hagbard_celine
11-06-2008, 12:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xt5AMBTQPs
People sometimes lament that UFOlogy is male-dominated and that not enough women are involved in it, but in this case it was female investigators who have done most of the legwork!
Halt's tape: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1353999273966401244&q=charles+halt+ufo&ei=ZmowSPmqMoumqgOyxryoCQ&hl=en
It didn't take long for an alternative “rational explanation” to be tossed onto the table! It's worth reading Ridpath and Thurkettle's articles because they are very revealing about the mentality behind those fixated on debunking. No matter how wild and wacky the “Woo’s” get, your average Skepolata will come up with something crazier; the more convincing the story, the crazier the Skepticism. Ridpath, Thurkettle and Chris French's rebuttal is on such shaky that I hardly know where to start! Halt was not a hippy on a night time retreat, he was a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Air Force, therefore a highly-trained observer; something which is very obvious in his tape. (Besides, even the so-called “most gullible members of society” have turned out to be much better witnesses that the Skeptics claim they are. A few years ago, some engineers built a fake UFO out of a model plane and flew it over Avebury because it is a gathering place for mystics and pagans. This was a “Carlos”, the intention being to fool them and therefore show them up for being dupes, but in a way the plan backfired. The hippies at Avebury did indeed report seeing a UFO, but they reported pretty much what they saw, describing the craft accurately. There were none of the embellishments and exaggerations the hoaxers were banking on.) Halt adamantly sticks to his story. He was most certainly not in “believer mode”. He went into the forest hoping to debunk the story. He actually states in the documentary that I posted above that he wanted this whole problem to go away. He was worried about how his report on the UFO would damage his career prospects. As you can hear on the tape, the object moved around the airmen sometimes spotted to the north and sometimes the south. Orford Ness lighthouse is of course fixed in one direction: the east. The lighthouse also cannot account for the UFO that Pennniston and Boroughs saw. But, as I said, when one debunker fails an even more bizarre one is wheeled out to fill the gap: In this case it was the joy-riders and their runaway ice cream van! Apparently some local louts had stolen an ice cream van and were driving it round in circles nearby with its lights and jingles blaring out into the night. You couldn’t make it up! But a Skepper could, and they do frequently! Halt also said during a live televised debate on UFO’s a few years ago, that he could see the Orford Ness lighthouse at the same time that he could see the UFO and the two were definitely not the same. The most irritating aspect to the Skeptics’ debunking is that it is definitely a case of “raising the bar”:
1.) RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION): This trick consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from noticing that he is continually changing his standard of evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser. Skeptic: I am willing to consider the psi hypothesis if you will only show me some sound evidence. Opponent: There are many thousands of documented reports of incidents that seem to involve psi. S: That is only anecdotal evidence. You must give me laboratory evidence. 0: Researchers A-Z have conducted experiments that produced results which favor the psi hypothesis. S: Those experiments are not acceptable because of flaws X,Y andZ. 0: Researchers B-H and T-W have conducted experiments producing positive results which did not have flaws X,Y and Z. S: The positive results are not far enough above chance levels to be truly interesting. 0: Researchers C-F and U-V produced results well above chance levels. S: Their results were achieved through meta-analysis, which is a highly questionable technique. O: Meta-analysis is a well-accepted method commonly used in psychology and sociology. S: Psychology and sociology are social sciences, and their methods can't be considered as reliable as those of hard sciences such as physics and chemistry. Etc., etc. ad nauseum. Source: http://www.discord.org/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks.txt
Before Rendlesham Forest, the Skeppers’ biggest hobby horse over UFO close encounters was the lack of documentary evidence; no government files, no official testimony, no state-sanctioned eyewitness reports from qualified observers like military personnel. This was what they always said about Roswell and all the other similar events. Now we have a case that meets those demands: official government reports from the deputy commander and many other staff of a NATO air base, they’re now saying; “Nah, that won’t do. These witnesses are unreliable.” You can’t win!:eek::rolleyes::rolleyes:
People sometimes lament that UFOlogy is male-dominated and that not enough women are involved in it, but in this case it was female investigators who have done most of the legwork!
