UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, January 07, 2014

Skeptical bastards!

I try to keep an open and civil mind when it comes to UFOs.

After all, the topic is hamstrung by all the nuts who engage in it.

But this gets my goat (as we used to say)…

Gilles Fernandez provides a magnificent, if fraudulent, assessment of the 1896 Airship Wave about which I point out some egregious errors and some malapropos psychology.

Asking skeptics to weigh in, in my previous post here, only brought some forgiving and senseless support for Gilles’ endeavor.

When David Rudiak provides like-kind commentary at Kevin Randle’s blog, Lance Moody and CDA are all over him like stink on a monkey.

But here, Lance Moody is a no-show and CDA strokes Gilles’ with sycophantic encomium.

Tim Printy adds a soporific note, as he also likes skepticism that is rife with error and misused psychological argot.

I applaud Gilles’ effort. It is a piece of splendid propaganda.

Even The Anomalist found it here and noted its skeptical salience.

But no one has taken a stab at correcting Gilles’ illogic and many errors, which I attempted to do with the posting below this one.

Skeptics circle the wagons when one of their own is under attack, and truth is set aside for a kind of irrational bonhomie.

It’s shameful skepticism and while I’m more agnostic that skeptical about UFOs, I find the reticence to correct or condemn nonsense, like that in Gilles’ piece, to be a flaw that encapsulates the UFO matter, and makes it even dicier than it intrinsically is.

So, Mr. Printy, CDA, and no-show Lance, I’m embarrassed for you guys.

You’ve shown your true colors and they aren’t prism-clean.



  • LOL--Rich I am trying to put aside enough time to read and review the material...there is a lot of it.

    I was also in the middle of the Tremonton thing.

    I will get to it.


    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, January 07, 2014  

  • Better late than never, Lance.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 07, 2014  

  • I'm a little perplex about all of the uproar...

    Rich, your original view seemed to be that Gilles' work was "superb", yet now its fraught with error and propaganda, if not outright fraud.

    I assumed you had read Gilles' piece in its entirety prior to posting your original blog article providing the link to Gilles' site.

    I've reread the article (Gilles') and again find a good attempt to look at the sightings through the "prism" of the psycho/social model.

    That Gilles uses a particular model for memory recall is apt to be controversial because no one set group of psychologist has come up with a satisfactory unified model.

    Gilles provided evidence that the general public for that time period and local (California) was exposed to the airship concept via newspaper articles and various literature that were popular reading.

    I guess its the Venus issues that upsets you the most(?) I frankly saw no attempt to "inflate" the size to the planet in the photo. Though admit that there were other photos/images that could have been used...similar to the one that I had used on my latest blog post concerning Tim Printy's latest SUNlite edition.

    I personally see no fraud or propaganda on Gilles' part, but merely one proposing a hypothesis and having the opportunity to defend it...and you having the right to raise objections.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, January 07, 2014  

  • Gilles, Tim, did a superb job of mustering his views and presenting them.

    I thought his effort should get a viewing and attention on this side of the water.

    I try to present alternative views here ,as you (should) know.

    If you don't see fraud or propaganda in Gilles presentation, I'm shocked.

    You pretend to have psychological acumen.

    If you do, the nonsense about memory, as you note, is hooey.

    And I've already cited how he undercuts his premise with the information about what was extant in aircraft invention in the time-frame.

    And then there's that Venus image.

    In light of, as I mentioned to Printy's comment in the previous post, the disingenuousness rampant in Gilles' offering, the Venus image was frosting on the propagandistic cake.

    I suggest you re-read (or read) my citation of the errors in the post before this one.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 07, 2014  

  • Rich,

    You continue to accusate me to have made a fraud with my screenshoot. It is absurb and paranoid.
    The point is Venus is where the 2 foremost sightings located these "airship(s). I didn't expect such a totaly non-sens by you :(

    When you use Charles August Albert Dellschau's images/pictures/artworks to illustrate your Airships articles, but not provide the ones showing or pointing his Artwork is post 1896/97, it is what, Rich Reynolds?

    If you want to play this game, you illustrated my article entries with a picture, but eliminated the legend, as if it was representing an "airship". You were fraudulent then and manipulated your readers?
    This is what we found really in newspapers: http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2196/64p2.jpg

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, January 07, 2014  

  • "I try to present alternative views here ,as you (should) know."

