From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net> Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 07:36:18 -0600 Fwd Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:07:54 -0400 Subject: Illegitimacy of CSICOP The Illegitimacy of CSICOP: One of the most bogus scientific organizations in existence is the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Known by its acronym, CSICOP. It is not a scientific organization, nor does it engage in accepted scientific methodologies in its findings or claims. Rather, it is a cult of individuals whose commonality and goal is to use any method under a twisted guise of science to force a belief system that science is damaged by investigation of paranormal avenues and that people who engage in such research are inherently dangerous to society. Thus, CSICOP by its very nature, is a Cult that attempts to prevent people from studying areas not approved by CSICOPs view of what constitutes a formal scientific group. The only thing wrong with this approach is that it borders on fanaticism and is a danger to inherent individual freedom. CSICOP, as a fanatical cult with a hidden agenda to prevent acquisition of new knowledge by investigation, is provable. Robert Shaeffer, a CSICOP Committee Member demonstrates though his own words, that CSICOP is not a scientific organization. That it does not engage in scientific methodologies and uses nefarious methods in an attempt to control the public's right to free thought and opinion. That any person who engages in research into areas science has failed to investigate are misguided and a danger to society and science in general. This is Part One of the proof of CSICOPs bogus claims to be a legitimate and scientific organization. It is presented through Robert Shaeffer's own words, which are in direct quotes and my comments, which follow each quoted passage: From the Collective Mind of the CSICOP Cult: "Our group is not what you would call a front line organization. We don't receive reports directly from the general public. We do not attempt to get a specific number of cases. Because we concentrate only on those cases that the other organizations have put out to be unexplainable." In other words CSICOP doesn't do first hand investigations. They only deal in personal opinion. CSICOP proclaims to be a scientific organization, but doesn't engage in actual science. CSICOP defaults on its own legitimacy. "Because these groups will admit, ummm, the believers groups if you will, they will admit that at least 95% of the reports that come into their files are nonsense. But, people who cannot identify Venus or an airplane, prank balloons and so on. They say, however, that there is about a 5% residue of unexplainable cases or sometimes they say 2% or 10%...always that small residue according to the UFO believer." In other words, anyone who engages in free thought is branded status as a believer, with nefarious connotations attached by CSICOP. As if a person's belief in something that does not conform to CSICOP parameters of what is appropriate to believe, is suspect. Which it is not, except to the fanatical CISCOP cult. CSICOP defaults on its own legitimacy. "What our group does is we concentrate on that residue. We concentrate only on the ones which supposedly been pronounced unexplainable. For example the National Enquirer has a blue ribbon panel of Ph.D. scientists, all of whom are active in the UFO field that are in some sense of the word, UFO believers." A CSICOP ploy to manipulate the truth. The existence of a 'blue ribbon panel' is bogus. It does not exist. CSICOP consistently uses this approach to attempt to degrade or character assassinate anyone that disagrees with the cults position or engages in research defaulted upon by mainstream science. CSICOP defaults on its own legitimacy. "And once a year they meet to choose what is considered to be the best UFO cases of the year. These are the ones that our group will go after, because you know, these well known people have said it has no explanation and we find that after a much more careful investigation, we think one which is more willing to consider negative evidence as well as just the case for that particular incident, that all of these instances are explainable." A perfect example of CSICOPs proclaimed scientific level of competence and clarity of thought. None of these people are ever named by the CSICOP cult because this blue ribbon panel does not exist. CSICOP defaults on its own legitimacy. "As far as whether there are any genuine unexplainable cases... obviously nobody has time to look at all the UFO reports that have ever been made. There are just thousands of them and if anyone says they have investigated all of them, obviously they are way off base." By Shaeffer's own admission the CSICOPs cult doesn't do field investigation of cases. They only opine and call it science. This is not a basic tenant of a legitimate scientific organization that would consider all data, raw and formal. CSICOP defaults on its own legitimacy. "But, we've looked at what has been pronounced, not by ourselves but the UFO believers, to be the cream of the crop and we haven't found anything in the supposed cream of the crop, that causes us to be wrong that there is something unexplainable here." Notice the complete lack of data or documentation to back this CSICOP scientific assessment? An opinion is not science, no matter how fervently CSICOP desires it to be. CSICOP's mission is stated to be scientific, but without scientific integrity in their claims. CSICOP defaults on its own legitimacy. "Every one that we've had the opportunity and inclination to go into, we've been able to come up with a prosaic explanation. We are not seeing raw, unfiltered reports, we're seeing only the ones which are supposedly unexplainable. Consequently, we are finding a substantially higher percentage of hoaxes than you would find in the basis of raw reports. Based upon what data other than the opinion of the CSICOP Committee? Again a perfect example of CSICOP's failure to use applied scientific methodologies for their claims. CSICOP defaults on its own legitimacy. "I would say that probably 95% of all raw, unsorted reports are simply authentic and honest misperceptions of an everyday object. Possibly even more than 98% and that you'll find that probably the largest single factor that generates UFO reports is the planet Venus. I doubt if there is any one object that has generated as many UFO reports as that planet has." If CSICOP, by Shaeffer's own admission, does not investigate or keep databases of UFO reports for analysis, then this statement is completely erroneous and not based upon scientific factuality. In other words, CSICOP does not have any hard data to back up this claim. Using trumped up data, that 98% of people are fooled by viewing the planet Venus, is highly questionable and shows CSICOP uses the same tactics which they proclaim is unscientific, by researchers who look at the paranormal venues. Therefore, CSICOPs claim is bogus. Further, failure to look at the raw data is unscientific and CSICOP defaults on its own legitimacy. "Other objects that will frequently give rise to UFO reports are such things as airplanes, especially airplanes testing new equipment or doing unusual things, advertising airplanes, balloons. Prank balloons in some cases... you know, kids take a bag like you get from the dry cleaner and put candles on the bottom and the thing will rise not very high, but it will be high enough to be spotted by many people and generally things of that nature are misperceived. They're perceived to be much larger than they actually are, so they'll go down as if, you know, they were some sort unidentified craft." In keeping with CSICOP's mission, Shaeffer fails to be honest in that the cases they take issue with are not cases involving pranks, advertising planes, balloons, etc., which are already dismissed as misperceptions, etc. by the very researchers who did the field investigations and which CSICOP takes issue. By not being forthright, CSICOP defaults on its own legitimacy. "But I would say by and large, people are being quite sincere when they say they are seeing something. But, if you separate out all the readily identifiable ones and concentrate only on those which are more difficult to solve and which require more time and effort, hence the believers group do not achieve solutions, then you'll find the percentage of hoaxes is substantially higher. You'll find that, for example, that just about any kid with an Instamatic camera and hubcap can produce a UFO photograph that will be accepted by many." CSICOP deliberately clouds the issue by attempting to put investigators of UFO cases in with a group of researchers who prepare UFO cases for analysis and review, with those of people who are not investigators. A typical ploy by the CSICOP cult to discredit, at any cost, including being honest about their own non-existent data to back up their position that researchers in Ufology are incapable of detecting a hoax. CSICOP defaults on its legitimacy. End of Part One Copyright (c) 2002 by Wendy Connors. All Rights Reserved.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp