January 14 07 show

[CapnG]

Another fine, fine show gentlemen. I found it interesting that Paul and Jeff seemed to have considerably different attitudes regarding the O'hare sighting.

Kudos to Gene for policing the extra-dimensional/crypto-terrestrial smudging! I was all ready to fire off another angry post on the boards but then Gene stepped up. Tsk, tsk David!

I gotta call into question Jeff's claims of "seek and ye shall find". While on a core level, I'm inclined to believe that's possible, I'm not sure it's valid. After all, did Jeff "want" his childhood experiences? Did the Hills "want" to be pulled of the road that night? Assuming all (or even half) these things are true, they sound deeply traumatic. Who would openly seek out trauma? It makes no sense.

Lastly, the distroted face Jeff saw. Well, assuming for a moment we go with the extra-dimensional thing, perhaps what he saw was a "lensing effect" of some sort. As only the head was visable, perhaps there was no one actually there but Jeff was merely being observed through a "porthole" of sorts, like a peep-hole in a door, resulting in a similar distorting effect. Who knows though, just a theory.

 

[Tony2007]

I have my doubts as well regarding Jeff's "seek and ye shall find" phenomenon. On the other hand, at least he's not charging us money to watch him do it.

In terms of fascination, I suppose yes it would be interesting to wander out into the middle of a field, sit and stare at the stars and imagine a UFO descending out of the stars... and then wait to see if it actually happens. I for one think that consciousness plays a very important role in our experiences of what we see, particularily when it comes to this subject matter. So as far as this is concerned, I agree with Jeff completely. However, I do also believe that if our visitors are intelligent, which they must be, they'd be able to tell the difference between someone just wanting to see something cool versus someone who genuinely wants contact.

And if that's the case, you suddenly have a hypothesis where people who genuinely want UFO contact are the ones who get it. On the other hand, you have scores of people with UFO experiences who did not ask to have them. Are they accidental in that case? Was there some purpose for them seeing what they saw?

Is it a question of fate vs. free will?

I found Paul Kimball to be very sobering and enjoyable. I can't wait for his documentary to come out. I agree with him that for the Ufology to take off it has to embrace its own history, but I found his skepticism of the O'Hare incident to be a little disturbing. A siting on this scale, with a government agency involved that's trying to explain it away with a ridiculous "weather phenomenon" cock-and-bull story is laughable. Then again, the government probably makes a living out of playing on our fears of government conspiracies to keep us at a certain level of distrust, and distance. It has worked for them in the past, so why not continue? Only until a massive amount of people demand to know what the government knows will the public be outsiders in this. The true Ufologists of our age are the ones with the security clearance. Unfortunately, UFOs don't get center stage with the national media, so we don't get enougn national discussion. Consequently, the UFO phenomenon doesn't get embedded in peoples' consciousness the way other things do (War in Iraq, Global Warming, Brad and Angelina, etc.)

All in all a great show. Can't wait for next week!

 

[jritzmann]

Tony-You couldnt pay me enough. LOL No way no how. And how. Fuggetaboutit. Ask David how keen I was on stopping the car on our outing.

I guess I have to qualify my "seek" statement a bit.

What I'm getting at is in relation to how I've seen the phenomena work for a long time, and how I've seen it work for others.

I have to preface by saying that it's of course not foolproof, but I'd say it definitely plays a part. Does this figure into my experiences in childhood? I dunno, depends how ya look at it I guess. I sure as hell wasnt looking then, and still got it.

But, I will say that at one point in my life, sought to "see" due to questions or drives which I've talked about before on the show. I got what I sought, and much more then I ever wanted.

What I surmise is that the fired up question or contemplation, or conversation of the enigma is partly what seems to drive events. You could easily say someone has it "on the brain" and sees whatever they do, due to obsession.

But I've seen this happen to others, and also people with me at pinnacle sightings I've had. One instance, I felt pretty ok going to a site with 2 friends where I'd had some pretty intense experiences along with my wife, and by myself. No issue, until one buddy of mine brought up the question "I wonder if there's anyone out there man?" whilst looking up.

"Don't" I thought. The conversation turned to subjects of ETs and what I'd seen in the area. The next thing I know there's a boomerang shaped object over my truck and friend...he's screaming explitives I cant write here, and it "slid" off into the sky as quick as it came.

That was like, the last straw for me. There's alot more to the account, but thats the gist of it. It seemed far too much like cause and effect to me.

