"Shutting up UFO Debunkers" REVISED 9-4-13
Post by Steve Zalewski » Wed May 01, 2013 10:30 pm
May 1, 2013
In my forty years of researching the UFO phenomenon, I
have had the opportunity to have lunch and dinner with Dr. J. Allen
Hynek and conduct high level SCIENTIFIC UFO research and speak at
Cornell University to the Cornell University UFO Awareness Group, which
was part of Cornell University Space Science.
I titled this posting, "Shutting Up UFO Debunkers" and yes it can be done. How do you "shut up" UFO debunkers?
By doing research that is extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely, difficult for them to refute.
Scientific
UFO data DOES exist, however it is NOT widely distributed like the
crackpot/cultist materials are, and a great deal of the data is in
obscure peer reviewed scholarly journals in the fields of aeronautics,
astronautics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, folklore, geology, history,
physics psychology, psychiatry, optics, meteorology, military
science, sociology, theology etc.
Before you begin gathering data make sure that you ARE very well informed about UFOs and UFO history.
The data is out there in many academic libraries, but you must LOOK FOR IT, in order to find it.
If
you were doing research say on the Apollo 11 moon landing mission would
you rely on crackpots? Of course not, SO WHY RELY ON CRACKPOTS AND
CULTISTS FOR YOUR UFO INFORMATION? Crackpots and cultists DO NOT
provide reputable information on UFOs, the primary objective of
crackpots and cultists is making money off the UFO phenomenon. By the
way, I DO NOT profit in any way on my UFO research activities.
Your
database should be composed up of books by scientists, books and
articles from credible UFO researchers, and scholars, government
documents that have been verified as being authentic, scientific field
studies, peer reviewed papers from scholarly journals, and AV materials
of a credible nature. A number of Masters degree and Ph.D degree UFO
thesis papers have been written, you should consider them as a data
source as well.
In the database that I set up by being extremely careful I was able to keep out nearly 98-99% of the crackpot/cultist junk.
Your
database should also be reviewed by scientists and academics who have
published serious UFO literature, and by credible UFO researchers. Try
to get some highly prestigious scientists with Ph.D credentials as some
of your reviewers.
We also asked the skeptics to contribute
materials, the skeptics would NOT donate anything. Oberg and Sheaffer
did NOT respond, Klass sent a letter
stating that he would not contribute anything and that his materials
are at the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, PA. Many
"skeptics" explain UFOs away without even taking the time to interview
witnesses, or do case investigations. Yet these are the same people who
rant and rave about how science is SUPPOSED to operate. They don't
practice what they preach. Many debunkers, pseudoskeptics, and skeptics
have developed an attitude that they are NEVER wrong about ANYTHING.
"There seems to be a category of persons,
including some attracted to science, who conclude that they know what
is good for the rest of us. They adopt a somewhat authoritarian and
somewhat paranoid "thought police" mode. They become convinced that
certain irrational concepts do grievous harm to individuals and may even
threaten the rational basis of modern western civilization". As
mentioned, Irving Langmuir was an earlier version of this class of
individuals. (Today we have a whole organization of them, the Committee For Skeptical Inquiry, formerly the Committee for Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal, CSICOP, proudly reveling in the COP status of their mental policing.)
Quoted from UFOs and Government, The Colorado Project, Chapter 14, page 321.
One
of the reasons that the UFO subject is not taken seriously by most
scientists is because of ignorance on the parts of the academic and
scientific community.
Many scientists base their negative reactions on UFOs due to their lack of knowledge about the subject matter at hand.
Another
reason is because new age kooks and cultists, and other crackpots have
damaged this subject severely. In addition many members of the public shy away from this subject due the "bad press" associated with it.
The third reason is due to all the disinformation that is spread around by debunkers and pseudoskeptics, and by local Committee For Skeptical Inquiry debunking chapters
which are "affiliated" with the national Committee For Skeptical
Inquiry located in Amherst, NY, (a suburb of Buffalo, NY) or by other
debunking/pseudoskeptical groups.
For those who don't know CSI
(Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) is the new name for The Committee for
the Scientific Investigations of Claims of the Paranormal, which was formerly known as CSICOP. By the way there is a CSI chapter in Syracuse.
Unfortunately, ignorance runs rampant in the UFO research field.
Of course the U.S. Government and various intelligence agencies have also spread around disinformation to the public,
press, and scientific community, and to UFO researchers while studying
the UFO phenomenon in highly classified projects away from the press, public, and prying eyes.
Even
though Project Bluebook closed on December 17, 1969, due to the fact
that the U.S. Government considers UFOs to be a MAJOR national security
matter I can assure you that they are STILL doing research into the UFO
phenomenon.
However all is not lost. Where do you get your UFO information from? Is it from Steven Greer's UFO cult, CSETI, or do you go to the J. Allen Hynek Center For UFO Studies website, http://www.cufos.org?
Do you get your information on UFOs from The Journal of UFO Studies, or the Journal of Scientific Exploration http://www.scientificexploration.org or from cultist sources like Billy Meier, George Adamski, or from other charlatans who have damaged this subject so badly.
Many
people mix up scientific UFO data with cultist junk and reject
scientific data and fail to "weed out" cultist junk from scientific data
sources. If you go to the bibliography section, of Jacobs UFO book
referenced below or look at the footnotes at the end of the chapters in Hynek's referenced book, you will find many credible journal sources that you can use in your data gathering.
Due to their
lack of knowledge, many people fail to distinguish scientific data from
the low quality junk produced by cultists and crackpots.
Many people
also falsely assume that ALL UFO literature is junk, and they put
scientific data in the same category as crackpot/cultist materials, and
dismiss ALL of it.
You must have outstanding critical thinking
skills to differentiate between scientific data, and cultist materials
and disinformation produced by CSI debunkers, pseudoskeptics, and by
CSI's local chapters, and by disinformation produced by government agencies.
(The
UFO subject is one of the few subjects where many people consider
themselves to be experts, but they have NOT done ANY research in this
field. In addition, many people view cultists and crackpots to be
"experts" in this field but they are NOT experts either.)
Many
debunkers and "pseudoskeptics" have become "self appointed experts" in
this field but their knowledge of UFOs is extremely poor to non existent
at best. The debunkers and pseudoskeptics are NOT experts in this
field either.
See "The Debunkers" by Dr. David Jacobs for a
comprehensive analysis about how pseudoskeptics and CSI (Formerly
CSICOP) operate. The paper is superb and a real eye opener.
I will recommend books that you can read which are not hard reading at all but are reputable.
1.
The UFO Experience A Scientific Inquiry by Dr. J. Allen Hynek. For
those who don't know Hynek was the official astronomer for the Air
Force's UFO Projects Sign, Grudge, and Bluebook. Hynek also founded the
Center For UFO Studies, and was a Professor of Astronomy at
Northwestern University. Dr. Hynek passed away on April 27, 1986 in
Scottsdale, Arizona. I knew Hynek personally.
Hynek's book above
is superb and the book describes the various characteristics of UFO
reports, the problems with The University of Colorado at Boulder UFO
research project headed by Dr. Edward Condon, and the poor quality
investigations and research done during the U.S. Air Force's UFO
Projects, Sign, Grudge, and Bluebook.
2. The UFO Controversy In
America by Dr. David Jacobs. Published by Indiana University Press. Dr.
