Total Pageviews

Saturday, 23 December 2017

Up-date: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

I find it very amusing that over the past couple of years I have been referred to as either "a government patsy or agent" because I refused to accept certain Ufologists claims of crashed UFOs, etc.. Also, it seems that despite pointing out that I have never lived in South wales that claim is still made.  Why all of this antagonism?

Simply put, it is because confidential information handed to a Ufologist on the grounds that it remain so but was made public by them.  This Ufologist then made ridiculous claims and included my name in this silliness but refused to make known the facts that I ascertained through thorough investigation. I then got a rather ude email from a colleague of this Ufologist who used the word "please" while demanding that I surrender every piece of paperwork and material I had on the matter.  I refused and then he started the name calling -which I ignored.

Then I was accused of being an "Arch debunker" and "arch sceptic" because I rejected certain paranormal 'investigators' claimed -I put forward my explanation as to why I rejected their claims and stated that if they had evidence that countered my evidence/belief then they ought to put it forward and I would seriously study it. The response -"you are an arch sceptic!"

Being what people like to call a "noted naturalist" with my name on a number of papers and having been a UK police forces advisor of exotic fauna (felids and canids a speciality) from 1977-2013, I offered to take up the challenge put forward by UK advocates of there being a "British wild man" -an equivalent of the US sasquatch but varying in size.  Repeatedly they shouted that Science would not look at their data.  I was very polite -my email is on the record- and stated that I would be very interested in seeing and assessing any evidence and submitting a full report with my conclusions to these British groups before general release.

Again, the response is public knowledge. I received an abusive string of responses that were seen by all on the group in question (rather than via private message) and so guaranteed that no one would cooperate since the apology that was later sent was private.  A person finding a stick in the middle of woodland and claiming it is a stick used for wood-knocking by a wildman is ludicrous. I visited my local woods and came up with twenty similar sized and shaped sticks. A stick found in woodland is a stick. There are many, many homeless in the UK and there are a lot of people living in woodland and forests making shelters -shelters are also made by people learning bush craft.  

When it came to it there was not one single piece of physical evidence of any Woodwose in the UK.  I was called a "sceptic who went into this to disprove it all!"  Well, I waited six months and no one responded to my emails and posts -I had to go by articles by "British Bigfooters" that included photographs of their 'evidence' as well as their videos.

You cannot prove something exists if there is no evidence something exists. Odd and often very similar reports of sightings are not evidence. 

UK "dog-man" and "werewolf" reports. As I documented in my last book, it took one email to get to the bottom of these mysteries and discover evidence that noted UK authors were knowingly and willing falsifying accounts.

That does not make me a sceptic. That does not make me an "arch debunker".  In fact, it makes me one of the very few genuine truth-seekers out there.  And those using the terms "sceptic" and "debunker" indicate that they have a lot they want to hide.

"He is completely anti-UFO!" is something I've read a few times.  Really? "completely anti-UFO" -I'm guessing these people never really read blog posts and have certainly not read UFO Contact?

We have cryptozoologists, Ufologists and all sorts of other "gists" outrightly lying and deceiving the public while taking their money and the money of TV companies who pay them as 'experts'.  Well established Ufologists and cryptozoologists lying, at war with one another and putting out so much false information that it is a full time job to keep track of it all.

So when I am told that cryptozoologists, ufologists and some in the paranormal field hate me and call me names I get a rush of pride (but only temporarily).  I get offers to join sceptic groups in all fields regularly because "Your mindset and beliefs seem along the same lines as ours". Reject any offers because I do not consort with people who deliberately distort or lie about facts whether they are for or against a subject.

That is NOT in any way, shape or form scientific.  It is a bunch of spoilt little boys and girls acting as though they are in little school yard cliques.

Every case I report on is fully referenced.  Others can try to follow up from those sources and might find other references.  I present facts and, where I can, solutions. But not "well, it's possible it might probably" solutions -if a case is left open it is because it needs much further investigation and I will only offer an explanation where facts fit and do not need to be twisted.

Remember that, in some cases, I began investigations in 1975/1977 and only concluded 30-40+ years later. Many cases had natural explanations and while some of these were eye-openers I simply learnt and moved on after presenting the cases.  We thrive (or should do) as a species on new knowledge and advancing our understanding so, okay, this case and that case were ultimately explainable even if they were complete mind-numbing puzzles to start with.  But then there is the next case and there are some that are still puzzling and a few that, if true (see UFO Contact?), are incredible beyond words.

I do not care whether anyone likes me!  I do not care whether I dislike a person -investigator or other- who reports on a case. I am only interested in the account.  In the data and whether it is true and if true what we can all learn from that.

That is what each and every ufologist, cryptozoologist and paranormalist or whatever should be doing. And if they are not then their lives are pretty meaningless and gaining money through lying they will have to live with if they have consciences.  Science will certainly never take them seriously.

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