UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2001 > Apr > Apr 21

Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:18:00 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:22:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook - Young


 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:10:49 EDT
 >Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >To: updates@sympatico.ca

 >>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:28:34 +0100
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook

 >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>
 >>>Subject: Re: Debunkers' Guidebook
 >>>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:59:14 -0500

 >>>And lest we forget, however much the pelicanists want us to:

 >>>Donald H. Menzel on witness reliability: "I submit that [Dr.
 >>>James E.] McDonald's interviews of more than five hundred people
 >>>who have reported UFOs have no scientific validity whatever."
 >>>(In Sagan and Page, UFOs: A Scientific Debate)

 ><snip>

 >>In the second quotation, is it clear from the context (I don't
 >>have Sagan and Page's book any more) whether Menzel is talking
 >>about the actual eyewitness reports as raw data, or the way it
 >>was presented via McDonald's interviews?

 >John, Jerry, List:

 >In the above mentioned Menzel quotation, the final period was
 >actually a comma, followed by, "except to confirm his
 >[McDonald's] well-known bias in favor of ETH and against the Air
 >Force and myself and other nonbelievers. Similarly, Hynek's
 >indexes of 'credibility' and 'strangeness' are equally
 >subjective." (Sagan and Page, UFOs A Scientific Depate, p. 136).

 >On the preceding page, 135, Menzel had written, "McDonald's sole
 >contribution to the study of UFO's - as far as I can ascertain -
 >has been his reinterviewing of more than five hundred UFO
 >witnesses. These interviews, clearly biased in favor of the ETH,
 >have contributed nothing to our knowledge. They are hightly
 >subjective and have served only to crystallize the observer's
 >earlier interpretations of his observed sighting. This is not
 >science."

Hi Bob,

I would point out that what Menzel maintained about McDonald
could be said about the skeptibunkers. That being something
along the lines of 'Skeptibunkers are clearly biased against
anything that suggests or even contemplates ET reality, they
have contributed nothing to our knowledge and our highly
subjective....'

:)

Cheers,

Robert





[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com