Jacobs retired from Temple University a few years ago, he is a UFO
historian, and conducts research into the abduction phenomenon. The UFO
Controversy In America, is an outstanding scholarly work in the form of a
doctorate thesis in UFO history and I highly recommend this book. I
know the author personally.
If you go the website for the J.
Allen Hynek Center For UFO Studies and look on the site there are
recommended books to read that are written by reputable UFO researchers
and will give you worthwhile information. There also is a skeptics
section on the Center's website.
Good Luck to you in your SCIENTIFIC data gathering efforts.
Steve
Zalewski is an amateur astronomer, UFO researcher, and amateur
photographer from Syracuse, NY. He received his Associates Degree in
Electronic Media Studies, from Onondaga Community College in Syracuse,
NY and his Bachelors Degree from the University of Denver, in Mass
Communications.
Steve has been involved in the UFO research field since 1973, and knows some of the top people in this field in the world.
He
is the founder of a UFO collection at Onondaga Community College in
Syracuse, NY which was reviewed by Dr. W. Reid Thompson of Cornell
University Space Science. Note, Steve is NOT employed by Onondaga
Community College.
Dr. W. Reid Thompson wrote two letters on
Cornell University Center For Radio Physics and Space Research
letterhead to Onondaga Community College's library in 1993 stating that
we are very impressed that the collection was "critically assembled".
Dr. W. Reid Thompson was also Dr. Carl Sagan's assistant. Dr.
Thompson's two letters on Cornell letterhead along with the envelopes,
and his prestige make this project nearly 99.9% refute proof. Now, you
can see why UFO research SHOULD be done like this.
Dr. W. Reid
Thompson was also an astronomer at Cornell, his professional research
work centered around studying the chemical makeup of Titan (a satellite
of Saturn) and Reid was a member of the Galileo and Voyager 2 imaging
teams, his professional research associations were with the American
Astronomical Society, the American Geophysical Union Division for
Planetary Sciences, International Society for the Study of the Origin of
Life, and Sigma Xi. Reid also worked in Cornell's Space Science Lab,
and the Laboratory for Planetary Sciences, and the Center For Radio
Physics and Space Research at Cornell. Sadly, Reid came down with lung
cancer and passed away on April 22, 1996 in Ithaca, NY.
(The
reference for Reid's scientific and professional accomplishments was
Reid's obituary notice published in the Ithaca Journal, April 24, 1996
page A4.)
Reid also stated that there is abundant evidence that
some real physical phenomenon is behind the significant fraction of
investigated UFO sightings that remain unexplained, despite good
documentation from reliable witnesses (on the order of 20% of non
trivial cases.)
Reid asked Steve to speak to the Cornell University UFO Awareness Group which Steve did do on June 5, 1993.
Dr.
W. Reid Thompson has Steve's greatest respect for having courage and
guts to investigate the UFO phenomenon in a high level scientific
manner.
Data from the collection was sent up by Reid, to Dr.
Carl Sagan for his examination. I miss Reid greatly. Reid was a
fantastic astronomer for his fearless courage to be deeply interested in
the UFO phenomenon, despite the stigma associated with studying the
UFO phenomenon.
Reid was very curious about UFOs and he was a
true scientist for not backing down in studying UFOs despite the
ridicule factor associated with UFO research. Serious UFO researchers
owe Reid a great deal of respect for trying to study this subject
scientifically.
This collection is the only IVY League endorsed UFO Collection in the world.
Note
due to the ignorance of the some people in the scientific community,
the college's library staff, and debunkers, some of the material in the
collection may have been thrown out from the collection.
Due
to chronic medical problems I have had to completely cut back on data
gathering on this project but I hope that my comments have encouraged
you to use critical thinking skills when you do your UFO research and
to make sure that your research rises up to Ivy League Standards and
yes, some of the debunkers were very, very, upset locally that I made
this project extremely, extremely, difficult for them to refute.
This is the way that UFO research should be done.
I
raised the UFO field up to Ivy League Standards, if I can do it you can
do it. Having extremely, extremely, high standards raises the
credibility of UFO research to the public and scientific community, and
makes the debunkers job much, much, more difficult for them to do.
I
would like to thank the serious UFO researchers, scientists, and the
former members of Cornell University's UFO Awareness Group for being so
courageous in studying the UFO phenomenon, and for their support and
assistance in my research and for their support of the database that I
created at Onondaga Community College, in Syracuse, NY. Thank You
again.
If you are a serious UFO researcher, please give me your
comments and suggestions and feedback to this posting. I really want to
encourage the usage of critical thinking skills and try to get the UFO
field cleaned up so more scientists will be more likely to conduct
research in this area. Thanks again for your comments and I look
forward to hearing from you. Please put any comments to me in the post a
reply section, or if SCEPCOP has a way to communicate with members, via
email privately feel free to drop me a line. Thank You.
Steve Zalewski
Syracuse, NY
Source:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2742
Best Evidence & Content that Counters Pseudo-Skepticism Regarding the Topic of UFOs
Friday, February 7, 2014
Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers
Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers
August 27, 2008
Originally published at the UFO Magazine Blog
On August 11, 2008, I sat down with Albuquerque Journal reporter John Fleck to discuss my extensive research on nuclear weapons-related UFO activity and the publication of my 600-page book, UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites. Over the last 35 years, I have interviewed nearly 100 former or retired U.S. Air Force nuclear missile personnel, including launch officers, targeting officers, maintenance personnel and security guards. These individuals report ongoing UFO surveillance of our strategic weapons sites, as well as the occasional disruption of those weapons' functionality, just after UFOs were observed to be in their vicinity.
To verify these veterans' statements to me, I provided reporter Fleck with copies of verbatim testimony from a few of them, a copy of my book which contained the testimony of a great many more, and four pages of USAF/NORAD documents, declassified via the Freedom of Information Act, which describe multiple UFO incursions at Minuteman missile sites outside of Malmstrom AFB, Montana, in November 1975.
In spite of this well-documented presentation, Fleck subsequently wrote an exceedingly biased and dismissive article about my research, titled "Book Links UFOs to Nukes," in the August 25, 2008 issue of the Journal, which concluded that my contentions of a UFO-Nukes Connection were "wrong" based on the statements of "independent experts." More on those alleged experts in a moment.
During my interview with him, Fleck told me that he was especially interested in the so-called Big Sur UFO case. which I will now briefly summarize: Early one morning in September 1964, an Atlas D Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) was launched from Vandenberg AFB, California, carrying aloft an experimental enemy radar-defeating system and dummy nuclear warhead. Shortly after nosecone-separation, as the warhead raced toward a targeted splash-down at Eniwetok Lagoon, in the Pacific Ocean, it was approached by a disc-shaped UFO. As the saucer chased and then circled the warhead, four bright flashes of light emanated from the unknown craft whereupon the warhead began to tumble, eventually falling into the ocean hundreds of miles short of its intended target downrange.
Science fiction? Not according to the former USAF officer tasked with filming the Atlas launch through a high-powered telescope located at Big Sur, California. Then Lt. (now Dr.) Bob Jacobs—who was assigned to the 1369th Photographic Squadron at Vandenberg, and held the title Officer-in-Charge of Photo-instrumentation—states that the entire encounter was captured on motion picture film. According to Jacobs, while the UFO's maneuvers were readily discernable, other minute details—including the object's domed discshape— were only discovered during a in-depth optical analysis conducted at Vandenberg.
