Doug's Darkworld

I actually really appreciate the comments I get in here, they’ve really helped refine my view of the world and how people think. And it’s not unknown for one to make me re-evaluate my position, though the opposite is more common. And the comments come in for years on some posts, someone new wanders across a post and feels the need to add their two cents. And it’s also not unusual for a comment to inspire me to add codicils, caveats, and explanations to my original post. Which is sorta where this is headed.

An esteemed commenter the the other day claimed I was “debunking” Ancient Alien claims, though to be fair I believe his comment was more tongue-in-cheek than not. I don’t think of myself as a debunker, in fact I find most skeptics as annoying as most true believers. Sometimes though, stuff is bunk. And if it’s bunk, it should be called so. And “La Puerta de Hayu Marka” is bunk. One of the most fascinating things about it though was the fact that any number of Ancient Aliens web sites had simply copied and passed the exact same drivel without any attempt to verify it. And one wonders why I tend to be cautious about tales involving paranormal or supernatural events?

In fact, go back and look at the picture of the stargate. That picture is touted as being in this remote location. Then look at the ground in front of the “stargate.” Um, a lot of people obviously wander around there, it’s a well trampled as a typical high school beer drinking spot in the woods. And then there’s the stone wall in the foreground. Um, pretty obviously not ancient. Granted I missed all this at first pass myself, and bought the “remote location” nonsense. Just goes to show ya, something can be as plain as the nose on one’s face, but it can still be missed.

Moving right along, comments continue to be left on my Dyatlov Pass Incident post. And I’ve noticed a common theme. People who want to discredit my hypothesis, or promote their own, pick and chose the details they think are important to bolster their case. And frequently focus on details that “discredit” my hypothesis. And they can be very very serious about this. And oddly enough, I observe pretty much the same pattern in people touting belief in God or promoting the conspiracy theory of their choice. Which sadly reinforces what scientists have discovered the past few decades, most people aren’t interested in actual debate, they are simply arguing their side of the issue. If one picks and chooses what details are important, any theory can be supported.

Granted not a terribly astute or original observation, and by no means am I generalizing it to all people. And I’m sure I’m guilty of the same, at least to some degree. On the other hand, I don’t seem to reach the firm conclusions (in most cases) that others seem to reach. And I am usually happy to concede that I might be wrong. Or at the very least am open to new argument. So back to Dyatlov. In this case despite the plethora of comments, I still think the case has a perfectly mundane explanation. Some combination of panic, hypothermia, and paradoxical undressing. Maybe triggered by an avalanche, maybe triggered by some sort of military test gone awry. My last point here is regarding the comment about some of them being very experienced snow campers. Um, so what? Experienced people may be less likely to make mistakes than novices, but every day experienced people make fatal mistakes. Hell, I’ll write a blog post about it someday, ten fatal mistakes made by people who should have known better.

Lastly, a case where comments have made me re-evaluate my position. That would be the Moorgate Tube Crash. Upon further reflection and comments, maybe the explanation is even more mundane than suicide. Maybe the driver just fell asleep. People can and do fall asleep sitting up with their eyes open, I can attest to that from my guard duty days in the service. It’s also possible that the driver was just really lost in thought and distracted, it happens.

In conclusion, there is no conclusion.

(The above image is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law. Credit and copyright:  Nathan Alexander, Wikipedia. It’s a sailing rock on a dry lake bed in Death Valley. It’s called a sailing rock, because, well, from the tracks, one can see that it has moved. This was one of the more mundane Earth mysteries of my youth. Mundane in that while it hadn’t been explained, it was hard to see why supernatural forces were pushing rocks around. And when scientists investigated, they discovered the rocks only moved when the surface was wet and there was a good wind. And the rocks always moved in the direction the wind was blowing. Case closed, on to the next one. Maybe the little known case of the boulders rolling uphill in Scotland.)