS BY THEMSELVES
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Phil Klass and the sci-cops views it as their duty to "come up with
|
|||
|
prosaic explanations." Funny -- I always thought science was supposed
|
|||
|
to come up with _honest_ explanations, some of which _may_ of course
|
|||
|
turn out to be prosaic.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
CALL IN THE EXPERTS
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Scientistic fundamentalists, like their religious couterparts, seem to
|
|||
|
be the resident experts on evil.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The great scientist, like the great spiritual sage, is concerned only
|
|||
|
with Truth, which is open and dynamic, and elicits wonder, curiosity
|
|||
|
and a desire for expanded understanding. To the scientist-sage, all
|
|||
|
knowledge is provisional.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The pseudoscientist or cynic, like the religious zealot or
|
|||
|
fundamentalist, is concerned only with _certainty_, which is closed,
|
|||
|
static and lifeless. To the charlatan-debunker, all knowledge is
|
|||
|
final.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Truth lives in the Universe at Large, and operates beyond the sphere
|
|||
|
of human ego and petty personal fears, where the desire for certainty,
|
|||
|
Truth's ersatz counterpart, holds sway. Certainty, like all
|
|||
|
substitutes for wisdom, ultimately fails to satisfy.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
NO STRINGS ATTACHED. HOW ABOUT MIRRORS AND SMOKE?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I can't prove or disprove the infamous Meier case, but I'm interested
|
|||
|
in how we arrive at our beliefs. I do know there are plenty of people
|
|||
|
who believe that "everyone knows thew case has been completely
|
|||
|
discredited." The funny thing is that I can find almost no one who has
|
|||
|
actually seen the negative evidence, and fewer still who have studied
|
|||
|
it carefully.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As far as I can determine, the negative evidence was developed by
|
|||
|
Kal K. Korff around 1980, and consisted of digital high-pass
|
|||
|
processing and other enhancements of several of the Meier photos. The
|
|||
|
published version I have read seems to contain much subjective
|
|||
|
commentary to the effect that small saucer models were employed. As
|
|||
|
objective proof, we are offered one frame that shows a fine line above
|
|||
|
the craft which we are told is a supporting string.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
But wait a minute.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- The vertical line extending upward from the craft is visible in many
|
|||
|
of the original frames. It is an antenna-like structure.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- There is a very fine line that seems to be attached to the tip of
|
|||
|
this "antenna," however a) it intersects the "antenna" at a point
|
|||
|
_below_ its tip, b) it does not extend vertically, but at an angle, c)
|
|||
|
it is precisely parallel to, and indistinguishable from, many other
|
|||
|
fine lines found elsewhere in the frame, which appear to be noise
|
|||
|
artifacts in the digital scan lines.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
- Finally, the enhanced "frame" as published is not the full frame,
|
|||
|
but is cropped tightly; how far above the craft does this fine line
|
|||
|
extend? We are not shown or told.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In my opinion the preponderance of the remainder of Korff's
|
|||
|
commentaries are so subjective and highly charged as to provide little
|
|||
|
in the way of useful insight. He cites various techniques
|
|||
|
("pixelization", etc.) as capable of measuring distances from the
|
|||
|
camera, etc., but fails to explain how this is accomplished; we are
|
|||
|
apparently to take it on faith. As his source of official information
|
|||
|
on the case he cites one of the two Intercep "coffee table" books,
|
|||
|
which are superficial and of questionable value. He seems to have
|
|||
|
based his knowledge of the case entirely on second-hand sources, and
|
|||
|
to have done no firsthand research. He also offers as supporting
|
|||
|
evidence the subjective views of others who are themselves not well-
|
|||
|
informed about many details of the case.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
To settle the issue in a more satisfactory way, or at least to better
|
|||
|
understand it, I believe one has to carefully compare Korff's work
|
|||
|
with that of Jim Dilettoso, whose analysis of the Meier photos was
|
|||
|
extensive, rigorous, quantitative, and carefully distinguishes
|
|||
|
subjective from objective factors. His overview of the photogrametric
|
|||
|
analysis runs 21 published pages and, in my opinion, makes fascinating
|
|||
|
reading whatever your views may be about this particular case. It
|
|||
|
should be read by anyone interested in the anaysis of UFO photographs.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There's only one thing wrong with Dilettoso's work. It is reproduced
|
|||
|
in Wendelle Stevens' 540-page Preliminary Report on the Meier case.
|
|||
|
And "everyone knows" that Stevens' work has been thoroughly
|
|||
|
discredited.
|
|||
|
|