Following the dramatic incident, says Jacobs, a 16-mm version of the amazing film was shown to a small, select group at Vandenberg. At the conclusion of this meeting, which he attended, he was told to "forget" the filmed events and to never mention them again. Years later, Jacobs learned that after he left the room, the crucial frames were cut out and quickly confiscated by two "government agents"—possibly working for the CIA—who had been among those in attendance.
Importantly, Jacobs' account—relating to both the UFO incident itself and the subsequent cover-up—has been entirely endorsed by another officer, retired Major (later Dr.) Florenze J. Mansmann, Jr. At the time, Mansmann had been assigned to Vandenberg AFB's Office of the Chief Scientist, 1st Strategic Aerospace Division. It was Mansmann who had carefully analyzed the amazing film which, he said, showed a "classic disc" shaped object circling the dummy warhead, shooting four beams of light at the warhead as it did so. It was also Mansmann who had ordered Lt. Jacobs to attend the restricted screening of the film in his office at the division's headquarters building.
Because reporter Fleck expressed interest in this case, I provided him with copies of private correspondence between Jacobs and Mansmann, from the early 1980s. In those letters, Jacobs and Mansmann were obviously still stunned by, and marveling over, the Big Sur UFO incident—some 20 years later. It is important to note that this correspondence was never intended for publication, to support the validity of the case. Rather, it represents the private musings of two former USAF officers—involved and knowledgeable insiders—who had experienced what was obviously a life-changing event for each of them.
At the conclusion of my interview with Fleck, he told me that he would be contacting Kendrick Frazier, the longtime editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine—which has for decades featured articles debunking UFOs and the notion of a U.S. government UFO cover-up—to get Frazier's point-of-view on the Big Sur case. Skeptical Inquirer is the publication of the self-styled Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) which recently renamed itself the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).
One of the articles published by the debunking magazine, written by Kingston George, an engineer who worked with Bob Jacobs on the telescope project at Vandenberg AFB, claimed that Jacobs' statements about having filmed a UFO shooting down a dummy nuclear warhead were just " weird claims" having no basis in reality.
However, when I researched the Big Sur case myself, I discovered that George had badly misrepresented Jacobs' remarks, repeatedly, and had made other crucial factual errors. Indeed, if one compares his article with Jacobs' and Mansmann's published and private statements on the Big Sur incident, it becomes glaringly obvious how erroneous and misleading George's article really is. Nevertheless, Skeptical Inquirer editor Frazier published the badlyflawed piece, apparently without comparing George's claims about what Jacobs' supposedly had said with what he actually had said. Curiously, George's debunking article contains not a single word about Major Mansmann's unequivocal endorsement of Jacobs' account.
Frazier subsequently included Kingston George's badly-flawed article in one of his own books devoted to debunking UFOs, thereby further disseminating George's misstatements and factual errors to an unsuspecting public. Incompetence all around, at the very least, on the part of the debunkers—if not something more suspicious. As I write in my book,
Mansmann continued, "The Image Orthicon camera system we used in capturing the Unidentified Flying Object on film had the capacity to photograph the 'nuts and bolts' of the missile launch and its super sonic flight …In retrospect, I now regret not being able to evaluate the film for more than 3 showings. The only people in attendance of the viewing were: The Director of the Office of the Chief Scientist and his assistant, two Government Agents, Lieutenant Jacobs and myself. [i.e. Kingston George was NOT present! –RH] The two Government Agents confiscated the film and placed it in a briefcase and departed after I had checked their authorization to leave with the film. I was instructed later by the Office of the Chief Scientist, the Judge Advocate General's office and my Commanding Officer to consider the incident top secret." Mansmann concluded his letter to Collier, "I am writing to confirm Dr. Jacobs' account …"
In other words, more than 30 years after the top secret incident and more than six years after Jacobs' article appeared in the MUFON UFO Journal, Dr. Mansmann was once again unreservedly verifying Bob Jacobs' report of a UFO shooting down a dummy nuclear warhead over the Pacific Ocean, in September 1964.
Florenz J. Mansmann, Jr. died on July 4, 2000, but he remained adamant to the end that the extraordinary encounter—involving an extraterrestrial spacecraft—had occurred and was classified Top Secret.
My own definitive, extremely well-documented article on the Big Sur incident is available at my website, ufohastings.com. Had reporter John Fleck read it, or the Jacobs-Mansmann letters I provided him, before he wrote his inept and biased article on my research, he would have saved himself a lot of criticism and embarrassment.
Although Fleck knows almost nothing about UFOs, he seems unwilling to learn about the subject, even when provided with credible and documented information derived from declassified government files and the testimony of former military personnel. Instead, he readily swallows the unfounded and suspiciously spun claims of Frazier, Oberg and their ilk—hook, line and sinker. In short, Fleck is the perfect mark—uninformed and vulnerable to misinformation—just the way UFO debunkers prefer their journalists to be.
Source:
http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/reporter-duped-by-ufo-debunkers
August 27, 2008
Originally published at the UFO Magazine Blog
On August 11, 2008, I sat down with Albuquerque Journal reporter John Fleck to discuss my extensive research on nuclear weapons-related UFO activity and the publication of my 600-page book, UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites. Over the last 35 years, I have interviewed nearly 100 former or retired U.S. Air Force nuclear missile personnel, including launch officers, targeting officers, maintenance personnel and security guards. These individuals report ongoing UFO surveillance of our strategic weapons sites, as well as the occasional disruption of those weapons' functionality, just after UFOs were observed to be in their vicinity.
To verify these veterans' statements to me, I provided reporter Fleck with copies of verbatim testimony from a few of them, a copy of my book which contained the testimony of a great many more, and four pages of USAF/NORAD documents, declassified via the Freedom of Information Act, which describe multiple UFO incursions at Minuteman missile sites outside of Malmstrom AFB, Montana, in November 1975.
In spite of this well-documented presentation, Fleck subsequently wrote an exceedingly biased and dismissive article about my research, titled "Book Links UFOs to Nukes," in the August 25, 2008 issue of the Journal, which concluded that my contentions of a UFO-Nukes Connection were "wrong" based on the statements of "independent experts." More on those alleged experts in a moment.
During my interview with him, Fleck told me that he was especially interested in the so-called Big Sur UFO case. which I will now briefly summarize: Early one morning in September 1964, an Atlas D Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) was launched from Vandenberg AFB, California, carrying aloft an experimental enemy radar-defeating system and dummy nuclear warhead. Shortly after nosecone-separation, as the warhead raced toward a targeted splash-down at Eniwetok Lagoon, in the Pacific Ocean, it was approached by a disc-shaped UFO. As the saucer chased and then circled the warhead, four bright flashes of light emanated from the unknown craft whereupon the warhead began to tumble, eventually falling into the ocean hundreds of miles short of its intended target downrange.
Science fiction? Not according to the former USAF officer tasked with filming the Atlas launch through a high-powered telescope located at Big Sur, California. Then Lt. (now Dr.) Bob Jacobs—who was assigned to the 1369th Photographic Squadron at Vandenberg, and held the title Officer-in-Charge of Photo-instrumentation—states that the entire encounter was captured on motion picture film. According to Jacobs, while the UFO's maneuvers were readily discernable, other minute details—including the object's domed discshape— were only discovered during a in-depth optical analysis conducted at Vandenberg.
