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.
