Total Pageviews

Saturday, 23 December 2017

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

It appears that people are confused.  I just answered some questions for a website review and part way through the messaging I got: "Are you not a sceptic? You seem open to certain things?"

Have I not made my position clear in the last seven years on this blog and in my books?  Carl Sagan made it very clear:

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

And there you go. I want to find out and see the truth and learn. It is what led me to see what are glaring faults in 'cryptozoology' and Ufology which are, since the 1980's entertainment and pop culture scenes where very little if any real research or investigation goes on.  

Look at the work of people like J. Bernard Delair at the old Contact (UK) ans the UFO Registers he submitted so much important material to.  All done via note books, paper files and news clipping. What do we have today? Computers and all sorts of programs and what is produced?  Lists of uninvestigated UFO sightings and claim after claim of "Grey alien abduction" cases and in all of these the facts (that there are) are altered from one source to another.  When I wrote High Strangeness (aka: UFOContact?) I looked at the online details given for certain cases.  Well known and documented cases.  Not one of the web sites gave the correct details and most were all quoting the same very inaccurate online source.

If you cannot give basic facts then what are you doing?  Deliberately lying -why?  To make it seem that your fantasy world built up around the X-Files and Dr Who is genuine?  And who are your original sources -the lying media darlings who are only involved because it makes them money from TV or book sales?  Go out and buy a copy of Grimms' Fairy Tales because there is far more fractual evidence there.

I do not want to live in a fantasy world.  You will see from my books that I look at what is reported and what the truth is -the explanation can either back up the original account or be scarier. Whether we are talking strange beasts from Sasquatch to sea monsters or mysterious killers of the 17th and 18th centuries France, to hide the truth between twisted accounts that will earn you money and make your life as a 'monster hunter' seem glamorous is wrong.  We need to learn and develop.

I am very open to the existence of Sasquatch but not the modern "reboot".  UFO contact? I gave my opinions.  I do not believe that Ufology as such was started deliberately as a way to make money but that is what it became while real researchers worked away in the background before being pushed out.

 Donald E. Keyhoe  was the first star of this new Ufology and it was often said that he "interpreted things the way he wanted" which was how he sold books that were filled with speculation and at times wild speculation.  There were others and when we get to the 1960s and 1970s then the real stars of Tabloid style sensationalism made their mark.  Whether Brad Steiger or one of the plethora of Ufologists who realised what it took to sell a book -UFO abductions and sexual shenanigans, aliens probing people, slaughtering cattle left-right-and center. UFOs attacking farms, military bases and motorists -humans "seared to death" or "struck by a beam of powerful radiation" that led to death after death.
And just in case the cryptozoologists thought they escaped: Heuvelman's unscientific behaviour and then the claims to get press and media coverage -"vampire-like killings" of livestock; attacks my mysterious beasts and then distorting words so that a simple sighting of a non native cat becomes a possible "paraform" or paranormal entity.  "Blazing red eye glow" that does not exist...or the witness might have seen "eye glow" when an animals eye reflects light from a torch or other light source -twist that to "glowing eyes".The carcass of the mysterybeast or the stuffed and mounted specimen that is beset by mystery and debate -why? Has anyone actually looked at it with all the diagnostic features that are required to identify it?  But that would solve the 'mystery', right?

And with all of this there are the name-calling spats and even worse from Ufologists and cryptozoologists.  The fan clubs choose sides based on who the 'nicer guy' is.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with serious investigation and research based on scientific principles. It is money earning.  "The Bizz".

I do not think my online interview will appear because it seems it was to be based on my totally debunking UFOs, ghosts, paranormal phenomena and so on.  That is someone not doing their research and not understanding how Science works.

Now, off to check more information for the next fact based project.

No comments:

Post a Comment