In this clip from an interview I conducted with him in 2001, anthropologist Dr. Benson Saler discusses the concept of evidence and how it has been applied to the Roswell UFO case by both believers and skeptics. With all the bluster from the "Dream Team" about the "Roswell slides," it's always nice to remind oneself of how a proper academic approaches the subject.
I'm curious. "UFOs as something paranormal" believers always talk about the "evidence," and how it is overwhelming (and I use "paranormal" rather than "space aliens" even though most of the time "space aliens" is the go-to explanation for believers, but I want to be inclusive here). But on the best cases, where is the evidence that allows one to draw that conclusion? I don't see it... anywhere.
For reference, because many "believer" ufologists like to work with the legal standard of evidence (as opposed to the scientific), let's define our terms. We should be looking for "clear evidence," which Black's Law Dictionary defines as follows:
Evidence which is positive, precise and explicit, as opposed to ambiguous, equivocal, or contradictory proof, and which tends to directly establish to the point to which it is adduced, instead of leaving it a matter of conjecture or presumption, and is sufficient to make out a prima facie case.
Let's add the definition of "best evidence," which is the kind that should be used to establish clear evidence. It is defined as follows:
Primary evidence, as distinguished from secondary; original, as distinguished from substitutionary; the best and highest evidence of which the nature of the case is susceptible.
Combine the two, and you have the minimum standard that one should be looking for in order to support the "paranormal proposition."
Let's go case by case, and start with Rendlesham, which I discussed on Where Did The Road Go recently. What is the evidence that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something "paranormal" happened there.
One of the most satisfying parts of conducting an investigation of an allegedly paranormal incident or place comes when you actually manage to obtain some "hard" or "real" evidence, as opposed to just the stories of people who claim to have seen or experienced something unusual. In my opinion, the best type of evidence that can be obtained of any alleged paranormal activity - short of actual physical evidence of an alien spacecraft, or a ghost - is photographic or video evidence of something which may be anomalous.
Many people have claimed over the years to have that kind of evidence, but most of them, in my opinion, are lying. How can you tell? Simple - if these people make the "evidence" available for everyone to see, particularly if they do so for free, then regardless of whether the evidence shows anything paranormal or not, at least we know that the person who claimed to have the evidence actually did have something, and they were willing to let others examine it and offer their opinions on it. In short, they were interested in the exchange of knowledge.
If they won't do that, you can bet biscuits to navy beans that they either don't have the evidence, or that they have dramatically overstated its worth. Unfortunately, in the unregulated world of so-called paranormal "investigation", few people are ever called out on this type of claim - instead, they are asked back time and time again on radio shows and to conferences in order to discuss their "evidence", almost always promising that its delivery is right around the corner... and then they don't deliver, for one reason or another (interference by the "powers that be" is always a popular excuse). When challenged to "put up or shut up", they usually do neither. Like the energizer bunny, they just keep going, and going.
That's not science. It's not even pseudoscience. It's hucksterism.
I was taught and trained to do things differently.
During the filming of Ghost Cases, Holly and I conducted an investigation of the Algonquin Hotel in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, which is supposedly haunted by the spirit of a bride who was stood up at the altar about a century ago, and committed suicide as a result. As will be seen in the following videos, which are excerpts from the footage we shot that night, we obtained some evidence.
Now, I'm not going to purport to tell you what it is - I'll leave that up to the reader, and I encourage folks to discuss it here in the comments section, or elsewhere. The point is that we have gathered some evidence, and I'm eager to have folks look at it, and then see where the proverbial chips fall.
First, by way of context for the footage, here is some of the background story and events that led up to the moment when it was obtained, because the context is important - particularly as it relates to what happened in room 473:
And here is the evidence itself, and a conversation between myself and UPIA investigator Dave Sadler, to whom we showed the footage when we were working with the UPIA in the United Kingdom a few months later:
And now, here are some enhanced still photos, made by Steve Mera from the UPIA:
So, what does this evidence show?
To say that I am skeptical about "orbs" as proof of something paranormal would be an understatement (as I note in the second video), but the circumstances, particularly the fact that Holly looked behind her just after the orb appeared, despite the fact that there was no-one else in the room, and she stated afterwards that she had no idea why she looked behind her just at that moment, makes me pause, and at least consider the possibility, given the confluence of events, that there might be something anomalous about this orb. Of course, that's not the same thing as saying that we encountered the spirit of the dead bride in room 473 - it's just me saying that I find it... interesting.
But as any good investigator should, I leave you with the evidence that we gathered, and encourage you to judge for yourselves.