Following the dramatic incident, says Jacobs, a 16-mm version of the amazing film was shown to a small, select group at Vandenberg. At the conclusion of this meeting, which he attended, he was told to "forget" the filmed events and to never mention them again. Years later, Jacobs learned that after he left the room, the crucial frames were cut out and quickly confiscated by two "government agents"—possibly working for the CIA—who had been among those in attendance.
Importantly, Jacobs' account—relating to both the UFO incident itself and the subsequent cover-up—has been entirely endorsed by another officer, retired Major (later Dr.) Florenze J. Mansmann, Jr. At the time, Mansmann had been assigned to Vandenberg AFB's Office of the Chief Scientist, 1st Strategic Aerospace Division. It was Mansmann who had carefully analyzed the amazing film which, he said, showed a "classic disc" shaped object circling the dummy warhead, shooting four beams of light at the warhead as it did so. It was also Mansmann who had ordered Lt. Jacobs to attend the restricted screening of the film in his office at the division's headquarters building.
Because reporter Fleck expressed interest in this case, I provided him with copies of private correspondence between Jacobs and Mansmann, from the early 1980s. In those letters, Jacobs and Mansmann were obviously still stunned by, and marveling over, the Big Sur UFO incident—some 20 years later. It is important to note that this correspondence was never intended for publication, to support the validity of the case. Rather, it represents the private musings of two former USAF officers—involved and knowledgeable insiders—who had experienced what was obviously a life-changing event for each of them.
At the conclusion of my interview with Fleck, he told me that he would be contacting Kendrick Frazier, the longtime editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine—which has for decades featured articles debunking UFOs and the notion of a U.S. government UFO cover-up—to get Frazier's point-of-view on the Big Sur case. Skeptical Inquirer is the publication of the self-styled Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) which recently renamed itself the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).
One of the articles published by the debunking magazine, written by Kingston George, an engineer who worked with Bob Jacobs on the telescope project at Vandenberg AFB, claimed that Jacobs' statements about having filmed a UFO shooting down a dummy nuclear warhead were just " weird claims" having no basis in reality.
However, when I researched the Big Sur case myself, I discovered that George had badly misrepresented Jacobs' remarks, repeatedly, and had made other crucial factual errors. Indeed, if one compares his article with Jacobs' and Mansmann's published and private statements on the Big Sur incident, it becomes glaringly obvious how erroneous and misleading George's article really is. Nevertheless, Skeptical Inquirer editor Frazier published the badlyflawed piece, apparently without comparing George's claims about what Jacobs' supposedly had said with what he actually had said. Curiously, George's debunking article contains not a single word about Major Mansmann's unequivocal endorsement of Jacobs' account.
Frazier subsequently included Kingston George's badly-flawed article in one of his own books devoted to debunking UFOs, thereby further disseminating George's misstatements and factual errors to an unsuspecting public. Incompetence all around, at the very least, on the part of the debunkers—if not something more suspicious. As I write in my book,
"I consider it noteworthy that George's article was published in CSICOP's in-house magazine, Skeptical Inquirer. At first glance, this is hardly surprising, given CSICOP's tireless crusade to discredit UFOs. However, because the Big Sur incident reportedly involved a UFO disabling—shooting down—one of the U.S. military's experimental nuclear warhead systems, Skeptical Inquirer's strong endorsement of George's attempted debunking of the incident is particularly interesting.
Why? Many years ago, I discovered that Kendrick Frazier was in fact employed—beginning in the early 1980s—as a Public Relations Specialist at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Yes, the same Sandia Labs that has been instrumental to the success of America's nuclear weapons program since the late 1940s, through its "ordinance engineering" of components for bomb and missile warhead systems.
Interestingly, Skeptical Inquirer's publisher's statement, or "masthead", which appears at the beginning of each issue, never once mentioned Frazier's employment at the highlysecretive, government-funded laboratory. Instead, the magazine merely listed, and continues to list, his profession as "science writer"—a reference to his having written several books and articles on various scientific subjects. Also curious is the fact that various online biographies on Frazier—including one written by himself—also fail to mention his two-decade tenure at Sandia Labs. An odd omission indeed.
Consequently, here is the situation: In what is arguably the most dramatic nuclear weapons-related UFO incident ever revealed, two former U.S. Air Force officers insist that one of our experimental nuclear warheads was actually shot down by a flying saucer. And who is responsible for publishing the first debunking article about the Big Sur incident, in which it is claimed that the UFO encounter never happened? Why, a PR guy working for the U.S. government's nuclear weapons program!
… Ironically, over the years, a great many UFO skeptics have used the supposedly accurate "facts" presented in George's article to dismiss the UFO link with nuclear weapons in general, and the Big Sur UFO Incident in particular. Needless to say, very few of those same skeptics will ever buy a book called, UFOs and Nukes, so they will mistakenly continue to believe that Kingston George's article is the last word on the Big Sur case.
Furthermore, the CSICOP-Nukes Connection does not end with Kendrick Frazier. James Oberg, one of CSICOP's leading UFO debunkers, once did classified work relating to nuclear weapons at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, located at Kirtland AFB, just down the road from Sandia Labs.
From 1970–72, Oberg was an Air Force officer whose assignments with the Battle Environments Branch at the weapons lab involved the development and utilization of computer codes related to the modeling of laser and nuclear weapons. Oberg also served as a "Security Officer" while at the weapons lab and was, therefore, responsible for monitoring the security procedures used to safeguard the classified documents generated by his group.
After Bob Jacobs went public with the UFO shoot-down story, Oberg wrote to him, chastising Jacobs for revealing "top secret" information. In his MUFON UFO Journal article, Jacobs wrote that after he broke his silence, "I was contacted by a variety of investigators, buffs, cranks, proponents and detractors alike. James Oberg, a frequent 'mouthpiece' for certain NASA projects and self-styled UFO Debunker wrote to disparage my story and to ask provocatively, 'Since you obviously feel free to discuss top secret UFO data, what would you be willing to say about other top secret aspects of the Atlas warhead which you alluded to briefly …?' I told Mr. Oberg where to put his misplaced cynicism."\
Despite Oberg's charge, Jacobs has correctly pointed out that because Major Mansmann had told him that the UFO encounter "never happened", he had no personal knowledge of the classification level attached to the incident.
In any event, it is almost certain that Oberg would not have criticized Jacobs for exposing "top secret UFO data", had he known that Jacobs would subsequently publish his remark. So, here we have one of CSICOP's leading UFO debunkers—whose public stance is that UFOs don't even exist—angrily asking Jacobs in a private letter whether he would also openly discuss "other" top secret aspects of the missile test …
For his part, CSICOP's chief UFO-debunker, the late Philip J. Klass, aggressively hounded Dr. Jacobs after he published the warhead shoot-down story, going so far as to write a derisive letter to Jacobs' department chairman—Dr. R. Steven Craig, Department of Journalism and Broadcasting, University of Maine—in which Klass accusingly questioned professor Jacobs' fitness as a representative of the academic community.
Jacobs' understandably indignant response to Klass, titled, Low Klass: A Rejoinder, is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand the behind-the-scenes battle that ensued after Jacobs went public with the UFO incident.
Among other subjects, the rejoinder touches on acrimonious correspondence between Jacobs and Klass. At one point, after Dr. Jacobs ignored Klass' repeated demands that he respond to the debunker's charges, Klass offered character references, citing Admiral Bobby R. Inman (USN Ret.)—the former Director of the National Security Agency, who also held Deputy Director positions at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency—and Lt. General Daniel O. Graham (USA Ret.), the former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Klass not only provided Jacobs with their names, but home addresses as well, and told him, "Both men have worked with me and gotten to know me in my efforts for Aviation Week."
