UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 3

Illegitimacy of CSICOP

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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com