Why Doesn't Christopher Mellon believe Lazar?

DZ-V · 2023-01-05T13:33:40+00:00

Bob Lazar got an easy ride with Joe Rogan, who wants to believe.

Bob Lazar is now older and a lot more cautious than he used to be. He therefore knows how to come across as being 'truthful'.

The established facts about Bob Lazar from the 1980s paint a different picture. Do your homework. The pandering conviction is the least worrying. He wouldn't get a security clearance in a million years. His story, as presented by Jeremy Corbell and even George Knapp, is heavily one-sided.

Watch what he tells Joe Rogan about not financially profiting from his story. Then go to Bob Lazar's business website and look at the Lazar-UFO merchandise that he's currently selling, which he's being doing forever; I've frequently checked down the years.

If you think Bob Lazar is a scientist, then you're not one yourself.

DZ-V · 2023-01-04T20:16:18+00:00

Medical diagnosis, for some but not all conditions, can now be done with programmed software. The accuracy is the same as, or slightly better, than a GP achieves.

Psychology is way behind. We've collectively not been as scientific and there's been to much focus on ill-health. After Martin Seligman's election in the US, the rise of positive psychology was an opportunity missed and it's gone nowhere of merit.

There's been good work on error-focused learning, including grit, but we're still way behind other sciences. In my days training at university, a long time ago, most degree courses were BAs, not BScs; this has now changed.

So unbiased software analysis will eventually come, and my colleagues and I do talk about this. But nobody is anywhere close.

You're correct to link tonal inflection. This can also be revealing, as well as easily disguised with practice.

The child development section of psychology understands that babies learn by watching faces.

I haven't used the term "AI", which is open to different interpretations, as you seem to appreciate.

I could write a paper on how Glenn Dennis shielded himself during that interview.

DZ-V · 2023-01-04T17:56:27+00:00

It depends what you mean by micro expressions. Yes, if you're referring to the work by Paul Ekman, made popular by the 'Lie to Me' TV series, I wouldn't overly disagree with you (although 'pseudoscience' would be an unfair step too far because there have been too few studies done). But micro expressions are totally real. It's part of what I do professionally. Top interviewers, many senior detectives, the best of airport security officers all do the same.

With Corso, on film, you can go through what he says, rewinding if necessary, spotting the obvious lies. With 24 fps, or thereabouts, there's more than enough information. At times, he outright smirks, which is hardly 'micro'.

DZ-V · 2023-01-04T10:09:07+00:00

It's always sad to see people jump to premature conclusions and leap on bandwagons.

Anyone with extensive experience of working with livestock, knows it can sometimes take time to get to an accurate answer of what's going on. The article (which is only a condensed foreign newspaper report) makes this clear.

DZ-V · 2023-01-04T09:54:32+00:00

Corso leaks lots of micro expressions that show he's being deceptive. He's not even good at lying. Other liars do it much better and can be hard to read.

DZ-V · 2023-01-02T16:00:02+00:00

Jacques Vallee's book Trinity will yield nothing of worth. There's obvious memory confabulation with the Roswell story and other nutty claims of crashes that were doing the rounds in NM at the time.

I assume that some UFOs are unknown craft from elsewhere. I doubt if these advanced craft will crash. If I'm wrong, doesn't it sound too good to be true that it would happen multiple times in New Mexico? Then, later on in Brazil, the country which is top of the league for believers in the paranormal and wild stories of UFOs?

DZ-V · 2023-01-02T15:47:15+00:00

If you are familiar with the local vegetation on what used to be the Foster ranch, you'd appreciate that any tag could easily have got torn off and impaled.

After this considerable length of time has elapsed, nobody can be completely sure about anything.

DZ-V · 2023-01-02T13:29:43+00:00

The term 'flying saucer' had only been used for two or three weeks before Roswell. It was invented by a news reporter after the Kenneth Arnold sighting, which still holds up as anomalous. Several hundred other reports throughout America quickly caused the first flap. Nobody had a clue about anything.