The character references provided by Klass are certainly interesting, given his stock response over the years to those who questioned his motives. Whenever he was confronted with the charge that he was not really a UFO skeptic, but a disinformation agent for the U.S. government, Klass would always recoil indignantly and ridicule the notion. So who does he choose to present as character references in his letter to Jacobs? Two of the top intelligence officers in the U.S. government."Major Florenze Mansmann's last written remarks on the Big Sur UFO incident are to be found in a letter to Curt Collier, a producer for the television series, Sightings. Dated November 15, 1995, the letter began, "Dear Mr. Collier, Responding to your Fed Ex letter of November 14, 1995 regarding the validity of the January 1989 MUFON [UFO] Journal story by Dr. Robert Jacobs, it is all true as presented. And yes, I have also responded to other researchers in the past, but only after Dr. Jacobs released the details of these sightings [sic] negating my secrecy bond."
Mansmann continued, "The Image Orthicon camera system we used in capturing the Unidentified Flying Object on film had the capacity to photograph the 'nuts and bolts' of the missile launch and its super sonic flight …In retrospect, I now regret not being able to evaluate the film for more than 3 showings. The only people in attendance of the viewing were: The Director of the Office of the Chief Scientist and his assistant, two Government Agents, Lieutenant Jacobs and myself. [i.e. Kingston George was NOT present! –RH] The two Government Agents confiscated the film and placed it in a briefcase and departed after I had checked their authorization to leave with the film. I was instructed later by the Office of the Chief Scientist, the Judge Advocate General's office and my Commanding Officer to consider the incident top secret." Mansmann concluded his letter to Collier, "I am writing to confirm Dr. Jacobs' account …"
In other words, more than 30 years after the top secret incident and more than six years after Jacobs' article appeared in the MUFON UFO Journal, Dr. Mansmann was once again unreservedly verifying Bob Jacobs' report of a UFO shooting down a dummy nuclear warhead over the Pacific Ocean, in September 1964.
Florenz J. Mansmann, Jr. died on July 4, 2000, but he remained adamant to the end that the extraordinary encounter—involving an extraterrestrial spacecraft—had occurred and was classified Top Secret.
My own definitive, extremely well-documented article on the Big Sur incident is available at my website, ufohastings.com. Had reporter John Fleck read it, or the Jacobs-Mansmann letters I provided him, before he wrote his inept and biased article on my research, he would have saved himself a lot of criticism and embarrassment.
Although Fleck knows almost nothing about UFOs, he seems unwilling to learn about the subject, even when provided with credible and documented information derived from declassified government files and the testimony of former military personnel. Instead, he readily swallows the unfounded and suspiciously spun claims of Frazier, Oberg and their ilk—hook, line and sinker. In short, Fleck is the perfect mark—uninformed and vulnerable to misinformation—just the way UFO debunkers prefer their journalists to be.
Source:
http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/reporter-duped-by-ufo-debunkers
XCon 2004 - Stanton Friedman - UFO Cover-Up - Debunking the Debunkers
Published on Jul 6, 2012
Visit http://www.X-Conference.comUFO COVER-UP: DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS, with Stanton Friedman. At the center of the truth embargo is a core of propaganda promulgated over 50 years in the guise of scientific skepticism. This false "skepticism" came to be known as "debunking." Having given more than 700 lectures about flying saucers in 15 countries; answered more than 35,000 questions; published more than 80 papers, 2 books, a CD-ROM and videos about UFOs and visited 20 document archives; Stanton Friedman has heard all the objections the human mind can conjure in opposition to the extraterrestrial hypothesis. In the workshop, all objections will be discussed such as the notions that interstellar travel is impossible, there is no good evidence for flying saucer reality, secrets can't be kept, aliens engaging the earth would land on the White House lawn, SETI (Silly Effort to Investigate) is sensible science, the Drake Equation predicts extraterrestrial contact is unlikely and other false arguments. For those who want to test their skeptical mettle against this research legend, here is your chance.
Stanton Friedman vs. Dr. John Alexander - IUFOC 2011 UFO Debate
Uploaded on Aug 30, 2011
Dr. John Alexander, a retired U.S. Army Colonel and a leading advocate for the development of non-lethal weapons faces Stanton Friedman, the original civilian investigator of the Roswell incident in this heated debate. Moderated by Danny Sheehan, this deliberation quickly became a hot ticket during the 2011 International UFO Congress.
Related:
Flying Saucers with Stanton Friedman
Stanton Friedman vs Phil Klass on Nightline
The X-Conference : Debunking the UFO Debunkers - Stanton Friedman LIVE
UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant
Interview With Stanton Friedman - Debunking the Debunkers
Stanton Friedman vs. Dr. John Alexander - IUFOC 2011 UFO Debate
UFO Cover Up Revelations! MJ12 & ET Quarantine - Stanton Friedman & Dark Journalist
UFO Conference (2014, October) STANTON FRIEDMAN
Stanton T. Friedman Presents Flying Saucers and Science
Stanton Friedman Discusses Stephen Hawking & SETI
Larry King Live:UFO Debate - 4 Video Playlist
Larry King Live: UFO Debate Between The Ufo Skeptic Bill Nye "The Science Guy" And UFO Investigator Bill Hastings, Former USAF Captain Bob Salas, Former Air Force Official Bill Jameson, And Dr.Bob Jenkins Former 1st Lieutant USAF.
Interview With Stanton Friedman - Debunking the Debunkers
Uploaded on Mar 6, 2011
Our next interview from the 2011 UFO Conference in Arizona features a fascinating conversation with Stanton Friedman, on the subject of "UFO Debunkers." Mr. Friedman is a nuclear physicist and one of the original civilian investigators of the Roswell incident. He is often credited for bringing the events in Roswell to popular awareness due to his research and and diligent fact-finding. There are few people in UFOology with longer resume than Stanton's nearly five decades of involvement. During that time, he's become frustrated with what he feels are errant arguments of habitual debunkers. He shares some of his thoughts on that subject and more.
NOTE: The first few minutes of this interview lack on-the scene video of Mr. Friedman. As our frustrations with the organization of the vent continued, our only opportunity to get a few moments of his time was at his table in the exhibit area. Our cameraman was jostled and bumped during the crowded first few minutes (as a lecture let out) making that portion of the video unwatchable. Also, lighting was not optimal. We apologize for the less-than ideal video quality, however, the content of the interview is excellent.
Our next interview from the 2011 UFO Conference in Arizona features a fascinating conversation with Stanton Friedman, on the subject of "UFO Debunkers." Mr. Friedman is a nuclear physicist and one of the original civilian investigators of the Roswell incident. He is often credited for bringing the events in Roswell to popular awareness due to his research and and diligent fact-finding. There are few people in UFOology with longer resume than Stanton's nearly five decades of involvement. During that time, he's become frustrated with what he feels are errant arguments of habitual debunkers. He shares some of his thoughts on that subject and more.
NOTE: The first few minutes of this interview lack on-the scene video of Mr. Friedman. As our frustrations with the organization of the vent continued, our only opportunity to get a few moments of his time was at his table in the exhibit area. Our cameraman was jostled and bumped during the crowded first few minutes (as a lecture let out) making that portion of the video unwatchable. Also, lighting was not optimal. We apologize for the less-than ideal video quality, however, the content of the interview is excellent.
Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO
Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO
Postby Indigo Child
I had composed the following article for the Above Top Secret UFO forum. I am reposting it here because it is very relevant to this forum.
I think there is a very severe problem of pseudoskepticism in the UFO community that impairs progressive research. I think the UFO community can benefit from clear thinking, and thus I am writing this brief primer on logic focussed particularly on the subject matter of Aliens and UFO’s. I will discuss the common fallacies used by pseudoskeptics and offer a rebuttal.
I first want to clarify what I am not attempting to do.
I am not attempting to prove anything. Simply because I am going to debunk common pseudoskeptical arguments, does not mean that the believers arguments have been proven. Rather, all I am going to do is use the principle of non-contradiction in logic and show that the arguments used by pseudoskeptics are logically contradictory.
I am not vilifying skepticism. It is not possible for me to vilify skepticism without contradicting my own skepticism. We are all believers and skeptics, only that what we believe and what we are sceptical about varies from person to person.
That said, there is an ideal skeptic. That is somebody who withholds judgement until they have explored all available evidence in a case. A skeptic is thus an investigator and their job is to investigate. Then, after the investigation is complete, the skeptic is able to offer a hypothesis which can account for all of the available data. Somebody who does not investigate a case is not a skeptic, they are merely doubters. Somebody who attempts to investigate, but makes suppositions and does not take into account all available evidence, but distorts evidence to fit their hypothesis is a pseudoskeptic.
From hereon we will look at the common fallacious arguments used by pseudoskeptics in the context of Aliens and UFO’s. I do not claim to be exhaustive, I can only look at a limited set of arguments. If there are arguments not covered that that you think are fallacious and want me to debunk them, just request it and I will attempt to do so in another post.
Now let us look at the common fallacies one by one.
Argument: There is no proof or evidence that ET exists. Yes, it is true that the SETI equation shows that the probability of ET is very likely, but this is not proof in and of itself, only a mathematical possibility. Therefore ETH is not a valid explanation.
Rebuttal: This is an invalid and logically contradictory argument. For the following reasons
1) There is significant evidence and proof that ET exists. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate this evidence and 'proof' and come to a judgement on it.
2) The probability of life on planets is 100%. This is not a mathematical possibility, but an empirical fact. Planet Earth is a planet and it is teeming with very diverse life, and it is commonly accepted by science that life appeared on this planet quickly after the Earth was born. It is an empirical fact that the phenomenon of life on planets is a part of our observable universe. Therefore there is no reason to speculate that life cannot be possible elsewhere.
My opponent may argue that it is possible that life only formed on planet Earth and nowhere else. They may even point out that sample size I have of life in the universe is only one instance and this is not enough to make a generalization.
Rebuttal: This is an argument from possibility fallacy. It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life. Mere possibility is not enough to make a case.
The opponents argument is also self-contradictory. It is possible that there are no other minds in the world, I am the only one that has mind and everybody else is either a machine or imaginary. There is only one instance of mind, my own mind, so can I generalise from such a sample? The chances are the opponent takes this generalization for granted in his everyday life. In which case I can take ET for granted as well.
In conclusion: ETH is a valid hypothesis and forms a part of our observable universe.
Argument: It impossible for ET to travel here. The distances in space are astronomical, it would take thousands, if not millions of years to reach planet Earth even at the speed of light. But it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.
Rebuttal: This is an argument from incredulity. The opponent does not believe a ET would make a trip from their home planet to Earth because the time it would take to get here is perceived to be too long and so it is unbelievable that ET would try. Just because something seems unbelievable it does not mean it cannot happen. It is unbelievable that somebody would survive a fall from a very high building, but it does happen. It is assumed that that the ET would be using FTL. Not necessarily. There are space craft planned on Earth that can reach a high percentage of the speed of light and they use as propulsion sources of energy available in the universe(hydrogen, sunlight) Thus an ET craft could do the same. Finally, the limitation of the speed of light does not apply to ET. This is because the speed limit of the speed light is one based on the predicates of General Relativity theory which states that if a mass is accelerated towards the speed of light its mass would become infinite and thus it would need an infinite amount of energy. Therefore FTL is impossible This is only a theory, there is no scientific theory which is conclusive or proven. A theory is only based on observations made in an observable universe and when new observations are made theories have to be adjusted, sometimes even rejected. As ET’s are a part of an unobservable universe, we cannot generalise any of our scientific theories to them. So none of the predicates of GR actually apply to them.
All observations made in science are effects only, not causes. Mass itself is an effect, not a cause. Therefore finding a way to manipulate causes will manipulate effects. Take for example electricity, an electric current produced by a generator is an effect. When one learns the antecedent causes for the generation of electricity, one can manipulate the electric current generated with a transformer. There is no reason to believe that an ET race cannot learn to manipulate the mass-effects caused by the speed of light travel or overcome the speed of light barrier.
In conclusion: The argument that ET cannot get to Earth is invalid.
Argument: It is completely absurd that that an advanced ET race would come here and fly around in our skies like drunk pilots, abduct humans, make crop circles and mutilate cows.
Rebuttal: This is again the fallacy of incredulity. If something seems unbelievable to us, it does not mean it does not happen. The behaviour of an alien race may seem strange to us, but then again behaviours of other cultures on our planet seem strange. Some cultures have rituals where the offspring kills their parents when they reach old age. That’s even stranger to me than some alien race doing any of the aforementioned.
Abduction for the purposes of scientific investigation is not really strange at all. We humans are constantly abducting animals for the purpose of scientific investigation. So we have no valid objection to the abduction phenomena, other than perhaps an ethical objection.
Argument: If ET exists and are visiting us, why don’t they just reveal themselves? Why would they hide? Its illogical.
Rebuttal: But who says they are hiding? They maybe hiding from some, but it does not mean they are hiding from everyone. There are many people who claim they have encountered ET directly and many high-level witnesses in the government that have claimed contact has taken place. If their claims are true, ET is only hiding from some and not everyone.
Why would ET not reveal themselves? I am tempted to give the usual speculative explanation of an intergalactic prime directive, but I will desist. Instead the objection of the opponent can be dismissed like the previous argument. It is another argument from incredulity fallacy.
Argument: There is no scientific physical evidence of UFO‘s. No UFO samples. No ET DNA samples etc
Rebuttal: This is an impossible demand. If any of this evidence even existed, what are the chances that this evidence would be mailed to the opponents home address for their personal inspection? Highly unlikely. Most people will have to rely on the authority of scientific experts who have handled the evidence. As they cannot handle the evidence themselves, they will have to simply trust the scientists.
There is a big problem with evidence from testimony. It is subject to whether you believe the authority or disbelieve them. There are many authority figures who have actually claimed to have handled UFO’s, ET’s and ET metal samples. Marcel Vogel, the award winning scientist from IBM, publicly stated that the metal sample Billy Meier(the ET contactee) gave him could not have been manufactured on this Earth. The officials in the Roswell case who claim to have handled the UFO metal debris claim the metal has alien properties(it sounds very similar to modern shape memory alloys) Some scientists have testified that transistors are actually reverse engineered ET technology.
So it is not the case that there are not authorities figures who have not handled ET physical evidence. If the opponent is genuinely sincere about their argument, now that it has been demonstrated such evidence allegedly exists and some scientists have handled it, they should accept it as proof. If not, the opponent must withdraw their argument as invalid because of their duplicity.
