HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING

 

                HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING

1) Take one element of a case completely out of context.

2) Find something prosaic that _could_ conceivably explain that one element.

3) Declare that therefore that one element has _been_ explained.

4) Call a press conference and announce to the world that the _entire 

   case_ has been explained.

                NOW YOU DON'T SEE IT, NOW YOU DO

Imagination can be positive or negative; it can see what's not there,

or contrive buffers against seeing what is. It all depends upon one's

predispositions and assumptions, and the amount of care one is willing

to give to the process of observing -- and to testing one's

observations honestly. Most fundamental scientific discovery and

innovation has hinged upon noticing what, according to the conventional

wisdom, "wasn't there."

               INVISIBLE FORCES? WOOOOO-WOOOOOOO...

Cynics seem to take pleasure in ridiculing the idea of "invisible

forces" or "extrasensory realities," forgetting that science has

always inquired into the invisible and the extrasensory. If everything

presented itself to our senses, what need would we have for science?

                    IN A KLASS BY THEMSELVES

Phil Klass and the sci-cops views it as their duty to "come up with

prosaic explanations." Funny -- I always thought science was supposed

to come up with _honest_ explanations, some of which _may_ of course

turn out to be prosaic.

                         CALL IN THE EXPERTS

Scientistic fundamentalists, like their religious couterparts, seem to

be the resident experts on evil.

                        ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES

The great scientist, like the great spiritual sage, is concerned only

with Truth, which is open and dynamic, and elicits wonder, curiosity

and a desire for expanded understanding. To the scientist-sage, all

knowledge is provisional.

The pseudoscientist or cynic, like the religious zealot or 

fundamentalist, is concerned only with _certainty_, which is closed, 

static and lifeless. To the charlatan-debunker, all knowledge is 

final.

Truth lives in the Universe at Large, and operates beyond the sphere 

of human ego and petty personal fears, where the desire for certainty, 

Truth's ersatz counterpart, holds sway.  Certainty, like all 

substitutes for wisdom, ultimately fails to satisfy.

          NO STRINGS ATTACHED. HOW ABOUT MIRRORS AND SMOKE?

I can't prove or disprove the infamous Meier case, but I'm interested 

in how we arrive at our beliefs. I do know there are plenty of people 

who believe that "everyone knows thew case has been completely 

discredited." The funny thing is that I can find almost no one who has 

actually seen the negative evidence, and fewer still who have studied 

it carefully.  

As far as I can determine, the negative evidence was developed by 

Kal K. Korff around 1980, and consisted of digital high-pass 

processing and other enhancements of several of the Meier photos. The 

published version I have read seems to contain much subjective 

commentary to the effect that small saucer models were employed. As 

objective proof, we are offered one frame that shows a fine line above 

the craft which we are told is a supporting string.

But wait a minute. 

- The vertical line extending upward from the craft is visible in many

of the original frames. It is an antenna-like structure.

- There is a very fine line that seems to be attached to the tip of 

this "antenna," however a) it intersects the "antenna" at a point 

_below_ its tip, b) it does not extend vertically, but at an angle, c) 

it is precisely parallel to, and indistinguishable from, many other 

fine lines found elsewhere in the frame, which appear to be noise 

artifacts in the digital scan lines.

- Finally, the enhanced "frame" as published is not the full frame,

but is cropped tightly; how far above the craft does this fine line 

extend? We are not shown or told.

In my opinion the preponderance of the remainder of Korff's 

commentaries are so subjective and highly charged as to provide little 

in the way of useful insight. He cites various techniques 

("pixelization", etc.) as capable of measuring distances from the 

camera, etc., but fails to explain how this is accomplished; we are 

apparently to take it on faith. As his source of official information 

on the case he cites one of the two Intercep "coffee table" books, 

which are superficial and of questionable value. He seems to have

based his knowledge of the case entirely on second-hand sources, and

to have done no firsthand research. He also offers as supporting 

evidence the subjective views of others who are themselves not well-

informed about many details of the case. 

To settle the issue in a more satisfactory way, or at least to better 

understand it, I believe one has to carefully compare Korff's work 

with that of Jim Dilettoso, whose analysis of the Meier photos was 

extensive, rigorous, quantitative, and carefully distinguishes

subjective from objective factors. His overview of the photogrametric 

analysis runs 21 published pages and, in my opinion, makes fascinating 

reading whatever your views may be about this particular case. It 

should be read by anyone interested in the anaysis of UFO photographs.

There's only one thing wrong with Dilettoso's work. It is reproduced 

in Wendelle Stevens' 540-page Preliminary Report on the Meier case. 

And "everyone knows" that Stevens' work has been thoroughly 

discredited.