    Which is why I had gravitated to your site awhile back...generally your posts are thought provoking regardless of being a skeptic or other wise.

    "You pretend to have psychological acumen."

    In the future, I'll bring a step ladder with the vain hopes of measuring up to your stature...

    "If you do, the nonsense about memory, as you note, is hooey"

    You adequately proved my point about controversies using various models of memory...

    What bothers me about your diatribe against Gilles...and me too, at this point, is that you had posted recently on your blog about the lack of civility regarding Ufology. I believe you singled out both sides...taking all to the "wood shed" if you will.

    Do you not see yourself as equally culpable by calling Gilles' work as propaganda and outright fraud?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, January 07, 2014  

  • Calling Gilles' work a piece of propaganda is uncivil?

    That a Venus image implies a fraudulent take on reality is uncivil?

    If you think, Tim, that telling the truth is uncivil, we are far apart.

    And you, of all persons, have got to know that the "psychology" Gilles exploited is hooey.

    For me, and others, the things that skeptics employ are just as flawed as that which the UFO-ET crowd employs.

    It doesn't help that Gilles, whose effort is truly splendid, as fiction, is supported less than even-handed by those, like yourself, and Tim Printy or CDA, who won't consider giving his effort a full scrutiny because you are biased in favor of his ploy or his "friendship" curries a bias that distorts what you read.

    And if you can't discern what I'm writing from the incivility that I blasted earlier, our difference of intellect is strained beyond redemption.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 07, 2014  

  • Well, I don't understand (yet) all the issues but your complaints about Gilles using a screen shot from astronomical software doesn't seem very fair.

    I am trying to see your side of it honestly but I just don't. My recollection of how you have often used various wildly inappropriate images to illustrate your pieces (for instance once I remember folks wondering if the images you posted were the actual new Roswell slides--they weren't!) makes me wonder if you were simply being ironic in this complaint?

    Indeed if I were asked to name someone who frequently culled images from the internet that only vaguely connected to the actual material, your name would be on the tip of my tongue.

    And I say this with love.

    I am asking Gilles some questions I had (that you apparently did, too).

    My experience with Gilles is that he wants to get things right and that he attempts to do so in good humor and with a generous spirit. I wonder if the way you jumped on him with so much apparent venom (even if you meant it with tongue in cheek) was really necessary?


    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, January 07, 2014  

  • If I were tormenting Gilles, Lance, would I have put his piece online (as a link) without emendation or corruption?

    I like Gilles and I liked his piece.

    It's a splendid attempt to make his point, to suggest his theory or hypothesis.

    But as he continues to insist that I'm in the UFO-ET camp, it becomes necessary to disabuse him of that canard.

    As for imagery..

    Since you are in a business replete with necessary imagery, you know what its purposes are.

    For my introductions to postings, I use titles and art that might capture a passer-by.

    Even when the image used has no connection to my copy, it doesn't interfere with or exploit the point i'm trying to make.

    With Gilles' Venus picture, using a larger-than-reality perspective seems disingenuous to me, whether it was inadvertent or not.

    Gilles' presentation had, since he concocted it that way, a patina of scientific or academic verisimilitude.

    Inserting an errant Venus, from errant software, strikes me as wrong-headed or worse.

    And that you and other friends of Gilles refuse to see the other points I made -- about the technology of the times (1890s) and the psychological hooey (the memory nonsense) -- and not call Gilles out on those gaffes, offends me intellectually.

    You'd pound (and do pound) Rudiak for such purposeful and egregious bullshit.

    I do not mean to sound venomous about Gilles' "report" -- I continue to extol it and will place his second part online also.

    But that means it's open to disputation, in the academic sense.

    And if that ends up sounding mean-spirited, so be it. That's what vibrant debate is about.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 07, 2014  

  • RR:
    Your remarks about why I and others are so willing to hammer D Rudiak over his failings but far less willing to hammer Gilles over his failings boils down to the simple fact that I have not taken the same interest in the 1896-97 airship wave and its very small aftermath as I have in Roswell and its huge and ongoing aftermath.

    The latter (among other things) involves the USAF having alien bodies preserved on ice for 66 years. The former was a passing phase, which never gave rise to the conspiracy ideas that Roswell, and Aztec, still give rise to.

    There was no 'hardware' with the airship affair, no bodies and no official documents. Exactly the opposite applies to Roswell, allegedly.

    Big difference, eh?