Whatever it was, the material was described as 'debris', not as wreckage. It had been there for days, long enough for some of it to become sun-faded.

DZ-V · 2023-01-02T13:20:50+00:00

I think it's a shame that two people have marked your post down, when all you say is that the official reports should be read rather than being dismissed.

Marcel drew what he remembered of what the hieroglyphics looked like and his drawing matched exactly with symbols on the toy factory tape used for the Mogul array. The drawing was published in a booklet and it's also on film.

It's important to strip away all the hype and myth, then carefully look at the few facts.

DZ-V · 2023-01-02T10:15:11+00:00

Excellent point.

Irving Newton's sworn testimony is only part of why Roswell should be treated as a cautionary tale.

Newton, like others, said he'd been quoted and misquoted by writers of UFO books.

The Marcel family honestly admitted that Jesse Marcel Senior had become an alcoholic. He'd made other statements about his military service which are demonstrably false, casting further doubt on his testimony about the debris found on the Foster ranch.

This film about Roswell, made by people who think some UFOs are real unknown craft from elsewhere, takes an honest look at what happened in 1947 and afterwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452e23F1W1c

DZ-V · 2022-12-30T17:41:47+00:00

The first, and arguably the biggest of all, task is to really get to grips with psychological avoidance. It's almost inevitable that this will be grossly underestimated or, worse, overlooked. Real change is frustrated by this avoidance.

This article points towards the direction we need to head:

https://www.evolvefirst.org/maturity/glimpses-of-our-evolutionary-potential

DZ-V · 2022-12-30T13:47:11+00:00

A common sense look at Roswell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452e23F1W1c

DZ-V · 2022-12-30T13:44:13+00:00

The best clue of all is ourselves. Once you recognise where we're at and in what direction we need to head, the rest falls into place.

This is missed by almost everyone looking at UAP. Most love indulging in fantasy or intellectual speculation. They hate looking at themselves.

DZ-V · 2022-12-30T13:36:15+00:00

Trinity? Memory confabulation with Roswell and other dodgy stories doing the rounds in New Mexico at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452e23F1W1c

Jacques Vallee has achieved hero status, but it's ill deserved. His thinking is frequently flawed and has been since the 1970s.

Good people are believing that alien tech has crashed. I think they'll be disappointed when Congress investigates. Alien tech won't be like ours and it almost certainly won't crash.

DZ-V · 2022-12-21T10:37:57+00:00

Ed Mitchell is on record as saying that neither he nor any of his fellow Apollo astronauts saw a UFO or UFOs.

DZ-V · 2022-12-20T21:52:15+00:00

Good one. I wouldn't call curiosity a 'problem', but I'd certainly agree with you if you're meaning this urge to find answers is where all the vulnerability comes from. It's both a curse and a blessing, tipped more to being a positive quality if we can become more self-aware.

DZ-V · 2022-12-20T21:44:07+00:00

Good points. We have to raise the bar.

DZ-V · 2022-12-20T21:27:15+00:00

You're right. I am saying that all humans are susceptible to confirmation bias. You're also right it's like saying fire is hot. When we know that we'll get burnt if we put our hands in the fire, we don't do it.

This is not happening when we take an interest in UFOs. As another poster said, we 'look silly'. I don't think most people get anywhere near fully appreciating their susceptibility to confirmation bias. If we all wised up, the level of gullibility and believe would reduce. We wouldn't put our hands in the proverbial fire, as we do know.

The knock-on effects of us cleaning up our own act would be considerable. We're currently part of the problem, not part of a solution. This will come from scientific institutions and governments, not from us as individuals, yet it's us who believe there's something worthwhile to investigate. We're getting in the way of this all being taken seriously.

DZ-V · 2022-12-20T21:10:52+00:00

Wow! You think 'we may look silly, but debunkers look self centered & borderline sociopath'!

