On a
blog that is part of the National Geographic web site, a blogger
named Nadia Drake posted a post this week with the title “What
Hillary Clinton Says About Aliens Is Totally Misguided.” I was
surprised by this insinuation that Hillary Clinton had stated a
position about aliens. Each day I have been following the
presidential campaign coverage on cable TV – how come I had not heard anyone mention it?
To back
up this claim, Drake has a link to an interview in which Hillary
Clinton says, “There’s enough stories out there that I
don’t think everybody is just sitting, you know, in their kitchen making them
up.” This is the only relevant Hillary Clinton quote which Drake
cites.
When I took a
look at the interview, I found the relevant part was at 24:11. Here is
what Clinton said after being asked about disclosing government UFO
files.
Clinton: I want to
open the files as much as we can. If mean if there's some huge
national security thing, and I can't get agreement to open them, I
won't. But I do want to open them. Because I'm interested.
Interviewer: Do you
believe?
Clinton: I don't
know. I want to see what the information shows, right? But there are
enough stories out there that I don’t think everybody is just
sitting, you know, in their kitchen making them up. I think people
see things. What they see, I don't know.
Drake provides no evidence
at all that Clinton has said anything about aliens. Her claim that
Hillary Clinton has said something about aliens is therefore
inaccurate. Contrary to her insinuation that Hillary Clinton said
something about aliens in the interview, Clinton sounded entirely
noncommittal, by twice using the phrase “I don't know” to
indicate a lack of any position on whether aliens exist. Drake has
misled us by both insinuating that Clinton stated some position on
aliens (which she did not), and also insinuating that Clinton
advanced some flaky position that is “totally misguided.” Her
actual statements on the matter are noncommittal and perfectly
reasonable to anyone thinking that the public should be
well-informed.
The misleading title of
Drake's blog post is not the only fib Drake commits. She starts out
her blog post with a lie. She says, “In the spring of 1999,
a UFO flew over downtown Ithaca, New York.” After referring to this thing as an "alien object," in the second
paragraph she again refers to this object as a UFO. But much later
in her post she tells us that this object was actually an
upside-down frying pan with a saucepan lid over it – something that she
and a classmate had deliberately made to make a fake UFO photo –
something she rigged up to a wire (so therefore an object which could
not actually have “flown over” the city of Ithaca).
UFO means “unidentified
flying object.” It is quite okay to use that term for any object
that is both unidentified and flying. So if you see something flying
that you can't identify, you can truthfully call that a UFO,
even if you later find out that is was natural or man-made. But it is untruthful to use the term UFO to refer to an object that
you have constructed yourself for the sake of making a fake UFO
photo, for such an object is never unidentified. It was also untruthful for Drake to have used a photo of her fake
frying-pan UFO that had the caption, “After a few minutes, the
spacecraft turned east and flew over the Cornell campus.”
The rest of Drake's blog
post is an attempted debunking of UFO sightings, and it is one of the
laziest attempts at UFO debunking I have ever read. Drake shows no
evidence of having read up on any specific UFO incidents. She limits
herself to lame armchair arguments and irrelevant reminiscing about
her summer internships.
Drake suggests that
eyewitness testimony cannot be trusted, and says “check out the
decades of research that have been done on the reliability of
witnesses testifying in court.” Hardly a compelling argument, since
we very often do send people to years in prison based solely on
eyewitness testimony, because such testimony is in the great majority
of cases largely correct. Furthermore, a typical UFO sighting will
be written down very quickly, after a time gap much shorter than the
months that often elapse between a crime and a witness testimony
describing that crime in court. The fact that someone may make a
mistake about identifying a face is no reason at all for doubting the
accuracy of someone who claims to have seen a huge extremely bright
object speeding across the sky (or a mile-long UFO, as at least 30
witnesses reported during the sightings at Stephenville, Texas).
From an observational
standpoint, a face is a set of fine details, but UFO reports are
almost never reports of fine details – they are instead reports of
extremely conspicuous deviations from normality in the sky. Since it
is much, much easier to recognize extremely conspicuous deviations
from normality in the sky than to recognize faces, any human
imperfection in recognizing faces does nothing to impugn the reality
of UFO reports.
Drake then trots out the
old skeptic slogan that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. This is a silly slogan, and those who use it never specify
what they mean by extraordinary evidence. In the case of UFOs there
is, in fact, the most extraordinary evidence of close encounters.
Some of the most extraordinary findings of science have been made by
just piling up ordinary observations. There's no claim more
extraordinary than the claim of the Big Bang, but the evidence that
established it is just ordinary kind of evidence such as red shifts
and a radiation reading from an unimpressive-looking
device in New Jersey. If you were to claim that someone could
levitate a rock, that would be an extraordinary claim, but you could
establish it with ordinary types of evidence such as three
simultaneous live broadcasts by local news stations, and sworn
testimony by 20 witnesses.
In her discussion of UFO
evidence, Drake implies that it is “little more than unverified
anecdotes,” which is a quite misleading statement given the massive
photographic evidence (both still photos and videos) that have been
made of UFOs. Photographs and videos are not anecdotes. As for
“unverified anecdotes,” imagine if 30 people all reported severe
stomach pains after eating at a restaurant. Until chemical tests were
done, such accounts would be “unverified anecdotes,” but they
would be a highly reliable indicator that something important and
worthy of attention had occurred.
My suggestions to Ms.
Drake are as follows: (1) don't mislead your readers by claiming that
a presidential candidate “says about aliens” something that is
“totally misguided” when the candidate actually twice said “I
don't know” when asked about whether she believed in UFOs; (2)
don't publish photos of fake UFOs you have built; (3) if you do
publish a photo of a fake UFO you have built, don't put a
serious-looking caption underneath the photo making the phony claim
that the object is a spacecraft; (4) if you try to debunk UFOs, try
to show some slight indication that you have studied the evidence.
Unidentified object over Bank of America tower in NYC
No comments:
Post a Comment