    In fact some of Rudiak's general points are quite good. I (and Lance) tend to attack him over his other flaky ideas.

    As far as Gilles goes, as I say I don't have the same knowledge or interest in this airship sighting wave, although I realise it is a cornerstone of ufology for some.
    If he has erred or been negligent in places, as you sincerely believe, then it is up to you and others, who have a deeper knowledge of this airwave, to criticize him.

    Everyone interested in UFOS has their own particular focus of interest. What is yours?

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, January 08, 2014  

  • I might add that Tim Printy intimates in his latest "SUNlite" e-mag that I am going to be 'peddling' pictures of an AF air man corpse and pass them off as the Roswell Alien Slides.

    New lows from Printy, a sick individual.


    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, January 08, 2014  

  • AJB:

    Why not admit it: Roswell is a sick, very sick, UFO case. And it is getting sicker day by day as long as certain protagonists continue to promote it.

    And yes, I am positive the so-called pictures or slides (whatever they are) will not revive it one iota.

    But once again, we have strayed from the topic.....

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, January 08, 2014  

  • Rich,

    My first sentence was that I was still trying I understand the issues raised. I wasn't refusing to address your points, I was doing it slowly.

    Ok, now then, I wanted to discuss another point. As written, It does seem that Gilles contradicts himself by saying both that these kinds of craft didn't exist in 1897 and then listing several earlier examples of craft that DID exist earlier.

    As I understand it, the point Gilles is making is that there WERE example of these powered LTA craft but that none of them were operating or known in the US.

    GIlles wrote the piece in English (not his native language by his own admission), hoping that English speakers would help him correct and edit it.

    So do you have concrete examples of these kinds of craft operating in the US in 1897?

    And also I would appreciate it if anyone might correct any mistakes I have made above.

    I'll try to cover additional points as time allows.



    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, January 08, 2014  

  • Lance,

    It's not imperative for you (or others) to squelch Gilles' here.

    I was making the point that skeptics are not prone to hold their own to the same standards that they insist the UFO believer crowd adhere to (Rudiak, Bragalia, et al.).

    Gilles, as a psychologist, makes some obtuse statements about memory that anyone, even those with a modicum of psych-knowledge, knows are flawed, and not relevant to the issues he, himself, raises.

    When I wrote my post (linked in the posting prior to this one), I provided the engineering acumen of the time, in Europe and here in the States.

    (You and CDA seemed to not see that post -- because it wasn't Roswell related?)

    But, more importantly, Gilles' insistence that the observations for the 1896-97 Airship wave were of Venus, is just hooey.

    Anyone who proposes that UFOs (Mantell's) or Airships were or are misinterpreted Venus observations, get the heave-ho from me, just as Menzel did when I read his stupid explanations.

    I know that's a knee-jerk reaction but in Gilles' case, we dealt with this when he first proposed it in an earlier posting I Americanized and put online for him here.

    Gilles effort is wonderful, fictional as it is, and deserves a hearing.

    But it also deserves a thrashing, as it is just goofy, in toto and specifically.

    I don't want you or CDA to ruin your friendship with Gilles to accommodate me, or the truth.

    This is just ufology, as Gilles often reminds us.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 08, 2014  

  • There's no ruining of friendship going on...when someone posts something asking for help smoothing out the language, the piece shouldn't be seen as a final item.

    Gilles agreed that the language referred to above needs to be massaged,


    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, January 08, 2014  

  • Smoothing out the language is the least of the problems with the piece.

    It's the core suppositions.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 08, 2014  

  • I am trying to understand your arguments that airships were likely in California in 1897-ish.

    Your main example seems to be the Sonora Airship Club, an organization that may not have even existed except as a delightful whimsical fantasy and for which there is no actual evidence.

    Am I missing something?


    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, January 08, 2014  

  • Use the link that's about Ballooning.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 08, 2014  

  • And Lance...

    Don't be a "communist" -- reversing the issues to those with me.

    Look at Gilles' piece on its own.

    You guys try every trick in the book.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 08, 2014  

  • Lance,

    Gilles agreed that the language referred to above needs to be massaged

    Yep. Fortunatly and today, an anonymous English speacker, "new" reader of my blog and "professional" rewriter, as having a good knowledge of the thematics I adressed, contacted me and have offered me to fixe my English graciously. That's unexpected and very cool from him...

    English will be then "fixed" at my blog in few hours or days I think ;)



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, January 08, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home