Thursday, February 10, 2022

'X' Zone Broadcast Network: Dr. James Horan and the Journal of Scientific Exploration

 

This week I spoke with Dr. James Horan, who is the new editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. We had published an article about the Ramey Memo in the Journal in Spring 2002. You can listen to the discussion here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/48669630

We did talk about the Ramey Memo and that much could be learned from it. Because it was a document with a known and proven provenance, the legitimacy of

Dr. James Horan

it was not in question. The photograph shows General Ramey holding the document. We know that J. Bond Johnson took the picture and given that it was transmitted over the INS newswire with a time and date stamp on it, we know the picture was taken on the afternoon of July 8, 1947. I have to laugh because this is so well documented while other documents just show up in mail boxes with no clue as to where they came from and no way to verify the legitimacy of the documents. Just type Ramey Memo into the search engine and you will find a number of articles and discussions about it.

We discussed the experiment we conducted as a way of testing whether or not priming had any influence in the interpretation of the Ramey Memo. For those interested in the experiment, it can be found here, in the Spring 2002 edition of the Journal of Scientific Exploration:

www.scientificexploration.org

And, of course, we had to talk about the beginning of his interest in the Roswell case and the fact that there is no controversy about one aspect of it. Everyone agrees that something fell. It is the identity of the object that is in question. I did mention that the Air Force, in their massive report issued in the middle of the 1990s, pretty well eliminated any explanation other than a Project Mogul balloon. Of course, I, was well as many others, find that explanation lacking any authenticity. There was nothing classified about the balloon launches in New Mexico. It was the ultimate purpose that was classified, but even the name, Mogul, was known to those involved with the project.

All this sort of bypasses the discussion about vetting the witnesses, the difference between anecdotal testimony and scientific observation, and some of the failures of the Roswell witnesses. This wasn’t a way to dismiss the Roswell case, but a way of validating aspects of it.

We wrapped up our discussion with some comments about Avi Loeb’s Galileo Project and the search for alien artifacts. Loeb’s theories, while not universally accepted in the scientific community, have moved the discussion from the realm of the impossible to the realm of learning a new way of finding other intelligent life forms out there.

And, of course, we provided additional information about the Journal and Society for Scientific Exploration.

Next up is Clas Svahn, a Swedish UFO researcher, whose interests expand beyond just the UFO. We’ll talk about his latest book, Files of the Unexplained.

2 comments:

Moonman said...

Although I am unlikely to get an answer, I wonder what Dr. Horan, as a skeptic, would think is adequate data to "prove" UFO/UAP are of alien origin.

It would seem to me that the very nature of skepticism is that it will ALWAYS select a non-alien answer to the source of UFO/UAP. So, is there any EM, radar, video, IR, UV, visual collection of data that could completely convince skeptics the image captured was of alien origin? Or would they always say its always a possibility it is from Earth, no matter how many cameras or instruments? No amount of radio interference, gravity fluctuations, cars shutting down would be enough because maybe some Earth secret program or nation could have done it.

I suspect even with a piece of UFO/UAP would not be enough. Radioisotope ratios can be "faked". Any nanotech could be made by secret/other nations. How about a real live alien? I still think skeptics would say it was faked or made with CRISPR or birth defects.

So, I wonder why we are bothering with Avi Loeb's project and others. To get clicks?

Some Guy on the Innernets said...

While I do not disagree with Moonman's opinions on skeptics and their psychological quirks, I have a hard time picturing Kevin doing anything simply for clicks. He posts his perspectives on whatever has bearing on his chosen interests; intriguing or vacuous, honest or shifty, real or imaginary. It has been a pretty ho-hum season, following one full of disappointments and the same old muddled mess. Though there have been a few interesting bits turned up in some recent posts.