Occam's Razor

[puddlepirate]

Having studied the RFI for almost seven years now the one thing that stands out by virtue of its apparent omission is the application of Occam's Razor. The principle of Occam's Razor is that "...When comparing two possible explanations for some phenomenon, there’s a very good chance the simpler explanation will be the more accurate one*. That doesn't mean that the simple answer is always the right answer but it does mean that the simple answer should not be ignored because quite often it is more likely to be correct. That well worn neumonic KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) is also worth considering.

It appears to me that over time the RFI has got too complicated, way beyond what was originally reported in the witness statements and that has led to the incident acquiring its own momentum, with that momentum taking the RFI into the realms of fantasy. This has not been helped by the recent additions to the original statements that have only served to confuse events still further

*There are many definitions for Occam's Razor but they all say much the same thing. This definition was taken from Wikipedia

[ramsrc]

As a long time lurker on this forum, your comment was enough to persuade me to register and post!

This is actually very true - I was thinking about the RFI in the context of Occams Razor the other day.

There is a certain amount of evidence, probably the most valuable of all being the witness statements. This is one of the few alleged UFO incidents where there are a significant number of witnessses - however, we have to be fair and say that due to the length of time that has elapsed since the incident, the chances of more evidence emerging is probably declining day by day.

Having said that, although I have considered many of the other theories - many of which are plausible - I can't help coming back to what I believe is the simplest explanation. This was a landing by something which we cannot explain. Whether that something was a "spacecraft" in the true sense of the word, we will probably never know. Not least because of the smoke and mirrors that have obscured the case over the years.

It is only natural that many people will come out with alternative, more "earthly" theories because we are, as humans, afraid of the unknown. Whatever the outcome of future investigations, quite simply, something happened out there in the forest. I don't believe for one second that Col. Halt and his men spent hours chasing a lighthouse and observing rabbit scrapings.

Maybe what needs to be done is to take the case back down to its component level - just examining the simple facts, and most importantly the witness statements. What do we know as opposed to what do we think we know.

[Frank]

It appears to me that over time the RFI has got too complicated, way beyond what was originally reported in the witness statements

I think the basic storyline of the witness statements and Halt’s memo has not changed significantly. On the first night three men got into the forest and encountered a strange triangular craft that was definitely mechanical in nature. On the third night a group of men went to the forest, measured significant levels of radiation at a landing site and saw strange things flying around and beaming laser-like beams to the ground.

Over the years this basic storyline has been supplemented with additional information. Given the nature of this information I can imagine that the witnesses did not put it in their reports at the time.

My impression is that both Jim Penniston and Col. Halt have even more information, but they are not allowed to disclose it. The recent interview with Monroe Nevels has revealed part of it.

I think that the disclosure of Halt’s memo was quite a shock and soon afterwards it became the official party line. Now the memo was out the USAF simply had no other choice than to acknowledge its contents. Since it describes an encounter with a triangular craft Jim probably has taken the freedom to elaborate on the appearance of the craft, but every time the inconsistency between his statement and that of John is discussed he seems to back off, or gives unconvincing answers. Nevels’ recent interview may have given some clues for his reasons.

Halt has always followed the scenario in his memo when he tells his story, but has downplayed the significance of the events by implying that someone arrived at his Christmas party unannounced to tell the UFO is back, while we now know from Nevels’ interview that Nevels and Englund arrived there because they were ordered to perform a top secret investigation in the forest and report back. He also never mentioned the strange things that happened to John Burroughs and Adrian Bustinza on the third night.

So probably there is more, but we may have to wait a very long time for it to get out.

I don’t know what you mean by “too complicated” by the way. Occam’s razor is a good heuristic rule, but we should keep in mind that it is a rule to select a theory that fits (all) the facts - it is not meant to discard facts in order to avoid complicated theories.

(As Einstein put it: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.. ")