UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Redfern on Roswell

time25.jpg
Nick Redfern conjectures that Roswell was an accident from the future; that is visitors from our future are just as accidental-prone as we are, and they crashed in Roswell in 1947.

Click HERE to read Nick's Mysterious Universe piece.

RR

57 Comments:

  • Rich:

    It's important to note I'm not a proponent of the time-travel angle for Roswell.

    Indeed, as I specifically note in the article:

    "It is no secret, at all, that I am distinctly skeptical of the idea that aliens met their deaths in the desert on that long gone day in July 1947. And I consider that should we one day uncover the true story of what really occurred outside of Roswell, it will likely be one of secret military experimentation born out of the early years of Cold War shenanigans."

    But, I do find it an engaging theory - and kind of ironic, too, if it were proved that the Roswell "aliens" were us - which is why I brought it up.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • I understand that Nick.

    I'm being provocative -- hoping to drag readers here to the idea that Roswell has many possible explanations.

    Your comment will correct the idea that you are a future-visitor-Roswell-crash believer.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Yeah, I don't mind musing upon other possibilities even if I don't personally agree with them. After all, none of us really know what happened, and what crashed, on the Foster ranch back in 47.

    I don't rule out either the possibility that Corso knew something of the case - even though the vast majority of the book doesn't impress me at all.

    One interesting thing is how Corso talked about the craft and crew supposedly interfacing with each other, kind of like a symbiotic situation.

    The reason I find it interesting is because I have a number of FOIA documents from RAND that talk about research into "quasi-symbiotic relationship between man and, say, computing equipment on a much more intimate basis than is presently feasible."

    These documents all date from 1973, and so it's things like this that keep me following the Corso story, even though I find it very, very hard to buy it. But that doesn't rule out in my mind that, just maybe, he knew something...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • You, Nick, are not alone in thinking that Corso wasn't a goof.

    I've been communicating with others who find Corso's views not as outrageous as some have tried to make them.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • There's no doubt that most of the stuff in there about how the Roswell technology was integrated into US companies etc and led to night-vision, computers etc simply does not hold water - at all, even in the slightest. History demonstrates exactly where and these technologies were created and improved upon. But, that he may have known something, well, I don't fully deny it.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • An entertaining variant of the Roswell Möbius bandwidth, which beyond that observation, I am highly skeptical of theories based on "never say never" inasmuch I doubt such a voyage would be a manned foray, as well as the issue of biological contamination,mutation, disease etc, an issue science was aware of long ago. I doubt such a technologically advanced science would have ignored this critical safety factor.
    The "time traveler" theory always struck me as taking the nuts and bolts theories as a given in order to extrapolate on them, which I always considered akin to building castles made of sand, for which there is always a relativity factor..one stab being as good as the next..Corso is the poster child of unfounded inferences, unless we say his testament fits into the relativity of all prosaic explanations.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Nick Redfern will seemingly promulgate any old pabulum, but that's not to say he's a 'proponent' of it you understand.

    Is this the the Roswell explanation de jour, at least until Redfern's dilettantism leads him to embrace another explanation equally as bereft of testimonial evidence

    In lieu of truth we have speculation. It seems as if Roswell has become a canvas upon which those inclined to do so can paint whatever their predilections incline them to, and the facts of the matter can go hang.

    By Blogger Ross, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Ross,

    I think, and I bet Gilles Fernandez might agree, that Roswell is indeed a psychological canvas upon which many (including Nick, Bragalia, and me, among others), paint their subliminal desires and biases.

    That's what Roswell has become.

    I'm hoping -- against hope -- that Randle's Dream Team wakes us up.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Ross

    I make it very clear in the article that I hold to the idea of a down to earth explanation for Roswell.

    However, I see nothing at all wrong with speculating and musing on other theories, providing I make it clear that I don't endorse it.

    And it's easy to see I don't endorse it by the following words in the article:

    "It is no secret, at all, that I am distinctly skeptical of the idea that aliens met their deaths in the desert on that long gone day in July 1947. And I consider that should we one day uncover the true story of what really occurred outside of Roswell, it will likely be one of secret military experimentation born out of the early years of Cold War shenanigans."

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • I don't have any "subliminal desires and biases" regarding Roswell. I follow leads and clues, because with Roswell we have very little more to go on, as there's no hard evidence. But, I don't desire Roswell to be this or that, nor do I have a need for a bias to this or that.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Ross:

    You state: "In lieu of truth we have speculation."