I anticipate an objection. The objection is that there are no peer reviewed scientific physical evidence of UFO’s, therefore any scientific evidence that is not peer reviewed must be dismissed. This argument is invalid, because it commit’s the fallacy of appealing to an authority of some entity(a peer group) If some authority dismisses a scientists evidence, it does not mean that the scientists evidence is false, it simply means the authority doesn't like it.
Argument: If we accept ET UFO’s exist and is visiting us, then we may also have to accept goblins, big foot, loch ness monster and whatever to exists.
Rebuttal: This is a slippery slope fallacy. There is absolutely no premise that entails that if you accept ET’s existence you have to accept other paranormal claims. All different paranormal claims, just like any claim, is to be treated individually.
The opponent may counter by saying that it is difficult to distinguish a UFO from other claimed paranormal phenomena(spirits, plasma balls, orbs). This maybe true in some cases, but not all. In cases which describe actual physical crafts, sometimes in rather vivid details, except these physical craft are displaying alien behaviour and look alien, one can eliminate all of the other paranormal possibilities
Argument: The UFO and ET reports by individuals are not necessarily true. They may claim a physical aircraft, but their data could be wrong. They could be lying, they could have misidentified something else for the UFO such as planet Venus, car headlights, swamp gas.
Rebuttal: Merely argument from possibility is not enough. Yes, all the above counter-hypothesis may be true, but they may be false as well. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate all the available data, eliminate all hypothesis that do not fit the data, and then come up with a hypothesis that explains the available data.
If the skeptic does not do that and instead makes suppositions, distorts the data, dismisses available data ,then it is invalid. Here is a simple hypothetical example of a distortion of data:
Let us look at the problems in the skeptics dialogue with the UFO witness:
1. The skeptic is overtly influencing the UFO witness and asking him leading questions
2. The skeptic is using arguments from possibility to negate the UFO witness experience - "It is possible you saw a car headlight" it is also possible that he did not see a headlight, but a UFO. Therefore it is an invalid argument.
3. The skeptic is not listening to the UFO witness, everything the witness says is explained away using the argument from possibility fallacy - "My girlfriend also saw it" - "But it is possible it was a shared delusion"
The skeptic fails to account for the available evidence in this witness testimony. He claims that it was a headlight of some car, but the witness tells him he knows what a headlight looks like. The skeptic should be rejecting his hypothesis now, but instead he ends up debating it with the UFO witness. Then the UFO witness reveals that more than one witness say it, making it unlikely that two people would be seeing a hovering metallic, orange light emitting mothership in a headlight. Nor does the skeptic explain how a car headlight could look like the described UFO.
These tactics are all fallacies and rhetoric, but regularly used by pseudoskeptics to dismiss everything they don't like. Pilot testimonies - "It is possible that the pilot was dreaming" Radar reports - "It is possible the radar equipment malfunctioned" In all these cases the skeptic is debating a counter-claim and thus has a burden of proof themselves, but they behave as if they are immune from it.
Source:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27#p36
Postby Indigo Child
I had composed the following article for the Above Top Secret UFO forum. I am reposting it here because it is very relevant to this forum.
I think there is a very severe problem of pseudoskepticism in the UFO community that impairs progressive research. I think the UFO community can benefit from clear thinking, and thus I am writing this brief primer on logic focussed particularly on the subject matter of Aliens and UFO’s. I will discuss the common fallacies used by pseudoskeptics and offer a rebuttal.
I first want to clarify what I am not attempting to do.
I am not attempting to prove anything. Simply because I am going to debunk common pseudoskeptical arguments, does not mean that the believers arguments have been proven. Rather, all I am going to do is use the principle of non-contradiction in logic and show that the arguments used by pseudoskeptics are logically contradictory.
I am not vilifying skepticism. It is not possible for me to vilify skepticism without contradicting my own skepticism. We are all believers and skeptics, only that what we believe and what we are sceptical about varies from person to person.
That said, there is an ideal skeptic. That is somebody who withholds judgement until they have explored all available evidence in a case. A skeptic is thus an investigator and their job is to investigate. Then, after the investigation is complete, the skeptic is able to offer a hypothesis which can account for all of the available data. Somebody who does not investigate a case is not a skeptic, they are merely doubters. Somebody who attempts to investigate, but makes suppositions and does not take into account all available evidence, but distorts evidence to fit their hypothesis is a pseudoskeptic.
From hereon we will look at the common fallacious arguments used by pseudoskeptics in the context of Aliens and UFO’s. I do not claim to be exhaustive, I can only look at a limited set of arguments. If there are arguments not covered that that you think are fallacious and want me to debunk them, just request it and I will attempt to do so in another post.
Now let us look at the common fallacies one by one.
Argument: There is no proof or evidence that ET exists. Yes, it is true that the SETI equation shows that the probability of ET is very likely, but this is not proof in and of itself, only a mathematical possibility. Therefore ETH is not a valid explanation.
Rebuttal: This is an invalid and logically contradictory argument. For the following reasons
1) There is significant evidence and proof that ET exists. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate this evidence and 'proof' and come to a judgement on it.
2) The probability of life on planets is 100%. This is not a mathematical possibility, but an empirical fact. Planet Earth is a planet and it is teeming with very diverse life, and it is commonly accepted by science that life appeared on this planet quickly after the Earth was born. It is an empirical fact that the phenomenon of life on planets is a part of our observable universe. Therefore there is no reason to speculate that life cannot be possible elsewhere.
My opponent may argue that it is possible that life only formed on planet Earth and nowhere else. They may even point out that sample size I have of life in the universe is only one instance and this is not enough to make a generalization.
Rebuttal: This is an argument from possibility fallacy. It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life. Mere possibility is not enough to make a case.
The opponents argument is also self-contradictory. It is possible that there are no other minds in the world, I am the only one that has mind and everybody else is either a machine or imaginary. There is only one instance of mind, my own mind, so can I generalise from such a sample? The chances are the opponent takes this generalization for granted in his everyday life. In which case I can take ET for granted as well.
In conclusion: ETH is a valid hypothesis and forms a part of our observable universe.
Argument: It impossible for ET to travel here. The distances in space are astronomical, it would take thousands, if not millions of years to reach planet Earth even at the speed of light. But it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.
Rebuttal: This is an argument from incredulity. The opponent does not believe a ET would make a trip from their home planet to Earth because the time it would take to get here is perceived to be too long and so it is unbelievable that ET would try. Just because something seems unbelievable it does not mean it cannot happen. It is unbelievable that somebody would survive a fall from a very high building, but it does happen. It is assumed that that the ET would be using FTL. Not necessarily. There are space craft planned on Earth that can reach a high percentage of the speed of light and they use as propulsion sources of energy available in the universe(hydrogen, sunlight) Thus an ET craft could do the same. Finally, the limitation of the speed of light does not apply to ET. This is because the speed limit of the speed light is one based on the predicates of General Relativity theory which states that if a mass is accelerated towards the speed of light its mass would become infinite and thus it would need an infinite amount of energy. Therefore FTL is impossible This is only a theory, there is no scientific theory which is conclusive or proven. A theory is only based on observations made in an observable universe and when new observations are made theories have to be adjusted, sometimes even rejected. As ET’s are a part of an unobservable universe, we cannot generalise any of our scientific theories to them. So none of the predicates of GR actually apply to them.