My impression not only from that, but from several similar events is that the more attention you pay, the more likely you are to "get" something. Something that has no bearing on who's there, or if youre with people or not. It's also not always immediate as what I detailed.

Of course it's just my view, and I could be totally wrong. As usual I just have to mention it since I dont hold anything back, and it might fit some way in understanding this. Maybe when you make the effort, the enigma sees you as "ready" for something.

Who knows. I just thought it worth mentioning.

 

[CapnG]

Sounds to me less like cause and effect and more like a matter of focus, namely you Jeff! Your buddies could probably have wandered around in that place all night by themselves and seen squat... but you were there with them, a point of focus for whatever this is. Bingo, results and then some! Likewise, David goes to see you and observes a non-existant cat. Again, it's all you. Whitley Strieber says that people who were with him at his cabin had encounters with strange things. I bet those people had no experiences sans-Whitley.

More and more I get the impression that these beings are, well, jerks. They seem to like to dick around with people for no readily understandable reason, relying on covert and cryptic means of contact and never once giving a straight answer (even if they do, you can't trust it).

 

[jritzmann]

Sounds to me less like cause and effect and more like a matter of focus, namely you Jeff! Your buddies could probably have wandered around in that place all night by themselves and seen squat... but you were there with them, a point of focus for whatever this is.

Maybe so, my question is what the hell'd I do.

Stuff seems to happen lately when I least expect it. Saturday me and the wife went to her Dad's to help him set up his new computer. As we were leaving I'm completely sure I saw someone look around the edge of the door leading to his bedroom (which is visible from his kitchen). It was solid, and tall. Truthfully, it looked like my wife's Mom's hair, just the top/side of it. Of course she passed away a matter of years ago. I cant be 100% sure it was her hair, but it was a shape, and the same color.

This morning, I go down to her Dad's to get a prop we rented for his 70th birthday party. We have to go get it out of a rental house that my wife's sister owns down the street, which is empty and being renovated. The prop is a fiberglass fake front end of a 57 Chevy, full size. As I'm backing out the doorway with it, I look up to make sure her Dad is getting down the step with it, and I see a shape, again light colroed, in the doorway visible from the front door. I saw it longer, and it backed into the doorway as if it was hiding. I actually saw it move. Again, it was rather tall, maybe 6ft tall, but I only saw the upper half due to my viewing angle. The shape was more or less like a smoothed out human shape. And like a light biege color. No features, just shape. Both time no one else saw it, or I'm sure someone would have said something.

So what the hell. I dont attribute it to "aliens", but maybe the same perception...thing.

Ah well, at any rate, I agree on the "jerks" thing.

 

[CapnG]

Maybe so, my question is what the hell'd I do.

You were born. Seriously, this stuff is supposedly generational (I seem to recall you mention some entity being in the room with your son at one point and you were instructed to go away while it did... whatever). Stands to reason that whatever their interest is, it was peaked pretty early on, if not before you even existed! Unfortunately that makes it a "sucks to be you" scenario :/

That again makes me wonder about your "seek and ye shall find" idea. More accuratly it's a "seek and YOU (ie Jeff Ritzman) shall find" situation, which got me thinking: maybe that's the point. Hear me out on this. Intially, contact was clearly one way, they seek you out and do whatever they do. Now however it seems you are able to (in some small fashion) intiate contact with them. But there's still a barrier. That barrier is fear.

A brief tangent: When I was younger (and in considerably better shape) I was fortunate enough to be invited by a friend to enroll in a dojo and study martial arts for a few years. This wasn't some fly-by-night, "give us $20 we'll give you a black belt" deal, it was a serious, traditional art, and I was instructed by a man who's the closest thing to a samurai you're likely to meet in modern times. Apart from the physical training we were also encouraged to study samurai philosophy, Sun Tzu, etc. Principle amongst our disciplines was that of mushin ("no mind"), a state into which you must enter to survive combat. Panic, fear, reflex, adrenaline; these things will get you killed. In the state of mushin you can simply observe and react accordingly. Mushin is by no means easy to achieve, I've only been able to really "get there" myself maybe half a dozen times. It's hard to describe. Imagine performing instant brain surgery on yourself and removing all judgement, all emotion. Everything becomes a pure, logical, observational excercise, with all your receptive organs fully active and the rest of the brain's incessant chatter momentarily silenced. To sum it up in one word: clarity. We were, of course, encouraged to practice mushin outside the dojo, as part of everyday life.

