The Golden Rules of the UFO Debunker - Anyone Can Become One/EVEN YOU!!
Dr. R .X. Frager
The 3 Golden Rules of the Debunker/Anyone Can Become One!--Even You!
You've seen them on television talk shows, you've read them in Parade
magazine (hint-hint), now you would like to be one to. Of course, we
are talking about the fine art of "debunking". You say you don't have
a science degree from Harvard or Stanford, no problem, anyone can be a
debunker. Although real professionals make it sound so easy, you can
learn "right now" the skills of this noble profession. Discover the
secrets in three easy-to-learn lessons. Write them down and practice
the instructions until they become second nature, and even you can earn
your "Degree" in Bunkology.
First off, why would you want to become a debunker? It's simple,
really. The other side has all the evidence in their favor. When you
stack up the voluminous amount of good "science" that has been done on
crop circles, animal mutilations, human abductions, government
cover-ups, crash retrievals, landing sites, artifacts, implants, UFO
sightings, video analysis, . . . well you get the picture, we can't
really argue substantially about the data.
So we have to resort to the three "D's" : deny, dispute and debunk.
First "deny" there is anything there, when that fails, go to "dispute"
the facts, then as a last resort "debunk" everything. It's easy and
quite "necessary" really to maintain a functioning society and avoid
economic disintegration. And now: the three Golden rules of the
debunker:
1) Attack the person not the evidence. ---- As listed above, the
preponderance of evidence to establish the existence of
extraterrestrials and their other-worldly crafts is overwhelming. So
instead of addressing the evidence, ATTACK the persons' credibility.
Call them "crackpots" and "lunatics." If they don't have a college
degree, assault them for that. If they do have a degree, even a Ph. D.
ask them the relevance of it to the subject matter. To quote Vince
Lombardi: "The best defense is a good offense" so be offensive. Perhaps
use a Phil Klass technique, and declare people who claim to have been
abducted by aliens, "little nobodies, people seeking celebrity status."
That usually pisses a bunch of people off. Another Phil Klass technique
is also very clever, (as quoted from the Don Ecker radio talk show)
just yell out this nice expletive: "BULLSHIT" and hang up the phone.
That leaves the audience bewildered and bothered.
2) Have a closed mind or "Don't bother me with the facts my mind is made
up." --- Unfortunately, sometimes you will have to address the evidence.
It can be quite ugly, and you really don't want to hear it. So rule #2
is keep a stiff upper lip, perhaps roll your eyes and just drown out the
other person when they are trying to make a point or quote a statistic.
Try to dismiss the facts, here is another quote from the Messiah, Phil
Klass, "Even airline pilots can be grossly mistaken." Wow! Would you
really want to fly commercialy if that was true, I sure wouldn't. But
by the time the audience tries to figure out what you meant, just move
on to another one liner, such as "Wrong, wrong, wrong!" Now, who is the
audience going to believe, someone who just illuminated a point by using
some great research, or you, the "debunker" who only has to say "wrong,
wrong, wrong." You may try throwing in some obscure references and
words like "confabulation." Gets them every time!
3) Come up with any kind of flimsy explanation, it makes people feel
better. Yes students, it's still really potent, spouting a reason that
lacks substance. Remember, American's are science-illiterate, they
wouldn't know an isotope from ice cream, or an electron from a election.
So razzle-dazzle them with b.s. Here are a bunch of official-sounding
denials that lack merit, but sound plausible: swamp gas (but only where
there's swamps!), atmospheric mumbo-jumbo, temperature inversions, funny
looking clouds, planets, hallucinations, shadows and light, smoke and
mirrors, mistaken this or that, hoaxes, and that old standby, "Doug and
Dave" which was recently used capably in Parade magazine by you know
whom!!!!! [That's right - Carl Sagan]
Once you've mastered these three golden rules - you can be a debunker
too, and have a degree in 'Debunkology." There will be a test given so
study and practice.
Thank you Stanton Friedman for all you have contributed to discovering
the real truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
****"The people, I say, are the only competent judges of their own
welfare." -- American Revolutionary Josiah Quincy 1774
karl mamer
"Dr. R .X. Frager" <rfr...@teleport.com> writes:
> The 3 Golden Rules of the Debunker/Anyone Can Become One!--Even You!
Hey, those also happen to be the three Golden Rules of the UFO
Believer:
> 1) Attack the person not the evidence.
Those who seek to debunk UFO claims are all part of the giant
conspiracy, after all.
> 2) Have a closed mind or "Don't bother me with the facts my mind is made
> up."
"I'm not gonna even look up the definition of Occam's Razor!"
> 3) Come up with any kind of flimsy explanation, it makes people feel
> better.
Or come up with any kind of bizarre explanation to account for why
no 2 ufo photos out of the hundreds look the same or why people have
seen grey, blue, yellow, giant, small, and Nazi-like aliens.
--
"Don't be afraid. I'm a Care Bear!"
Dr. R .X. Frager
>
>
>> better.
>
>no 2 ufo photos out of the hundreds look the same or why people have
>seen grey, blue, yellow, giant, small, and Nazi-like aliens.
Like I said -- ANYBODY can become a debunker!!
Brian Zeiler
Dr. R .X. Frager wrote:
> Another Phil Klass technique
> is also very clever, (as quoted from the Don Ecker radio talk show)
> just yell out this nice expletive: "BULLSHIT" and hang up the phone.
Ah, yes, add this to Phil Klass's list of characteristics that the
purportedly objective "skeptics" so mindlessly enjoy. He illustrated his
personal strength, resolve, and conviction by closing a debate by
screaming "BULLSHIT" and hanging up.
In fact, consider the biggest two events in ufology in the last 10 years
(arguably the biggest), the MJ-12 papers and the "alien autopsy" hoax.
Klass lost a bet with Friedman related to the typeface of the MJ-12
documents, and then Klass had to concede error for his incorrect
conclusion that the autopsy film was a hoax because of the wall phone
"anachronism". Klass screwed up both. But boy can that journalist
peddle his books to his gullible "skeptic" fan clubs that uncritically
praise his every move for telling them what they want to hear!
--
Brian Zeiler
Dean Adams
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>In fact, consider the biggest two events in ufology in the last 10 years
>(arguably the biggest), the MJ-12 papers and the "alien autopsy" hoax.
>Klass lost a bet with Friedman related to the typeface of the MJ-12
>documents, and then Klass had to concede error for his incorrect
>conclusion that the autopsy film was a hoax because of the wall phone
>"anachronism". Klass screwed up both.
Very funny, you say he "screwed up", yet he was 100% correct
in saying both were hoaxes! Its amusing how you manage to
forget such important little details.
Dean Adams
In article <4midfa$r...@zap.io.org>, karl mamer <kam...@zap.io.org> wrote:
>"Dr. R .X. Frager" <rfr...@teleport.com> writes:
>> The 3 Golden Rules of the Debunker/Anyone Can Become One!--Even You!
>
>Hey, those also happen to be the three Golden Rules of the UFO
>Believer:
>
>> 1) Attack the person not the evidence.
>
>Those who seek to debunk UFO claims are all part of the giant
>conspiracy, after all.
>
>> 2) Have a closed mind or "Don't bother me with the facts my mind is made
>> up."
>
>"I'm not gonna even look up the definition of Occam's Razor!"
>
>> 3) Come up with any kind of flimsy explanation, it makes people feel
>> better.
>
>Or come up with any kind of bizarre explanation to account for why
>no 2 ufo photos out of the hundreds look the same or why people have
>seen grey, blue, yellow, giant, small, and Nazi-like aliens.
Don't worry, Frager is a known plagiarist. Obviously he just
took someone's old text of the "Golden rules of a UFO believer",
and changed the title.
Bill Peterson
This is what is so interesting about your logical (?) behaviour, Dean.
Klass said the autopsy was a hoax, and said the phone cord was proof.
Now, he has been shown to be wrong, again, and you seem to ignore this.
Why?
Again you show that you are just a Klass wannabe, hoping to get some
"inside" scoop on the next secret plane from sucking up to AW&ST by
"debunking" UFO's on the net. You are doing a poor job.
BP
--
Disclaimer: ididn'tdoitnobodysawmeyoucan'tproveathing!
Brian Zeiler
Dean Adams wrote:
>
> Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >In fact, consider the biggest two events in ufology in the last 10 years
> >(arguably the biggest), the MJ-12 papers and the "alien autopsy" hoax.
> >Klass lost a bet with Friedman related to the typeface of the MJ-12
> >documents, and then Klass had to concede error for his incorrect
> >conclusion that the autopsy film was a hoax because of the wall phone
> >"anachronism". Klass screwed up both.
>
> Very funny, you say he "screwed up", yet he was 100% correct
> in saying both were hoaxes! Its amusing how you manage to
> forget such important little details.
ROFL! Thanks for *beautifully* illustrating the mindset of a hardcore
Phil Klass fan. It apparently doesn't bother you that he was right *for
the wrong reasons*. He was WRONG about the typeface in the MJ-12 papers
and lost a public bet with Stan Friedman about it. Then he was WRONG
about the wall phone proving the autopsy film to be a hoax, and he had to
publish a retraction of his claim in SI. You don't care that he cites
proven incorrect reasons to bolster his claims. He could declare that
there is no UFO evidence because the Milwaukee Brewers suck, and you'd
say "So what? He's still right."
Phil Klass blew two of the biggest cases in ufology in the last decade
with erroneous public claims about the evidence, and his fans don't even
care! As long as this mere journalist tells his rabid fans what they
*want* to hear, they just don't care if he's wrong -- much less if he
BLOWS the two biggest ufology cases! Amazing.
--
Brian Zeiler
rud...@garnet.berkeley.edu
bi...@io.com (Bill Peterson) wrote:
>Again you show that you are just a Klass wannabe, hoping to get some
>"inside" scoop on the next secret plane from sucking up to AW&ST by
>"debunking" UFO's on the net. You are doing a poor job.
Bill, "Dean Adams" probably IS Phil Klass!
Bill Peterson
In article <4mm14u$q...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
I doubt that, I ascribe more competence to Klass. Dean is just a hanger-on,
one of the crowd. He falls down when challenged with real data, and resorts
to fabrication. This, in my field, gets you fired.
JamesOberg
Zeiler: (( Then he was WRONG
I didn't know "retraction" was in Zeiler's working vocabulary. Oh, I get
it, only people he disagrees with have to do it!
Brian Zeiler
JamesOberg wrote:
> I didn't know "retraction" was in Zeiler's working vocabulary. Oh, I get
> it, only people he disagrees with have to do it!
It's amazing that this is about as good as it gets for defending Klass
against the points I've made about him in these posts.
--
Brian Zeiler
Jonathan Waisman
> Ah, yes, add this to Phil Klass's list of characteristics that the
> purportedly objective "skeptics" so mindlessly enjoy. He illustrated his
> personal strength, resolve, and conviction by closing a debate by
> screaming "BULLSHIT" and hanging up.
>
> (arguably the biggest), the MJ-12 papers and the "alien autopsy" hoax.
> Klass lost a bet with Friedman related to the typeface of the MJ-12
> documents, and then Klass had to concede error for his incorrect
> conclusion that the autopsy film was a hoax because of the wall phone
> peddle his books to his gullible "skeptic" fan clubs that uncritically
> praise his every move for telling them what they want to hear!
>
> --
> Brian Zeiler
Too bad Klass happened to be right on both counts: the autopsy film *was*
a hoax (duh...money...get the motive?) and so were the MJ-12 documents
(the format was wrong for the time, though it was close enough to fool
many). Klass' only fault was that he was right but for the wrong reasons.
Now tell put your hand on your heart and tell me you actually believe
that 'UFOlogists' don't ever lie about things to make their case more
believable. If you said "yes," then you're more gullible than most
victims of snake oil salesmen.
UFOlogists make a living preaching this stuff. Want disinformation?
Listen to them.
Brian Zeiler
Jonathan Waisman wrote:
> Klass' only fault was that he was right but for the wrong reasons.
Jon -- use your brain here. If we agree that he was right for the wrong
reasons (which is inarguable anyway), then OBVIOUSLY he was "right" only
because of luck. The reasons he cited were WRONG, and thus had NO
connection with the ultimate outcome. None whatsoever. He could just as
easily been wrong both times, since his "evidence" had absolutely no
correlation with the outcome.
> Now tell put your hand on your heart and tell me you actually believe
> that 'UFOlogists' don't ever lie about things to make their case more
> believable.
Nice diversion tactic. Apparently you realize on some level that Klass
is a huckster and a fraud, and you're trying to turn the tables.
> UFOlogists make a living preaching this stuff. Want disinformation?
> Listen to them.
Phil Klass makes a living preaching HIS stuff. What do you think makes
him more money, being a two-bit aviation journalist for an almost
underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine, or writing several
anti-UFO books, traveling to anti-UFO lectures, and publishing his
anti-UFO newsletter? Furthermore, his entire public reputation hinges
directly on a total lack of credible UFO evidence.
Clearly, Klass is a anything BUT a "skeptic". He's a fanatic, churning
out the same garbage that all radical/fanatical groups do with misleading
statistics, biased information, and constant errors. Fortunately, like
any personality cult, his followers in sci.skeptic blindly absorb his
every word and parade it as the gospel.
--
Brian Zeiler
Dean Adams
In article <4ml6ab$g...@bermuda.io.com>, Bill Peterson <bi...@io.com> wrote:
>>Very funny, you say he "screwed up", yet he was 100% correct
>>in saying both were hoaxes! Its amusing how you manage to
>>forget such important little details.
>This is what is so interesting about your logical (?) behaviour, Dean.
Thanks.
>Klass said the autopsy was a hoax, and said the phone cord was proof.
>Now, he has been shown to be wrong, again, and you seem to ignore this.
What does Klass have to do with anything??
>Again you show that you are just a Klass wannabe
Heh. That is pretty funny, given the way you seem to
be obsessed with him and mention his name constantly.
> hoping to get some "inside" scoop on the next secret plane
> from sucking up to AW&ST by "debunking" UFO's on the net.
Phew... you sure come up with some bizarre wacko material!
Keep it up, maybe you will give some insight into just what
went wrong in those distorted neural pathways of yours.
Dean Adams
In article <4mm2dp$m...@pentagon.io.com>, Bill Peterson <bi...@io.com> wrote:
>one of the crowd. He falls down when challenged with real data, and resorts
>to fabrication. This, in my field, gets you fired.
Well bill, then in that case there is no alternative... you're fired!
You have nobody to blame but yourself.
Dean Adams
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>What do you think makes
>him more money, being a two-bit aviation journalist for an
>almost underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine
Hahaha!! Thats a good one. A perfect window into the
tiny closed-minded ignorant view of the world which is
the foundation for so many of your empty arguments.
FYI... your "underground magazine" is the worldwide
journal of record for the aerospace industry, and I
doubt too many "hobbyists" are willing to pay the
$100~ a year it costs to subscribe.
> or writing several anti-UFO books, traveling to anti-UFO lectures,
> and publishing his anti-UFO newsletter?
Oooohhh... you REALLY HATE that, don't you?
I know what will make you feel better, just think of all the
countless frauds and charlatans out there making even MORE
money off endless pro-UFO books, lectures, and newsletters.
It is an unavoidable fact that you can always make more money
off the hoardes of ignorant, gullible UFO believers than you
can from skeptics.
GK Smiley
Zeiler scores points only when HE keeps score.
Bill Peterson
You will not be able to find any post where I fabricated without
stating that it was my opinion. My reputation is secure, and well
known within the microprocessor design and CAD community.
Again, what kind of "real" job do you have? Do they tolerate the
same crap you do here on the net?
Bill Peterson
>>>Very funny, you say he "screwed up", yet he was 100% correct
>>>in saying both were hoaxes! Its amusing how you manage to
>>>forget such important little details.
>>This is what is so interesting about your logical (?) behaviour, Dean.
>Thanks.
>
>>Klass said the autopsy was a hoax, and said the phone cord was proof.
>>Now, he has been shown to be wrong, again, and you seem to ignore this.
>
>What does Klass have to do with anything??
Uhh, he is mentioned above in the post. Having concentration problems?
Surely you're not going to claim you weren't talking about Klass?
>
> >Again you show that you are just a Klass wannabe
>
>Heh. That is pretty funny, given the way you seem to
>be obsessed with him and mention his name constantly.
>
As I said, you are just one of the crowd.
> > hoping to get some "inside" scoop on the next secret plane
> > from sucking up to AW&ST by "debunking" UFO's on the net.
>
>Phew... you sure come up with some bizarre wacko material!
>Keep it up, maybe you will give some insight into just what
>went wrong in those distorted neural pathways of yours.
>
Again, what is your "real" job? If I am so wrong, please explain
what you really do and why I was so far off.
Tom Kelly
In article <318E66...@students.wisc.edu>, Brian Zeiler
<bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Dean Adams wrote:
> >
> > Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> > >In fact, consider the biggest two events in ufology in the last 10 years
> > >(arguably the biggest), the MJ-12 papers and the "alien autopsy" hoax.
> > >Klass lost a bet with Friedman related to the typeface of the MJ-12
> > >documents, and then Klass had to concede error for his incorrect
> > >conclusion that the autopsy film was a hoax because of the wall phone
> > >"anachronism". Klass screwed up both.
> >
> > Very funny, you say he "screwed up", yet he was 100% correct
> > in saying both were hoaxes! Its amusing how you manage to
> > forget such important little details.
>
> ROFL! Thanks for *beautifully* illustrating the mindset of a hardcore
> Phil Klass fan. It apparently doesn't bother you that he was right *for
> the wrong reasons*. He was WRONG about the typeface in the MJ-12 papers
> and lost a public bet with Stan Friedman about it. Then he was WRONG
> about the wall phone proving the autopsy film to be a hoax, and he had to
> publish a retraction of his claim in SI. You don't care that he cites
> proven incorrect reasons to bolster his claims. He could declare that
> there is no UFO evidence because the Milwaukee Brewers suck, and you'd
> say "So what? He's still right."
In his never-ending pursuit to convince himself of his UFO theories, Brian
again displays that pathetic UFO mentality which forces him to ignore,
dismiss, and eventually forget all correct criticisms by skeptics.