    Well of course we fucking do!!

    There's no proof, or hard facts, of what happened at Roswell, so all of us are forced to try and piece things together from old memories, fragmented accounts, tales that may be spurious or disinfo, and conflicting scenarios.

    Roswell will never be anything but speculation until something solid surfaces. Its the same reason why something like Jack the Ripper is the subject of so much speculation rather than truth - like Roswell it's an old mystery from decades upon decades ago.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • We all have subliminal (tyros would say subconscious) biases and desires, Nick.

    You are pretty free of such when you're presenting material for the masses, but they are there.

    As for Roswell, you and I (and a few others we know) have no preconceived notion as to what happened near Roswell but we feel something happened.

    That's our bias, a thoughtful bias, but a bias nevertheless.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • I wouldn't say it's a bias, I would say it's a study of the evidence. When we have several different explanations from the military, old men frightened to talk, etc etc, it's not a bias to say we think something unusual and significant happened. Rather, it's a conclusion based upon an evaluation of the data in-hand. As I see it, that's very different to being biased.

    It's like with the crash test dummy angle: I'm not biased against it. I'm against it because the historical record shows the dummies weren't used in 1947.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Really Mr. Redfern, stealing plots from old syndicated Star Trek spinoffs without attribution is without honor....:

    "As the ship nears Earth, Rom finds that due to sabotage by Gaila they are unable to drop out of warp. However, by detonating part of the unstable kemocite "shipment" to create an explosion they can drop out of warp. Unfortunately, in doing so the ship and crew are thrown back in time to July, 1947 and crash land near Roswell, New Mexico. The Ferengi awake on a U.S. military base, where the Americans believe them to be Martians."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Green_Men_%28Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine%29

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • We're aruing semantics, Nick.

    I'm with your views all the way as you know.

    You operate as a journalist, who is reportedly without bias, but in my activities with our MediaWatchdog group, journalists always have biases, unbeknownst to them.

    That said, you are free of the bias-sin more than anyone I know.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Nick,

    The explanation to which you allude is far from prosaic. Furthermore, I seem to recall that when I spoke of this explanation in terms of being representative of your determination of what occurred at Roswell in 1947, you recoiled and rebuked that it was merely a possible explanation which you had decided to more widely publicise.

    The 'Body Snatchers in the Desert' hypothesis is bilge. It was bilge when you first gave it the oxygen of publicity, and it remained so when Annie Jacobsen was duped into
    lending her considerable credibility to it.

    By Blogger Ross, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • KP: Since I hate sci-fi and consider most of it a bunch of wank for adult men yet to lose their virginity (same for comic books), I know nothing of the fucking "ferengi," nor do I ever care to.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • It IS a possibility, and I have ALWAYS said (and admitted) I cannot deny the possibility, or some might say probability, that I was duped.

    And yes I did decide to give it more publicity. But for several reasons, one being that I was not the only one given this story. Numerous sources were given near-identical accounts, such as the well respected Australian researcher Keith Basterfield, who has confirmed he got the story before Body Snatchers was published, and from a different source, who I have since interviewed.

    Popular Mechanics, in 1997, said they had been "told" of a forthcoming release of documents that would tell of a Japanese equivalent of Operation Paperclip, that would explain Roswell.

    We can debate all day on the merits of a high altitude exposure experiment using people, but the fact is that I chose to promote the story - in part - because I knew that I was not alone in being fed the story by old-timers.

    The problem is, at least some of those who also have the story - and who got it BEFORE me - haven't said so publicly, aside from a few like Keith.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Nick,

    Perhaps you can infer something instructive from their reluctance to be publicly associated with that particular narrative.

    Dum spiro spero

    By Blogger Ross, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Ross:

    For whatever reason, a bunch of old men and women started to quietly release this story in the 1990s of a Japanese link to Roswell.

    That in itself, regardless of what anyone thinks of the theory, is interesting, and is one of the reasons I put the story out there - to see if it would open further doors.

    Popular Mechanic published it, at least in terms of what they had been told. John Keel published it, and I'm not talking about his "Fugo balloon" angle, but other less well known accounts of Japanese bodies.

    I recommend you look at the 1940s Japanese links to Fort Stanton, which happens to be in Lincoln County, NM, as is the Foster Ranch.

    A new book - not from me, but coming, I think, in 2014 - is highlighting some very interesting info on Fort Stanton, Japan, and Roswell.

    Re "infer"...

    What I infer is that there are a lot of people in Ufology frightened to question Holy Grail-style cases, in case colleagues give them a hard time.

    I infer they worry about not getting booked for conferences if they step out of line.

    I infer they want to stay cozy with the "In" people and with the "names" of Ufology.

    I infer they fear of rocking the boat.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Nick,

    So just to be clear...

    No supporting documentation

    No credible witness publicly on the record

    And supported by 'Popular Mechanics'


    Roswell is no Holy Grail, it's a poisoned chalice, and it's increasing irrelevant in terms of the business side of ufology. The appetites of those in search of the ufologically transcendent are better sated by the myriad of phoney whistleblowers and their tales of intergalactic high intrigue. Roswell, by comparison, is a damp squib.

    By Blogger Ross, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Ross:

    Regardless of whether you, me or anyone else might not consider Roswell to be a Holy Grail, the fact is that for many in Ufology it is a Holy Grail.

    For them, Roswell - with its stories of dead bodies, wreckage etc - is a potential make or break case, because it suggests that there is hard evidence somewhere hidden.

    And hard evidence means undeniable proof. Now, I'm not saying there is such proof, because I don't hold with the ET angle, but it's easy to see why some do put the case on a pedestal beyond all others.

    Re when you say "no supporting documentation" - so what? There is no supporting documentation for any theory for Roswell.

    Even the USAF admitted it couldn't find documents that definitively confirmed crash test dummies or a Mogul balloon came down with 100 percent certainty.

    The lack of documentation - for any theory for Roswell - suggests one of two things: (a) nothing of any significance happened, and the amount of documentation produced was mere scraps; or (b) the documentation was removed years/decades ago and is either still hidden or destroyed.

    I go with (b). But, pointing out that the info specifically given to me lacks documentation is pointless, when that applies to every theory.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • There is a fine edge between science fiction and speculation depending on one's point of view and especially in light of any subject, so treated as such, being taken seriously.
    It's a game of multiplications and exponential imaginings of Roswell that always reflect personal suspicions, if they are sincere and not weaving tales for the sake of another good tale. While I write this India's scientists are looking into unidentified aerial phenomenon over the Himalayas, after the Chinese vehemently denied the deployment of drones. Making a creaking old stereotype new again seems to be a fool's errand to anyone with a modicum of restraint for prolonging an extreme case of obsession by consensus. It is sort of a court of last resort for aging baby boomers, unwilling to move on from the apron strings of eventually simple explanations they imagine are, buried by conspiracy.
    This phenomenon does not require bodies, conspiracies, paperwork to continue, it requires an extremely narrow tunnel vision, to the exclusion of all the other evidence.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • "KP: Since I hate sci-fi and consider most of it a bunch of wank for adult men yet to lose their virginity (same for comic books), I know nothing of the fucking "ferengi," nor do I ever care to. "...

    .....The lady doth protest too much, methinks........

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • ...NOT that I intentionally referred to Redfern as the Jenny Randles of skeptics..... of...course.....

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Kurt,

    I must engage in a bit of pedantry here.

    The phrase 'doth protest too much' in Hamlet actually meant to promise too much. It is commonly mistaken to mean to disavow something too vehemently because it is actually true.

    By Blogger Ross, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Thank you Ross...

    Pedantry, indeed.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/neuroscientists-plant-false-memories-in-the-brain-0725.html

    So how can any Roswell "memories" be considered of value?

    By Blogger Chuck Finley, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • Ross:

    ...you have divined my pompous bloviating with astonishing accuracy(!), as I CANNOT promise to prove that the head-shaved Redfern is simply following the example of his 'imagined' alter ego Karen Gillan...

    ...even though I understand that it allows for many quick wig-changes, eh, wot?

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • WOW! ... I just realized that Redfern's next 'book' proves that, based upon this DC Flash comic book posting:

    http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-vilvorde-1973-ufo-incident-with.html

    ..that RRRGroup is an adult male virgin!!!! Elementary....

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • LOL! Loved Kurt Peters linking to that great Star Trek:Deep Space Nine episode - Little Green Men! Ferengi, of all aliens in Star Trek lore, with their obsession with latinum and love of making profits. The opposite of the rather communist Federation - where money had no use and everyone had a place to live, food, clothing and a career.

