UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, January 31, 2014

Skeptics and the Roswell “Myth”

 Our friend, Lance Moody and his skeptical comrades, CDA [Christopher Allan] and Gilles Fernandez insist, vehemently, that the 1947 Roswell incident and its accumulated aftermath of material is a myth.

Lance has a current comment about this at Kevin Randle’s blog where the Roswell tale is redundantly exercised, even more so than here.

What is discouraging about Lance’s stance and that of his skeptical allies is that Jung and his acolyte Joseph Campbell, along with Mircea Eliade and Sir James George Frazer have determined, if not scientifically at least academically, that at the core of mythical tales lie an absolute, profound truth.

Those, literate, in the works of those men and others know this and the matter is closed to dispute in most quarters of debate.

Yes. Roswell is a myth. And those who continue to pursue the topic (David Rudiak, The Roswell Investigations Team, Kevin Randle, Stanton Friedman at al.), flawed as their approach may be, seek to get at the core truth, inside the Roswell “myth.”

Intellectuals and UFO thinkers of repute allow the ongoing Roswell pursuit, whereas the skeptics would shut it down.

One might ascribe a kind of mental/emotional or existent denial on the part of the skeptics.

But let’s just say, they are ill-read or illiterate when it comes to the academic vicissitudes of mythology and the vast amount of material that supports its paradigms.



  • R,

    The preferred definition of the word 'myth' by skeptics is usually that of "this story is a lie and has no factual basis in reality".

    To my understanding the actual operational definition of Myth by Campbell and Jung is something along the linges of "Myth is the unprovable operational framework through which the human mind sees the world and interacts with it".

    It becomes a 'mythic landscape' which only becomes a shared reality when people agree upon its contents. One might use more mundane words to describe this personification of "Myth" such as "rose colored glasses" or "operational world view" or even "constructed reality". As Godel's Proof cleverly points out-- in any axiomatic system there are always unprovable assumptions.

    In any event, a Skeptic uses a 'mythic landscape' [in this sense] that may be described as: "Universe is what you see and nothing more, it is all there is and in this universe all events are 'tangible, measurable, and local'."

    By definition, 'Tangible' means they have a physical basis, 'measurable' with the proviso that human observation is not to be trusted, and 'local' in the sense that "spooky action at a distance" that Einstein did not approve of is not allowed.

    In this, the Skeptical worldview, has much in common with the 'pre-Gallileo' world view of the Catholic Church in regards to "Man's central place in the universe" in that 'the inexplicable' cannot be allowed.

    Lance demonstrates this well by his espousal that the man behind Lockheed's Skunk Works and the design of the SR-71 saw a dissipating cloud in 1953 rather than an aircraft. But what if what was observed was NOT a cloud? Lance appears not to have even considered that question since that is an impossible event in the "Mythic Landscape" of the Skeptic. I think I can guess how he would evaluate the Gulf Breeze magnetic anomaly.

    Unfortunately, that kind of thinking isn't really Science. Objects at a sub-atomic scale are not tangible and have never actually been seen. Human observation is accepted in any other 'science' except those which deal with "the unusual". Einstein has been proven wrong in regards to entanglement and "spooky physics". The truth is that observing the Higgs Boson is on an equal footing with 'observation of unusual objects' in that the existence of the unseeable Higgs is only inferred from the results of billions of partical collisions. Why should a trained aircraft designer and pilot "mis-observe" something? Why should the rules change for one kind of observation to another?

    Did Roswell happen? Who knows? As far as I am aware no one is "doing science" concerning the event and seem to be more focused on acting out the plot of a badly written "B" movie. As pointed out by my father in the documents you published, the likelihood there has been a 'technology transfer' is exceedingly small yet the idea persists. If we had actually recovered and reverse engineered the world would be quite a different place than it is now.

    One might also ask "Is Roswell important or relevant?" To my mind Roswell is only important if you believe in the ETH. The Mythic landscape of the believer in ETH is also burdened with "the conspiracy" which suppresses "the truth".

    To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein: "One man's myth is another man's belly laugh."



    By Blogger gishzida, at Friday, January 31, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home