Bilambil alien video

[zenmaster]

Respect zenmaster That helps.

Without getting into analysis of that 'interview' video, I want to put forth the immediate impression i had back when i first saw it:

the claim is that the alien requires darkness, so we have a dark video (conveniently). i submit that with a video camera with better light-gathering capability (not a special camera, just a fast professional camera w/ video lens system), the video would look quite different. if fact, the alien could probably enjoy even more darkness (to the point of candlelight), while the recorded picture appeared like the entire scene was normally illuminated. I'm not referring to special cameras or to new technology, as professional cameras could easily do this (i.e. f < 1.0) since the 80's.
Remember, this is the government recording an alien subject in a darkened room. The resources, preparedness, technical knowledge, expertise would've been readily available.

---

Although, wouldn't it be ironic if we got so good at debunking that we miss the real ones?

But the purpose is not to debunk, but to learn and increase discernment when faced with the unknown. I would submit that that underlying intention (i.e. open-mindedness) will tend to point toward the truth (not at the expense of it).

OTOH, debunking "evidence" submitted merely to say 'this is proof my prejudice is correct' - will tend to miss quite a bit of the reality. But where things are missed, there would also an opportunity to 'debunk the debunkers'. As long as some authoritative determination of authenticity is not given to one person, we have opportunity to determine the truth.

OTOH, prejudice works against "truth", in the other direction as well.

Are the open minded skeptic and open minded believer ultimately the same thing? I think so, if the belief and the skepticism originate from an honest approach. However, I feel there are two specific attributes that keep either from being as effective in their claims as they could be. That is, naivate and lack of discernment.

These are two different things: naivate, is due to a worldview (weltanschauung) which has not incorporated certain experiences. While discernment, is an active skill that does draw upon such experience, but also informs one when the limits of knowledge are reached.

If there is lack of discernment (which seems to be tied to honesty), bias for what one wants to see tends to substitute for knowledge. However, with more discernment, the boundaries of one's knowledge are more visible and what is known is not as likely to be overextended or misapplied.

The "believer" and "skeptic" may actually be the same thing, ultimately, if discernment is available. However, in their dishonest forms, we have the phenomena of the "fanatic" and the "debunker". These are heavily biased devotees who tend to raise mere bias and speculation, in the form of insubstantial or incongruous claims, to the status of fact. A characteristic difference in approaches is that the fanatic tends to be rather uncritical and seemingly open-minded , but only in regards to the perceived promotion of a particular cause or agenda to which they have identified ("everything is possible, if I like the idea"). While the debunker, similarly, applies his/her skepticism only to promote a particular cause of agenda ("everything is explainable and within my worldview"). Both approaches are effectively close minded.

I've also noticed that, if it serves to synthesize a pleasing story, many fanatics tend to correlate and connect disparate things and ideas. Whereas, many debunkers tend to mis-attribute causality to perception. This suggests unbridled use of the intuition and lack of reasoning in the former and over thinking or lack of intuition and false attributions or reductionism in the latter.

---

I find footage like this much more plausible than the videos, which are so easily faked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXIWKQOu-...re=related

NOT saying this is real. I have no idea if it is or not. It's just one I found. What I'm saying is that, interviews with whistleblowers seem more plausible, because they lack the sensationalism of actual video footage.

You do realize that the declassified footage shown, are USAF projects that had nothing to do with the interviewee's claims? That's "stock film footage" from the show's library.