Back now to you, Jeff. When I hear/read accounts such as yours, I'm forced to wonder if mushin would be applicable. If you could reach that state, could somehow say to them, "Enough crap. Show yourself, let's get on with it." and have a genuine conversation minus all the hockey, spooky nonesense?

Well, maybe I'm just rambling. Something to think about, though.

 

[Tony2007]

Back now to you, Jeff. When I hear/read accounts such as yours, I'm forced to wonder if mushin would be applicable. If you could reach that state, could somehow say to them, "Enough crap. Show yourself, let's get on with it." and have a genuine conversation minus all the hockey, spooky nonesense?

If I can throw my two cents into this as well...

My instinct is that ETs have to seriously "dumb down" their communication in order to reach us on a level we comprehend. You can't have a conversation with a dolphin, but you can connect through a sense of touch and body language. It's a more intuitive mode of communication that either transcends or ducks verbal communication (depending on how you view language).

My point is that ETs have to be a highly evolved species to have gotten where they are, i.e. capable of interstellar (and possibly interdimensional) travel. In my opinion, it necessarily follows that they would have a much more developed subconcious awareness that would allow them to traverse long distances, and communicate with one another on that scale. If an ET were to try and communicate with one of us the way they communicate with other ETs... who knows what the result would be. Would we hear gibberish? Would it be loud and clear like a "voice of God" thing? Would our heads explode?

So to try and communicate with them, or have a conversation without all the nonsense, as you put it, might not work. At the least, they would try to communicate something to us, and we would completely misinterpret the message.

And the one thing that leads me to this conclusion is that we have abduction cases, UFO sitings, odd experiences like what Jeff is talking about, and yet no one seems to have ever "talked" to one of these things to find out their purpose... if they have one!

 

[Paul Kimball]

I found Paul Kimball to be very sobering and enjoyable.

Thanks.

I can't wait for his documentary to come out.

That makes two of us!

I agree with him that for the Ufology to take off it has to embrace its own history, but I found his skepticism of the O'Hare incident to be a little disturbing. A siting on this scale, with a government agency involved that's trying to explain it away with a ridiculous "weather phenomenon" cock-and-bull story is laughable.

And my question would be - why is it ridiculous? It is a fact that some UFO sightings, including by competent and multiple observers, can indeed be explained by various weather conditions (I agree that the use of the term "weather phenomenon" by the authorities was unfortunate). Why not this one? Before Peter Davenport et al rushed to call it ridiculous, did they actually consult any meteorologists? Instead of shouting at the FAA, did they ask for a fuller explanation of exactly what they meant? Nope, not that I'm aware of.

Indeed, the Chicage Tribune reporter, Hillkevitch, is on the record with National Public Radio as saying that when Davenport contacted him, he pressed Hilkevitch to push the extraterrestrial explanation (Davenport has, of course, denied this, but why would Hilkevitch lie?). That doesn't sound terribly objective to me. It doesn't sound like someone interested in getting at the truth, no matter what it was.

This whole thing strikes me as a bit of a cock-up (as my British pals would say) from the get go by the ufologists, although I understand that Dr. Richard Haines of NARCAP is proceeding quietly, behind the scenes, with his investigation - which is how the rest of the ufologists, including Davenport, should have handled it. Why the rush to go public after only one month (when Davenport first plugged it on the Rense show)?

Jeff Ritzman, Gene and David were dead wrong in my opinion (no offense, fellows) - a case does not get weaker over time, it usually gets stronger (at least within the short and mid term). Get the witness statements; track down photos or video, if any exists. But do so quietly, behind the scenes, so as not to taint the witness pool (as happened at Roswell), or bring cranks out who will only muddy the waters. This is how it should be done, but it's not how it was handled this time. Indeed, if the case turns out to be much ado about nothing, it will be a huge black eye for the credibility of those who take the UFO phenomenon seriously.

Patience is a virtue when in comes to conducting an investigation. Objective skepticism is the proper attitude, until something is proven to be truly anomalous. And never, ever conduct the investigation through the media.

That was the essence of my position, which I stick to, because I know from experience that it's the right way forward.

Paul

 

[Tony2007]

Jeff Ritzman, Gene and David were dead wrong in my opinion

This is not the way to get invited back to do another show!

It is a fact that some UFO sightings, including by competent and multiple observers, can indeed be explained by various weather conditions (I agree that the use of the term "weather phenomenon" by the authorities was unfortunate). Why not this one? Before Peter Davenport et al rushed to call it ridiculous, did they actually consult any meteorologists? Instead of shouting at the FAA, did they ask for a fuller explanation of exactly what they meant? Nope, not that I'm aware of.

