I recently invited skeptic David Sharpe to focus in on one specific photograph from Billy Meier of the WCUFO, and the two enhanced versions, at this blog and to feel free to enhance the image himself to see what results he would get.
Here is his response accompanied by the photos and my comments:
DS: “I did do that myself and achieved similar results. I saw the ‘post’ object, didn’t see the background looking the way it does but I’m not too skeptical that such a result could be achieved. I don’t find this argument terribly convincing simply because this image is so subject to personal interpretation.”
MH: So this image is “so subject to personal interpretation”:
I’m not sure what that means but Mr. Sharpe goes on to – almost – explain it:
DS: “I see any number of things, you see a road and a halo, IIG folks see a curtain backdrop and who knows what else. I don’t see anything which shows convincingly that one interpretation is better than another here.”
MH: We have three photographs and Mr. Sharpe sees “any number of things”, none of which he specifically describes. He points out that I see a road and a halo. Uh-huh. And what do you see here Mr. Sharpe:
He won’t say but he switches his attention back to the original photo, the one that IIG says is just a model against a “curtain backdrop”:
And he concludes by telling us that he doesn’t “see anything which shows convincingly….” just read it again for yourself, if you wish.
If he wasn’t a skeptic, with a load of preconceptions, prejudices, pseudoscientific certainties about just what is and isn’t possible and real…would Mr. Sharpe have so much trouble being honest and congruent? Would he come right out and say that the object obviously wasn’t a model photographed against a black curtain without any suspension lines, etc.? He certainly hasn’t explained how a photograph taken by Meier, using a 35mm film camera, can suddenly be shown to contain information only available visible 21st century technology…32 years later.
This kind of intellectual dishonesty and rigidly religious sense of denial is largely what today’s skepticism and its followers amount to. They have to dismiss, ignore or invalidate it that which doesn’t fit their belief system, and reality as they have defined it. It’s the same kind of mental mediocrity that other kind of religious believers resort to when confronted by such challenges.
Of course Mr. Sharpe has told us several times that he’s just “in this for fun” but he’ll take a moment or two to show us how smart he is and how foolish we are. He had also written to me, “But hey, if you’re ever up for an honest debate where we can fully discuss the merits of one argument at a time, I’m up for it.” Right.
It looks like a world largely filled with self-satisfied, fearful, religiously deluded, overly entertained, presumably “educated” ignorant people who can’t trust themselves to reason and intelligently analyze what they see, because it isn’t supposed to be there, so it isn’t possible.
Welcome to the national (perhaps global) mental institution where the inmates really are running the asylum.
Look what happened to you, America, while you spent your time watching overgrown boys get overblown salaries to play over-hyped games, while you lived your life vicariously through other people, through phantasmagoria and fabricated screen identities, portraying yourselves as imaginary heroes, playing games, twittering, texting and trivializing the gift of life.
Now, like Mr. Sharpe, we’re only engaged “in this for fun”, no matter just how serious and important “this” may be. Life is just another video game, isn’t it?