    One of the most bizarre explanations I've read for Roswell was in the late 1990s, online. Someone in a Yahoo UFO-ish Forum wrote that our government took Downs Syndrome people from state hospitals and put them in a mostly remote controlled vehicle.

    The idea was people with Downs Syndrome are generally good natured and pliable to teach some basics as their IQs can go up to about low-average. And, there would be no family missing these people because back in the 1940s most were turned over to the state (wards of the state) so any mishaps wouldn't be tracked by families.

    It was suppose to be a psychological test on locals who think they'd come across a crashed spacecraft and its crew.

    I don't buy any of it just as I don't buy the time traveling angle, but the various stories of the Roswell crash are interesting if only to see what people cook up.

    ~ Susan

    By Blogger brownie, at Thursday, July 25, 2013  

  • KP:
    I don't give a fuck about your "methinks."

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • This is the state of the interested parties regarding unknown aerial phenomenon when it comes to the Roswell Recycling Center.

    Personal attacks, sarcasm, expletives, etc that really are attached at the hip to the subject matter that is 99% negativity, and only 1% of the comments are actually about the subject matter itself.

    A lot of heat generated is sunk into fables of various sorts, that are certainly creative, certainly entertaining but nothing to be deeply personally attached to.

    It seems the weariness factor regarding Roswell and the remaining very strong desire to have Humpty Dumpty fall off the wall is evident here, and this post seems to have touched the raw nerves that reflect a "put up or shut up" reaction to further out Roswell theories, which is understandable.
    This compulsion and obsession is so repetitious as to be irritating because it is the poster child of a conundrum that a few individuals promoted that has gone nowhere unless you count "hot air" as the principle behind it's remaining buoyancy.

    Roswell has become "Ufology" to the detriment of other areas of investigation and has sucked the well dry and all that's left is finger pointing, which is either humorous or endless depending on what kind of day you are having.

    Personally., I wish all of us would move on to explore other areas of investigation as to challenge ourselves rather than feed "our pet corns" as Gurdjieff would say.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • Read Nick's article and find it difficult to comprehend all of the above posted angst.

    Nice article which Nick clearly states his position on the matter. It's an interesting, yet bizarre take from Corso. Personally, I don't buy it, but that's me.

    I like the errant V-2 filled with unwilling monkeys, possibly some strapped to a Mogul balloon for variety.:)

    Nice article Nick.

    PS: Regardless of what KP said, I'd like to shave my head too, but my wife won't let me.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • Hey Tim

    You wrote: "Read Nick's article and find it difficult to comprehend all of the above posted angst."

    The answer is simple: in today's world of Ufology, much of the "scene" has been reduced to "he said/she said" shit.

    Here's why:

    In the past, people actually went out and investigated cases, such as landings, "soil-sampling" aliens, tripod-landing marks etc.

    Those days are gone and will not come back, because the phenomenon doesn't interact with us as it did decades ago.

    So, with little of the "classic" kind to investigate, UFO researchers get bored, and so all they have left to do is moan and complain at each other.

    Sometimes I enjoy a good fight on the Net, because it's fun to hope I'm getting some prick's blood pressure all bent out of shape.

    But, what I really wish is that sometimes someone who insists on getting sarcastic and personal would do so to my face, such as at a conference. Of course, they don't though, as this would require them to possess a pair of balls.

    Ironically, the ones I'm talking about don't post comments at Rich's blog, but they know who they are.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, July 26, 2013  

  • Wow, Nick is harsh on the science fiction!

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Saturday, July 27, 2013  

  • I imagine, and that is to say that I imagine, that Corso liked to dangle some kinks of information to remind certain people not to *&$% with him concerning other, seemingly unrelated, concerns.

    By Blogger The Puppetburglar, at Saturday, July 27, 2013  

  • Lance, I can only tell it as I see it. I love horror stuff, but sci-fi just bores me.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Saturday, July 27, 2013  

  • Nick,


    And yet you write so much of it.

    By Blogger Ross, at Saturday, July 27, 2013  

  • Oh very witty Ross, very fucking witty

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Sunday, July 28, 2013  

  • Nick writes, "Those days are gone and will not come back, because the phenomenon doesn't interact with us as it did decades ago."

    Nick; How can you possibly know? "UFO" reports aren't facts but interpretations.