Maybe, but it doesn't look like the FAA is interested in finding out if this object was a UFO or weather pattern, or anything! Seems like all we got was, "Oh, weather phenomenon, no one cares." Since we haven't heard of any intent to investige on the FAA's part, you have to admit is has the flavor of conspiracy, especially since not a single FAA official came forward and said, "I saw this thing, and I can tell you it was not a ship or craft or anything other than a weather phenomenon." This is why I called it ridiculous, because it was like they wanted to simply brush this aside.

Besides, wouldn't the FAA want to investigate claims from pilots who state that an unauthorized craft (man-made or not) was inside restricted airspace? The FAA has been very complacent about this incident, and it doesn't look good.

Indeed, the Chicage Tribune reporter, Hillkevitch, is on the record with National Public Radio as saying that when Davenport contacted him, he pressed Hilkevitch to push the extraterrestrial explanation (Davenport has, of course, denied this, but why would Hilkevitch lie?). That doesn't sound terribly objective to me. It doesn't sound like someone interested in getting at the truth, no matter what it was.

I can see your point, and indeed it does seem like Davenport wasn't interested in any other explanation other than "UFO driven by ET." This is not the right impression to give to the media, and in this sense he may have cocked up (love that phrase).

Did you see the follow-up video Hilkevitch did for chicagotribune.com? I have it posted on my blog here if you are interested. Apparently there are some photos Hilkevitch is trying to track down. I'd love to know what your thoughts are if you look at this video.

Indeed, if the case turns out to be much ado about nothing, it will be a huge black eye for the credibility of those who take the UFO phenomenon seriously.

And no one's credibility will suffer more than Davenport's. His whole career as a Ufologist might hinge on this one, simply because it will be so easy to brush him off if the O'Hare thing turns out to be nothing.

I get the sense that you're more infuriated by current methodology than anything else, and I think justifiably so. In my opinion the whole thing is quite the paradox. In my opinion, what we need is a well-funded, well-staffed, global UFO investigation agency that has free access to all the information, but we'll never have that unless global society has a radical change in attitude towards UFO phenomenon and research. However, in order for this attitude shift to occur, you would need something like a centralized Ufological organization that brought together keen investigators from all over the world. We're very far from a global perspective on these things, and in this sense Ufology is still in it's infancy, by virtue of the fact that it's so disorganized.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Maybe, but it doesn't look like the FAA is interested in finding out if this object was a UFO or weather pattern, or anything! Seems like all we got was, "Oh, weather phenomenon, no one cares." Since we haven't heard of any intent to investige on the FAA's part, you have to admit is has the flavor of conspiracy, especially since not a single FAA official came forward and said, "I saw this thing, and I can tell you it was not a ship or craft or anything other than a weather phenomenon." This is why I called it ridiculous, because it was like they wanted to simply brush this aside.

Actually, it isn't in their mandate to look at UFO claims (whether it should be or not is a different question). See: The Other Side of Truth: O'Hare: The FAA "Cover-Up"

As for the "weather" explanation, just because the FAA might offer it, and then move on, doesn't mean that UFO investigators should dismiss it out of hand. Even if the FAA had never mentioned it, it should have been one of the first things that UFO investigators looked at in depth, instead of what we usually get, which is, "oh, a pilot would never mistake weather for a UFO."

In any good investigation, you start in neutral, and eliminate the more mundane possibilities, before you jump to the fantastic ones. Or at least you should.

Besides, wouldn't the FAA want to investigate claims from pilots who state that an unauthorized craft (man-made or not) was inside restricted airspace? The FAA has been very complacent about this incident, and it doesn't look good.

See above about it not being their job.

I can see your point, and indeed it does seem like Davenport wasn't interested in any other explanation other than "UFO driven by ET." This is not the right impression to give to the media, and in this sense he may have cocked up (love that phrase).

I have heard privately from some leading ufologists that Davenport has a good project (NUFORC), and does some good, useful work, but is too quick to label everything and anything as ET.

Did you see the follow-up video Hilkevitch did for chicagotribune.com? I have it posted on my blog here if you are interested. Apparently there are some photos Hilkevitch is trying to track down. I'd love to know what your thoughts are if you look at this video.

Yes, I saw it - as a TV guy, I found the anchor's pre-interview behaviour hilarious, assuming the clip was legit, which it seemed to be.

