Tuesday, June 13, 2006
[Click title to read post]
Well, might we have a solution for the Heflin photo case? According to an anonymous post to UFO Updates, the object is in fact a model train wheel, and the smoke ring in the final Heflin image is from an airshow. Let's take a look, shall we?
First, here's a comparison of model train wheels with two of the Heflin photos... and then a comparison of the final Heflin image and an airshow photo (including the aircraft which created the ring).
Not conclusive, but mighty compelling justification for a re-evaluation, wouldn't you say?
All I can say is...Hmmmmmmmm.
[h/t to UFO Updates]
The presumption seems to be that a willing institution of human scientific tradition is waiting to be impressed enough to have a look at this "UFO" thing, when the reality is the polar opposite of that.
The reality, it seems to me, is the Individual Case, the one Crop Circle, the single Abduction, the isolated Report, the sole Recording, the lone radar Return, that singular Piece of physical evidence... ...Do any of the three of us here deny the actuality and the validity and the genuine-ness of that single validating instance given the many thousands of them that there are?
No... the most blitheringly klasskutxian neo-bunkster nay-bob will admit to that "single case"... even if they have to push it away from themselves to some space, time, and surface area... "...long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away..." or otherwise personify it as microbial and dead under a rock on Mars for millions of years...
It remains that it is that single case to which everyone admits that is the thing to be gainfully searched out, and which is in no way searched out, by design... even _if_ clumsy. It is avoided. Like a taboo.
We engage in an extended viewing through the wrong end of the telescope, see, and attempt to discredit that abundantly admitted whole by invalidating, or over parsing, the ineffable items of it. It's the one genuine case that proves a ufological reality, not the one demonstrable hoax discrediting same. But that's the contention of the denialist nay-bob. Don't look for the true case. Gleefully ferret out the _fake_ one. Then the next. And the next... and the next after that... and before you know it? You can begin to support the "not looking for it" because it's such a waste of time and resources.
Don't look for the real thing though, and minimize resources doing that! No, "locker-rupture" the past, instead, so you can maintain the _illusion_ of a research activity...
We investigate the debatable, *potentially* discreditable cases in an effort to _put off_ the examination of that single case... proof of the other that each of us suspects is there. Some might call that cowardly.
We're not looking, it's career death to do so, the mechanism of its denial is huge with many devoted and passionate acolytes, and we humiliate ourselves that we are being rational in the shadow of that denial.
Let's turn the scope around, eh?
AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
It was the very first UFO photo I ever saw...on the cover of "Is something up there" at my elementary school library . I always thought the case was a TRUFO. Sure the photo looked fake, but how do we know what a real UFO will look like? LOL
But like you, I now think it's another FAUX-FO... :)
Thanks for writing!
I understand your position here, and I appreciate it. However, I think when an old case is re-examined and new evidence casts new light, and the case is found wanting, those facts should be made loud and clear.
If we hinge our satisfaction that UFOs are real on a few solid cases, but then later find thej not to be so solid, then everyone who criticizes us for jumping to conclusions is right for doing so.
If we don't separate the wheat from the chaff, how will we KNOW when we have found wheat? Even if we are firmly confident that wheat exists?
I think we have to cull the bad cases. But it may be a waste of time to others, and that's why others don't do it.
I don't think it's a waste of time, which is why I do it. :)
If it is cowardly, I just define cowardly differently than some, which is something with which I can live... :)
Well yeah... of course... no argument! Hoaxes should be exposed!
Thing is? The "chaff" is being used by the garden variety klasskurtxian kack-wizard to discredit the "wheat"... ..._as_ "chaff." Ufological democracy is readily used by knee-jerk denialists to destroy that democracy, in a way... after a fashion.
...All in the interests of being "thorough" and "rational" and "scientific" and... pick another word indicating how willing some of these persons are to throw out the obligatory baby with the wizzed-in water so they can remain feeling superior about their self-serving intellectual masturbations and reflex denials.
Dude! We've got to look through the right end of the scope, eh? Precious little looking going on to counter the enevitable denials exaserbated by the canted, imprecise, biased, and largely incompetent raking of old coals...
Hey "coal rakers"! Rake:
1. Kirtland AFB (11\4\57)
2. Hynek Blue Book Case (5\5\65)
3. Malmstrom AFB (3/20/67)
4. Incident at Redlands, Ca.(Hynek, BB, 2\4\68)
5. Exeter, New Hampshire (9\3\65)
6. Malmstrom AFB (11\7\75)
7. Iran F-4 Incident (9\76)
8. Belgium (1989\90)
9. Illinois, USA (1\5\2000)
AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
I really cannot allow what others might do with my analysis to determine if and when to perform said analysis.
Hoaxes need to be exposed. I am attempting to expose a hoax...if it is one...and what others may do with this information will not deter my feelings on this subject, and I would hope that the same would be true of other discerning individuals.
I firmly believe that the end of the telescope through which I am peering is the correct one for me, as it allows me to swing a full 360 degrees, rather than a tunnel-vision distorted view which provides little "swing room" at all. That any view other than my own is such a view is not foregone, but my view is one that I feel comfortable is not.
There will always be "klasskurtxian" skeptics with knee-jerk reactions to these issues. My focus is for MY benefit, to satisfy myself that I am not lending credence to a bogus case. If others agree, great. If they choose to attempt to use same to debunk a greater body of evidence, I trust that intelligent persons will see the fraud that this would represent. Optimistic? Perhaps, but there you are. I am... :)
I do NOT advocate throwing out the baby with the bathwater, anymore than I advocate blind adherence to a trumped-up party line.
If I am to be on "middle ground", I must take the full measure of that middle ground and exhaust any hint of falsehood to the best of my ability, lest I fall erroneously to one side or the other, and yes, though some may use this to indict the field as a whole. The risk is required, and the field can handle it, be it a valid field...
I do not begrudge the debunkers their "safe" debunkery, because they need that safety apparently, and right or wront, it IS their privilege to assume what they will. They are on the wrong side of history, science, and speculative behavior that has served mankind forever.
But in UFOlogy, we are supposed to be the ones with the OPEN mind, with the confidence that a case can fall by the wayside without affecting the overarching self-evident "truths" to which we hold.
We have the greater burden because our position comes not from ignorance or fear or NEED, but from the simple search for knowledge wherever it may lead. Knowledge based on science, evidence and a willingness to BE LED, as long as we keep the perspective of the open mind.
That is MY position at any rate.
As I said, I fully appreciate your position in this, and I honestly appreciate your comments!