    You can't even show that there is a "phenomenon" of any kind, much less characterize its behavior over time. You can only speak about reports--not the ambiguous visual stimuli of perception, if any, that initiated narrative creation.

    And speaking of the behavior of some hypothetical unknown extraordinary reality that might exist behind even a very few "UFO" reports is irrational, even deluded. There is no reason to think a very few "unknowns" are any different than the rest.

    I say "if any" because a lot of flying-saucer stories--even some famous ones--are complete fabrications. Even the best stories are insubstantial and completely inconsequential. But a few people keep the brain-dead myth alive on life-support to sell their junky books.

    Invaluable old-time debunking paid believers in the "UFO" myth and delusion the compliment of rational opposition, Scientific realists know they're not even wrong.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, July 28, 2013  

  • This idea that UFOs don't interact with us anymore was rationalized by UFO proponents and apologists, I suggest, because the actual evidence for never got better and never coalesced as one might expect from a real phenomenon.

    As we have become a species that carries better and better cameras with us at all times and has placed security cameras virtually everywhere, no corresponding increase in UFO video evidence has followed.

    The UFO reports continue but they are not accompanied by better evidence.

    This idea that now UFOs don't interact with us is not unlike the revelation of a new date for rapture amongst doomsayers after the latest predicted end of the world has come and gone.

    It's pure cognitive dissonance.


    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, July 29, 2013  

  • Z:

    You say:

    "Nick; How can you possibly know?"

    Space-Colonel Zog of Zeta Reticuli told me, and there's no better source.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, July 29, 2013  

  • Lance

    You said: "This idea that UFOs don't interact with us anymore was rationalized by UFO proponents and apologists..."

    Go back and read what I said. I did not say the phenomenon doesn't interact with us anymore.

    What I actually said was: "the phenomenon doesn't interact with us as it did decades ago."

    The important words are "as it did..."

    Of course, reports still occur, and doubtless always will, and interaction still occurs, but in a far more "distant" fashion. In short, things have changed, but that's very different to no interaction, which I did not claim.

    What has changed is the issue relative to landings, face to face encounters etc.

    Now, in my "Contactees" book I suggested many of these cases were staged/visionary type experiences provoked by the phenomenon, which we may never have seen in its real form.

    I very much follow the lines of Vallee and Keel in terms of the phenomenon being deceptive, but if that's true (and of course it is a big if) then even the nature of the deception has changed, from intimate to stand-offish.



    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, July 29, 2013  

  • Hi Nick,

    Yeah....my comments relate to either wording. I wasn't just referring to your post but to a common apology amongst the UFO proponents.

    The idea of saying that UFO are a deceptive or jealous or trickster phenomena smacks of special pleading from my perspective.

    It's like Sagan's pet dragon....

    "I have a pet dragon."
    "Oh, can I see him?"
    "Sure come on over"
    ---
    "We'll, where is he?"
    "Oh, he's invisible...all pet dragons are!
    "Hmm.. Okay,can we weigh him then..."
    "Sure, lets do it"
    ---
    "Hmmm....nothing registering on the scale"
    "Yeah, I guess he's weightless....maybe all pet dragons are weightless. That's it!"
    "Uh, yeah..."


    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, July 29, 2013  

  • I don't consider it an apology. Rather, for me anyway, it's simply a conclusion based on my own assessment of cases. Simples as that. Nothing more, nothing less.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, July 29, 2013  

  • Zoam Chomsky left this comment (which my heavy finger accidentally deleted):

    Nick continues: "I very much follow the lines of Vallee and Keel in terms of the phenomenon being deceptive, but if that's true (and of course it is a big if) then even the nature of the deception has changed, from intimate to stand-offish."

    The fatal flaw of pseudoscientific notions like Vallee's "messengers" and Keel "ultras" is that they are not falsifiable: they remain not true, until they are shown to be true. But that can never occur because the idea "UFO" is a mere abstract to start, and Vallee and Keel's unnecessary explanations are paranoid science-fiction fantasies: a non-entity wrapped in conspiratorial mumbo-jumbo.

    The "time-traveling" or "quantum UFO" hypotheses are just as worthless as the "interdimensional UFO" hypothesis because they also are not falsifiable. They explain nothing, it's one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. Keel's "ultraterrestrial" (and every other such excuse) are no better than invoking magic fairies or Easter Bunny as phony rationales for the lack of evidence of real "UFOs" of any kind.

