Horace Heffner wrote:
We can be absolutely sure it was nowhere near self-sustaining at the neutron numbers given.
I had in mind that the neutron numbers might be inaccurate, or that some novel and unknown mechanism might be at work. I realize this is unlikely.
Even experts such as Farnsworth sometimes imagine that they have observed an inexplicable anomaly, but nearly all of these turn out to be a mistake. I gather Richard Hull concludes that this was almost certainly a mistake but there are some aspects of it which are difficult to "explain away."
Without taking sides in this debate, my point is that whether this is an anomaly or a mistake, either way it is bad form to call it "an urban myth." It is a fragmented, long lost, somewhat puzzling observation, which may or may not mean anything. It is also bad form to demand that an observation that Farnsworth found interesting should be stricken from the Internet to prevent innocent minds from being corrupted. Beene called for "debunking the the bad journalism and urban myth" of this report. I would not want people to go around "debunking" the "urban myths" about my observations of the Griggs device, or Mizuno's 11-day heat after death event. These things actually did happen, beyond the slightest doubt. They may remain unexplained forever, but they did happen, and they raise unanswered questions.
There is much to be said for Charles Fort's method of collecting anomalies with an open-minded, non-judgmental attitude. We should not demand that they be promptly explained or debunked -- voted up or down. The Fortean Times carries on his tradition, which is admirable.
- Jed