Klass clearly showed that MJ-12 papers were fraudlent *primarily* because
of the copying of the Truman signature (Klass correctly called it a
"smoking gun"). Amazingly, and apparently blind to its true implications
(perhaps using Brian's mentality?), it was Friedman in his Sept./Oct. 1987
_International UFO Reporter_ who claimed that the "match" confirmed the
authenticity of the signature! (Further evidence of the miracle! Right
Brian?) Let's see, who *royally* screwed up here?
Klass' point about the typeface was among a number of other reasons why
the MJ-12 document was most likely a hoax. Secondly, while he was
incorrect in his UFO newsletter about the wall phone in the alien autopsy
he immediately published a retraction (*nothing* by Klass was published in
SI regarding the alien autopsy). He realized he was wrong and admitted to
it. Freidman for years refused to admit his glaring error with MJ-12--and
to this day I don't know that he ever did. What a shame.
> Phil Klass blew two of the biggest cases in ufology in the last decade
> with erroneous public claims about the evidence, and his fans don't even
> care! As long as this mere journalist tells his rabid fans what they
> *want* to hear, they just don't care if he's wrong -- much less if he
> BLOWS the two biggest ufology cases! Amazing.
Again, he didn't "blow" anything. The MJ-12 papers are clearly fraudulent.
If Phil didn't demonstrate this then who did? Secondly, yes, he was wrong
about the phone in the autopsy film. You were wrong about where Klass
published it (something you'd no doubt use to condemn SI in the future if
I hadn't pointed it out). Mistakes are made and people move on. It's
called the scientific method; or have you heard of that?
> --
> Brian Zeiler
--
-Tom K.
Brian Zeiler
James J. Lippard wrote:
> Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost
> underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine,"
Yes, it is. What percentage of the population subscribes to AWST? Maybe
.0001%? I bet their circulation isn't even 250,000.
> and I believe Klass was a
> senior editor there until his retirement. That WAS the primary source of
> his income, no doubt about it.
Wow, now THERE is a media mogul! I bet he never made more than $45,000
per year as "senior editor", but he probably makes more off book
royalties and lectures and his newsletter, even if he does give a free
lecture every so often.
--
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler
GK Smiley wrote:
>
> Zeiler scores points only when HE keeps score.
Wow, another pointed rebuttal to defend Phil Klass...
--
Brian Zeiler
James J. Lippard
In article <318F06...@students.wisc.edu>,
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Phil Klass makes a living preaching HIS stuff. What do you think makes
>him more money, being a two-bit aviation journalist for an almost
>underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine, or writing several
Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost
underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine," and I believe Klass was a
senior editor there until his retirement. That WAS the primary source of
his income, no doubt about it.
>anti-UFO books, traveling to anti-UFO lectures, and publishing his
>anti-UFO newsletter? Furthermore, his entire public reputation hinges
These things do NOT make much money. Prometheus Books pays its authors
very poorly (I'd be surprised if he made more than a few hundred dollars
per year from his books), and Klass often lectures for free. When the
Phoenix Skeptics brought him to Arizona State University around 1985, he
did it entirely for free and was put up for the night in the home of one
of our members. The only people who make a decent living at being
professional skeptics are people like James Randi and Paul Kurtz. Even
the editor of the _Skeptical Inquirer_ has a full-time job aside from
_SI_.
>directly on a total lack of credible UFO evidence.
>
>Clearly, Klass is a anything BUT a "skeptic". He's a fanatic, churning
>out the same garbage that all radical/fanatical groups do with misleading
>statistics, biased information, and constant errors. Fortunately, like
>any personality cult, his followers in sci.skeptic blindly absorb his
>every word and parade it as the gospel.
>
>--
>Brian Zeiler
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04
karl mamer
> preponderance of evidence to establish the existence of
> extraterrestrials and their other-worldly crafts is overwhelming. So
Actually, incredible claims required incredible levels of proof.
the preponderance of the evidence does not support such a conclusion.
Produce a body. Produce impossible technology. That is the
level of evidence required.
> Call them "crackpots" and "lunatics." If they don't have a college
Did I call them crackpots? I suggest that explaining away the fact
that trying to reconcile that people report all kinds of different
aliens and all kinds of different looking UFOs with some kind
of "Rainbow Coalition" of aliens strays so far from concepts
of parsimony that it ventures into the realm of the bizarre.
> abducted by aliens, "little nobodies, people seeking celebrity status."
In the absence of hard evidence, like a body or a capture ship, one
needs to question the qui bono side of things. Lazar needed money.
Lazar was a pimp. In courts of law where rulings are made on
a preponderance of the evidence, credibility of the witness
does come into play.
--
KAM...@IO.ORG.................................................
..Karl.Mamer,.President,.SOMWWTWTN..|."I.dunno..Some.of.it's ..
....Society.Of.Men.Who.Watch.The....|..pretty.interesting."....
.....Women's.Television.Network.....|...........--.Group.Moto..
.................................................KAM...@IO.ORG
James J. Lippard
In article <318FB9...@students.wisc.edu>,
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>James J. Lippard wrote:
>
>> Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost
>> underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine,"
>
>.0001%? I bet their circulation isn't even 250,000.
_Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is one of the most respected aviation
industry magazines, published since 1916. It is owned by McGraw-Hill and
has a circulation of 143,310, which is hardly "almost underground" or even
"low-circulation." Nor is it a "hobbyist" magazine. Can you name any
aviation industry magazine with a greater circulation? Where does this
"250,000" figure as the threshold for low vs. high circulation come from?
Admit it, your description was grossly inaccurate. If you can't admit
your errors, then why are you so hypocritically hounding skeptics for not
admitting theirs?
>> and I believe Klass was a
>> senior editor there until his retirement. That WAS the primary source of
>> his income, no doubt about it.
>
>Wow, now THERE is a media mogul! I bet he never made more than $45,000
>per year as "senior editor", but he probably makes more off book
>royalties and lectures and his newsletter, even if he does give a free
>lecture every so often.
You bet, huh? Let's get Phil Klass in here to give you one of his
famous sucker bets, something like:
I'll bet you $10,000 that there is no year in which I was employed
as an editor at _Aviation Week_ in which my income from books,
lectures, and the _Skeptics UFO Newsletter_ matched or exceeded
my income from _Aviation Week_.
Do some calculations, Brian. You can calculate his newsletter income by
estimating the circulation and production costs compared with the
subscription rate. I'd estimate that his book royalties are on the order
of $1,000/year. How much do you think he makes for lecture appearances,
and how many do you think he does a year?
The only way Klass would be making more money from his ufological
activities than from his _Aviation Week_ job would be if he were getting
paid by MJ-12. Is that your view?
Dean Adams
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>ROFL! Thanks for *beautifully* illustrating the mindset of a hardcore
>Phil Klass fan. It apparently doesn't bother you that he was right *for
>the wrong reasons*.
Ha! Who cares what he said, all that matters are the facts. You were
whining about some pointless trivialities while trying to gloss over
what really mattered... the fact they were hoaxes.
> You don't care that he cites proven incorrect reasons
> to bolster his claims.
You're right, I don't care about "his claims".
> He could declare that there is no UFO evidence because the
> Milwaukee Brewers suck, and you'd say "So what? He's still right."
"There is no UFO [alien] evidence" is an accurate statement.
>Phil Klass blew two of the biggest cases in ufology in the last decade
>with erroneous public claims about the evidence, and his fans don't even
>care!
I don't know, you tell me. You seem like *infinitely*
more a "fan" that I could ever claim to be.
> they just don't care if he's wrong
Why bother, you care enough about him for the both of us.
> much less if he BLOWS the two biggest ufology cases! Amazing.
There you go again. Amazing. He said they were hoaxes
and they were. Oh yea, he really blew it.
Lawrence E. McKnight
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
[snip...
>
>Phil Klass makes a living preaching HIS stuff. What do you think makes
>him more money, being a two-bit aviation journalist for an almost
>underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine, or writing several
>anti-UFO books, traveling to anti-UFO lectures, and publishing his
>anti-UFO newsletter? Furthermore, his entire public reputation hinges
>directly on a total lack of credible UFO evidence.
Hmm. Haven't you cited the 'almost underground low-circulation hobbyist
magazine' as an umimpeachable source when it suits your purposes?
[snip...
---------------
Larry McKnight
(this space unintentionally left blank.....
John and Susan Hutchins
dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:
From what I've been able to gather from this exchange,
Klass made a mistake on a couple of details, although
his conclusions were correct. Kind of like being
confused by convenience stores? ):^)
John Hutchins
Brian Zeiler
John and Susan Hutchins wrote:
> From what I've been able to gather from this exchange,
> Klass made a mistake on a couple of details, although
> his conclusions were correct. Kind of like being
> confused by convenience stores? ):^)
Not at all like that. These weren't "details". These were the very
foundations of his conclusions.
First he said the MJ-12 documents were a hoax BECAUSE of the typeface.
He was proven wrong and had to honor a bet he made with Stan Friedman
about the typeface. Whether or not he was "right" about the documents is
irrelevant, because his rationale was flawed that led to his conclusion.
Then he said the autopsy film was a hoax because the wall phone was
anachronistic. He was proven wrong and he retracted his claim. That's
hardly a "detail" -- the entire crux of his position was totally
demolished.
The two biggest events in ufology in the past 10 years, and he flubs
both.
--
Brian Zeiler
James J. Lippard
In article <318FEE...@students.wisc.edu>,
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Not at all like that. These weren't "details". These were the very
>foundations of his conclusions.
Not true.
>First he said the MJ-12 documents were a hoax BECAUSE of the typeface.
Which article by Klass has this as its foundational argument? Please
cite your source.
>He was proven wrong and had to honor a bet he made with Stan Friedman
>about the typeface. Whether or not he was "right" about the documents is
>irrelevant, because his rationale was flawed that led to his conclusion.
>
>Then he said the autopsy film was a hoax because the wall phone was
>anachronistic. He was proven wrong and he retracted his claim. That's
>hardly a "detail" -- the entire crux of his position was totally
>demolished.
There is plenty of evidence that the Santilli film is a fake.
>The two biggest events in ufology in the past 10 years, and he flubs
>both.
>
>--
>Brian Zeiler
Chris C. Lesley
Brian Zeiler (bdze...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
: GK Smiley wrote:
: >
: > Zeiler scores points only when HE keeps score.
: Wow, another pointed rebuttal to defend Phil Klass...
Wow, another lame insult from True-Believer Brian. Attack Phil Klass all
you want, True Believer; this gives exactly zero credence to YOUR claims.
C.
--
Chris Lesley
"Heaven wheels above you, displaying to you her eternal glories,
and still your eyes are on the ground." --- Dante Alighieri
Brian Zeiler
Chris C. Lesley wrote:
> Wow, another lame insult from True-Believer Brian. Attack Phil Klass all
> you want, True Believer; this gives exactly zero credence to YOUR claims.
Obviously you didn't read the original post on Klass that I made, or you
wouldn't have said something so silly. I gave several specific points
that illustrate Klass's ineptitude. It's easier to say it "gives exactly
zero credence" to me than it is to actually READ the post and counter my
points.
--
Brian Zeiler
adav
NAKED EMPRESS or The Great Medical Fraud
______________________________
Following up his sensational SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT, this
new expose by Hans Ruesch shows how, with the help of press agentry
and the venality of most of the mass media, the public has been
brainwashed into equating medical care with health , whereas
exactly the opposite applies: modern medicine has become the
principal cause of disease today.
So, in one year, 1.5 million Americans had to be hospitalized
as a consequence of the intake of (prescribed) drugs that were
supposed to cure them of something or other. Another case in point
is cancer. The ably exploited fear of this disease, caused for the
most part by products issuing from chemical, industrial and and
pharmaceutical laboratories, has become a solid-gold source for
researchers, drug manufacturers and doctors, who keep foisting
their deleterious cut-burn-poison therapies on the frightened
patients, most of whom die from the treatment before the cancer
can kill them.
Since the cause of most cancers is well-known, they could be
avoided by prevention, which early education should provide. And
yet, practically no public funds go into prevention because there
is no money to be gained by it - only health. The big money is all
in the pseudo "research", done on millions of animals, which can
give only false and therefore misleading answers; and in the
treatment of the patients with the violent, destructive, but
immensely lucrative therapies imposed by official medicine.
Certified reports of cancers completely cured by "soft",
drugless treatments, usually based on natural diets, mostly
various raw foods, have been piling up all over Europe and the
U.S.. But all the competent and honest doctors who threaten the
profits of the lucrative medical trade with inexpensive therapies
are being attacked, vilified as "quacks and charlatans", sometimes
even barred from the profession, by the quacks and charlatans who
make up the profit-oriented Medical Power.
Animal experimentation, inevitably misleading, is of course
the alibi that has been devised by this organization for extorting
huge grants for a phoney 'research', and to safeguard the drug and
chemical manufacturers from criminal prosecution when the
deleterious effects of one or more of their products can no longer
be concealed. Then they can always say "all the prescribed tests"
(on animals) had been consciously undertaken. But they do not say
that they, in collusion with the Health agencies and corrupt or
misled politicos, have imposed those tests.
NOT MORE CHEMICALS, BUT FEWER CHEMICALS; NOT AN INCREASE IN
DRUGS, BUT A DRASTIC REDUCTION OF DRUGS; AND NOT A MULTIPLICATION
OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS, BUT A TOTAL ABOLITION OF SUCH "ALIBI'
EXPERIMENTS ARE THE INESCAPABLE PREMISE FOR A BETTERMENT OF LIVING
CONDITIONS AND AN IMPROVEMENT IN PUBLIC HEALTH. The present book
brings ample proof of this, besides unearthing some
informationthat many powerful individuals in America and abroad
would prefer to keep buried forever.
Animal Defense & Anti-Vivisection Society of B.C.
ABOUT THE COMPULSION OF SCIENTISTS TO PERPETUATE ERROR
http://www.angelfire.com/free/ADAVpageTwo.html
Jim H.
There have been no bigger opponents to the autopsy hoax
than serious UFO researchers themselves. MUFON has spent
much time and effort to disprove this monstrosity, because it
derails attention from serious research. I think the point that
is being made is not that Phil Klass, was correct in discounting
the video as a hoax which is quite obvious, but rather his criteria
judging it to be so. He was incorrect in his methodology.
-Jim H.
Garry Bryan
Dean Adams (dad...@netcom.com) wrote:
: I know what will make you feel better, just think of all the
: countless frauds and charlatans out there making even MORE
: money off endless pro-UFO books, lectures, and newsletters.
: It is an unavoidable fact that you can always make more money
: off the hoardes of ignorant, gullible UFO believers than you
: can from skeptics.
OK, here's the big one. . .prove it! (Remember, sceptics have bought the
Mexico videos as well. . .)
Garry (%^{>
Chris C. Lesley
Brian Zeiler (bdze...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
: Chris C. Lesley wrote:
And it's easier to completely duck the issue than address the points
Klass has made (scored?). Your ad hominem attacks on Klass mean diddly;
you can say "he's incompetent" until you're blue in the face if you
want. That doesn't change the fact that MJ-12 is a fraud, and
convincingly proven to be so. So sorry to burst your bubble, True
Believer...
Garry Bryan
karl mamer (kam...@zap.io.org) wrote:
: "Dr. R .X. Frager" <rfr...@teleport.com> writes:
: > 1) Attack the person not the evidence. ---- As listed above, the
: > preponderance of evidence to establish the existence of
: > extraterrestrials and their other-worldly crafts is overwhelming. So
: Actually, incredible claims required incredible levels of proof.
: the preponderance of the evidence does not support such a conclusion.
: Produce a body. Produce impossible technology. That is the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: level of evidence required.
But wouldn't that be. . .well. . .IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
Garry (%^{>
Brian Zeiler
> And it's easier to completely duck the issue than address the points
> Klass has made (scored?).
I'm attaching my original post, since you're obviously SO clueless that
you missed it several times. Here's a clue --> the post "addresses the
points".
> Your ad hominem attacks on Klass mean diddly;
They're not "ad hominem". They're substantive, specific points.
> you can say "he's incompetent" until you're blue in the face if you
> want.
Apparently you haven't gathered yet that Klass blew the two biggest cases
in ufology in the past decade.
> That doesn't change the fact that MJ-12 is a fraud
But not because of the typeface Klass cited, genius...
> and
> convincingly proven to be so.
Have you read any of Friedman's research on the documents that prove
beyond ANY rational, reasonable doubt that it CANNOT have been slapped
together by a civilian? It was ABUNDANTLY clear that it was an inside
job. This doesn't prove the validity of the contents, however. It only
proves that whoever drummed it up had far-reaching, intimate access into
the private and government lives of the people mentioned therein.
> So sorry to burst your bubble, True
> Believer...
I see you're pushing the bounds of reality back even further. You almost
sound like you've convinced yourself that you've made a valid point
somewhere.
Now read the following post slowly and carefully. You will find several
specific points that you failed to address.
Brian Zeiler
Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
> I would guess Klass targeted the phone because it was a physical item that
> seemed out of place, given the year the film was supposedly made.
Gee, you think? That's really going out on a limb there, Bruce...
It was
> only after a rather tedious search through dusty archives was it was shown
> that the phone *could* have existed then.
Heh. No, it was shown that the phone DID exist then.
> Never-the-less, a lot of others
> had the same opinion as Klass,
Like who?
>and if I remember the discussions here
> correctly,
Which you don't.
> some of them were normally Believers.
Not to the best of my knowledge.
>Do we apply your standards
>to them also?
If you're wrong, you're wrong. If you're wrong a lot, well, people
remember that (except your cult followers), especially when it's a result
of shoddy research.
> To castigate him over just one point does not do you any
> credit, nor does it in any way change end results- he was *right*.
He was right for the wrong reasons and he lost a public bet about it.
Geez, how many examples do I have to give? What about the Coyne case
with that big, wacky "bolide" that escaped detection by everybody but the
pilots -- and the contemporaneous EM interference was "coincidence"
because his plasma ball theory of EM and luminosity effects collapsed
under the weight of REAL scientific scrutiny.