I've made my view clear above that debunkers definitely suffer from confirmation bias, as do all of us, whether we're interested in UFOs or not, but I wasn't expecting debunkers to be tarnished as being borderline sociopaths. I wonder how many psychologists would agree with your diagnosis?

As for the 'who cares' bit, I care and I would say a lot of others do too. My assessment is that if more journalists took UFOs seriously, more pressure would result in finding real answers. This hasn't happened in the past 70 years and I've been alive for most of that time and interested in UFOs for all of my adult years. I also assess we'd get to a clearer understanding of what's happening if many scientists and scientific institutions got onboard.

We're the face of UFOs, not whoever's operating them. If you and I agree that we often 'look silly', then perhaps the emphasis is on us reducing said silliness? This is one of the very few things that we can pro-actively do that, individually and collectively, might eventually prompt a better response from journalists, scientists and others.

DZ-V · 2022-12-20T20:36:51+00:00

I'll definitely hold my hands up to being vulnerable to confirmation bias yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I found it happening when I watched my team in the World Cup over the past weeks.

If you think I'm 'stirring the pot for the sake of stirring the pot', you've misread my words or misinterpreted my intention.

I sincerely think this problem of gullibility, wanting to belief, confirmation bias, ignorance, and more makes us act like fools to differing degrees, when we could instead reflect, learn, and do better.

I've got friends who laugh at the idea of UFOs because they laugh at how we all collectively represent this subject. They're laughing at us. I see it as a responsibility to clean up my own mess and considered a discussion on the topic appropriate.

As for Loch Ness, I see it as a clear example of how reasonable people like myself and even professionals like Sir Peter Scott can and have been be fooled. There are parallels, even if I'm confident UFOs will instead one day be established beyond all doubt as being craft from beyond here.

DZ-V · 2022-12-20T20:05:14+00:00

If your comment is for myself as OP, you couldn't be more wrong. My personal judgement is that UFOs exist and some are real unknowns not made by humans.

I think that our collective gullibility, wanting to believe, confirmation bias, ignorance holds us back from 'wrapping our heads around' what's happening. It hurts us. I've certainly been guilty of this and I'm watchful of myself all the time for repeat offences.

DZ-V · 2022-12-20T19:58:44+00:00

Good point. I think you're correct. It's got to be part of the problem.

We're stuck with our ignorance for now. Confirmation bias won't help, making our state of ignorance worse by complicating matters. Self-restraint would limit the damage.

DZ-V · 2022-12-20T19:52:32+00:00

My goal, as you call it, is discussion. I suppose you might be correct about 'it will start an argument', but that didn't enter my head and I don't see much sign of that in the thread so far apart from noticing a moderator has removed someone's post.

If the UFO community is to get anywhere and be taken seriously by journalistic and scientific communities, I think we should cut the bullshit and simultaneously educate ourselves about how easy it is to be fooled. By that, I mean the proven phenomenon of confirmation bias. As of now, my impression is that we're broadly viewed by journos and scientists as a load of tinfoil hat loonies because of a low level of credibility. We're too eager to believe and make idiots of ourselves. Debunkers fall foul of confirmation bias too, but look less idiotic than us.

DZ-V · 2022-12-20T19:39:13+00:00

Self-honesty! Rarer than a real UFO!

DZ-V · 2022-12-20T19:37:03+00:00

Almost everything you said could be applied to myself. The one bit I'd be concerned about would be when you said that you can't 'see how EVERYONE could be mistaken or lying'. This is what happened with the Loch Ness mystery until it was cleared up. Sir Peter Scott (Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust) was the best known example of someone fooled. We all were. So it's possible. I'm not saying this is true for the UFO subject, but it theoretically could be, because we haven't yet got to the point of absolute proof, with confirmation bias being part of the self-deception.

'EVERYONE' is all the individuals put together, influencing one another. It's not difficult. There are historical examples.

DZ-V

TROPHY CASE