…Because debunking people like Uri Geller only gets you a lot of red comments and hate mail; debunking people like Dubya gets you… an orange uniform

Good comments there Joseph

I’d have to say I think they’re weighing in on this footage right now simply because it’s in the news, and the countless other footage (at YouTube and elsewhere) isn’t.

What will Romanek get out of his video other than a dubious and fleeting internet infamy?

Personally, UFO videos don’t do much for me precisely because they can be faked. Even before the advent of computer aided trickery creative hoaxers could manufacture some fairly believable photos.

Believers will always believe. Pointing out exactly how they’ve been bamboozled doesn’t actually do much to hamper that.

Witness Mr. Redfern’s reception by ufology after he published his Body Snatchers in the Desert book.

On the other hand, folk like Jim Randi aren’t going to believe no matter how much “proof” you lay before them.

I remember a Peter Brookesmith article I read in Fortean Times a few years back. Mr. Brookesmith asked Mr. Randi if a paranormal occurrence ( sorry, I don’t remember exactly what that occurrence was) could be replicated using stage magic. Mr. Randi told him something like, “I don’t have to show you that it can be replicated with stage magic because the incident you’re asking about couldn’t happen.”

I wish I could be that certain about what is possible or impossible.
That’s why I think true believers and die hard skeptics have way more in common than they’d ever admit.

I agree that the PM’s article was too bent on the skeptic side, but I do have to agree with one comment made by the fellows that have been intent—perhaps too driven?—in disproving Romaneck:

”The problem with any data—I don’t care if it’s a video, a photo, electromagnetic readings—it can be faked. And because of the digital age, it can be faked easily”

Bryan Bonner, head of the Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society

Now, whether one is a good ol’ “Nuts & Bolts” ETHer, or instead has a more Fortean attituted toward the UFO phenomenon, the fact of the matter is that in this day & age we cannot put our trust in photographic “evidence” anymore. At the very least a good UFO pic or video can be a tool to research further into a case, find more corroborations etc etc. But with so many home computers out there with enough processing power to produce a fairly convincing hoax, we need to be more skeptical and cautious.

“”We saw this guy trying to pass off things that looked paranormal as something related to aliens,” says Bryan Bonner, head of the Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society, which has been recreating Romanek’s photos and videos for several years—to disprove him. That’s because the same type of evidence once used by paranormal scientists to indicate the presence of ghosts is now being doctored by amateurs as proof of alien life. ”

Maybe “proof” was the wrong word.
Maybe using cross-pollination of paranormal fields to create doubt would have been better.

It seems that PM takes a typical skeptic stance by alluding to the fact that because these videos can be easily faked, all videos are fake. But I may be reading more into it than is there. Bringing James Randi into it, with his apparent belief that if something can be hoaxed with magic & illusion, that automatically makes it a hoax, may be prejudicing my understanding of the authors intent.

Bender’s book, quite curiously, is described as being unreadable on quite a few web-sites.

While he’s obviously not a professional writer, calling it “unreadable” seems amazingly unfair.

Many thanks for the words re the book.

Yes, I have read Bender’s book, and you’re right: it does straddle Ufology, the paranormal and the occult.

It’s a weird book, but definitely worth reading.

For the record, I did once believe that we were dealing with literal ETs; however, I now take the view that there’s some sort of phenomenon at work, constantly manipulating us, and constantly manifesting in different ways to suit the people and the cultural beliefs of the time, and that is probably responsible for a whole range of seemingly unconnected phenomena.

I’m not sure PM discredit the film because of the cross-pollination angle; rather I think it’s more that they take the view something like that can be easily faked.

But, that said, there’s no doubt that many pro-UFO researchers are not at all keen on the cross-pollination angle, and prefer to keep everything in the “nuts and bolts ET camp.”

I think it’s clear that there’s far more to it than that.

Given your belief that ufos, bigfoot, etc., are related phenomena, one I share by the way, I’m wondering how you view Popular Mechanics debunking of the Stan Romanek video here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4266921.html

The writer seems to use this cross-pollination of phenomena as “proof” the claims are spurious.

Also, I’m curious if you’ve ever read Albert Bender’s book ‘Flying Saucers and the Three Men in Black?’

While the book is an acquired taste, it does touch on this cross-pollination. Bender undergoes phenomena that could only be described as paranormal, meeting 10 foot monsters, trolls, subterranean ice caverns, a hooded monk, and glowing black garbed “aliens” who seem to have as much in common with ghosts and religious visions as they do with extraterrestrials.

Just curious.