Klass is not a scientist. Klass has NO technical acumen in analyzing UFO
reports, and his reports directly contradict the existing body of
knowledge of atmospheric physics. If you actually READ the analyses of
REAL scientists, you'd have a different opinion on UFOs. But, you seem
to prefer pseudoscientific journalists and magicians hellbent on public
relations posturing, clowns like Randi and Klass. How these two buffoons
ever earned the respect of so many scientists is utterly infathomable
and, in fact, a very sad statement on the current state of contemporary
"skepticism".
--
Brian Zeiler
Lawrence E. McKnight
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>John and Susan Hutchins wrote:
>
>> From what I've been able to gather from this exchange,
>> Klass made a mistake on a couple of details, although
>> his conclusions were correct. Kind of like being
>> confused by convenience stores? ):^)
>
>Not at all like that. These weren't "details". These were the very
>foundations of his conclusions.
>
>First he said the MJ-12 documents were a hoax BECAUSE of the typeface.
>He was proven wrong and had to honor a bet he made with Stan Friedman
>about the typeface. Whether or not he was "right" about the documents is
>irrelevant, because his rationale was flawed that led to his conclusion.
Are you making the claim that the typeface was the _only_ reason he gave
to say that they were hoaxes? Or is there some SaucerZealotLogic at
work... if he gave seven reasons to suspect the documents, and one of
them was shown to be wrong, the the other six HAD to be wrong, also?
>
>Then he said the autopsy film was a hoax because the wall phone was
>anachronistic. He was proven wrong and he retracted his claim. That's
>hardly a "detail" -- the entire crux of his position was totally
>demolished.
Now here, because you say 'the entire crux of his postition', it appears
that you ARE making the claim that the phone was the ONLY thing. Hell,
this probably doesn't even rely on SaucerZealotLogic, it is merely
SaucerZealotDistortion.
>
>The two biggest events in ufology in the past 10 years, and he flubs
>both.
Let me see here. The 'two biggest events in ufology' are things which
are widely acknowledged, even by most proponents of UFOs being alien
visitors, to be hoaxes?
>
>--
>Brian Zeiler
Joseph Byczko
Pretty good Doc. How much is the cost? May I suggest something of a
"graduate program" to those who master the basics?
1.Guilt by association. The idea of this tactic is to directly or
indirectly yoke UFO research to more bizarre areas. For example:
-Psychics; esp those of the "Amazing Kreskin" variety.
-Witchcraft, vodoo, apparitions, snake handlers,
spiritism, and other Bovine eSchatology. Everyone loves
a good ghost story.
-Parapsychology. ESP, Imply sickness of the mind.
-Linkage to elaborate and incredulous conspiracy theories
rather than facts. Sows lots of doubt and makes UFOs
consigned to the lunatic fringe.
-Imply a tradition rooted in mythology and spiritual
fairy tales. Employ false exegesis of various religious
scriptures for support. Why not blame the devil?
-Gather UFO support from extremist groups,assorted
crackpots, criminals, secret societies,cults,...ect.
2.Misinformation.
-Encourage men with "credibility" to testify of Government
coverups, secrecy, and collusion with alien malefactors.
The idea here is that the most dangerous lie is the one
closest to the truth. Somewhat like offering a fine steak
laced with just a bit of arsenic. However, to be real good
at this you need reliable source of true information.
Lacking this offer a creative theory of your own; no doubt
someone else will embrace it.
3.False bifurcation.
-Make people choose between limited and unacceptable alternative
"either-or" explanations.
4."Totalism"
-Encourage the belief that a theory is entirely true
or entirely false. No grey areas permitted. Use this
to promote heated and bitter debates between UFO
researchers. Make people draw lines between science
and chicanery over minute differences of understanding.
5.Straw man attack.
Fashion a dummy position held by a UFO researcher. Then
proceed to rip it appart. Many will discredit the researcher
on this false premise.
6. Whipping Boy.
When a UFO researcher is caught in some error, use this as
a platform to debunk the field.
Warning: Prospective graduates are going to have to work at this
degree. No matchbook universities or mail-order sheepskins here!
--
Standard Disclaimer: Not my employers opinion; "I did this!"
Joe Byczko byc...@gdc.com
Note: Because of extreme site delays I do not see posts in real time
to newsgroup. Email reply to me if response desired on newsgroup.
I will post reply to group.
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler wrote:
> pilots -- and the contemporaneous EM interference was "coincidence" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That should read "simultaneous". Little sleep, long day...
--
Brian Zeiler
Robert Sheaffer
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.96050...@garcia.efn.org>,
Jonathan Waisman <wai...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>Too bad Klass happened to be right on both counts: the autopsy film *was*
>a hoax (duh...money...get the motive?) and so were the MJ-12 documents
>(the format was wrong for the time, though it was close enough to fool
>many). Klass' only fault was that he was right but for the wrong reasons.
Actually, he was right for the *right* reasons, but got a few
small details wrong. On the main points, Klass was exactly
right. Mr. Zeiler, of course, never makes mistakes.
>
>Now tell put your hand on your heart and tell me you actually believe
>that 'UFOlogists' don't ever lie about things to make their case more
>believable. If you said "yes," then you're more gullible than most
>victims of snake oil salesmen.
Often, it's not even "lying," it's pretending that no contrary
arguments exist, ignoring these arguments as much as possible,
misrepresenting them when it is necessary to mention them, and
flinging _ad hominem_ insults at anyone who presents contrary arguments.
In short, by being sneaky and shifty, which is akin to lying,
although technically different. Of course, they also tell lies,
sometimes, too.
>
>UFOlogists make a living preaching this stuff. Want disinformation?
>Listen to them.
Exactly.
--
Robert Sheaffer - Robert....@siemensrolm.com - Skeptical to the Max!
Dean Adams
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>James J. Lippard wrote:
>> Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost
>> underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine,"
>
>Yes, it is.
Ha!! And next Brian will attempt to prove black is white,
up is down, and that aliens use his balcony as landing pad.
> What percentage of the population subscribes to AWST?
Who cares? What percentage of the population subscribes to most
any magazine? Ask a serious question like what percentage of their
target audience subscribes and you will get an extremely high number,
probably one of the highest for any magazine... not to mention the
fact that audience consists almost entirely of aerospace professionals
and government/military officals worldwide.
Oh yea, thats an "underground hobbyist magazine". Ha! Well, you still
have to love it when Brian does such a fantastic job of showcasing his
always wildly distorted view of the world.
>> and I believe Klass was a
>> senior editor there until his retirement. That WAS the primary source of
>> his income, no doubt about it.
>Wow, now THERE is a media mogul! I bet he never made more than $45,000
>per year as "senior editor"
Geez, who gives a rat's ass??
Dean Adams
Lawrence E. McKnight <mckn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>The two biggest events in ufology in the past 10 years, and he flubs
>>both.
>
>Let me see here. The 'two biggest events in ufology' are things which
>are widely acknowledged, even by most proponents of UFOs being alien
>visitors, to be hoaxes?
And that says quite a lot about the state of "ufology"... :)
karl mamer
lip...@Primenet.Com (James J. Lippard) writes:
> Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost
> underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine," and I believe Klass was a
> senior editor there until his retirement. That WAS the primary source of
> his income, no doubt about it.
Actually, Aviation Week is such a respected publication among the
military types that it has become known as Avaition Leek because
of the amount of inside information it gets.
Question is, what top flight magazine does Brian write for?
--
"You know what I wanna do? Strut."
karl mamer
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> writes:
> James J. Lippard wrote:
>
> > Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost
> > underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine,"
>
> .0001%? I bet their circulation isn't even 250,000.
I guess Nature also qualifies as a low bit pub too, eh?
Cluster User
In article <4mvck1$a...@zot.io.org>, kam...@zot.io.org says...
>Question is, what top flight magazine does Brian write for?
Usenet News
Tom Kelly
In article <318E66...@students.wisc.edu>, Brian Zeiler
<bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Dean Adams wrote:
> >
> > Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> > >In fact, consider the biggest two events in ufology in the last 10 years
> > >(arguably the biggest), the MJ-12 papers and the "alien autopsy" hoax.
> > >Klass lost a bet with Friedman related to the typeface of the MJ-12
> > >documents, and then Klass had to concede error for his incorrect
> > >conclusion that the autopsy film was a hoax because of the wall phone
> > >"anachronism". Klass screwed up both.
> >
> > Very funny, you say he "screwed up", yet he was 100% correct
> > in saying both were hoaxes! Its amusing how you manage to
> > forget such important little details.
>
> ROFL! Thanks for *beautifully* illustrating the mindset of a hardcore
> Phil Klass fan. It apparently doesn't bother you that he was right *for
> the wrong reasons*. He was WRONG about the typeface in the MJ-12 papers
> and lost a public bet with Stan Friedman about it. Then he was WRONG
> about the wall phone proving the autopsy film to be a hoax, and he had to
> publish a retraction of his claim in SI. You don't care that he cites
> proven incorrect reasons to bolster his claims. He could declare that
> there is no UFO evidence because the Milwaukee Brewers suck, and you'd
> say "So what? He's still right."
In his never-ending pursuit to convince himself of his UFO theories, Brian
again displays that pathetic UFO mentality which forces him to ignore,
dismiss, and eventually forget all correct criticisms by skeptics.
Klass clearly showed that MJ-12 papers were fraudlent *primarily* because
of the copying of the Truman signature (Klass correctly called it a
"smoking gun"). Amazingly, and apparently blind to its true implications
(perhaps using Brian's mentality?), it was Friedman in his Sept./Oct. 1987
_International UFO Reporter_ who claimed that the "match" confirmed the
authenticity of the signature! (Further evidence of the miracle! Right
Brian?) Let's see, who *royally* screwed up here?
Klass' point about the typeface was among a number of other reasons why
the MJ-12 document was most likely a hoax. Secondly, while he was
incorrect in his UFO newsletter about the wall phone in the alien autopsy
he immediately published a retraction (*nothing* by Klass was published in
SI regarding the alien autopsy). He realized he was wrong and admitted to
it. Freidman for years refused to admit his glaring error with MJ-12--and
to this day I don't know that he ever did. What a shame.
> Phil Klass blew two of the biggest cases in ufology in the last decade
> with erroneous public claims about the evidence, and his fans don't even
> care! As long as this mere journalist tells his rabid fans what they
> *want* to hear, they just don't care if he's wrong -- much less if he
> BLOWS the two biggest ufology cases! Amazing.
Again, he didn't "blow" anything. The MJ-12 papers are clearly fraudulent.
If Phil didn't demonstrate this then who did? Secondly, yes, he was wrong
about the phone in the autopsy film. You were wrong about where Klass
published it (something you'd no doubt use to condemn SI in the future if
I hadn't pointed it out). Mistakes are made and people move on. It's
called the scientific method; or have you heard of that?
> --
> Brian Zeiler
--
-Tom K.
--
-Tom K.
Jonathan Waisman
On Tue, 7 May 1996, Brian Zeiler wrote:
> GK Smiley wrote:
> >
> > Zeiler scores points only when HE keeps score.
>
> Wow, another pointed rebuttal to defend Phil Klass...
>
> --
> Brian Zeiler
>
>
At least Klass makes some sense.
Jonathan Waisman
On Tue, 7 May 1996, Brian Zeiler wrote:
> James J. Lippard wrote:
>
> > Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost
> > underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine,"
>
> Yes, it is. What percentage of the population subscribes to AWST? Maybe
> .0001%? I bet their circulation isn't even 250,000.
>
> > and I believe Klass was a
> > senior editor there until his retirement. That WAS the primary source of
> > his income, no doubt about it.
>
> Wow, now THERE is a media mogul! I bet he never made more than $45,000
> per year as "senior editor", but he probably makes more off book
> royalties and lectures and his newsletter, even if he does give a free
> lecture every so often.
>
> --
> Brian Zeiler
>
>
He's not making nearly as much as these alleged UFO researchers. Look at
Hopkins; the man is an artist; everyone knows the cliche about starving
artists. Do you think he's starving now? How about Streiber? He was a no
account fiction writer, then WHAM, he had alleged alien contact and WHAMO
he's got money up the yin yang.
I suppose there's one; Mack: he was respectable until he left center
field and decided these people were telling him about real experiences
under hypnosis. Seems he never heard that the hypnotist's suggestions can
affect the patient (victim, in his case) because he's made all kinds of
suggestions to his victims over and over again. But the 'believers'
believe him; no, they *worship* him. UFOlogy has become a religion, and
the UFO 'researchers' have become the masters and gurus. It's just like
the 60's when we had Indian Gurus who everyone followed (often to their
grave) but now we have UFO gurus.
Snake oil; there's a sucker born every minute.
Jonathan Waisman
On Tue, 7 May 1996, Brian Zeiler wrote:
> John and Susan Hutchins wrote:
>
> > From what I've been able to gather from this exchange,
> > Klass made a mistake on a couple of details, although
> > his conclusions were correct. Kind of like being
> > confused by convenience stores? ):^)
>
> Not at all like that. These weren't "details". These were the very
> foundations of his conclusions.
>
> First he said the MJ-12 documents were a hoax BECAUSE of the typeface.
> He was proven wrong and had to honor a bet he made with Stan Friedman
> about the typeface. Whether or not he was "right" about the documents is
> irrelevant, because his rationale was flawed that led to his conclusion.
>
> Then he said the autopsy film was a hoax because the wall phone was
> anachronistic. He was proven wrong and he retracted his claim. That's
> hardly a "detail" -- the entire crux of his position was totally
> demolished.
>
> The two biggest events in ufology in the past 10 years, and he flubs
> both.
>
> --
> Brian Zeiler
>
>
He flubbed a few details, but his conclusions were 100% correct. You may
have gotten the details right but your conclusions were 100% wrong. I'll
side with Klass every time.
Brian Zeiler
Jonathan Waisman wrote:
> He flubbed a few details, but his conclusions were 100% correct. You may
> have gotten the details right but your conclusions were 100% wrong. I'll
> side with Klass every time.
MY conclusions were wrong? When have I EVER defended the autopsy film or
MJ-12 documents as being authentic and legitimate? Never! Even when I
discuss the MJ-12 documents, I explicitly say that it's likely a hoax but
it was likely forged from inside the government because of the
necessarily huge amounts of access into the people's private professional
lives. ANYBODY with an ounce of intellectual honesty that expends one
calorie actually READING Friedman's huge, exhaustive list of FACTS that
were in the MJ-12 documents will realize that it's IMPOSSIBLE for some
civilian clown to drum up those documents with such accuracy. The date
of the meeting, Menzel's clearance, etc. -- if you don't think it was an
inside job, it has to be THE SINGLE BIGGEST coincidence in the history of
mankind.
Of course, the likelihood of an inside job doesn't validate the contents
about the EBEs. An *honest* skeptic would concede that it was probably
an inside job, but that perhaps the government has no aliens and instead
uses UFO researches as lab rats for psychological experimentation.
Either way, the origin of the documents is inescapably clear.
But I digress. The point is that you're wrong if you think I ever
defended the authenticity of the documents and the autopsy film.
--
Brian Zeiler
Daniel G. Walimaa
In <4mtg6o$1...@italy.eng.sc.rolm.com> shea...@italy.eng.sc.rolm.com
(Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>Often, it's not even "lying," it's pretending that no contrary
>arguments exist, ignoring these arguments as much as possible,
>misrepresenting them when it is necessary to mention them, and
>flinging _ad hominem_ insults at anyone who presents contrary
>arguments.
>In short, by being sneaky and shifty, which is akin to lying,
>although technically different. Of course, they also tell lies,
>sometimes, too.
Yeah I agree, those skeptibunkers are some pretty shady characters
alright! I'm with you all the way 100% on this one pal!
>>UFOlogists make a living preaching this stuff. Want disinformation?
>>Listen to them.
Oops! I thought that you were referring to skeptibunkers! The
similarities are amazing! My mistake! :>
Dan W.
>Exactly.
>--
>
>
>Robert Sheaffer - Robert....@siemensrolm.com - Skeptical to the
Max!
Dan Walimaa - Not deaf, dumb or BLIND! :>
Daniel G. Walimaa
In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960509...@garcia.efn.org> Jonathan
Waisman <wai...@efn.org> writes:
>He flubbed a few details, but his conclusions were 100% correct. You
>may have gotten the details right but your conclusions were 100%
>wrong. I'll side with Klass every time.
Well that's mighty kind of you! And believe me, Klass will be needing
ALL the help that he can get over the next few years because the
evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial visitation is mounting!
It's getting to be too much for one man to handle! :>
Dan W.
Gerrie Louden
Listen, people, you know the old saying, "a person convinced against
his will is of the same opinion still"? Don't ANYbody waste your
breath!
There are three categories of people where UFO's are concerned:
1)believers 2)non-believers, and 3) those who aren't sure (like me),
but accept the POSSIBILITY of existence of alien life forms.
The US government has done a bang-up job of hiding/destroying evidence,
threatening people, undermining reputations and credibilities, etc., in
a HOST of various areas. Not only ufo's. Individuals and agencies are
given power and authority they are nowhere near qualified for, and so
abuses occur OFTEN. They think the American public is pretty dumb.
Look at it logically: we KNOW there are billions and billions of stars
and galaxies out there, so where do we get off being so arrogant as to
think we're the ONLY intelligent beings in the whole universe? The
mathematical odds are against it. To Christians (and I'm one), I say
the same thing, NOTHING precludes the possibility of "other" creations.
And if there COULD be, maybe there are other inhabited planets.
Again, where do we get off being so arrogant as to think we'd be the
MOST ADVANCED civilization? Again, the mathematical odds are against
it. And those civilizations that would be advanced enough to travel,
why could they NOT have found and visited us??? The odds are for it.
People believe in the theory of evolution with a lot less documented
proof than we have for some encounters, sightings or abductions.
And as for Carl Sagan, I love his logic: (NOT!!): because it's possible
for a hypnotist or therapist to create "false" memories, therefore ALL
of the memories people have of abductions or encounters are false???
What an arrogant man he is!!! To people like him I say I hope the
aliens find and abduct YOU!!! Then we'll see you change your tune and
have YOU laughed at!
Oh, the other logic: because SOME pictures and stories are faked, it
means they ALL are? Good one, people, glad you're not computer
programmers or we'd never have pentiums!
And to those who WASTE their and everybody else's time posting
criticism on a newsgroup meant FOR believers to communicate, I say,
PLEASE, people, grow up and get your OWN newsgroup(and get a life too,
while you're at it!)...title it UFO Debunking or something. Have a
ball, but don't rain on everybody else's parade! And if you DO make
your own newsgroup, believers, stay out of it, don't waste your or
their time.
When I get into this newsgroup, I'm looking for information/comments on
information...not mudslinging.
By the way, I'm in the third group, I personally haven't experienced
anything but I do know people who have (including my parents who had a
simple sighting in the mid-to-late 50's when I was a child and told me
about it the next morning). The more we learn in science the more we
realize we DON'T know, so to me, ANYTHING is possible.
If evolution could have happened why can't there be ufo's? I think we
know just enough to be dangerous about such things. So knock it off,
people, live and let live!
Gerrie Louden
Ger...@ix.netcom.com
Jonathan Waisman
On Thu, 9 May 1996, Dean Adams wrote:
>
> Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >James J. Lippard wrote:
> >> Um, Brian, _Aviation Week and Space Technology_ is NOT an "almost
> >> underground low-circulation hobbyist magazine,"
> >
> >Yes, it is.
>
> Ha!! And next Brian will attempt to prove black is white,
> up is down, and that aliens use his balcony as landing pad.
>
> > What percentage of the population subscribes to AWST?
>
> Who cares? What percentage of the population subscribes to most
> any magazine? Ask a serious question like what percentage of their
> target audience subscribes and you will get an extremely high number,
> probably one of the highest for any magazine... not to mention the
> fact that audience consists almost entirely of aerospace professionals
> and government/military officals worldwide.
>
> Oh yea, thats an "underground hobbyist magazine". Ha! Well, you still
> have to love it when Brian does such a fantastic job of showcasing his
> always wildly distorted view of the world.
>
> >> and I believe Klass was a
> >> senior editor there until his retirement. That WAS the primary source of
> >> his income, no doubt about it.
> >Wow, now THERE is a media mogul! I bet he never made more than $45,000
> >per year as "senior editor"
>
> Geez, who gives a rat's ass??
>
>
>
Brian, apparently: he thinks the more you make, the more credible you
are; thus he believes the UFO hucksters are the most reliable people in
the world because of their 5 figure income selling snake oil to the
public.
Gilgamesh
"Jim H." <jah...@ukcc.uky.edu> wrote:
>-Jim H.
Dude MUFON debunks whatever it can't get its hands on.
MUFON is also the biggest liars in the field if you have ever bothered
to look into MUFON, and I would not doubt MUFON plays some role
with the govt. in suppressing info, which they do all to well.
Go to the MUFON web sit, what do you see??
Nothing but how to get $30 buck from you. You do not see reports
or articles etc. There is nothing that MUFON has done that has really
helped the UFO community. MUFON derails attention from anything
they cannot make money on.
Mexico City is but one example. then the other stuff that is good
that you may have never heard about, because MUFON got a hand in
debunking it. Not researching it, debunking it. Look into MUFON
folks, they are a joke.
--
OVNI CHAPTERHOUSE-
on PARANORMAL BORDERLINE May 14th, 1996
http://www.netzone.com/~gilgash/ufoovni.htm
Richard Barnett
In <4n08up$g...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> ger...@ix.netcom.com(Gerrie
Louden) writes:
<snip>
>
>People believe in the theory of evolution with a lot less documented
>proof than we have for some encounters, sightings or abductions.
>
Uh, hardly Gerrie...we have literally THOUSANDS of fossils, of
diffent & measurable ages, from different rock strata around the world.
All we have of "abducties" are a few nut cases on the talk show
circuit.
>And as for Carl Sagan, I love his logic: (NOT!!): because it's
possible
>for a hypnotist or therapist to create "false" memories, therefore ALL
>of the memories people have of abductions or encounters are false???
>What an arrogant man he is!!! To people like him I say I hope the
>aliens find and abduct YOU!!! Then we'll see you change your tune and
>have YOU laughed at!
>
Lots of people "saw" mermaids & Nessie, too - that doesen't mean EITHER
ever existed.
>Oh, the other logic: because SOME pictures and stories are faked, it
>means they ALL are? Good one, people, glad you're not computer
>programmers or we'd never have pentiums!
>
Uh, your going to have to back up and explain that little "analogy" for
me there, Gerrie.
>And to those who WASTE their and everybody else's time posting
>criticism on a newsgroup meant FOR believers to communicate, I say,
>PLEASE, people, grow up and get your OWN newsgroup(and get a life too,
>while you're at it!)...title it UFO Debunking or something. Have a
>ball, but don't rain on everybody else's parade! And if you DO make
>your own newsgroup, believers, stay out of it, don't waste your or
>their time.
>
Grow up, Gerrie. As long as people make these claims, others will say
"prove it." This is the very ESSENCE of the scientific method. If
these claims can't stand up to rational scrutiny, then they must be
rejected.
<snip>
>
>If evolution could have happened why can't there be ufo's? I think we
>know just enough to be dangerous about such things. So knock it off,
>people, live and let live!
>
There is no connection here. One is a biological process, the other is
a body of as yet unsubstantiated claims.
>Gerrie Louden
>Ger...@ix.netcom.com
>
By the way, Gerrie (& other "True Believers"): to say that you doubt
we are being visited by little green (er, "Gray") space friends is NOT
to say that you doubt that life (& possibly intelligent life) exists
elswhere in the universe. I would propose that this is HIGHLY likely;
hence programs like SETI. To say that they are here, buzzing around,
abducting folks & mutilating cattle or whatever is VERY VERY UNLIKELY.
Two entirely different issues here.
Rusty
Xcott Craver
In article <4n08up$g...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Gerrie Louden <ger...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Listen, people, you know the old saying, "a person convinced against
>his will is of the same opinion still"? Don't ANYbody waste your
>breath!
This is the part I agree with. And now, page two:
>The US government has done a bang-up job of hiding/destroying evidence,
>threatening people, undermining reputations and credibilities, etc., in
>a HOST of various areas. Not only ufo's. Individuals and agencies are
>given power and authority they are nowhere near qualified for, and so
>abuses occur OFTEN. They think the American public is pretty dumb.
These are pretty general statements, and I would say that most of them
are based on assumptions of some sort of conspiracy. If the gov't has
done such a bang-up job, and if said hiding/destroying of evidence occurs
so "OFTEN," then certainly you could provide a few concrete examples,
hopefully relevant to ufo's.
>Look at it logically: we KNOW there are billions and billions of stars
>and galaxies out there, so where do we get off being so arrogant as to
>think we're the ONLY intelligent beings in the whole universe? The
>mathematical odds are against it.
The "mathematical odds?" You don't know any odds. Nobody knows the
'odds' that we are the only intelligent beings, for no such odds are
calculable. I keep hearing people tell me that "mathematically", it's very
likely there are other alien civilizations. Mathematics, sir, is formal
and careful --- we don't make such statements unless we can prove them
explicitly. I dare you to provide a reference to some work that states
the odds of other intelligent beings; not someone that just pulls some
number out of 'is arse, but a number with a decent explanation of its
derivation.
Oh, I know the odds of intelligent life elsewhere have been estimated
numerous times. I'm just wondering if you've ever actually read any of them,
or just heard that "the odds are against it" from a friend of a friend.
>MOST ADVANCED civilization? Again, the mathematical odds are against
>it. And those civilizations that would be advanced enough to travel,
>why could they NOT have found and visited us??? The odds are for it.
Well, even if we accept that the "odds are for" other civilizations,
how do you conclude that the odds are for civilizations capable of visiting
Earth? An alien civilization could easily be more advanced than us, but
that doesn't give them the ability to travel across the cosmos to visit us.
Some limits, like the speed of light (no, let's not get into this) may
or may not be absolute limits on how fast an alien civilization can travel,
and if they even know our planet is inhabited. There's no way one could
even estimate the "odds" that an alien civilization (assuming one exists)
could have the technology to visit us. Saying that "the odds are for it"
is really just generalized pseudomathofluff.
>People believe in the theory of evolution with a lot less documented
>proof than we have for some encounters, sightings or abductions.
Um, encounters et. al. are one-shot things - we can listen to stories
of alleged abductees, but we can't be there during the actual abductions.
Our data is very limited. As for evolution, we have an entire planet-full
of fossils. There's a major difference, and we certainly have much more
documented evidence of prehistory than there is of sightings, etc. etc.
>And as for Carl Sagan, I love his logic: (NOT!!): because it's possible
>for a hypnotist or therapist to create "false" memories, therefore ALL
>of the memories people have of abductions or encounters are false???
>What an arrogant man he is!!! To people like him I say I hope the
>aliens find and abduct YOU!!! Then we'll see you change your tune and
>have YOU laughed at!
Carl Sagan, like most skeptical people, never said that all memories
are false simply because false memories can be created. Sagan simply
says that accounts of abductions given under hypnosis, etc. etc., by
themselves cannot be considered solid evidence, for the reason that that
kind of evidence is easily fakeable.
>Oh, the other logic: because SOME pictures and stories are faked, it
>means they ALL are? Good one, people, glad you're not computer
>programmers or we'd never have pentiums!
As a computer programmer, I must remind you that programmers don't
design or fabricate HARDWARE. By definition, programmers make SOFTWARE.
Just a lil' nitpick, sorry for bringing it up. But again, the point is
that if a photograph is easily fakeable, then we must analyze them
carefully and with numerous grains of salt. Photos are not rock-solid
evidence, especially in our modern age. This is far from saying that
all photos, etc. are faked. Could you provide an actual quote from
Sagan saying anything you're telling us he's saying?
>And to those who WASTE their and everybody else's time posting
>criticism on a newsgroup meant FOR believers to communicate, I say,
>PLEASE, people, grow up and get your OWN newsgroup
But this is silly, and you know it. How can a discussion of the
paranormal ensue if nobody is allowed to debate the reality of the
paranormal?
> The more we learn in science the more we
>realize we DON'T know, so to me, ANYTHING is possible.
Again, I hear general phrases like this ALOT from non-scientists.
Dean Adams
Gilgamesh <gil...@netzone.com> wrote:
>Dude MUFON debunks whatever it can't get its hands on.
>MUFON is also the biggest liars in the field if you have ever bothered
>to look into MUFON, and I would not doubt MUFON plays some role
>with the govt. in suppressing info, which they do all to well.
Heh, heh, heh. That is beautiful! A perfect example of what even
injecting the slightest hint of rationality/science/skepticism into
the realm of UFOlogy can do to the hard-core gullible believers.
They are OUTRAGED! Actually "debunking" a case is BLASPHEMY!
How DARE anyone point out when something is a hoax, fraud,
misidentification, etc. No true UFOlogist would ever do
anything like that!
>Mexico City is but one example.
Indeed. MUFON (amazingly) had the courage to admit it was all
based on nothing... and look what happens, wide-eyed fanatical
believers (like you gilligan), turn on them in a second.
Obviously skepticism is not to be tolerated! But that is
hardly news, since the gullible believer corps prove that
here on a daily basis by endlessly attacking anyone who
*dares* to hold a skeptical position.
Sourcerer
>Gilgamesh <gil...@netzone.com> wrote:
>>Dude MUFON debunks whatever it can't get its hands on.
>>MUFON is also the biggest liars in the field if you have ever bothered
>>to look into MUFON, and I would not doubt MUFON plays some role
>>with the govt. in suppressing info, which they do all to well.
>Heh, heh, heh. That is beautiful! A perfect example of what even
>injecting the slightest hint of rationality/science/skepticism into
>the realm of UFOlogy can do to the hard-core gullible believers.
>They are OUTRAGED! Actually "debunking" a case is BLASPHEMY!
>How DARE anyone point out when something is a hoax, fraud,
>misidentification, etc. No true UFOlogist would ever do
>anything like that!
So, are you asserting the rationality/science/skepticism of MUFON?
--
(__) Sourcerer
/(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O "There was a crack in his head and a little
\../ |OO|||O|||O|| bit of the Dark World came through and
|| OO|||OO||O||O pressed him to death." -- Kipling
John and Susan Hutchins
rr...@ix.netcom.com(Richard Barnett) wrote:
snip
>By the way, Gerrie (& other "True Believers"): to say that you doubt
>we are being visited by little green (er, "Gray") space friends is NOT
>to say that you doubt that life (& possibly intelligent life) exists
>elswhere in the universe. I would propose that this is HIGHLY likely;
>hence programs like SETI. To say that they are here, buzzing around,
>abducting folks & mutilating cattle or whatever is VERY VERY UNLIKELY.
>Two entirely different issues here.
>Rusty
Finally, something I can agree with 100%. Thank you for posting it.
John Hutchins
Jeremy Bee
I would like to point out in regards Klass that whatever his accuracy or
innaccuracy rate on popular debunking of the autopsy or MJ-12, interested
*objective* types who want a scientific explanation, should seriously question
their Klass advocacy.
HIs entire career is based on the sucess of his "plasma ball" theory which (as
presented by him) is both illogical and unsubstantiated. His first book on
the topic, (again the thing he is most famous for) is absolute junk from a
scientific or logical standpoint. It is full of logical errors and poor
reasoning at best.
He is very sucessfull in debunking because:
a) 90% of the stuff *is* crap, therefore by denying everything he is
automatically right 90% of the time.
b) He is flamboyant and articulate, and is capable of producing those sound an
video "bites" that the news is looking for.
c) He is aided by the "blinders" that the UFO community has in regards
*obvious* fakes and hoaxes, (the autopsy)
If you take even a cursory look at his methodology on the other hand, it is
poor at best. He does not follow the scientific method even as much as some
"pro-UFO" investigators. He has also yet to put forward any kind of plausible
theory for the explanation of the core phenomenon other than the plasma-ball
hypothesis which has already been shot full of holes as far as an explanation
for most of the sifghtings he uses it for. He has also lined himself up, (or
at least not complained when others lined him up) with the loonie theories of
people like Michael Persinger. He has no objection to poorly reasoned,
"loonie" theories, as long as they are consistent with *his* opinion rather
than with anyone elses.
Jeremy
James J. Lippard
In article <4n30ac$6...@tofu.alt.net>, Jeremy Bee <b...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>I would like to point out in regards Klass that whatever his accuracy or
>innaccuracy rate on popular debunking of the autopsy or MJ-12, interested
>*objective* types who want a scientific explanation, should seriously question
>their Klass advocacy.
>
>HIs entire career is based on the sucess of his "plasma ball" theory which (as
>presented by him) is both illogical and unsubstantiated. His first book on
>the topic, (again the thing he is most famous for) is absolute junk from a
>scientific or logical standpoint. It is full of logical errors and poor
>reasoning at best.
Rubbish. To the best of my knowledge Klass wrote one book that put forth
this theory--I'm not aware of anything he's written in the last 20 years
which is based on it.
If this is the centerpiece of YOUR argument against Klass, I'm afraid
it fails miserably.
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04
Mr. Fun
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Subject: Who is Phil Klass?
>Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 22:52:11 -0700
>From: Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu>
>Organization: University of Wisconsin
>Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic
>References: <4khapm$c...@news.tiac.net> <mike.hofmeister-...@sg035.nafb.trw.com> <4m7fem$f...@tuegate.tue.nl> <3187CF...@students.wisc.edu> <4m9
>
>Louis Nick III wrote:
>
>> Know what? I've been on AAV off and on for 3 years, and I still don't
>> know who Klass is. Got anything objective to offer on the d00d?
>
>Phil Klass has been a UFO skeptic for decades, and he heads the CSICOP
>UFO Subcommittee. He has an enormous following among academic scientists
>that consider themselves to be UFO skeptics, and he has written at least
>two UFO debunking books. He also publishes his own UFO skeptic
>periodical. He has also been a contributing writer for Aviation Week &
>Space Technology.
>
>Klass is most notable for his total incompetence at explaining UFO cases.
That is not "substantive". It is just your unfounded opinion.
>First of all, he is not a scientist. He's a journalist. He has no
>formal scientific training, and he simply writes for a magazine by day
>and debunks UFOs by night. Thus, it is remarkable that scientists give
>him so much scientific credibility.
>
Any credibility they give him is based on what he had DONE, in total, not just
on his school background. I don't believe he's ever claimed he's "a
scientist" anyway so your point is pointless in that regard. One need not be
a scientist to debunk the nonsense put out by UFOlogists. Any clear thinker
with a high school education can out think the typical UFOlogist.
>Klass regularly offers pseudoscientific explanations that other
>scientists -- not necessarily UFO proponents -- have utterly annihilated
>with serious scrutiny.
Perhaps if you offered some basis for this statement it would carry some
weight. But you didn't and it carries none.
Klass was most famous for his "plasma ball"
>hypothesis for explaining UFOs,
To say that's what he's most famous for is nonsense. He's famous for
consistently coming forward when the UFO proponents have presented their
"thoroughly researched cases" and in a few days of investigation blowing their
cases out of the water. A very good example would be the Travis Walton case.
The Notable UFOlogists who investigated and reported didn't find, or choose to
keep silent about such things as the failed polygraph tests and the results of
Travis's urinalysis. Both cast doubt on Travis's story and were ignored (the
best light you can put on it) or purposely covered up by the UFOlogoists who
investigated. Klass uncovered the truth - that Travis failed the polygraph
and that his urinalysis results did not support his claim that he had not
eaten in several days.
because the self-luminosity, sharp
>maneuvers, and electromagnetic effects can be explained by this
>hypothesis. However, atmospheric physicists like Dr. McDonald and others
>instantly pointed out that plasma balls don't form under clear, calm
>atmospheric conditions and last for several hours.
The offered their opinions, that's all.
So, the plasma ball
>explanation for the Exeter UFO incident collapsed, and so did the plasma
>ball hypothesis in its broadest sense.