Rumours abound about photos or videos. I hope some surface, because without them this is just another witness case, and I know where that will end up - the same place as all the rest, depending on one's preconceived point of view.

And no one's credibility will suffer more than Davenport's. His whole career as a Ufologist might hinge on this one, simply because it will be so easy to brush him off if the O'Hare thing turns out to be nothing.

Well, you would think so, but... I've found that ufologists can survive just about anything, because their core audience will accept just about anything. Besides, all Davenport will have to do is yell, "cover-up" and all will be forgiven. Come to think of it, he's already done that.

I get the sense that you're more infuriated by current methodology than anything else, and I think justifiably so.

Methodology? What methodology? ;-)

Seriously, with very few exceptions, there is none.

In my opinion the whole thing is quite the paradox. In my opinion, what we need is a well-funded, well-staffed, global UFO investigation agency that has free access to all the information, but we'll never have that unless global society has a radical change in attitude towards UFO phenomenon and research. However, in order for this attitude shift, you would need something like a centralized Ufological organization that brought together keen investigators from all over the world. We're very far from a global perspective on these things, and in this sense Ufology is still in it's infancy, by virtue of the fact that it's so disorganized.

What ufology needs, first and foremost, is to establish standards, and to clean out its Augean stables, which, given the proliferation of the likes of Steven Greer, will be a Herculean task indeed.

Don't hold your breath.

In the meantime, the real investigations go on under the radar, by people who want nothing to do with the circus that is ufology. You won't see them at conferences (unless it's one I organize), and you won't hear them on C2C, although you never know - maybe they will appear on the Paracast... maybe they already have.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

Tony:

By the way, I ckecked out your blog. Interesting - I've bookmarked it for future reference.

Two things.

First, I'm just a documentary maker, who happens to make some of his films about UFO-related subjects. Next up is classical music, for example. The last thing I want to become known as is "the UFO-documentary guy".

Second, Route 66 (what's left of it) rocks! Don't miss Kingman, Arizona, a good place to act as a southwestern base.

Paul

 

[Tony2007]

In the meantime, the real investigations go on under the radar, by people who want nothing to do with the circus that is ufology. You won't see them at conferences (unless it's one I organize), and you won't hear them on C2C, although you never know - maybe they will appear on the Paracast... maybe they already have.

Does this mean YOU, sir, are doing some investigating of your own into this matter?

Remember, if you say no, it's a cover-up.

By the way, I ckecked out your blog. Interesting - I've bookmarked it for future reference.

I am aglow by your approval.

 

[CapnG]

Paul, good points but one thing I have to call you on:

Jeff Ritzman, Gene and David were dead wrong in my opinion (no offense, fellows) - a case does not get weaker over time, it usually gets stronger (at least within the short and mid term).

Wait, WHAT? Has the Roswell case gotten stronger? Has the Rendalsham case? Has ANY case really benefitted from the passage of time? Seems contradictory to me. As time passes, more witnesses appear, the waters get muddier, interest wains... time is the enemy of ufology.

One other thing that mad me chuckle, in the interview on this week's show you mentioned something about analyzing negatives. Nega-what? C'mon Paul, cameras don't produce negatives anymore, they don't even produce PICTURES! Hell, most of 'em aren't even CAMERAS, they're phones and MP3 players and friggin' shoes that just happen to have a crappy little camera built in. If you're waiting on negatives, you'll be waiting a while...

 

[Paul Kimball]

Cap:

Wait, WHAT? Has the Roswell case gotten stronger? Has the Rendalsham case? Has ANY case really benefitted from the passage of time? Seems contradictory to me. As time passes, more witnesses appear, the waters get muddier, interest wains... time is the enemy of ufology.

No, not necessarily. Besides, I'm not talking about 50 years - I'm talking about months, perhaps a year or two, the time it takes to conduct a proper investigation. Even so, take the Rendlesham case - it has indeed gotten stronger recently with the release of MoD documents about the case which clarified a number of points.

Time is only the enemy where gathering witness accounts is concerned. If time was the enemy of a proper investigation, history would be a meaningless discipline.

What needs to be done in the relative short term is the gathering of witness statements (at least the initial witnesses). This should be done with as little media or public attention as possible (in an ideal world, NONE), so as not to taint the testimony.

At the same time, people could be checking other aspects, like the weather angle, and the radar angle, and so forth. And on it goes from there.

