Skeptic Misses The Point Behind UFO book

msn.com:

In the biographical note appended to his commentary, he notes that he spent 22 years at NASA's Mission Control and has written books about space policy and exploration. But he neglects to inform readers of something UFO researchers already know all too well: that he is a founding fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly CSICOP), a group whose aim is to debunk UFOs and any other unexplained phenomena that challenge our familiar ways of thinking.

Read the whole story: msn.com

Comments

[Richard Gerber]

12:54 AM on 09/24/2010

This is something different a very unique angle that sounds plausible http://storyline.me/ET/

[Dave108]

08:38 PM on 09/18/2010

UFOs skeptics are often on the payroll of the government agencies intent on keeping the truth about UFOs secret from the general public. Highly advanced extra terrestrial species are a serious threat to the military, political and economic dominance of the US government in the world, so they are treated like any other country with advanced weapons which is not known as friendly (or subservient) to the US. See ufocoverup.org for more

[squiems]

11:24 AM on 09/14/2010

the UFO advocacy community (don't really know what else to call it) believes skeptics are just being close-minded debunkers. But I disagree. How come photo and video evidence of UFOs has gone DOWN in recent years, despite the fact that almost everybody now has a camera phone and high-resolution digital cameras are more common than ever? How come we have still yet to see any evidence besides eyewitness testimony (which any psychologist will tell you is incredibly flawed) and blurry, meaningless photos and videos? This is despite the fact that the UFO-advocacy community includes numerous full-time "experts" who are paid to do nothing except find the best possible evidence of UFOs, and many (not all) have been shown to have no qualms about distorting eyewitness testimony and other evidence to fit their case. Add to that the amount of admitted hoaxes, and you'll understand why I'm more apt to believe the skeptics. There may be aerial phenomena we don't understand, but the UFO-advocacy community for the most part pushes far more than that.

[AnonWizard]

09:12 PM on 09/14/2010

I haven't seen that it's true that photo and video evidence of UFOs has gone down in recent years. I see that many people are putting UFOs on youtube these days, taken from their digital cameras and cell phones. Upon what do you base your statement?

[Craig 212]

02:14 PM on 09/10/2010

I've been meaning to pick up a copy of this book ever since I saw Kean on The Colbert Report. Very interesting subject.

[Robert Hastings]

12:47 PM on 09/10/2010

SEE MY LAST POST

Also not mentioned in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, but discussed in my article (referenced in my last post) is the fact that James Oberg, a leading UFO debunker at CSI, was a USAF Security Officer for nukes-related information and once privately chastised another former USAF officer, Dr. Bob Jacobs, for leaking classified Top Secret information about the Big Sur UFO case. Fortunately, Jacobs published the key portions of Oberg's letter. All of the documented details relating to this are available at my website.

So, when someone claims that CSI (CSICOP) is an objective, skeptical group that has no ax to grind when it comes to the release of sensitive UFO-related info, please send them to my website.

--Robert Hastings
www.ufohastings.com

[Robert Hastings]

12:45 PM on 09/10/2010

Actually, CSI (formerly CSICOP) is a "skeptical" organization in name only when it comes to the subject of UFOs. For the real story, including the very interesting and generally-unacknowledged government affilitations of some of it's key members, including James Oberg, go to my website, www.ufohastings.com, and read my article "Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers."

My own research on UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites--as confirmed by declassified U.S. government documents and ex-military eyewitness testimony--will be presented at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on September 27, 2010. At that press conference, seven ex-USAF personnel will divulge their knowledge of UFO incursions at ICBM sites and nuclear weapons depots during the Cold War era.

So, what does this have to do with CSI? Well, the organization's magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, has been edited since the early 1980s by Kendrick Frazier, whose profession is listed as "Science Writer" in the publisher's statement. Not mentioned (even in Frazier's own online bio) is the fact that he worked for 20+ years as a Public Relations Specialist at Sandia Labs, a leading nuclear weapons laboratory.

CONTINUED IN MY NEXT POST

--Robert Hastings
www.ufohastings.com

[chipchuck]

12:02 PM on 09/09/2010

The real questions to follow this are:

If UFO's are ET Spacecraft:
1. Where do they come from?
2. Why are they here?
3. What will alien small pox do to us lil' indians?

[ThePlague]

09:55 AM on 09/08/2010

This is good. We need to start taking UFO's seriously, and finally face up to our place in the Galactic community. As this process happens, the earth will become more peaceful, because the simple fact is that until we move beyond war as a political solution, we will not be able to rejoin the Galactic Confederation. If earth is to take its rightful place in the galactic community, we need to not only take UFO's seriously, but we also need to deal with the problem of war, because we won't be allowed in while still we have nuclear weapons and thus still posing a potential threat. By comparison the inhabitants of Venus are more advanced than we are. As soon as we can get rid of war, then we can participate as full and equal members of the galactic community.

[Uptolatekkate]

09:19 PM on 09/08/2010

Admitted SCIENTOLOGIST

FOCLMAO!!!!!!

[chipchuck]

11:50 AM on 09/09/2010

Oh my, you missed the memo.

Xenu destroyed the inhabitants of Venus last week. Tomorrow he will do the same with those pesky Martians.

Alien contact will not stop war on this planet. It will further it when a deep woods hillbilly decides to take a pot shot at "dem illegals!"

[terry the censor]

04:34 AM on 09/08/2010

> the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly CSICOP), a group whose aim is to debunk UFOs and any other unexplained phenomena that challenge our familiar ways of thinking.

Wow, that's not fact, that's conspiracy theory. Now that FOX long ago mainstreamed paranoia, does that mean everyone gets to do it without the least bit of shame?

[ESerafina42]

03:31 AM on 09/08/2010

'...that he is a founding fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI, formerly CSICOP), a group whose aim is to debunk UFOs and any other unexplained phenomena that challenge our familiar ways of thinking."
___

Sigh. No, their aim is skeptical inquiry - in other words, not believing everything that comes down the pike. See - it's right there in the name. SI.

[Alvarask]

08:25 PM on 09/08/2010

Yes, as long as it's in the name it MUST be true! Like the Patriot Act.

[ESerafina42]

03:28 AM on 09/08/2010

I believe in UFOs - unidentified flying objects exist, without a doubt.

[Chad Sheffield]

12:46 AM on 09/08/2010

Why the obsession with identifying flying things anyway?

[chipchuck]

11:57 AM on 09/09/2010

Humans have a need to identify everything. There's power in names, even one's you assign.

Think about it. Even in the Bible, one of the first things Adam was assigned to do was identify all the plants and animals.

[Richard Gottlieb]

09:43 PM on 09/07/2010

Oberg has no interest in facts. Whether pilots are, or are not reliable observers is immaterial. As a career debunker, Oberg was compelled to counter Kean's findngs. It was a political tactic designed to reinforce the doubts held by fence-sitters, not a scientific dialogue. It is the kind of tactic that Emory University psychologist Drew Westin wrote about in his bestselling book, "The Political Brain". His thesis was that the Democratic National Committee fundamentally lost elections because it engaged the electorate in logical discussions about factual material while the RNC understood to win all it needed to do was to generate unconscious emotional connections (non-declarative memory associations) that they were good and the other guys were bad.

Bush was elected and re-elected by making the following associations in the minds of voters:

Democrats = Weak on Defense = Al Qaida = 9/11 = Nuclear Terrorism, etc.

Al Gore and the democrats instead pulled out scientific studies on global warming. Not surprising who won.

After the DNC changed strategy in the last election, Obama successfully forged the following associations in the mind of the electorate:

Republicans = Bush = Chaney = Halliburton = Lies about weapons of mass destruction = profit motives = Iraq War, etc.

Recently the republicans regrouped and counterattacked with:

Democrats = Big Government = Wasteful Spending = Recession = National Debt = No Future For Our Children

Debunkers like Oberg don't care about facts - only how to obfuscate the truth.

[terry the censor]

04:42 AM on 09/08/2010

> Whether pilots are, or are not reliable observers is immaterial.

That's an astounding statement. Kean's book is premissed on their reliability. Oberg's choice of topic was not only pertinent, it was necessary. Your misdirection allows you to avoid shamefully the core issue of eyewitness testimony.

If you want to say Oberg is factually wrong, then deal with his points directly. And in doing so, take care before using baseless slurs, because Hynek shared Oberg's opinion of pilot reports.

[Frank Smith]

02:00 PM on 09/08/2010

I'd like to see the full context of tha Hynek quote and not just one sentence. It certainly contradicts his statement during this CBS News documentary hosted by Walter Cronkite.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2935380n&tag=mncol;lst;1

At the 37 minute mark he states regarding pilots:

"Those are the people I like to talk to . . . they can give you an intelligent answer."

Oberg's premise is faulty. Being able to explain 95% of all pilot sightings makes them better witnesses, not poorer ones. That they can describe an aerial phenomenon unknown to them in enough detail that a researcher can recognize and identify it is an indication of excellent witnessing.

[Sergey Korolev]

04:03 PM on 09/08/2010

The original critique highlighted a number of 'pilot UFO reports' that Kean presented as thoroughly validated as unexplainable -- except that detailed (and persuausive) prosaic explanations were offered, including one over Russia in 1984 that involved multiple air crews and alleged radar confirmation plus physical effects (including crew injuries) that seems to have an entirely terrestrial explanation. I'd be interested in any direct criticisms of such research results instead of manifestly delusional assertions that the critique had NO facts.

[webgeek]

08:52 PM on 09/07/2010

When are we going to stop this ridiculous discussion? They are here. They have been here for thousands of years. Anyone that denies this has done no research.

(And no, I'm not going to provide links.) I've been researching this for 25 years. Do your own research.

Belgium went public. Many other nations have come forward in some respect. Look at Mexico.

We're not alone and this skeptic completely misses the point. (Aside from avoiding facts.)

[c-tom]

01:35 AM on 09/08/2010

You are absolutely and totally wrong. And no I'm not going to provide links.

[terry the censor]

04:27 AM on 09/08/2010

Be honest: Did those countries that went "public" admit to alien visitation?

[1deepstar]

06:35 PM on 09/08/2010

Does that mean that there are no UFOs and the entire matter is not worth engaging? The UK Ministry of Defense wrote a very large study and concluded that UAP as they call them manifest exactly as witnesses describe them. "That UAP exist is indisputable.".... and further the author suggests that they are a hazard to aviation and the appropriate authorities should be advised...
I don't think Leslie is saying that UFOs are alien space ships. She is saying that there is a large body of anecdotal evidence that is worth examining for a number of reasons.

Pilots have a pretty good track record when it comes to observations of unusual phenomena. They have certainly reported observations that science ignored as delusional and impossible and were vindicated in the end. You probably know all about that...

[larrykat]

11:19 AM on 09/10/2010

You are missing the point. If you read Kean's book, she explicitly stays away from drawing any conclusions about their origin, as did the poster you are replying to. Webgeek simply stated "They are here" which evidence corroborates. Any further assumptions are your own.

[ufohq]

05:14 PM on 09/07/2010

see what scientists, astronauts and presidents say about UFOs:
http://www.ufohq.info/?page_id=63

[Sergey Korolev]

04:08 PM on 09/08/2010

ufohq, you are only justified in saying that this is a list of what UFO nuts CLAIM that astronauts have said about UFOs. Most of the 'quotations' are bogus -- not faked by the astronauts, but by UFO writers making up stuff they know their target audience will swallow gullibly. Don't you ever check on weird claims that strangers give you?

[Frank Smith]

05:34 PM on 09/08/2010

Do you? Some of those quotes are quite accurate because I've personally read the archival documents they are drawn from, not UFO writer sources.