Not really. It's more a case that there seems to be no way to prove the
plasma ball theory combined with other theories being also possible.
That's when Klass decided that
>there really aren't any EM effects if he can't explain them, so he
>suddenly decided that EM effects have to be mere coincidence if plasma
>balls can't explain them.
>
Sounds like more brian opinion that has no substantiation behind it.
>Aside from the plasma ball fiasco,
There was no fiasco. Delusions on your part would be more like it.
Klass's research is also characterized
>by other examples of pseudoscience as well as research methodologies that
>would make any academic cringe. He has offered the hypothesis that
>Perseids can travel at merely 4,000 mph while also not creating a shock
>wave at several thousand feet at hypersonic speeds. Pure garbage. He
>also offers radar echo explanations with temperature inversions making
>maneuvers and displaying echo strength that temperature inversions simply
>cannot make.
Substantiation for your claims would be ????? Are you trained in those
areas?? I thought not.
Atmospheric physicists like Dr. McDonald have rightfully
>destroyed his explanations in this area as well.
How did they do this. Your saying they did doesn't make it so. You presented
nothing so far but your opinions.
He also uses anonymous
>sources, as with the Tehran case, upon which much of his case rests.
>Apparently only UFO debunkers who derive significant income and public
>prominence from debunking UFOs are allowed to use anonymous sources for
>their research.
Again, this is just more ranting on your part. It neither proves nor
disproves who's right about the Tehran case.
>
>And whenever Klass is at a total loss for an explanation, he goes for the
>last "terrestrial explanation" -- character assassination.
Are you sure you aren't confusing him with yourself. Talk about someone
trying to engage in character assassination. Look in the mirror.
If the case
>can't be explained, it *must* have been a hoax, even if all available
>evidence indicates that an anomalous event occurred that was not the
>product of a hoaxer, such as with the Zamora case, in which Klass is the
>only person that accused him of hoax.
About the only major fault Klass has is he is sometimes brutally honest.
Unlike some, he will call a possible hoax a possible hoax. There are several
aspects to the Zamora case that suggest it might have been a hoax. The
appearance of the burn marks for one.
Dr. Hynek, the USAF, the CIA, and
>White Sands ALL agreed that something happened. But the journalist says
>it's a hoax, so it must be a hoax
A hoax is still "something happening" so as usual your point is pointless.
-- despite the anomalous substances
>analyzed at Goddard, the landing marks, the scorched shrubbery, and the
>obvious fact that a rookie cop with an intellect above retardation would
>save his UFO hoax for off-hours, not on duty, since his mental competence
>would come into question, especially back then. But that doesn't stop
>Klass -- you see, the sighting occurred on the mayor's property, which
>means that the mayor must have staged the hoax to attract tourists, other
>evidence be damned.
Doesn't seem to have stopped you either. How come you attack Klass for
drawing HIS conclusions yet you have no compunctions about drawing your own??
The old double standard in action.
>
>Between his pseudoscientific explanations that drastically rewrite
>atmospheric physics as we know it and his shady research tactics of using
>anonymous sources, Klass is clearly completely useless as a competent
>source for UFO research.
Opinion, nothing more, and certainly not substantive.
Amazingly, his followers include scientists
>that uncritically swallow every word he says without attempting to read
>critical reviews of his research by atmospheric physicists who demolish
>his various pseudoscientific explanations.
Again, nothing substantive, just more flaming opinion by an untrained wanna
be.
These same followers also
>don't mind that a journalist is trying to argue with atmospheric
>physicists about atmospheric physics and *losing* in the process. And
>these same followers also don't mind listening to a *journalist* give
>explanations that rely on "sources who wish to remain anonymous".
>
Gosh, how galling it must be for you that they listen to someone like Klass,
with a track record for showing up UFOLOGISTS for the incompetents most of
them are, rather then listen to someone like you, an obviously brilliant and
trained scientist with a full grasp of all these technical subjects.
>This illustrates beyond ANY doubt that UFO "skeptics" who listen to Klass
>are clearly uncritical sheep following their pseudoscientific,
>uncredentialed shepherd simply because he tells them what they *want* to
>hear, ignoring his shoddy research methodologies and crackpot science.
>
>--
>Brian Zeiler
>
>--------
Actually, it illustrates once again that you haven't the slightest idea of how
to put together a rational presentation of anything. You've just made your
usual string of unsubstantiated claims and character attacks against all who
don't toe the party line.
Mr. Fun
dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:
>
>Lawrence E. McKnight <mckn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>>The two biggest events in ufology in the past 10 years, and he flubs
>>>both.
>>
>>Let me see here. The 'two biggest events in ufology' are things which
>>are widely acknowledged, even by most proponents of UFOs being alien
>>visitors, to be hoaxes?
>
>And that says quite a lot about the state of "ufology"... :)
>
And Brian is so clueless that he points them out as both *the biggest* and
tacitly admits both *are hoaxes* and yet he doesn't see where that leads.....
Gerrie Louden
>Mathematics, sir, is formal
>and careful --- we don't make such statements unless we can prove them
>explicitly. I dare you to provide a reference to some work that
states
>the odds of other intelligent beings; not someone that just pulls some
>number out of 'is arse, but a number with a decent explanation of its
>derivation.
>
> Oh, I know the odds of intelligent life elsewhere have been
estimated
>numerous times. I'm just wondering if you've ever actually read any
of them,
>or just heard that "the odds are against it" from a friend of a
friend.
>
>even estimate the "odds" that an alien civilization (assuming one
exists)
>could have the technology to visit us. Saying that "the odds are for
it"
>is really just generalized pseudomathofluff.
.........................................................
Response:
OK, so I'm not a mathematician. I was referring, admittedly, to
generalized logic. And what's wrong with THAT? My point is WE DON'T
KNOW, do we? There are people who claim some EXPERIENCE with these
things. I'm not suggesting we go off half-cocked and believe it either
way, I'm merely pointing out that IT IS POSSIBLE. I'm not even
suggesting that it is VERY probable. Just POSSIBLE.
You sound like you ARE a mathematician. So why not do us all a favor
and show your skill and work out these odds for us?
............................................
> Um, encounters et. al. are one-shot things - we can listen to
stories
>of alleged abductees, but we can't be there during the actual
abductions.
Response:
Real interesting, though, how the number of these stories is growing
and once in a while there is some physical evidence (however
inconclusive) accompanying the story. Again, I'm not saying it IS, I'm
saying it COULD BE TRUE.
..............................................
>Our data is very limited. As for evolution, we have an entire
planet-full
>of fossils. There's a major difference, and we certainly have much
more
>documented evidence of prehistory than there is of sightings, etc.
etc.
>
Response:
Excuse me? We have fossils that prove that "X" creature EXISTED. We
have NO PROOF that evolution is how we got here. No "missing links"
have ever been found, no witnesses, etc. It's detective work at the
very best. All there is "proof" of is that we have a bunch of life
forms that existed at different times...there are no intergenerational
proofs of one species becoming another. Again, though, I say it's very
POSSIBLE that evolution did happen. But there is no PROOF. Not if you
are honest with the "evidence" you DO have.
To take a bunch of fossils and DEDUCE that this species slowly evolved
into that species gives no better proof than saying "x" number of
people claim to have witnessed or experienced an encounter/abduction or
whatever, therefore it did or did not happen.
>..................................................................
>that if a photograph is easily fakeable, then we must analyze them
>carefully and with numerous grains of salt. Photos are not rock-solid
>evidence, especially in our modern age. This is far from saying that
>all photos, etc. are faked. Could you provide an actual quote from
>Sagan saying anything you're telling us he's saying?
>
Response:
>I have no verbatim quotes, I heard him myself but didn't record
anything. I'm referring, however, to an episode of Nova, I think, on
PBS, about abductees' stories and interviews with a hypnotherapist and
Carl Sagan, etc. The program as a WHOLE heavily implicated that
because it IS possible to induce false memories, it therefore casts
GREAT DOUBT on ALL such memories.
I hate when the equation "if some are, then all must likely be" is put
forth by such "notables". It is insulting to those who HAVE
experienced such things, and arrogant at the very least. I agree with
thim that there likely are people who are caught up in an abductee fad.
But it doesn't preclude the truthfulness/reality of SOME people's
stories.
>.........................................................
> The more we learn in science the more we
>>realize we DON'T know, so to me, ANYTHING is possible.
>
> Again, I hear general phrases like this ALOT from non-scientists.
Response:
OH, and that is SO disgusting to hear a non-scientist try and enter
the scientific world! Well, you know what? I said that because I've
read articles quoting SCIENTISTS saying that! And the articles are on
the subject of astronomy and physics. Scientists have been QUOTED as
saying wow, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know and
have YET to learn. Is it so bad for a "non" scientist to quote a
scientist?
Again, the WHOLE POINT of my post is merely to express the definite
POSSIBILITY of many things that we don't YET have concrete proof of
(evolution included).
Thank you for your response, and the time it took to write it.
Gerrie
Jake Willis
In article <4mqm1m$d...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, Garry Bryan <ga...@sr.hp.com>
writes
>karl mamer (kam...@zap.io.org) wrote:
>: "Dr. R .X. Frager" <rfr...@teleport.com> writes:
>: > 1) Attack the person not the evidence. ---- As listed above, the
>: > preponderance of evidence to establish the existence of
>: > extraterrestrials and their other-worldly crafts is overwhelming. So
>
>: Actually, incredible claims required incredible levels of proof.
>: the preponderance of the evidence does not support such a conclusion.
>: Produce a body. Produce impossible technology. That is the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: level of evidence required.
>
>But wouldn't that be. . .well. . .IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
>
>Garry (%^{>
>
I agree with Garry! We probabaly would not recognise the technology if
saw it?????
--
Jake (-: |"At times it is better to bend with the wind than break,
enjoy life, | at other times it is better to break wind first"
ride a motorbike | Jake (alleged philospher)
Dean Adams
Sourcerer <vag...@inanna.eanna.org> wrote:
>In article <dadamsDr...@netcom.com>, Dean Adams <dad...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Gilgamesh <gil...@netzone.com> wrote:
>>>Dude MUFON debunks whatever it can't get its hands on.
>>>MUFON is also the biggest liars in the field if you have ever bothered
>>>to look into MUFON, and I would not doubt MUFON plays some role
>>>with the govt. in suppressing info, which they do all to well.
>
>>Heh, heh, heh. That is beautiful! A perfect example of what even
>>injecting the slightest hint of rationality/science/skepticism into
>>the realm of UFOlogy can do to the hard-core gullible believers.
>
>>They are OUTRAGED! Actually "debunking" a case is BLASPHEMY!
>>How DARE anyone point out when something is a hoax, fraud,
>>misidentification, etc. No true UFOlogist would ever do
>>anything like that!
>
>So, are you asserting the rationality/science/skepticism of MUFON?
I said it seems they have dabbled with at least a hint of skepticism
at times. If MUFON is standing firm with their (accurate) conclusion
that the whole "mexico city flap" was due to nothing more than Venus
and a lot of over-active imaginations, then they certainly deserve
some praise.
Unfortunately that kind of rationality seems far more the exception
than the rule for MUFON. They still continue to blindly support the
whole ridiculous "abduction" fantasy, and many other empty icons of
the UFOism sect.
Dean Adams
Heh. Yea, you gotta love the kid! :>
tran...@mhv.net
In article <4n07bg$o...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, danw...@ix.netcom.com(Daniel G. Walimaa ) wrote:
>In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960509...@garcia.efn.org> Jonathan
>Waisman <wai...@efn.org> writes:
>
>>He flubbed a few details, but his conclusions were 100% correct. You
>>may have gotten the details right but your conclusions were 100%
>>wrong. I'll side with Klass every time.
>
>Well that's mighty kind of you! And believe me, Klass will be needing
>ALL the help that he can get over the next few years because the
>evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial visitation is mounting!
>It's getting to be too much for one man to handle! :>
>Dan W.
The evidence is mounting? Where? I see the same old nonsense and hear the
same old stories. I don't see ANY evidence.
Tom
Tom Randall Amateur Radio - KB2SMS
tran...@mhv.net Mt. Beacon Amateur Radio Club / ARRL
Member: AAVSO Solar Division
Opinions herein are mine and may not be that of MHV.NET!
Bruce Hutchinson
ger...@ix.netcom.com(Gerrie Louden) scribed:
>Listen, people, you know the old saying, "a person convinced against
>his will is of the same opinion still"? Don't ANYbody waste your
>breath!
True... but without the give-and-take of debate, false or mis-leading
opinions can become "fact" very quickly. Most opinions one has are formed
from an evaluation of input from many sides of an issue. The individual
then has to assign values to the input to arrive at his/her own opinion.
If the polarity of different people on these ng's were taken away, you
would be exposed to only one side of the story.
>The US government has done a bang-up job of hiding/destroying evidence,
>threatening people, undermining reputations and credibilities, etc., in
>a HOST of various areas. Not only ufo's.
Ahhh... the ever present spectre of Gummint c'spriacy.
>Look at it logically: we KNOW there are billions and billions of stars
>and galaxies out there, so where do we get off being so arrogant as to
>think we're the ONLY intelligent beings in the whole universe? The
>mathematical odds are against it.
The odds that another civilization of intellgent beings is-or was- out
there is very good. These beings could be ahead, behind or on a par with
us in "intelligence". Most skepics agree on that point. Please don't
parrot the accuations leveled at us by the UFO nuts. Our divergence of
opinions occur when they claim the odds are in favor that "they" are
visiting Earth.
>People believe in the theory of evolution with a lot less documented
>proof than we have for some encounters, sightings or abductions.
The overwhelming body of evidence points to evolution. There exists for
all to see carefully documented fossil and archiological artifacts that
lead to this theory. There are still many points to be resolved and still
a lot of work to be done, but the preponderance of data for a general
"Theory of Evolution" is pretty impressive. (incidently, no one in the
field is looking for the "Missing Link". That term is a creation of the
media.) As to the existence of UFO's, there is very little evidence. Most
of it is anecdotal with no physical evidence whatsoever.
>And as for Carl Sagan, I love his logic: (NOT!!): because it's possible
>for a hypnotist or therapist to create "false" memories, therefore ALL
>of the memories people have of abductions or encounters are false???
Here is a little challange for you. Pick an event that happened, say, ten
years ago in the company of other people. Without consulting anybody,
looking at photographs, souvenirs, etc, write a description of that event.
Now ask the others who were there to do the same thing- under the same
conditions. When you compare these narratives, you *will* find a highly
divergent views of that event.
The human memory system is highly selective and error prone. Hyponotists
and/or therapists, even if they are not "implanting" false memories, can
only bring out what that individual has chosen to archive.
>And to those who WASTE their and everybody else's time posting
>criticism on a newsgroup meant FOR believers to communicate,
You posted this troll to sci.secptic. If you don't want opposing
viewpoints, then stay out of here! This is a ng set up for the discussion
of skepicisim. Why are YOU wasting bandwidth posting your irrational
beliefs here? It's really very simple....
>The more we learn in science the more we
>realize we DON'T know, so to me, ANYTHING is possible.
Double edged comment. By that argument, you could claim it is possible
that the next baby born at your local hospital will grow up to have twelve
foot wings and the trunk of an elephant. There are always some practical
limits to the term "ANYTHING".
>So knock it off,
>people, live and let live!
If all you want is reinforcement of your belief structure, this is the
wrong place to be. You have x-posted to sci.sceptic a plea to be left
alone so you can wallow in your little world without "interference". I
might be tempted to say "follow your own advice" , but I won't. :)
hutch
Greg
ger...@ix.netcom.com(Gerrie Louden) wrote:
<snip>
>Response:
>>I have no verbatim quotes, I heard him myself but didn't record
>anything. I'm referring, however, to an episode of Nova, I think, on
>PBS, about abductees' stories and interviews with a hypnotherapist and
>Carl Sagan, etc. The program as a WHOLE heavily implicated that
>because it IS possible to induce false memories, it therefore casts
>GREAT DOUBT on ALL such memories.
>I hate when the equation "if some are, then all must likely be" is put
>forth by such "notables". It is insulting to those who HAVE
>experienced such things, and arrogant at the very least. I agree with
>thim that there likely are people who are caught up in an abductee fad.
> But it doesn't preclude the truthfulness/reality of SOME people's
>stories.
An interesting issue in regards to that Nova piece has been raised by
Budd Hopkins. Appearently, he submitted to the producers many photos
or slides of physical evidence that he believes support his case in
favor of the reality of the abduction phenomenon. Not only was this
evidence not presented, but Sagan et al. were allowed to assert that
no physical evidence exists. Much of this evidence involved physical
marks and scars that are said to be the result of "alien"
examinations. I suppose that the sceptics, if they proposed their
usual "explanation" that the wounds were self-inflicted, would then
have to explain the anomalous outbreak of the pychological illness
"Munchausen Sydrome" which I understand is rather rare.
I, too, am in that third category for whom the jury is still out.
However, when the sceptics resort to misrepresentation and attempt to
censor theories that are "fringe" or anomalous phenomena, I suspect
that their objective is not to discover "truth" but merely to sustain
the status quo.
So you must remeber to include in your Golden Rules of Debunking:
"Ignore any inconvenient facts and use your media leverage to exclude
them from the debate." Hey, it worked against Dr. Wilhem Reich and
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky...
Speaking of whom, I recently came accross an interesting looking book
yesterday called "Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky". I haven't yet
read the book but it seems to be a thorough debunking of the arguments
used by Sagan to debunk Dr. Velikovsky.
>>.........................................................
>> The more we learn in science the more we
>>>realize we DON'T know, so to me, ANYTHING is possible.
>>
>> Again, I hear general phrases like this ALOT from non-scientists.
>Response:
> OH, and that is SO disgusting to hear a non-scientist try and enter
>the scientific world! Well, you know what? I said that because I've
>read articles quoting SCIENTISTS saying that! And the articles are on
>the subject of astronomy and physics. Scientists have been QUOTED as
>saying wow, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know and
>have YET to learn. Is it so bad for a "non" scientist to quote a
>scientist?
Yes, we are mere heathens. Not even swanky white lab coats can redeem
us.
