Ardy Sixkiller Clarke

[Angel of Ioren]

Ditto for me on what Mike said.
Ray is an interesting fellow - on the one hand he has done great science based work on dinosaur tracks. On the other, he says he has all this evidence and then instead of presenting the film, he shows us magnetometer readings that tell us pretty much nothing. It's been several years since he made fun of me on this forum for one day becoming red faced when he would show us his "evidence."

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

the reasons given as to why [Ray] wont release this powerful evidence he claims to have make no sense to me....

Last time I'll say this: Ray isn't interested in making people ooo and ahhh, he couldn't care less, he's only interested in the diagnostic science he has uncovered through his keen analytical process. He wants to publish his analysis for peer review before revealing his evidence. THIS IS HOW YOU DO SCIENCE! I'm done...

 

[mike]

NO, this is how you do science, the evidence is an integral part of the process

Rays version looks more like the faith flowchart with the red box reading, hide evidence in box under bed...........

It is simply not possible to peer review his analysis without the evidence

Thus we must take his claims on faith................

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Tell that to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum or the scientists at the Goddard Space Flight Center, where they recognize Ray's brilliance.

 

[mike]

Tell that to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum or the scientists at the Goddard Space Flight Center, where they recognize Ray's brilliance.

Oh Chris weve done this already, in those instances he presented the evidence didnt he ?

Had he done, what hes done here, said to Smithsonian Natural History Museum ive discovered a new dinosaur, but im not going to show you the fossil evidence you have to take my word for it.......

Using this as an example makes MY case mate, not yours

It would be like Dr Christian barnard, recognised for his brilliance in heart transplant surgery, claiming he has fairies at the bottom of his garden, with pics to prove it, but wont show them.

Being recognised in one field doesnt mean you cant be wrong in another

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Yes, he presented his evidence in a scientific paper before releasing his findings to the public. What part of this approach to science do you NOT understand? I'm tired of sounding like a broken record. Ray will present his evidence when he is ready—not before. Your Barnard example is BS and an insult to the Ray's years of hard work, btw.

 

[TS1]

Hello! I'm a new member. Been listening since about last October. Really enjoy the show. Never felt the desire to join the forum until listening to this episode. Let me state, I'm a complete lay-person in this area, I just find it fascinating. I did have two experiences many years ago, but that's the extent of it...

Anyway, I feel like I was missing something this entire episode, as if something were being left unsaid, but everyone knew except for me. Normally I've found Chris and Gene to be quite fair with their guests, and the for the most part I think they were with Clarke. However, it seemed many times they went to the well that she didn't do proper research and some of the stories had pop culture references (like how the episode ended with Star Trek beaming).

I never heard of Clarke (or most any guest on the show) before and know nothing about her. To her credit, in my eyes, she seemed to be up front that she was selling a story book, nothing else. Yet, for instance, she was probed about why the visitors might have a non-interference policy, as if she would know. Were they looking for an answer in hopes she might have one, illustrating she was making this all up in her head? (Otherwise, I don't see how she could ever know that answer as I don't recall her saying she ever spoke with any of the visitors herself. )

To wind this post down, was the overall thing I was missing was that this woman is crazy--for lack of a better word or description? Sorry, not trying to offend anyone, Clarke, nor Gene or Chris, just trying to wrap my head around what I just heard.

Is there any value in her work?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I'm certain she's is serious about her work, not at all crazy, and I have no doubt she set down the stories she received accurately. In saying that, it would have been nice to have something to reference, to research. But that wasn't the intent of her work.

 

[mike]

Getting emotive and infering ive "insulted" him doesnt make your case Chris.
Thats smoke and mirrors designed to muddy the waters of discussion.

I doubt that will work with this audience

But to use your new (paleo) example, im betting he didnt make ANY public claims, until after he presented his evidence.

In complete contrast to what hes done with his UFO claims.

It would be like me mailing the smithsonian and claiming "ive found a new dinosaur down here while digging a drainage ditch, ive named it Mikeosaurus Rex, since im the one who discovered this new species, please add the name to the body of knowledge in regards to Dinosaurs.....

How do i know its a groundbreaking new discovery ?

Oh i have some fossils and photos of said fossils......

"Will i show you the evidence ? " No, i will do one day, but not today. That shouldnt stop you from accepting my claim though.

In the case of his paleo claim, he used the first flow chart, he presented his hypothesis and evidence supporting it.
In the case of the UFO claim, he used the second flow chart presnting his hypothesis, but no evidence.

You can try and split hairs all you like, but there is no doubting the disparity between the two examples.

The core validity of each claim aside, the fact remains in one case he presented the claim and the evidence, in the other the claim, with the evidence hidden away.

Naturally enough his first claim was validated. THATS SCIENCE
His second claim....... not so much

And it doesnt make any sense.

Its like looking for book reviews on amazon for a book whose manuscript was never presented for review, but instead holds pride of place in a shoe box back of the closet.

He cant get his theory reviewed until he presents it along with evidence supporting it.
Witholding it guarantees it will never be reviewed.
Thats how science works, not claims with evidence hidden away, but rather with it presented , hypothesis and evidence for it out in the public eye so other scientists can review it and either support or reject the hypothesis.

I think the real reason he wont submit his evidence to open peer review as per scientific protocol, is because he is worried it will be rejected, which in turn will reflect on his academic standing in the paleo world.
So instead he will continue to make what milage he can with the unsubstantiated claim, and this so called "evidence" will never ever see the light of proper peer review.

I think that what we are seeing is a variation of the old adage

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

In this case better to get what milage you can with some thinking its BS, than to present it and remove all doubt that it is indeed BS

 

[mike]

 

[Grifynne]

I enjoyed the episode and storys.
Do they bring us any closer to understanding the enigma

No

But the value in recording these stories is for me this

Sometime in the future we may have the answers, and it will be valuable to compare these stories and speculations with the reality when that time comes

I listened to this episode somewhat recently and I have to agree with you, Mike. I understand the need for solid evidence but I think there is a place for this type of work. Could Ardy Sixkiller Clarke have been more thorough and pressed people for more information? Certainly. And maybe she should have. But then again maybe her goals weren't the same as a hard nosed paranormal researcher's. Maybe she wanted to see what she could gather without scaring timid people away. Maybe at the time she wasn't as concerned with proving anything to the world. And I feel she was pretty honest about all that. I don't recall her making any lofty claims she couldn't back up about who she was and what she was doing.

I also understand Gene and Chris' desire for facts and evidence. After all that's part of what this show is about, isn't it? I view Ardy's work as supplementary. There might come a day when we know something that makes us step back, look at some of those stories and say "Oh! That makes sense now!" But in the meantime they are just interesting tales to keep in the back of the mind as we attempt to explore parts unknown.

 

[SoCalGNX]

I finally got around to listening to this show and I was disappointed. Not because of her stories, which I thought were interesting and wanted to hear more about, but because of the continual grinding by Gene and Chris for her to provide scientific documentation. She stated who she is and what she did. She did not agree to come to the show as a scientist but to discuss her work.
If you are disappointed that her work is not documented, guess what? Most of the UFO/high weirdness/anomalous issues that are discussed on the show and in other places has no scientific backing or basis. You might get some scientific evidence here and there but there isn't one single thing on this show or others that conclusively says "its a UFO" (or anything else). It's all very thin on evidence.
I am also curious what tribe she belongs to. I know that Sixkiller is a Cherokee name but was hoping to hear her tribal affiliation.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Continual grinding? No. We asked her the proper questions, but didn't repeat this over and over. She made her position clear.