One other thing that mad me chuckle, in the interview on this week's show you mentioned something about analyzing negatives. Nega-what? C'mon Paul, cameras don't produce negatives anymore, they don't even produce PICTURES! Hell, most of 'em aren't even CAMERAS, they're phones and MP3 players and friggin' shoes that just happen to have a crappy little camera built in. If you're waiting on negatives, you'll be waiting a while...

I was referring specifically to a certain Swiss case that shall remain nameless (out of respect for Gene and David, I didn't want to mention the name on the air).

By the way, I still have a very good camera that produces negatives. Most good photographers do! ;-)

But it's amazing indeed what you can do with digital cameras these days. Nevertheless, there are still ways of determining the probable authenticity of photos taken digitally.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

Does this mean YOU, sir, are doing some investigating of your own into this matter?

Remember, if you say no, it's a cover-up.

I have one case that I've been quietly looking into at for a couple of years (and have not mentioned to anyone other than my fiance), but otherwise I'm referring to others who seem to have more free time.

I am aglow by your approval.

I have that effect on people!

Paul

 

[jritzmann]

It's always been my experience that cases left to private means dont really work any better then public investigations (to a point, there are other issues with public investigations). For one simple reason, ex. the O'Hare United workers all would have contact or know of/be familiar with eachother. Once one is interviewed there's going to be discussion within the ranks. Of course one thast hasnt had media attention might do better, but we're a little past that. Remember the Mexico City footage (Aug. 6th 1997), there were no witnesses until Maussan broadcast the video on national TV. Then there was over 100. :/ One problem, there couldnt have been witnesses, because the event never actually happened. Thats the real issue with media covered sightings.

It's almost impossible to avoid contamination, because witnesses will all convey what they saw to eachother. If a couple of them who also witnessed the event *didnt* see what the others did...chances are they will now. If one of us were present at the event we could say "ok everyone keep quiet" and do the questioning immediately, and separately. Then you might get accurate interpretations though the right methodology of questioning.

As it stands now, forget it. The case is getting older, and fast. The more time that passes, expectations are built, witnesses are playing it over and over in their heads, embellishments are happening, and the actual event is getting clouded. Thats a simple fact. Nevermind that as the case ages, you'll have people coming out of the woodwork who weren't even there, but claim to be a witness.

Also, the more time that goes by, the more likely United is to have time to cover their tracks and come up with a good story. Radar reports could be fabricated and replaced, etc. Again the longer you wait the more the case degrades.

So, time is a critical factor. Waiting doesnt do a thing but give people time to embellish (whether it's intentional or not), those that might know something to cover it, and loons to come out of the woodwork, thereby complicating the issue of investigation....and thats only a few things that happen to a case with the passage of time.

I think unfortunately while O'Hare might yet yield photos, I doubt we'll learn anything much past that of any substance. Those that jumped on it early might yet get something good, but who knows. As far as I'm concerned any investigation is already somewhat behind.

 

[CapnG]

If time was the enemy of a proper investigation, history would be a meaningless discipline.

Isn't history just a matter of consensus between historians though? And a murky one at that, history generally being written by the victors and all that.

I just think it's interesting that if an event occurs and there's an "official" record we call it historical but if there's only a few accounts, or many contradictory ones we call it myth or legend. But that's another debate for another time.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Isn't history just a matter of consensus between historians though? And a murky one at that, history generally being written by the victors and all that.

No, but I do understand that more and more disgruntled and unhappy people would like us to believe this (I'm not referring to you here).

And history is by no means written by the victors only - for the Second World War there are many good accounts by historians from Axis countries, for example. Also, the historians from the winning side will often be far more bold and harsh on their own countries than you might think, especially with the passage of time.

I just think it's interesting that if an event occurs and there's an "official" record we call it historical but if there's only a few accounts, or many contradictory ones we call it myth or legend.

I don't. It's all history, so long as the event can be proven to have occurred. Take O'Hare, for example - the question seems to be not whether something occurred (although at these early stages a hoax is still possible), but what it was. That's not a myth or legend - that's a question of interpretation.

Paul

 

[CapnG]

No, but I do understand that more and more disgruntled and unhappy people would like us to believe this (I'm not referring to you here).

That's perfectly alright, I AM generally disgruntled and unhappy, not to mention cynical. I don't know if I'm old enough to qualify for the label "curmudgeon" yet but I kinda like it.

 

[Paul Kimball]

That's perfectly alright, I AM generally disgruntled and unhappy, not to mention cynical. I don't know if I'm old enough to qualify for the label "curmudgeon" yet but I kinda like it.

I definitely hope to live long enough to acquire "curmudgeon" status!

Paul