>Again, the WHOLE POINT of my post is merely to express the definite
>POSSIBILITY of many things that we don't YET have concrete proof of
>(evolution included).
If you look at how drastically the scientific understanding of the
universe and our place in it has changed over the past 50 years, you
realize that the maps are constantly being redrawn. EVERYTHING is
subject to revision.
Greg
Xcott Craver
In article <4n2ls3$p...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Gerrie Louden <ger...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Response:
>OK, so I'm not a mathematician. I was referring, admittedly, to
>generalized logic. And what's wrong with THAT? My point is WE DON'T
>KNOW, do we? There are people who claim some EXPERIENCE with these
>things. I'm not suggesting we go off half-cocked and believe it either
>way, I'm merely pointing out that IT IS POSSIBLE. I'm not even
>suggesting that it is VERY probable. Just POSSIBLE.
No, you weren't _just_ suggesting it was possible. You said that the
"odds are for it." That's saying it's _probable_. Commonsense reasoning
does dictate that alien civilizations could easily exist somewhere out there,
and we still can't conclude that much-faster-than-light space travel is
impossible or infeasible if possible. I don't disagree here; I was just
asking you to either explain why "the odds are for it" or stop making those
kinds of misleading pseudomathofluffy statements.
>You sound like you ARE a mathematician. So why not do us all a favor
>and show your skill and work out these odds for us?
Were you really reading that last article, Ger? I said the odds were
incalculable. That means I can't work them out. That means the best
someone could do is make a gross estimation on the number of planets that
may hold life, and an even grosser estimation of life happening. Anything
more complicated than that (i.e., estimating the "odds" that faster-than-
light travel is possible, or the odds that even with FTL travel alien
civilizations could somehow detect our planet's presence) is simply beyond
estimation.
>Response:
>Real interesting, though, how the number of these stories is growing
>and once in a while there is some physical evidence (however
>inconclusive) accompanying the story. Again, I'm not saying it IS, I'm
>saying it COULD BE TRUE.
Oh, sure. You never know. But again, the evidence that currently
exists is nowhere near the amount of evidence for something like the
theory of evolution. EOD, dude.
>Response:
>Excuse me? We have fossils that prove that "X" creature EXISTED.
>... All there is "proof" of is that we have a bunch of life
>forms that existed at different times...
No, fossils show much more than that. They show where creature X
existed, and more importantly, WHEN. Fossils suggest that over time,
life has gotten increasingly complex, and that there is a definite
ordering to the arrival of different species, rather than all being
BAMPFed all at once into existance in a Garden of Eden.
Now, this is not absolute proof of evolution, of course. But we
weren't talking about proof, we were talking about evidence. And
fossils do provide a great deal of evidence for the ToE.
>To take a bunch of fossils and DEDUCE that this species slowly evolved
>into that species gives no better proof than saying "x" number of
>people claim to have witnessed or experienced an encounter/abduction or
>whatever, therefore it did or did not happen.
Deduction here is interpretation of gathered data. And you're right,
said interpretation does give no better PROOF of anything, because
science isn't based on proof. Science is based on evidence, stuff which
better supports or contradicts a theory, but never "proves" it for sure.
We're talking about the relative AMOUNTS of evidence, and the evidence
for Evolution Theory is much more than evidence of alien abductions. I
don't even know why we're on this tangent -- the two are so incredibly
unrelated.
>Response:
>>I have no verbatim quotes, I heard him myself but didn't record
>anything. I'm referring, however, to an episode of Nova, I think, on
>PBS, about abductees' stories and interviews with a hypnotherapist and
>Carl Sagan, etc. The program as a WHOLE heavily implicated that
>because it IS possible to induce false memories, it therefore casts
>GREAT DOUBT on ALL such memories.
AHA!1 Much different from your last post. I agree with you that one
cannot conclude that all evidence of a certain type is fake just because
it's possible to make it fake. That is foolish to say. But I do agree
that doubt must be cast on fakeable evidence. This is why psychic
debunkers keep insisting on strict laboratory conditions. This is why
physical evidence stands up better to serious inquiry than eyewitness
accounts or hypnosis. Every time the Weekly World News puts up a new
article on space aliens, they always throw a headline on the cover
saying, "Witnesses say UNDER HYPNOSIS that..." as if hypnosis was some
kind of magical truth serum that turns people into perfect observers
of the world around them.
> But it doesn't preclude the truthfulness/reality of SOME people's
>stories.
Oh, not at all. But casting doubt is not the same as preclusion.
>> The more we learn in science the more we
>>>realize we DON'T know, so to me, ANYTHING is possible.
>>
>> Again, I hear general phrases like this ALOT from non-scientists.
>
>Response:
> OH, and that is SO disgusting to hear a non-scientist try and enter
>the scientific world!
You are not trying to enter the scientific world. You're trying to
make sweeping statements about the scientific world. One psychologist
believes in UFOs, and _Fate_ magazine flashes a big headline: SCIENCE
ACCEPTS THE SUPERNATURAL!! Physicists talk about the strangeness of
particle interations, and mystics & parapsychologists alike say that
"scientists are starting to discover what we've believed all along."
These are not people trying to be scientific; these are people making
mostly false generalizations about the scientific community. And I
hear these A LOT. I hear them from Trekkies trying to explain why
episodes of TNG have sound in outer space. I hear them from creationists
faced with the pretty damn insurmountable evidence that the Earth is
OLD. I hear them from people who claim they found a way to trisect the
angle or square the circle, when both are provably impossible. Everyone
who doesn't want to go the route of science has a head full of warm,
fuzzy vague sayings on the limits of science which they hope can be used
in a debate in place of evidence or solid argument, in hopes of bringing
the scientific community down a few notches in credibility. And it is,
IMHO, a little disgusting.
> Well, you know what? I said that because I've
>read articles quoting SCIENTISTS saying that! And the articles are on
>the subject of astronomy and physics. Scientists have been QUOTED as
>saying wow, the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know and
>have YET to learn. Is it so bad for a "non" scientist to quote a
>scientist?
Not at all! Next time, actually quote them! I'd love to see who's
saying the stuff you're saying, and in what context they did so.
>Again, the WHOLE POINT of my post is merely to express the definite
>POSSIBILITY of many things that we don't YET have concrete proof of
>(evolution included).
Well, alrighty then. I was just going after the bits where you were
saying some things were likely, not just possible. We can not communicate
effectively if people are going to throw around technical terms like that.
And while we're at it, I'd like to remind you that evolution is a Theory,
and as such we will never have Concrete Proof. We have tons of evidence,
but never concrete proof. That's science, and we never said it was any
different.
>Gerrie
,oooooooo8 o oo...@math.niu.edu -- http://www.math.niu.edu/~caj/
o888' `88 ,888. 888
888 ,8'`88. 888 "Paper or plastic?"
888o. ,oo ,8oooo88. 888 "Not 'Not paper AND not plastic!!'"
`888oooo88 o88o o888o 888 -Augustus DeMorgan in a grocery store
____________________8o888'_________________________________________________
Alan Adams
Why why why do you have to be so closed to the possibilty of Alien
contact are you scared? Or just a trouble maker? Your lack of faith is
quite alarming and one day you WILL learn. Big smiles :-)In article
<Pine.SUN.3.91.960509...@garcia.efn.org>, Jonathan
Waisman <wai...@efn.org> writes
>
>
>On Tue, 7 May 1996, Brian Zeiler wrote:
>
>> John and Susan Hutchins wrote:
>>
>> > From what I've been able to gather from this exchange,
>> > Klass made a mistake on a couple of details, although
>> > his conclusions were correct. Kind of like being
>> > confused by convenience stores? ):^)
>>
>> Not at all like that. These weren't "details". These were the very
>> foundations of his conclusions.
>>
>> First he said the MJ-12 documents were a hoax BECAUSE of the typeface.
>> He was proven wrong and had to honor a bet he made with Stan Friedman
>> about the typeface. Whether or not he was "right" about the documents is
>> irrelevant, because his rationale was flawed that led to his conclusion.
>>
>> Then he said the autopsy film was a hoax because the wall phone was
>> anachronistic. He was proven wrong and he retracted his claim. That's
>> hardly a "detail" -- the entire crux of his position was totally
>> demolished.
>>
>> both.
>>
>> Brian Zeiler
>>
>>
>He flubbed a few details, but his conclusions were 100% correct. You may
>have gotten the details right but your conclusions were 100% wrong. I'll
>side with Klass every time.
>
--
Alan Adams
Brian Zeiler
Mr. Fun wrote:
> And Brian is so clueless that he points them out as both *the biggest* and
> tacitly admits both *are hoaxes* and yet he doesn't see where that leads.....
No, you raving bonehead... By "biggest", I OBVIOUSLY meant the most
attention-getting, not the most significant in evidential quality.
That's a BIG difference, Jim.
--
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler
Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
> Our divergence of
> opinions occur when they claim the odds are in favor that "they" are
> visiting Earth.
Nobody knows how probable or improbable alien visitation is. What we DO
know is that it only takes one civilization with the means and motive to
flood the galaxy for us to encounter it. Whether those means exist is
purely speculative. However, we do know that violation of the laws of
physics is not a necessary condition for interstellar travel.
> If all you want is reinforcement of your belief structure, this is the
> wrong place to be.
That's the only reason you "skeptics" hang out there -- to reinforce your
own belief structure that consists of totally uncorroborated a priori
probabilities of the realization of certain events.
--
Brian Zeiler
Doug Snyder
TO ALL SKEPTICS AND BELIEVERS...
First of all, I AM a believer in the existance of extraterrestrial life,
and that said life may (or may not) have visitited this planet.
Secondly; I'm not one of those people who believe everything that they
hear, read or neccessarily see.
So, after visiting this group for the first time, I couldn't help but
post this reply about Klass...
My personal opinion is that Klass is a fool. Not because of his abrassive
personality, or his lack of scientific training, or even his character
bashing.
I formed my opinion based on the fact that anyone who thinks that we are
alone, or that if we are not, they must be like us, must have a closed
mind; totally free of the burden of imagination, or the ability to see
anything beyond thier own nose.
Human supperiority must be so great that there can be no possible way
that such creature/beings could exist.
Of course, we didn't think that things like dinosaurs could have existed
until the bones of one were found.
We didn't think that men could travel to the moon, until we actually got
there.
We didn't think that one small virus could change the way we live and
think, until A.I.D.S. showed us it could.
My point being...
Try not to think of the world as flat until you fall off the edge.
To paraphrase the bard... (Shakespear for those of you who haven't
bothered)...
There are far greater things in heaven and hell than in your views,
Klass.
Jim Rogers
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
>> Our divergence of
>> opinions occur when they claim the odds are in favor that "they" are
>> visiting Earth.
>
>Nobody knows how probable or improbable alien visitation is. What we DO
>know is that it only takes one civilization with the means and motive to
>flood the galaxy for us to encounter it.
Now wait a minute; a few days ago you said all it takes is one civilization
with the means and motive to make an insterstellar journey and they *will*
flood the galaxy, making it inevitable that we'd encounter them. Back-
pedaling now? The above is ridiculously tautologous.
> Whether those means exist is
>purely speculative.
No shit. And from this dearth of information you can conclude...? Anything
you don't know certainly to be false is equally possible?
> However, we do know that violation of the laws of
>physics is not a necessary condition for interstellar travel.
Because of the time and energy budgets required, that all depends on what
time scales you can tolerate, and whether you can protect yourself from
high-speed collisions with invisible debris. These are not trivial problems,
"simple matters of engineering," they are looming barriers to "flooding the
galaxy."
Jim
Brian Zeiler
Xcott Craver wrote:
> I hear them from people who claim they found a way to trisect the
> angle or square the circle, when both are provably impossible.
I'm familiar with the impossibility of trisecting an angle, but I've
never heard of "squaring the circle" -- what is that?
Everyone
> who doesn't want to go the route of science has a head full of warm,
> fuzzy vague sayings on the limits of science which they hope can be used
> in a debate in place of evidence or solid argument
But let's not forget that sometimes the argument is used in tandem with a
LOT of evidence. Scientists have mostly been ignorant, raving fanatics
when it comes to UFOs.
--
Brian Zeiler
Dean Adams
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Mr. Fun wrote:
>> And Brian is so clueless that he points them out as both *the biggest* and
>> tacitly admits both *are hoaxes* and yet he doesn't see where that leads.....
>
>No, you raving bonehead... By "biggest", I OBVIOUSLY meant ...
My, my... Brian sure does seem to be "explaining" himself a lot lately!
It looks like the pressures of maintaining the many walls of anti-logic
needed to sustain such a hard-core world of UFO believerism is getting
to be too much for the poor kid!
>That's a BIG difference, Jim.
Sure thing, Chester.
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
#ger...@ix.netcom.com(Gerrie Louden) wrote:
#<snip>
The program as a WHOLE heavily implicated that
#>because it IS possible to induce false memories, it therefore casts
#>GREAT DOUBT on ALL such memories.
Perfectly proper. If it is possible to induce false memories by the
methods used by Bud, then all of his reports are suspect.
#>I hate when the equation "if some are, then all must likely be" is
put
#>forth by such "notables".
That isn't what anyone has said. What we have said, is "If some are,
then all are suspect without additional evidence". Which I'm certain
you'll agree is just wise.
It is insulting to those who HAVE
#>experienced such things, and arrogant at the very least.
Why? No one has accused them of lying or anything. But they may be
the victims of false memories. Since when is it insulting or arrogant
to assume that they MAY have been the victims of something or someone
else?
I agree with
#>thim that there likely are people who are caught up in an abductee
fad.
#> But it doesn't preclude the truthfulness/reality of SOME people's
#>stories.
<snip>
It certainly doesn't preclude the truthfullness of their stories.
Indeed, I don't know of anyone who has said that most or even any of
these people are lying. Nor does it preclude the reality of their
stories. But without some real evidence, not just his stories or
"scars" it cannot be taken seriously when we know that Bud's methods
are almost designed to induce false memories.
Enjoy.
Twi...@hub.ofthe.net
Cluster User
In article <4n5mvs$k...@orion.cybercom.net>, gsul...@cybercom.net says...
>
>ger...@ix.netcom.com(Gerrie Louden) wrote:
><snip>
>>Response:
>>>I have no verbatim quotes, I heard him myself but didn't record
>>anything. I'm referring, however, to an episode of Nova, I think, on
>>PBS, about abductees' stories and interviews with a hypnotherapist and
>>Carl Sagan, etc. The program as a WHOLE heavily implicated that
>>because it IS possible to induce false memories, it therefore casts
>>GREAT DOUBT on ALL such memories.
>>I hate when the equation "if some are, then all must likely be" is put
>>forth by such "notables". It is insulting to those who HAVE
>>experienced such things, and arrogant at the very least. I agree with
>>thim that there likely are people who are caught up in an abductee fad.
>> But it doesn't preclude the truthfulness/reality of SOME people's
>>stories.
>
>Budd Hopkins. Appearently, he submitted to the producers many photos
>or slides of physical evidence that he believes support his case in
>favor of the reality of the abduction phenomenon. Not only was this
>evidence not presented, but Sagan et al. were allowed to assert that
>no physical evidence exists. Much of this evidence involved physical
>marks and scars that are said to be the result of "alien"
>examinations. I suppose that the sceptics, if they proposed their
>usual "explanation" that the wounds were self-inflicted, would then
>have to explain the anomalous outbreak of the pychological illness
>"Munchausen Sydrome" which I understand is rather rare.
Did you guys see the A&E 2-hour special on UFOs 2 nights ago? Another in the
continuting line of unscientific, and possibly propagandistic, debunking
shows. It bore surprising similiarites to WGBH's recent Nova show on
"abduction."
>I, too, am in that third category for whom the jury is still out.
>However, when the sceptics resort to misrepresentation and attempt to
>censor theories that are "fringe" or anomalous phenomena, I suspect
>that their objective is not to discover "truth" but merely to sustain
>the status quo.
well said. UFOs are their own phenomenon- the unscientific attitude toward
them is another separate phenomenon. I am slowly getting more interested in
the "debunker" phenomenon. Mostly because there is no point in getting too
interested in UFOs until we get to the bottom of why our scientific community
overall is not willing to approach the subject objectively. Until then, it is
going to be very easy to keep UFOs in the "National Enquirer" realm of
inquiry for whomever is interested in keeping them there.
>So you must remeber to include in your Golden Rules of Debunking:
>"Ignore any inconvenient facts and use your media leverage to exclude
>them from the debate." Hey, it worked against Dr. Wilhem Reich and
>Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky...
>
>Speaking of whom, I recently came accross an interesting looking book
>yesterday called "Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky". I haven't yet
>read the book but it seems to be a thorough debunking of the arguments
>used by Sagan to debunk Dr. Velikovsky.
>
>
>>>.........................................................
>>> The more we learn in science the more we
>>>>realize we DON'T know, so to me, ANYTHING is possible.
>>>
>>> Again, I hear general phrases like this ALOT from non-scientists.
And even more scientists, sadly. I think it is because scientists, unlike
many non-religious people, really do believe they stand on something solid in
this truly nebulous universe. It is a very seductive inference people working
around science seem to arrive at.
Chris C. Lesley
>:
Distribution:
Brian Zeiler (bdze...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
: This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
: --------------23C07DCE32E9
: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
: Chris C. Lesley wrote:
: > And it's easier to completely duck the issue than address the points
: > Klass has made (scored?).
: I'm attaching my original post, since you're obviously SO clueless that
: you missed it several times. Here's a clue --> the post "addresses the
: points".
: > Your ad hominem attacks on Klass mean diddly;
: They're not "ad hominem". They're substantive, specific points.
They're substantive, specific ad hominem, Brian, at least when you're not
patting yourself on the back for being so awfully clever.
: > you can say "he's incompetent" until you're blue in the face if you
: > want.
: Apparently you haven't gathered yet that Klass blew the two biggest cases
: in ufology in the past decade.
Apparently you haven't gathered a simple rule of scientific logic:
Klass' failure to prove them hoaxes DOES NOT MAKE THEM GENUINE. Stuff
that in your bong and smoke it.