    In the 1970s, after the predictable failure of the "UFO" hypothesis ("UFOs" exist), high-profile advocates of the "UFO" myth (Hynek, Vallee, Keel, Clark and others proposed that the "saucers" had disappeared into an "alternate reality." To which Sheaffer said, [This] "'alternate reality' talk is not a promising new hypothesis. It is total intellectual abdication." All these "hypotheses" are just the same, worthless.

    (Zoam wouldn't want to be lumped in with the RRRGroup I bet. I'm adding this for him.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 30, 2013  

  • I have to disagree with Zoam 100 percent.

    "All these "hypotheses" are just the same, worthless."

    And you have proved that exactly how???

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Tuesday, July 30, 2013  

  • Zoam
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
    ― Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays 2, 1926-2
    To say there is nothing behind a hypothesis, is to say, in effect, one does not exist, unless one cares to specifically refute them by proving beyond a reasonable doubt, they are false. This is the nature of a hypothesis from which an investigation proceeds, or not. You seem to confuse hypothesis with fact. The fact that the root of this phenomenon is unknown, regardless of it's sources, so your positivism ( to me) is simply a hypothesis.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, July 30, 2013  

  • Nick,

    I am in pretty full agreement with Zoam.

    The various special pleading hypotheses mentioned above are unfalsifiable. They, by the way believers have set them up, refuse to play in anything like the scientific realm.

    Indeed when any claim is made related to these ideas that can be tested, the claim fails.

    Perhaps the word "worthless" is too harsh.

    These ideas have the same kind of value as religion. For some folks maybe they provide comfort?

    For me most of these ideas are like terrible science fiction by unimaginative writers.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, July 30, 2013  

  • Lance

    You say: "These ideas have the same kind of value as religion. For some folks maybe they provide comfort?"

    Don't you think you're looking a bit too deep into all this? It's a theory for a strange phenomenon and nothing more.

    How does holding such a theory provide comfort? It's just a hypothesis on something that is unknown - nothing more and nothing less.


    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • Hi Nick,

    Ah, but they aren't just hypotheses, at least from my experience. Disconfirming data and pointed questions are ignored, rationalized away or met with anger and suspicion--anything to protect the idea.

    By referring to religion, I simply mean that they are unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

    The comfort part is just a guess. Just as likely, I also guess, might be a matter of control. Why do people construct elaborate conspiracy theories about 9/11, for instance? And why then do they defend the theories against facts just as paranormal proponents do for their ideas?

    Do people like to think that they have an inside knowledge of how It all works? Is it a matter of feeling in control in a wildly unpredictable world?

    Oh well, I don't usually discuss this side of things, preferring to just deal with examining testable claims. Paul Kimball and I discussed some of this (off-mic). We also suggested that skeptics might get something, some feeling of control, out of barking against paranormal belief. Maybe that's true...

    At least skeptics have god damn science as their crutch! :)

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, July 31, 2013  

  • "And you have proved that exactly how???"

    I already showed how, Nick, by the rules of evidence. If one can offer neither confirming or disconfirming evidence of an "hypothesis," then it fails even at being a scientific hypothesis. Mere suggestions without evidence or without demonstrable operative relation to phenomena cannot be valid hypotheses.

    So all the purely science-fiction ideas for why people make "UFO" reports--which are all we have--are not only unnecessary, they are scientifically worthless.

    "It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning.

    "The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known — the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible — logically impossible — for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue — in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable. ..."

    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, August 01, 2013  

  • Lance
    Well, of course its just a hypothesis! Without proof, how can it be anything else? Do I adhere to that idea of something co-existing and manipulating? Yes. Can I prove it? Not at all. Therefore it's a hypothesis!

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, August 02, 2013  

  • Z:

    You say: "I already showed how, Nick, by the rules of evidence."

    Nope. You have not proved that the theory is 100 percent wrong. It hasn't been done, anymore than proving the theory is real has been done.



    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Friday, August 02, 2013  

  • Right, Nick; By the rules of evidence the mere suggestion that "UFOs are time machines" doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It's untestable so it's meaningless.

    One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, August 04, 2013  

  • Z; Yes it is untestable. But I go back to what you said:

    "All these "hypotheses" are just the same, worthless."

    That's a very definitive statement.

    However, the fact is that because something is currently untestable does not mean it is worthless.

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Monday, August 05, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home