August 9, 2015 — Micah Hanks

[dmanister]

Agreed--a thoroughgoing, interdisciplinary examination of a small number of cases is likely to yield much more information than a broad-based study. As to potential data, the only quantitative data collected by a true scientifically-designed study that I am aware of is for the Hessdalen Lights. While qualitative data is, by its nature, much less persuasive, it may be the only high-quality data available for many cases and hence is a limitation that researchers have to live with. I do commend Chris O'Brien's attempt to collect high quality data via his camera project and I wish him luck and success.

Best,

Brian

Since photographic evidence has been falsified, even photos taken under controlled conditions will not fill the bill as the hard evidence the field needs.

There's no substitute for high quality medical data about witnesses developed by fully vetted professionals in a clinical setting.

A few cases that are impossible to dismiss as hallucinations, delusions or hypnagogic distortions would advance the field scientifically.

Science is often denigrated by true believers as limited in its vision of anomalous possibilities.

While that is probably accurate (except in describing advanced particle physics and cosmology), a few scientifically unassailable cases would do more than the countless anecdotes now on file.

 

[technomage]

Excellent show. I like to hear Micah Hanks talk as he is very fluent and provides a balanced perspective. I just can't remember what he said though because his comments are so nuanced.

 

[Brians238]

Since photographic evidence has been falsified, even photos taken under controlled conditions will not fill the bill as the hard evidence the field needs.

There's no substitute for high quality medical data about witnesses developed by fully vetted professionals in a clinical setting.

A few cases that are impossible to dismiss as hallucinations, delusions or hypnagogic distortions would advance the field scientifically.

Science is often denigrated by true believers as limited in its vision of anomalous possibilities.

While that is probably accurate (except in describing advanced particle physics and cosmology), a few scientifically unassailable cases would do more than the countless anecdotes now on file.

Good points--I agree with all of them. I do think that a well-designed scientific study with credible and qualified researchers, such as that in Hessdalen, can produce good data, but I take your point that images alone are suspect. The Hessdalen researchers take images and collect, seismic, magnetometer, spectral, radar, geiger counter, and IR data, but even with this information, they feel they do not have enough data to make a definitive identification of the phenomenon (but the odds are it is some kind of "earth light"). They are still collecting data, but the "Final" technical report from 1984 is here: Project Hessdalen - Final technical report 1984. It's a good example of what a thorough report should look like, even though it reaches no conclusions other than more data needs to be collected.

Best,

Brian

 

[Burnt State]

The Hessdalen researchers take images and collect, seismic, magnetometer, spectral, radar, geiger counter, and IR data, but even with this information, they feel they do not have enough data to make a definitive identification of the phenomenon (but the odds are it is some kind of "earth light"). They are still collecting data, but the "Final" technical report from 1984 is here: Project Hessdalen - Final technical report 1984. It's a good example of what a thorough report should look like, even though it reaches no conclusions other than more data needs to be collected.

You'll find an update from Erlang Strand on Hessdalen here: Page refusee under July 9th there are English downloads of what happened with the additional research.

 

[Brians238]

You'll find an update from Erlang Strand on Hessdalen here: Page refusee under July 9th there are English downloads of what happened with the additional research.

Thank you. The page is an excellent resource.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

While I stand far away from the right wing extremists in my opinions, I do listen to their radio shows from time to time. Nobody who knows me closely understands this strange trait. It seems to be the opposite of what I'd want to do as an Artist, Nonconformist Hippie-type Freak.

Yet I have listened to Rush, (much more in the past) for two reasons:

1. sheer entertainment, like when i watch colbert/daily show. Getting this level of crazy straight from the source is pretty priceless. But one must have a thick skin to dive that deep. It can go from hilarious to upsetting very quickly.

2. Recon the Dark Tribe. I feel compelled to be aware of just what level of cray-cray those guys are up to now. My father, (a decorated marine fighter pilot, not your typical liberal) said it best back in '88 as we heard Rush for the first time: "Son, that man is dangerous."

The problem for me is that Micah referred to Rush Limbaugh in the context of being a VALID news source. I realize Micah is from the South, and this is a conservative region. However, I cannot stomach people who consider this wretched man a valid news source.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The problem is that many Republicans consider him valid, although not nearly as much as previously. He has lost key radio stations, and has been relegated to lower-rated stations in key markets, such as New York City. So his impact is reduced. To me, his exaggerated delivery demonstrates that he's engaged in some sort of lame attempt at satire. I can't believe he is convinced that his outrageous comments have any basis in fact. In fact, I wonder if Trump is puling the same stunt. He has forced presidential candidates to try to outdo him with outrageous statements. At the end of the day, he could say it was all a satire, to show how stupid those candidates really are. Don't be surprised where it goes.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Excellent show. I like to hear Micah Hanks talk as he is very fluent and provides a balanced perspective. I just can't remember what he said though because his comments are so nuanced.

I think the problem is that he uses 300 words to respond to a question where it could be condensed down to 30. This makes it hard to remember his major points because they can be "hidden" within so much verbiage.