All observations made in science are effects only, not causes. Mass itself is an effect, not a cause. Therefore finding a way to manipulate causes will manipulate effects. Take for example electricity, an electric current produced by a generator is an effect. When one learns the antecedent causes for the generation of electricity, one can manipulate the electric current generated with a transformer. There is no reason to believe that an ET race cannot learn to manipulate the mass-effects caused by the speed of light travel or overcome the speed of light barrier.
In conclusion: The argument that ET cannot get to Earth is invalid.
Argument: It is completely absurd that that an advanced ET race would come here and fly around in our skies like drunk pilots, abduct humans, make crop circles and mutilate cows.
Rebuttal: This is again the fallacy of incredulity. If something seems unbelievable to us, it does not mean it does not happen. The behaviour of an alien race may seem strange to us, but then again behaviours of other cultures on our planet seem strange. Some cultures have rituals where the offspring kills their parents when they reach old age. That’s even stranger to me than some alien race doing any of the aforementioned.
Abduction for the purposes of scientific investigation is not really strange at all. We humans are constantly abducting animals for the purpose of scientific investigation. So we have no valid objection to the abduction phenomena, other than perhaps an ethical objection.
Argument: If ET exists and are visiting us, why don’t they just reveal themselves? Why would they hide? Its illogical.
Rebuttal: But who says they are hiding? They maybe hiding from some, but it does not mean they are hiding from everyone. There are many people who claim they have encountered ET directly and many high-level witnesses in the government that have claimed contact has taken place. If their claims are true, ET is only hiding from some and not everyone.
Why would ET not reveal themselves? I am tempted to give the usual speculative explanation of an intergalactic prime directive, but I will desist. Instead the objection of the opponent can be dismissed like the previous argument. It is another argument from incredulity fallacy.
Argument: There is no scientific physical evidence of UFO‘s. No UFO samples. No ET DNA samples etc
Rebuttal: This is an impossible demand. If any of this evidence even existed, what are the chances that this evidence would be mailed to the opponents home address for their personal inspection? Highly unlikely. Most people will have to rely on the authority of scientific experts who have handled the evidence. As they cannot handle the evidence themselves, they will have to simply trust the scientists.
There is a big problem with evidence from testimony. It is subject to whether you believe the authority or disbelieve them. There are many authority figures who have actually claimed to have handled UFO’s, ET’s and ET metal samples. Marcel Vogel, the award winning scientist from IBM, publicly stated that the metal sample Billy Meier(the ET contactee) gave him could not have been manufactured on this Earth. The officials in the Roswell case who claim to have handled the UFO metal debris claim the metal has alien properties(it sounds very similar to modern shape memory alloys) Some scientists have testified that transistors are actually reverse engineered ET technology.
So it is not the case that there are not authorities figures who have not handled ET physical evidence. If the opponent is genuinely sincere about their argument, now that it has been demonstrated such evidence allegedly exists and some scientists have handled it, they should accept it as proof. If not, the opponent must withdraw their argument as invalid because of their duplicity.
I anticipate an objection. The objection is that there are no peer reviewed scientific physical evidence of UFO’s, therefore any scientific evidence that is not peer reviewed must be dismissed. This argument is invalid, because it commit’s the fallacy of appealing to an authority of some entity(a peer group) If some authority dismisses a scientists evidence, it does not mean that the scientists evidence is false, it simply means the authority doesn't like it.
Argument: If we accept ET UFO’s exist and is visiting us, then we may also have to accept goblins, big foot, loch ness monster and whatever to exists.
Rebuttal: This is a slippery slope fallacy. There is absolutely no premise that entails that if you accept ET’s existence you have to accept other paranormal claims. All different paranormal claims, just like any claim, is to be treated individually.
The opponent may counter by saying that it is difficult to distinguish a UFO from other claimed paranormal phenomena(spirits, plasma balls, orbs). This maybe true in some cases, but not all. In cases which describe actual physical crafts, sometimes in rather vivid details, except these physical craft are displaying alien behaviour and look alien, one can eliminate all of the other paranormal possibilities
Argument: The UFO and ET reports by individuals are not necessarily true. They may claim a physical aircraft, but their data could be wrong. They could be lying, they could have misidentified something else for the UFO such as planet Venus, car headlights, swamp gas.
Rebuttal: Merely argument from possibility is not enough. Yes, all the above counter-hypothesis may be true, but they may be false as well. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate all the available data, eliminate all hypothesis that do not fit the data, and then come up with a hypothesis that explains the available data.
If the skeptic does not do that and instead makes suppositions, distorts the data, dismisses available data ,then it is invalid. Here is a simple hypothetical example of a distortion of data:
The dialogue above is inspired slightly by the movie contact, when Jodie Foster in the end has to admit to the skeptics that as a scientist it is possible that she did not experience her journey. The tactics employed by the skeptic above are similar to tactics lawyers use in court rooms. It is not scientific at all and nor is it ethical. It is a bastardization of scientific research.UFO witness: I saw it as clear as I can see you right now. It was metallic, it was emitting a bright orange glow and it hovered right above me on the road. You know like that film Independence day, the mother ship just hovers above. It was just like that. It wasn't only me who saw it, but my girlfriend as well. I am not lying I swear. I never believed in this stuff before, but I guess seeing is believing.
Skeptic: You said it was on the road, how do you know that it was not just the headlight of a car or truck?
UFO witness: Dude, I know what the headlight of a car or truck looks like. I've been driving on the road for 20 years. This was not a headlight.
Skeptic: How can you be sure? If you were the on road and a very bright headline shines in your face, it is hard to see anything clearly and then its easy to imagine that there is something large in front of you. Are you telling me it is impossible that you are not mistaken?
UFO witness: No, I am not saying that. Its always possible that one can be mistaken, but is it possible that both me and my girlfriend are mistaken.?
Skeptic: Yes, loads of people may all agree they see a ghost, only to later find out it was a lighthouse. Shared delusions are possible.
UFO witness: Look, I see what you are saying, but I believe 100% that I saw a UFO. I have never had an experience like this ever in my entire life.
Skeptic: Then you agree it is just a belief you saw the UFO. Then my job is done. Case dismissed.
Let us look at the problems in the skeptics dialogue with the UFO witness:
1. The skeptic is overtly influencing the UFO witness and asking him leading questions
2. The skeptic is using arguments from possibility to negate the UFO witness experience - "It is possible you saw a car headlight" it is also possible that he did not see a headlight, but a UFO. Therefore it is an invalid argument.
3. The skeptic is not listening to the UFO witness, everything the witness says is explained away using the argument from possibility fallacy - "My girlfriend also saw it" - "But it is possible it was a shared delusion"
The skeptic fails to account for the available evidence in this witness testimony. He claims that it was a headlight of some car, but the witness tells him he knows what a headlight looks like. The skeptic should be rejecting his hypothesis now, but instead he ends up debating it with the UFO witness. Then the UFO witness reveals that more than one witness say it, making it unlikely that two people would be seeing a hovering metallic, orange light emitting mothership in a headlight. Nor does the skeptic explain how a car headlight could look like the described UFO.
These tactics are all fallacies and rhetoric, but regularly used by pseudoskeptics to dismiss everything they don't like. Pilot testimonies - "It is possible that the pilot was dreaming" Radar reports - "It is possible the radar equipment malfunctioned" In all these cases the skeptic is debating a counter-claim and thus has a burden of proof themselves, but they behave as if they are immune from it.
Source:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27#p36
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)