Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

141. Steve Volk Investigates UFOs, Ghosts, Telepathy and Near-Death Experience in, Fr

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by japanwaves View Post
    That makes sense
    cool... glad you understand where I'm coming from

    But it may be more than his journalism background and related to Steve's personality
    LOL well we're back to the same issue... and I'm sure you're right... I probably tend to see verbal conflict as a path toward understanding... and perhaps Steve is more likely to see conversational harmonization/balance as the path

    Comment


    • #47
      "i'm now open to the idea that there may well be genuine mysteries in the world, mysteries we try as hard as we can to rationalise, but which don't simply collapse into convenient solution.

      anyway, that's my personal addition to the great hill o bans
      regards"

      -Wow, that's one hell of a story. Thanks for sharing. Yes, that would get the hair on my neck rising.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by alextsakiris View Post
        cool... glad you understand where I'm coming from



        LOL well we're back to the same issue... and I'm sure you're right... I probably tend to see verbal conflict as a path toward understanding... and perhaps Steve is more likely to see conversational harmonization/balance as the path
        Hi guys. Sorry I've been away for a while. For what it's worth, everything I say about Bentwaters in the book is entirely reasonable and well-grounded in the facts of the case. I acknowledge that it's complicated, encouraging people to look into it for themselves. But I do give credit where it's do to the skeptics for synching that Charles Halt tape with a beep every five seconds, which demonstrates pretty convincingly—though not to Alex, I guess—that at least *part* of the Bentwaters sighting is explainable as the lighthouse. If I leave the impression that there is nothing more to Bentwaters, and I don't believe I do, that's my mistake. But I think Alex is as disinclined, if not moreso, to give any skeptic or skeptical theory credit than I am to find balance where it supposedly doesn't exist.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Steve Volk View Post
          the skeptics for synching that Charles Halt tape with a beep every five seconds, which demonstrates pretty convincingly—
          you mean my buddy Brian Dunning of Skeptoid (would still love him back on Skeptiko some time... please invite him for me as he's the one who invented this theory.

          Steve the lighthouse explanation is really lame (typical for Brain Dunning)... it's contradicted by ALL the testimony and other evidence collected... if you believe Brian then you just haven't researched this case very well... check out earthfiles.com they've done some good work on this case. You can also watch some of the docs on it... this clip is fun if you want to get a quick idea of just how silly Brian's theory is: Orfordness Lighthouse test shots on Vimeo

          Comment


          • #50
            Alex, I researched it plenty. And isn't this just how these debates go? We disagree so I must not have researched it properly? Couldn't it be that I looked into and we just disagree? If you'd go back and check what I posted, my point about Dunning's lighthouse argument (and lots of people have made it, I know that from my research, he just did the best job of putting the argument to the test) is that it explains *part* of what was reported. So they see the light every five seconds, on the tape, and it takes just that long for the lighthouse to make a complete rotation, and you think that was—what?—coincidence?

            I don't agree.

            Does that handle the rest of the incident? No. But it does a pretty convincing job of handling Halt saying, "Oh! There it is!" Every five seconds.

            There, you see how easy this is? And look, I didn't have to claim you haven't looked into it deep enough or anything.

            —Best, Steve

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Steve Volk View Post
              Alex, I researched it plenty. And isn't this just how these debates go? We disagree .......
              What if the Bentwater UFO sighting was designed to cause disagreement?

              There are 3 basic possibilities ....

              (1) Aliens are visiting earth in aircraft beyond human technology
              (2) Secret human technology, nothing to do with aliens
              (3) Misidentification (e.g. lighthouse) - no aircraft beyond human technology

              Only 2 would be a problem to defense organizations secret goals to be far ahead of mainstream science ... if they promote both 1 and 3 to the public, the polarized debate between 1 and 3 dominates.

              If I recall correctly Halt, Penniston and Borroughs said it was not a lighthouse and at least 2 of them said they saw UFOs lights apart from the lighthouse they were also aware of.

              2 solution: Rather than assume the above witnesses were lying, it could be a more advanced secret level of military are hoaxing lower level military, choosing a position to hoax an alien landing in line with lighthouse (with 5 second flashes) so that both the ideas of .... 1 reinforced by military who claim it is not military craft (weakens 2) and when 3 is found out, weakens 1 (and makes 2 irrelevent)

              The reason I currently favour hypothesis 2 over 1 or 3 is that the very first alien abduction seems to have been hoaxed by CIA ...
              http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptik...html#post44186

              As long as people default to 1 or 3, defense organizations can play the role 'we don't know much about this' and continue to advance ever more ahead of mainstream science ..... the public would rather assume 1 or 3 ...2 would cause public outrage over what advances are being withheld from the public?

              Of course I could be wrong ...
              Last edited by Open Mind; July 13th, 2011, 05:42 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                sorry to waste a comment but I'm new and I can't figure out how to make a thread. can anyone help me?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by The Face View Post
                  sorry to waste a comment but I'm new and I can't figure out how to make a thread. can anyone help me?
                  if you go up on level from this discussion... you'll see the new thread button.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Steve Volk View Post
                    Alex, I researched it plenty. And isn't this just how these debates go? We disagree so I must not have researched it properly?
                    I see your point, but maybe I wasn't clear... I'm saying that your research makes no reference to the most important/compelling information about the case.

                    tell you what... I'll dig into this a bit... maybe even do an interview and bounce what I find off of you... from what I know about Brian Dunning it should be quite easy to debunk his "research".

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X