: > That doesn't change the fact that MJ-12 is a fraud
: But not because of the typeface Klass cited, genius...
I didn't say "because of the typeface", Brainiac. Get your attributions
right.
: > and
: > convincingly proven to be so.
: Have you read any of Friedman's research on the documents that prove
: beyond ANY rational, reasonable doubt that it CANNOT have been slapped
: together by a civilian? It was ABUNDANTLY clear that it was an inside
: job.
"Oh, no, us poor civilians are so stupid, and our masters in The
Government are so very smart, we cannot possibly compete with their
intellect and skill. We are helpless before their ability to manufacture
evidence and deceive a skeptical public..." Cut us some slack, Brian.
: This doesn't prove the validity of the contents, however. It only
: proves that whoever drummed it up had far-reaching, intimate access into
: the private and government lives of the people mentioned therein.
To the extent of my knowledge, the documents were freely available
through the Freedom of Information Act.
: > So sorry to burst your bubble, True
: > Believer...
: I see you're pushing the bounds of reality back even further. You almost
: sound like you've convinced yourself that you've made a valid point
: somewhere.
"Pushing the bounds of reality" means dick coming from you, Brian. You
have yet to make a valid point outside of the insulated Saucer Zealot
Universe you live in.
: Now read the following post slowly and carefully. You will find several
: specific points that you failed to address.
Now read what I have written, slowly and carefully. You will find that
you made no points whatsoever, instead indulging in an infantile exercise
in fallacious reasoning and name-calling.
: --------------23C07DCE32E9
: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
: Content-Disposition: inline; filename="KLASS.TXT"
: Subject: Who is Phil Klass?
: Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 22:52:11 -0700
: From: Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu>
: Organization: University of Wisconsin
: Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic
: References: <4khapm$c...@news.tiac.net> <mike.hofmeister-...@sg035.nafb.trw.com> <4m7fem$f...@tuegate.tue.nl> <3187CF...@students.wisc.edu> <4m9
: Louis Nick III wrote:
: > Know what? I've been on AAV off and on for 3 years, and I still don't
: > know who Klass is. Got anything objective to offer on the d00d?
: Phil Klass has been a UFO skeptic for decades, and he heads the CSICOP
: UFO Subcommittee. He has an enormous following among academic scientists
: that consider themselves to be UFO skeptics, and he has written at least
: two UFO debunking books. He also publishes his own UFO skeptic
: periodical. He has also been a contributing writer for Aviation Week &
: Space Technology.
: Klass is most notable for his total incompetence at explaining UFO cases.
Ad hominem, abusive.
: First of all, he is not a scientist. He's a journalist. He has no
: formal scientific training, and he simply writes for a magazine by day
: and debunks UFOs by night.
Ad hominem, circumstantial.
: Thus, it is remarkable that scientists give
: him so much scientific credibility.
Ad hominem, circumstantial.
: Klass regularly offers pseudoscientific explanations that other
: scientists -- not necessarily UFO proponents -- have utterly annihilated
: with serious scrutiny. Klass was most famous for his "plasma ball"
: hypothesis for explaining UFOs, because the self-luminosity, sharp
: maneuvers, and electromagnetic effects can be explained by this
: hypothesis. However, atmospheric physicists like Dr. McDonald and others
: instantly pointed out that plasma balls don't form under clear, calm
: atmospheric conditions and last for several hours. So, the plasma ball
: explanation for the Exeter UFO incident collapsed, and so did the plasma
: ball hypothesis in its broadest sense.
Argumentum ad ignorantium, here and below...
: That's when Klass decided that
: there really aren't any EM effects if he can't explain them, so he
: suddenly decided that EM effects have to be mere coincidence if plasma
: balls can't explain them.
: Aside from the plasma ball fiasco, Klass's research is also characterized
: by other examples of pseudoscience as well as research methodologies that
: would make any academic cringe.
Straw man argument; you criticize him for not being a scientist, then
when he offers a scientifically indefensible theory you roll your eyes in
mock suprise. The fact that Klass' theory is *demonstrably* wrong places
it well within the realm of science. By contrast, Saucer Zealot "theories"
are NEVER wrong, and are well within the realm of pseudoscience.
: He has offered the hypothesis that
: Perseids can travel at merely 4,000 mph while also not creating a shock
: wave at several thousand feet at hypersonic speeds. Pure garbage. He
: also offers radar echo explanations with temperature inversions making
: maneuvers and displaying echo strength that temperature inversions simply
: cannot make. Atmospheric physicists like Dr. McDonald have rightfully
: destroyed his explanations in this area as well.
I repeat: Klass' claims are FALSIFIABLE. That makes them SCIENTIFIC.
In this context, your claim that he is being pseudoscientific is almost
insolent; your sole explanation is "Well, it must be alien spacecraft",
stated explicitly or implied.
: He also uses anonymous
: sources, as with the Tehran case, upon which much of his case rests.
As if Saucer Zealots NEVER use anonymous sources. Ad hominem,
circumstantial.
: Apparently only UFO debunkers who derive significant income and public
: prominence from debunking UFOs are allowed to use anonymous sources for
: their research.
Apparently only UFO believers who derive significant income and public
prominence from believing in UFOs are allowed to use anonymous sources
for their research.
: And whenever Klass is at a total loss for an explanation, he goes for the
: last "terrestrial explanation" -- character assassination. If the case
: can't be explained, it *must* have been a hoax, even if all available
: evidence indicates that an anomalous event occurred that was not the
: product of a hoaxer, such as with the Zamora case, in which Klass is the
: only person that accused him of hoax. Dr. Hynek, the USAF, the CIA, and
: White Sands ALL agreed that something happened. But the journalist says
: it's a hoax, so it must be a hoax -- despite the anomalous substances
: analyzed at Goddard, the landing marks, the scorched shrubbery, and the
: obvious fact that a rookie cop with an intellect above retardation would
: save his UFO hoax for off-hours, not on duty, since his mental competence
: would come into question, especially back then. But that doesn't stop
: Klass -- you see, the sighting occurred on the mayor's property, which
: means that the mayor must have staged the hoax to attract tourists, other
: evidence be damned.
Klass acted prematurely; he's not the first to make such a mistake. The
rest of your diatribe is aimed at defaming Klass; you were saying
something about "character assassination"? Your last statement is pure
hearsay directed to that end.
: Between his pseudoscientific explanations that drastically rewrite
: atmospheric physics as we know it and his shady research tactics of using
: anonymous sources, Klass is clearly completely useless as a competent
: source for UFO research.
Ad hominem, abusive.
: Amazingly, his followers include scientists
: that uncritically swallow every word he says without attempting to read
: critical reviews of his research by atmospheric physicists who demolish
: his various pseudoscientific explanations.
Ad hominem, circumstantial. You are painting scientists with a VERY wide
brush.
: These same followers also
: don't mind that a journalist is trying to argue with atmospheric
: physicists about atmospheric physics and *losing* in the process.
Does redundancy run in your family, Brian?
: And
: these same followers also don't mind listening to a *journalist* give
: explanations that rely on "sources who wish to remain anonymous".
The same could be said of your Saucer Zealot followers.
: This illustrates beyond ANY doubt that UFO "skeptics" who listen to Klass
: are clearly uncritical sheep following their pseudoscientific,
: uncredentialed shepherd simply because he tells them what they *want* to
: hear, ignoring his shoddy research methodologies and crackpot science.
This slanderous diatribe illustrates beyond ANY doubt that UFO believers
who listen to Zeiler are clearly uncritical sheep, untrained in the
simplest aspects of logic and science, following their pseudoscientific,
uncredentialed shepherd simply because he tells them what they *want* to
hear, ignoring his shoddy logical abilities, nonexistent research
methodologies and crackpot science.
C.
--
Chris Lesley
"Heaven wheels above you, displaying to you her eternal glories,
and still your eyes are on the ground." --- Dante Alighieri
Brian Zeiler
Dean Adams wrote:
>
> Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >Mr. Fun wrote:
> >> And Brian is so clueless that he points them out as both *the biggest* and
> >> tacitly admits both *are hoaxes* and yet he doesn't see where that leads.....
> >
> >No, you raving bonehead... By "biggest", I OBVIOUSLY meant ...
>
> My, my... Brian sure does seem to be "explaining" himself a lot lately!
I can't help it if the "skeptics" suffer from severe reading
comprehension problems around here. It's unfortunate that Mr. Fun
thought that when I said the "biggest cases" I really meant the best
cases -- which I obviously did not, since I meant the most
attention-getting cases.
> >That's a BIG difference, Jim.
>
> Sure thing, Chester.
Just who is this hypothetical "Chester" you bring up so often?
--
Brian Zeiler
Garry Bryan
Jake Willis (Ja...@lazarus5.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4mqm1m$d...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, Garry Bryan <ga...@sr.hp.com>
: writes
: >karl mamer (kam...@zap.io.org) wrote:
: >: "Dr. R .X. Frager" <rfr...@teleport.com> writes:
: >: > 1) Attack the person not the evidence. ---- As listed above, the
: >: > preponderance of evidence to establish the existence of
: >: > extraterrestrials and their other-worldly crafts is overwhelming. So
: >
: >: Actually, incredible claims required incredible levels of proof.
: >: the preponderance of the evidence does not support such a conclusion.
: >: Produce a body. Produce impossible technology. That is the
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >: level of evidence required.
: >
: >But wouldn't that be. . .well. . .IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
: >
: >Garry (%^{>
: >
: I agree with Garry! We probabaly would not recognise the technology if
: saw it?????
: --
To take this to another level, the alleged implants that were surgically removed
from two patients are now being examined and are at first glance nothing but
strips of metal. IF, and I repeat, IF one had nanotechnology one might be able
to shrink the complex functions of a transmitter into small sliver. After all,
we shrunk an FM transmitter from a desktop to a chip with integration technology
Garry (%^{>
Lawrence E. McKnight
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Xcott Craver wrote:
>
>> I hear them from people who claim they found a way to trisect the
>> angle or square the circle, when both are provably impossible.
>
>I'm familiar with the impossibility of trisecting an angle, but I've
>never heard of "squaring the circle" -- what is that?
Constructing a square with the same area as a given circle, using
classical compass and straightedge constructions. You can add
'duplicating the cube' to the list, too.
>
>Everyone
>> who doesn't want to go the route of science has a head full of warm,
>> fuzzy vague sayings on the limits of science which they hope can be used
>> in a debate in place of evidence or solid argument
>
>But let's not forget that sometimes the argument is used in tandem with a
>LOT of evidence. Scientists have mostly been ignorant, raving fanatics
>when it comes to UFOs.
>
>--
>Brian Zeiler
---------------
Larry McKnight
(this space unintentionally left blank.....
Xcott Craver
In article <319856...@students.wisc.edu>,
>> angle or square the circle, when both are provably impossible.
>
>never heard of "squaring the circle" -- what is that?
>
The object is to construct, given a straightedge and compass,
a square with the same area of a given circle. To do so, one would
need to be able to (or better to say, IF one could do it, THEN one
would be able to) construct a line segment of lenght SQRT(pi), which
cannot be done since pi is transcendental.
>Everyone
>> who doesn't want to go the route of science has a head full of warm,
>> fuzzy vague sayings on the limits of science which they hope can be used
>> in a debate in place of evidence or solid argument
>
>But let's not forget that sometimes the argument is used in tandem with a
>LOT of evidence. Scientists have mostly been ignorant, raving fanatics
>when it comes to UFOs.
And speaking of fuzzy vague general statements about Science....
>--
>Brian Zeiler
Mr. Fun
Doug Snyder <dwsn...@skn.net> wrote:
>TO ALL SKEPTICS AND BELIEVERS...
>
>First of all, I AM a believer in the existance of extraterrestrial life,
>and that said life may (or may not) have visitited this planet.
>
>Secondly; I'm not one of those people who believe everything that they
>hear, read or neccessarily see.
>
>So, after visiting this group for the first time, I couldn't help but
>post this reply about Klass...
>
>My personal opinion is that Klass is a fool. Not because of his abrassive
>personality, or his lack of scientific training, or even his character
>bashing.
>I formed my opinion based on the fact that anyone who thinks that we are
>alone, or that if we are not, they must be like us, must have a closed
>mind;
I would have to conclude, from your above statements, that your last
sentence is a statement by you that tells us what you believe
Klass's beliefs are. Do you have any factual foundation for your
allegation that Klass "...thinks that we are alone, or that if we
are not, they must be like us,..." or are you just offering
unsubstantiated opinion?
I don't believe you will find any such Klaim by run of the mill
skeptics. Most skeptics, only asserts that there is not currently a
shred of SCENTIFICLY meaningful evidence to support the ETH.
Mr. Fun
dad...@netcom.com (Dean Adams) wrote:
>
>
>Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>Mr. Fun wrote:
>>> And Brian is so clueless that he points them out as both *the biggest* and
>>> tacitly admits both *are hoaxes* and yet he doesn't see where that leads.....
>>
>>No, you raving bonehead... By "biggest", I OBVIOUSLY meant ...
>
>My, my... Brian sure does seem to be "explaining" himself a lot lately!
>It looks like the pressures of maintaining the many walls of anti-logic
>needed to sustain such a hard-core world of UFO believerism is getting
>to be too much for the poor kid!
I've noticed that when I reply to his posts and show how erroneous
he is he always drops the thread. It seems he's not interested in
anything approaching a rational discussion.
James J. Lippard
In article <31991661...@news.primenet.com>,
I've noticed a few unanswered criticisms of my own, as well
(e.g., regarding the status of _Aviation Week_ and where Phil Klass
makes most of his income).
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04
Brian Zeiler
[posted and emailed due to your (thankfully) sporadic appearances here]
Chris C. Lesley wrote:
>
> >:
> Distribution:
>
> Brian Zeiler (bdze...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
> : This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> : --------------23C07DCE32E9
> : Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> : Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> : Chris C. Lesley wrote:
>
> : > And it's easier to completely duck the issue than address the points
> : > Klass has made (scored?).
>
> : I'm attaching my original post, since you're obviously SO clueless that
> : you missed it several times. Here's a clue --> the post "addresses the
> : points".
>
> : > Your ad hominem attacks on Klass mean diddly;
>
> : They're not "ad hominem". They're substantive, specific points.
>
> They're substantive, specific ad hominem, Brian, at least when you're not
> patting yourself on the back for being so awfully clever.
Interesting interpretation. I guess you missed the part where I
illustrated his incompetence in the following areas:
1) Plasma ball hypothesis
2) Abandonment of acknowledgment of EM effects after plasma ball
hypothesis was refuted
3) Assertion of bolide for Coyne case despite no other witnesses to any
bolide with dismissal of EM effects
4) Mistakes in autopsy film and MJ-12 documents
5) Assertion that a Perseid meteor can move 4,000 mph, about 5% of the
scientifically accepted speed of a Perseid
6) Assertions of temperature inversions in situations that atmospheric
physicists find wholly untenable
7) Accusation of hoax with NO evidence of hoax in Zamora case, with the
CIA, USAF, and White Sands all ruling out hoax
8) Used "sources who wish to remain anonymous" to debunk the Tehran case
of 1976.
There you go, Chris. No ad hominems. Just eight specific instances of
Klass's incompetence. It seems you have a very powerful emotional
attachment to Klass, but I can't help you with that.
>
> : > you can say "he's incompetent" until you're blue in the face if you
> : > want.
>
> : Apparently you haven't gathered yet that Klass blew the two biggest cases
> : in ufology in the past decade.
>
> Apparently you haven't gathered a simple rule of scientific logic:
> Klass' failure to prove them hoaxes DOES NOT MAKE THEM GENUINE.
Nice non sequiter. However, I never argued that they're genuine; in
fact, I would defend the hypothesis that both are forgeries. However, my
point was that Klass's reasons for the hoax hypotheses were disproven in
both cases. He was right, but for the WRONG reasons, which means it was
luck and not skill. Your point is totally irrelevant.
> Stuff
> that in your bong and smoke it.
Sounds to me like you need to put aside the bong during your Usenet
sessions.
> : > That doesn't change the fact that MJ-12 is a fraud
>
> : But not because of the typeface Klass cited, genius...
>
> I didn't say "because of the typeface", Brainiac. Get your attributions
> right.
There was no misattribution. You must have some really killer shit in
that bong. Here's how our conversation went:
Brian: Klass was mistaken about MJ-12.
Chris: But it's still a hoax.
Brian: Yes, but he was still mistaken.
Chris: But it's still a hoax.
Brian: No, but see, Klass was just lucky, because his reasoning was
incorrect and spurious.
Chris: But it's still a hoax.
See the problem here, Chris? You can't follow the flow of a conversation
very well. I don't *CARE* if they're a hoax. My point is that Klass
screwed up the case like he's done with countless others.
> : This doesn't prove the validity of the contents, however. It only
> : proves that whoever drummed it up had far-reaching, intimate access into
> : the private and government lives of the people mentioned therein.
>
> To the extent of my knowledge, the documents were freely available
> through the Freedom of Information Act.
WHAT?! The MJ-12 documents were available through the FOIA? That's the
dumbest thing I ever heard! How the hell can they be a hoax and still be
available through the FOIA? Besides, they were discovered by Shandera.
The FOIA had absolutely nothing to do with MJ-12.
> : > So sorry to burst your bubble, True
> : > Believer...
>
> : I see you're pushing the bounds of reality back even further. You almost
> : sound like you've convinced yourself that you've made a valid point
> : somewhere.
>
> "Pushing the bounds of reality" means dick coming from you, Brian. You
> have yet to make a valid point outside of the insulated Saucer Zealot
> Universe you live in.
Nice vague ad hominem, but can you substantiate this hollow point with
any specific points? No?
>
> : Now read the following post slowly and carefully. You will find several
> : specific points that you failed to address.
>
> Now read what I have written, slowly and carefully. You will find that
> you made no points whatsoever, instead indulging in an infantile exercise
> in fallacious reasoning and name-calling.
Stick to your bong talk, Chris. I just gave you 8 very specific,
substantive points about Klass, and I'm guessing you'll pretend you
missed them and say that they were "ad hominem". Please do, since I can
use all the help from the opposition I can get when skeptics illustrate
their insanity so willingly.
> : Klass is most notable for his total incompetence at explaining UFO cases.
>
> Ad hominem, abusive.
See my eight points above. No ad hominem -- simple inference.
> : First of all, he is not a scientist. He's a journalist. He has no
> : formal scientific training, and he simply writes for a magazine by day
> : and debunks UFOs by night.
>
> Ad hominem, circumstantial.
Circumstantial, eh? Apparently you think a journalist is qualified
sufficiently to contradict the accepted body of atmospheric physics
knowledge, as he so freely does with his "plasma balls" and "temperature
inversions"? Are you even remotely familiar with the Lakenheath case and
his total mutilation of the radar evidence?
>
> : Thus, it is remarkable that scientists give
> : him so much scientific credibility.
>
> Ad hominem, circumstantial.
That's an ad hominem??? Are you smoking crack as well? It is remarkable
that scientists give him so much scientific credibility because they
dismiss the eight points I made above about his shoddy research practices
(anonymous sources), pseudoscience (plasma and inversions that contradict
physics), and wild hoax accusations... not to mention his flubbing of the
autopsy and MJ-12. That's why it's amazing he has any credibility. But,
if it makes you feel better, you can call this argument "ad hominem" as
much as want. I suppose at your no-name community college it's a sign of
upstanding intellect to use Latin phrases, eh?
>
> : Klass regularly offers pseudoscientific explanations that other
> : scientists -- not necessarily UFO proponents -- have utterly annihilated
> : with serious scrutiny. Klass was most famous for his "plasma ball"
> : hypothesis for explaining UFOs, because the self-luminosity, sharp
> : maneuvers, and electromagnetic effects can be explained by this
> : hypothesis. However, atmospheric physicists like Dr. McDonald and others
> : instantly pointed out that plasma balls don't form under clear, calm
> : atmospheric conditions and last for several hours. So, the plasma ball
> : explanation for the Exeter UFO incident collapsed, and so did the plasma
> : ball hypothesis in its broadest sense.
>
> Argumentum ad ignorantium, here and below...
What the hell are you blathering about? Atmospheric physicists have
regularly debunked his wild, specious claims about inversions and plasma
balls. He does not have the requisite credentials to turn atmospheric
physics on its head as he so regularly does. Oh, I guess that's
"argumentum ad ignorantium". You're totally impotent here.
> : That's when Klass decided that
> : there really aren't any EM effects if he can't explain them, so he
> : suddenly decided that EM effects have to be mere coincidence if plasma
> : balls can't explain them.
>
> : Aside from the plasma ball fiasco, Klass's research is also characterized
> : by other examples of pseudoscience as well as research methodologies that
> : would make any academic cringe.
>
> Straw man argument; you criticize him for not being a scientist, then
> when he offers a scientifically indefensible theory you roll your eyes in
> mock suprise. The fact that Klass' theory is *demonstrably* wrong places
> it well within the realm of science. By contrast, Saucer Zealot "theories"
> are NEVER wrong, and are well within the realm of pseudoscience.
You're funny! I like that... "The fact that Klass's theory is
*demonstrably* wrong places it well within the realm of science." So
you're praising him for offering a falsifiable hypothesis and contrasting
that with the ETH (which is still falsifiable, genius), which is a clever
diversionary tactic from the main point: he is regularly proven wrong
about his plasma balls and his temperature inversions that are solid
echoes making screaming angular maneuvers. But hey, he's still
competent, because he was demonstrably wrong! Sheesh...
>
> : He has offered the hypothesis that
> : Perseids can travel at merely 4,000 mph while also not creating a shock
> : wave at several thousand feet at hypersonic speeds. Pure garbage. He
> : also offers radar echo explanations with temperature inversions making
> : maneuvers and displaying echo strength that temperature inversions simply
> : cannot make. Atmospheric physicists like Dr. McDonald have rightfully
> : destroyed his explanations in this area as well.
>
> I repeat: Klass' claims are FALSIFIABLE. That makes them SCIENTIFIC.
But still wrong, you bonehead! Geez, you are a real treat! All you're
doing is reiterating my point: he was WRONG about plasma balls and WRONG
about his wacked-out temperature inversions.
> In this context, your claim that he is being pseudoscientific is almost
> insolent;
It's obvious. He's pseudoscientific because the points he defends are
outside the realm of accepted scientific knowledge. You're trying to
defend his scientific methodology, but that's irrelevant to the fact that
he was proven WRONG when his little hypotheses were debunked by REAL
atmospheric physicists. Nice diversion.
> your sole explanation is "Well, it must be alien spacecraft",
> stated explicitly or implied.
No, but that's a common skeptic fallacy. The point is not to determine
whether anything is "alien". The point is to determine whether or not
there was a solid object exhibiting anomalous propulsion characteristics
and intelligent guidance in the area in a given case. The point from a
macro perspective is whether or not disk-shaped vehicles exist. That has
absolutely nothing to do with "alien spacecraft".
>
> : He also uses anonymous
> : sources, as with the Tehran case, upon which much of his case rests.
>
> As if Saucer Zealots NEVER use anonymous sources. Ad hominem,
> circumstantial.
You're really outdoing yourself. I showed that Klass practices shoddy
research by using anonymous sources, and you call that "ad hominem" for
some twisted, deranged, insane reason. Then you say that "Saucer
Zealots" do it, so it's okay if Klass does it; not only is the term
"Saucer Zealot" ad hominem, but the sources I read don't use anonymous
sources. You won't find ANY anonymous sources in any book by Dr. Hynek
or article by Dr. McDonald.
Once again, you prove just how abysmally inferior your intellect truly is
by responding to concrete points with ridiculous, laughably absurd
accusations of "ad hominem" along with fallacious parallels. You are
truly going to become a legend around here in no time.
>
> : Apparently only UFO debunkers who derive significant income and public
> : prominence from debunking UFOs are allowed to use anonymous sources for
> : their research.
>
> Apparently only UFO believers who derive significant income and public
> prominence from believing in UFOs are allowed to use anonymous sources
> for their research.
You are one big, walking, human fallacy. Some UFO researchers of ill
repute may use so-called anonymous sources, but they're every bit as
worthless as Klass. You seem to be saying it's okay to use anonymous
sources as long as both sides do it. I'm saying NOBODY should do it. The
sources I use, academic sources written by scientists, don't have any
"anonymous sources". I would criticize anybody for using an anonymous
source. Apparently you, however, think it's just fine for all sides
involved to use such anonymous sources. Nice logic, Chris. What will
you do for an encore in your next rambling post?
>
> : And whenever Klass is at a total loss for an explanation, he goes for the
> : last "terrestrial explanation" -- character assassination. If the case
> : can't be explained, it *must* have been a hoax, even if all available
> : evidence indicates that an anomalous event occurred that was not the
> : product of a hoaxer, such as with the Zamora case, in which Klass is the
> : only person that accused him of hoax. Dr. Hynek, the USAF, the CIA, and
> : White Sands ALL agreed that something happened. But the journalist says
> : it's a hoax, so it must be a hoax -- despite the anomalous substances
> : analyzed at Goddard, the landing marks, the scorched shrubbery, and the
> : obvious fact that a rookie cop with an intellect above retardation would
> : save his UFO hoax for off-hours, not on duty, since his mental competence
> : would come into question, especially back then. But that doesn't stop
> : Klass -- you see, the sighting occurred on the mayor's property, which
> : means that the mayor must have staged the hoax to attract tourists, other
> : evidence be damned.
>
> Klass acted prematurely; he's not the first to make such a mistake.
Who cares? Haven't you noticed that you can't refute ONE point I've made
here? All you're doing is spewing your "ad hominem" accusations around
in a hilarious display of delusional paranoia, but I offered you EIGHT
specific points. Then you can't even refute my points -- all you do is
try to excuse him!! Is he your closest friend or something? This is
really bizarre behavior.
The
> rest of your diatribe is aimed at defaming Klass; you were saying
> something about "character assassination"? Your last statement is pure
> hearsay directed to that end.
No, you idiot. Klass's own book says that the case was a hoax because it
was on the mayor's property. Oh, gee, I guess that's just "character
assassination" on my part for pointing out yet another glaring deficiency
in Klassian research practices.
>
> : Between his pseudoscientific explanations that drastically rewrite
> : atmospheric physics as we know it and his shady research tactics of using
> : anonymous sources, Klass is clearly completely useless as a competent
> : source for UFO research.
>
> Ad hominem, abusive.
It's not "ad hominem, abusive", because I *_SUBSTANTIATED_* the above
paragraph with EIGHT specific, clearly illustrated points that fully
corroborate my assertion about Klass. You think you can get out of this
by saying "ad hominem", but it's not ad hominem if it can be
substantiated. Or didn't you learn that yet? I'm starting to wonder
just how abysmally stupid you really are. If you think a substantiated
argument that provides evidence illustrating objectively the true
incompetence of Klass is "ad hominem", you're legally insane AND deeply
stupid.
>
> : Amazingly, his followers include scientists
> : that uncritically swallow every word he says without attempting to read
> : critical reviews of his research by atmospheric physicists who demolish
> : his various pseudoscientific explanations.
>
> Ad hominem, circumstantial. You are painting scientists with a VERY wide
> brush.
That's an ad hominem again, eh? Heh heh heh. I said "his followers
include..." and then named a class of followers. And this class exists.
So, it's not "ad hominem" because I said "his followers include" quite
clearly. Of all your accusations, you haven't been right once yet.
>
> : These same followers also
> : don't mind that a journalist is trying to argue with atmospheric
> : physicists about atmospheric physics and *losing* in the process.
>
> Does redundancy run in your family, Brian?
Isn't that one of your little ad hominems, Chris?
>
> : And
> : these same followers also don't mind listening to a *journalist* give
> : explanations that rely on "sources who wish to remain anonymous".
>
> The same could be said of your Saucer Zealot followers.
I already said that this practice is deplorable on both sides. I don't
rely on researchers with anonymous sources. And isn't your slur about
"Saucer Zealots" another ad hominem?
>
> : This illustrates beyond ANY doubt that UFO "skeptics" who listen to Klass
> : are clearly uncritical sheep following their pseudoscientific,
> : uncredentialed shepherd simply because he tells them what they *want* to
> : hear, ignoring his shoddy research methodologies and crackpot science.
>
> This slanderous diatribe illustrates beyond ANY doubt that UFO believers
> who listen to Zeiler are clearly uncritical sheep, untrained in the
> simplest aspects of logic and science, following their pseudoscientific,
> uncredentialed shepherd simply because he tells them what they *want* to
> hear, ignoring his shoddy logical abilities, nonexistent research
> methodologies and crackpot science.
As anybody who read this entire long, boring post will see, you have no
critical reasoning abilities whatsoever. I made EIGHT specific points
that illustrate Klass's objectively observed incompetence, and all you
could do was call every point "ad hominem" out of nowhere, ignoring the
substantiation. Then you proceeded to excuse his behavior in various
cases by accusing the worst UFO "researchers" of doing the same, as
though it makes it okay for Klass to do (?).
Try again, Chris. But this time, why don't you try to actually get a
little wacky and refute at least one of my eight points against Klass.
Remember, you couldn't do it this time -- all you could do was say that
each specific point was "ad hominem". ROFL! Idiot...
--
Brian Zeiler
Brian Zeiler
Mr. Fun wrote:
> I've noticed that when I reply to his posts and show how erroneous
> he is he always drops the thread. It seems he's not interested in
> anything approaching a rational discussion.
What the HELL are you blathering about?! I've responded to almost all of
your posts around here in the past week. You are either going blind or
your ISP's news server sucks.
The *ONLY* post I ignored was your silly nonsense about the chi square
analysis, and I told you to get the book from the library and post your
specific objection to the statistical methodology instead of wasting my
time with vague whining.
--
Brian Zeiler
Kenneth Almquist
In a discussion of Philip Klass, Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu>
writes:
> you're praising him for offering a falsifiable hypothesis and
> contrasting that with the ETH (which is still falsifiable, genius)
Brian, would you be so kind as to (1) state the ETH (since I don't know
precisely what it is) and (2) describe how it could be falsified. Let's
add a bit of science here!
Kenneth Almquist
tom capizzi
Brian Zeiler (bdze...@students.wisc.edu) wrote:
: Xcott Craver wrote:
: > I hear them from people who claim they found a way to trisect the
: > angle or square the circle, when both are provably impossible.
: I'm familiar with the impossibility of trisecting an angle, but I've
: never heard of "squaring the circle" -- what is that?
: Brian Zeiler
Squaring the circle is a classic mathematical problem. It means
finding the square which has the same area as a given circle. Since the
area of the circle depends on the constant, pi, there is no way to construct
a side of a square from the radius of the circle, as it would be an
irrational number. I believe it is one of three puzzles from antiquity
involving the use of only straightedge and compass. Trisecting an angle is
one as well, but the third one escapes me at the moment.
Tom Capizzi
Brian Zeiler
Kenneth Almquist wrote:
> Brian, would you be so kind as to (1) state the ETH (since I don't know
> precisely what it is) and (2) describe how it could be falsified. Let's
> add a bit of science here!
1) The null hypothesis to explain UFOs is that they are random,
disparate misidentifications of atmospheric or artifical terrestrial
phenomena. If rejected on sufficient grounds -- and due to the
subjectivity we are probably facing a more Bayesian type of inference
than an objective t-test approach -- then we accept the alternative
hypothesis, which is that disk-shaped vehicles are in fact flying in our
atmosphere. At this point, we don't care about the origin, since the
alternative hypothesis is simply that the objects exist.
After rejecting the null in favor of the alternative (which I have done),
a rank-order series of hypotheses are formulated to hypothesize the
*origin* of the objects. Occam's Razor is the guiding principle here.
Some people here disagree with the ordering, and that's fine, since this
is just my opinion:
a. US or foreign government craft.
b. Extraterrestrial craft.
c. "Interdimensional" craft.
Once one replaces the null with the alternative and looks for a
hypothesis of origin, it's pretty easy to reject alternative a. It's
absurd to think these are government craft, since the "conspiracy" widens
by a HUGE magnitude; the behavior of the flights are at variance with
accepted flight-test procedures (e.g. chasing civilians); the requisite
physics for the observed propulsion would require enormous leaps in 1947
in all sorts of technology that the civilian community has not grasped 50
years later.
The second hypothesis, that they are extraterrestrial craft, is the
"Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis", or ETH. Note that this is a specialized
sub-hypothesis within the broader "alternative hypothesis", which is
simply that the "saucers" do in fact exist.
2) Regarding falsifiability, this is a difficult area because the very
approach to the subject is more subjective and inferential (hence the
Bayesian approach -- see Sturrock, "Applied Scientific Inference", JSE,
vol. 8, no. 4). In other words, IF there are in fact extraterrestrial
vehicles buzzing about our atmosphere, and we're not sure whether or not
they really are but suspect that they might be, do you think these aliens
would care if our hypothesis was falsifiable? In other words, the very
nature of the problem -- the vagueness, the lack of replicability on
demand, and the elusiveness -- does not lend itself too easily to
direct and irrefutable falsifiability.
However, there are certain "proxies" for falsifiability. As I've
explained before, it seems reasonable to suggest that IF there are
extraterrestrial vehicles buzzing through our atmosphere, the
organization with the means and motive to determine this, above all other
organizations, would have determined this by now. This organization is,
of course, the US military. If there are flying saucers, our military
should show a high level of interest and conviction that this is the
case. Indeed, they do, at both the individual level and at the
organizational level, from 1947 through the present day. If you even
look at my analysis of the "USAF fact sheet" on UFOs, you can see just
how deliberately misleading and distortive it really is, and it is PROVEN
that they masked their own findings in a vague slush of nonsense that
doesn't even correlate with their own internal findings on UFOs.
Then there are certain other testable predictions based on the corollary
that the military and intelligence would conceal this knowledge. And
they have found sufficient cause to conceal it, as their early documents
alluded with references to "public panic" and "policies of public
information to minimize mass panic". So, do we see signs of official
secrecy? What would those signs be? One is leaks. We do, in fact, see
quite a few highly compelling leaks, as has been discussed extensively
here.
That's about all that can be said in regard to falsifiability. The very
nature and structure of this phenomenon renders our typical approach
somewhat impotent, and we are only left with a Bayesian approach that
questions whether the body of evidence we do have is more consistent with
the objects existing or with the objects *not* existing. Looking at the
aggregate body of anomalous radar-visual cases, ground trace cases,
scientifically tested photos and films from the military and civilian
communities, credentialed leaks, and evidence of sneaky military/intel
duplicity, it's more likely IMO that something is indeed going on rather
than not -- no matter how falsifiable this hypothesis may be, it doesn't
change the aggregate body of evidence.
In other words, our approach must accommodate the phenomenon -- not vice
versa. If the phenomenon can't accommodate our approach, there's no
sense in convincing ourselves that the phenomenon must not exist. We
must accommodate the phenomenon by changing our approach from the
objective hypothesis falsification to the subjective inference.
--
Brian Zeiler
J.Wa...@stud.tue.nl
In article, Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>7) Accusation of hoax with NO evidence of hoax in Zamora case, with the
>CIA, USAF, and White Sands all ruling out hoax
I would like to point out that Klass didn't think the Zamora case was a
hoax before his plasma ball hypothesis was refuted. Before that, Klass
assumed that Zamora had seen [what else] a ball of plasma. After his hy-
pothesis was demolished, Klass fell back on explaining cases by proposing
hoaxes and misperceptions; He now debunked *the same* cases he accepted
before as genuine events.
Mr. Fun
Brian Zeiler <bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Mr. Fun wrote:
>
>> I've noticed that when I reply to his posts and show how erroneous
>> he is he always drops the thread. It seems he's not interested in
>> anything approaching a rational discussion.
>
>What the HELL are you blathering about?! I've responded to almost all of
>your posts around here in the past week. You are either going blind or
>your ISP's news server sucks.
>
But you respond with non-sequiters on those occasions when you do
respond and the bulk of most of your responses are invective,
insults, and name calling.