Halt's tape: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1353999273966401244&q=charles+halt+ufo&ei=ZmowSPmqMoumqgOyxryoCQ&hl=en
It didn't take long for an alternative “rational explanation” to be tossed onto the table! It's worth reading Ridpath and Thurkettle's articles because they are very revealing about the mentality behind those fixated on debunking. No matter how wild and wacky the “Woo’s” get, your average Skepolata will come up with something crazier; the more convincing the story, the crazier the Skepticism. Ridpath, Thurkettle and Chris French's rebuttal is on such shaky that I hardly know where to start! Halt was not a hippy on a night time retreat, he was a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Air Force, therefore a highly-trained observer; something which is very obvious in his tape. (Besides, even the so-called “most gullible members of society” have turned out to be much better witnesses that the Skeptics claim they are. A few years ago, some engineers built a fake UFO out of a model plane and flew it over Avebury because it is a gathering place for mystics and pagans. This was a “Carlos”, the intention being to fool them and therefore show them up for being dupes, but in a way the plan backfired. The hippies at Avebury did indeed report seeing a UFO, but they reported pretty much what they saw, describing the craft accurately. There were none of the embellishments and exaggerations the hoaxers were banking on.) Halt adamantly sticks to his story. He was most certainly not in “believer mode”. He went into the forest hoping to debunk the story. He actually states in the documentary that I posted above that he wanted this whole problem to go away. He was worried about how his report on the UFO would damage his career prospects. As you can hear on the tape, the object moved around the airmen sometimes spotted to the north and sometimes the south. Orford Ness lighthouse is of course fixed in one direction: the east. The lighthouse also cannot account for the UFO that Pennniston and Boroughs saw. But, as I said, when one debunker fails an even more bizarre one is wheeled out to fill the gap: In this case it was the joy-riders and their runaway ice cream van! Apparently some local louts had stolen an ice cream van and were driving it round in circles nearby with its lights and jingles blaring out into the night. You couldn’t make it up! But a Skepper could, and they do frequently! Halt also said during a live televised debate on UFO’s a few years ago, that he could see the Orford Ness lighthouse at the same time that he could see the UFO and the two were definitely not the same. The most irritating aspect to the Skeptics’ debunking is that it is definitely a case of “raising the bar”:
1.) RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION): This trick consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from noticing that he is continually changing his standard of evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser. Skeptic: I am willing to consider the psi hypothesis if you will only show me some sound evidence. Opponent: There are many thousands of documented reports of incidents that seem to involve psi. S: That is only anecdotal evidence. You must give me laboratory evidence. 0: Researchers A-Z have conducted experiments that produced results which favor the psi hypothesis. S: Those experiments are not acceptable because of flaws X,Y andZ. 0: Researchers B-H and T-W have conducted experiments producing positive results which did not have flaws X,Y and Z. S: The positive results are not far enough above chance levels to be truly interesting. 0: Researchers C-F and U-V produced results well above chance levels. S: Their results were achieved through meta-analysis, which is a highly questionable technique. O: Meta-analysis is a well-accepted method commonly used in psychology and sociology. S: Psychology and sociology are social sciences, and their methods can't be considered as reliable as those of hard sciences such as physics and chemistry. Etc., etc. ad nauseum. Source: http://www.discord.org/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks.txt
Before Rendlesham Forest, the Skeppers’ biggest hobby horse over UFO close encounters was the lack of documentary evidence; no government files, no official testimony, no state-sanctioned eyewitness reports from qualified observers like military personnel. This was what they always said about Roswell and all the other similar events. Now we have a case that meets those demands: official government reports from the deputy commander and many other staff of a NATO air base, they’re now saying; “Nah, that won’t do. These witnesses are unreliable.” You can’t win!:eek::rolleyes::rolleyes: