Saturday, April 29, 2017

X-Zone Broadcast Network - Lance Moody

Lance Moody
This week I tried something completely different and invited a dyed in the wool skeptic to join me. Lance Moody told about his conversion to skepticism from a younger man who was more open to the idea of alien visitation… as many of us were. Although we did talk about his sometimes rather nasty postings, and attempted postings to my blog, Moody, when engaged in private conversation (or in this case a rather public conversation) is quite rational and not at all snarky. You can listen to the interview here: 

His main argument with much of the paranormal crowd, and this includes those in the UFO community, is the lack of critical thinking. He has a point because we all sometimes accept testimony that is lacking in logic and that we sometimes refuse to accept answers when they are obviously correct. I think here of the Chiles – Whitted cigar-shaped UFO reported in 1948. To me, and many others, the answer is bolide, and as I have said before, the re-entry of the Zond IV in 1968 is the best example of this. You can read some of these arguments on this blog by simply searching for Chiles – Whitted.

An even better example of the lack of logic, one that we didn’t discuss is the Barney Barnett tale of a crashed saucer on the Plains of San Agustin. When coupled with the Eisenhower Briefing Document of MJ-12 fame you have a logical conundrum. If the Barnett tale is true, then it should have been mentioned in the EBD because this was allegedly a briefing for the incoming President about crashed saucers. That it was excluded suggests that it never happened.

If the Barnett tale is true, and it is not in the EBD, then that suggests the document is false. You simply can’t have it both ways because they are mutually exclusive. Both can’t be true and authentic, but, on the other hand, both could be false. The point is that the logic of the situation seems to be lost on some of those who believe that both are true. If you are interested in this in more detail, much of it has been published here, but you can look for the complete details in Roswell in the 21st Century.

Next week’s guest: Jan Harzan



Paul Young said...

You gave him too easy a ride, Kevin.
You discuss with Lance misidentified Chinese lantern type things, from witnesses desperate to believe in an ETH for any situation.
I agree with many peoples comments previously on this blog concerning "strange lights in the sky"...that should be automatically considered a prosaic occurrence due to the massive array of things we have flying these days and the various things orbiting.

But it's the various events where we have reluctant witnesses who have been up close and personal with weird events. (Kelly-Hopkinsville). Or events where we have credible people and where it does not benefit the witness in the slightest to report it... and in fact is dangerous for their career (Alan Godfrey... JAL pilot Kenju Terauchi) to report it.

These are the kind of events where I would have enjoyed listening to Lance's laughable responses.

Nitram said...

Another interesting broadcast - thanks to both Lance and Kevin...
Would like to have heard more discussion about Roswell - hopefully in the next interview!

Would agree with Lance of course that the Skeptical view should obviously be the default position.

Have to agree with Paul also - Lance got off lightly...


KRandle said...

Nitram -

With all the negative feedback I get about talking about Roswell and knowing that such a conversation was quickly degenerate into Project Mogul (which would require a discussion of the minutia) why would I want to go there on a program that has 45.5 minutes of editorial comment? I wanted to talk about the skeptical mindset and how it sometimes seemed as entrenched as that of the true believers.

Nitram said...


Yes, I understand your position of course and there is limited time.
Again I enjoyed the broadcast and it ended with me wishing it could have been longer.