UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 6

Re: Illegitimacy of CSICOP - Connors

From: Wendy Connors <FadedDiscs@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 06:09:13 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 08:33:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Illegitimacy of CSICOP - Connors

 >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:00:55 EDT
 >Subject: Illegitimacy of CSICOP


 >Could you please post this response from Robert Sheaffer to
 >Wendy Connor's recent posting?  Thanks.

 >Bob Young

 >From: Robert Sheaffer <robert@debunker.com>
 >To: YoungBob2@aol.com
 >Date: 6/5/2002 3:02:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time
 >Subj: The Illegitimacy of Wendy Connors' Arguments

 >Wendy Connors claims that CSICOP is "illegitimate," and cites
 >some comments that I made (apparently a very long time ago - she
 >doesn't even cite the source) to try to justify this silliness.
 >I don't want to spend very much time on such lame stuff, for
 >obvious reasons, so I'll make only a few points:

The source himself admits he made the statements. There ya go,
Bob. No need to cite the source I use, since the Source admits
he made the comments. BTW, Bob. I love the little kid type
running to daddy you did. Cute. There is nothing "lame" nor is
there "silliness" about exposing CSICOPian hidden agendas,
tactics, etc.

 >Wendy angrily says that "None of these people [the National
 >Enquirer Blue-Ribbon Panel] are ever named by the CSICOP cult
 >because this blue ribbon panel does not exist." If she had been
 >in UFOlogy as long as some of us have, she would know that it
 >**did** exist - about 25 years ago. (Which shows how far back
 >she had to go to find something to stir up this much animosity.)
 >And the panel was a very Big Deal at the time. So this argument
 >reveals nothing more than her own ignorance. If she had read my
 >book "UFO Sightings," she would have learned about this Blue-
 >Ribbon panel. Wendy: if you're going to write some very sweeping
 >criticism of somebody, it's a good idea to read their books
 >first. Otherwise you will look like a fool.

Now, see. There CSICOP goes, with twisting the reality of the
situation as usual. First, I didn't write anything in anger.
CSICOP opinion and not fact. Not very scientific to opine. Bogus
statement from Shaeffer. Second, CSICOP opinion that I haven't
read Phil Klass books. I did and even when they first came out.
Books, by the way, that were a total waste of time, money and an
insult to intelligence. Used copies don't sell on Ebay most of
the time. Word must have got out or something about how bad they
really are.

I will grant the following: The National Enquier had a self-
proclaimed blue ribbon panel, but it was not composed of top-
notch scientists as claimed by CSICOP. The reasoning is quite
simple. No legitimate scientist would align themselves with a
gossip tabloid because it would endanger their credibility and
possible cause for loss of research funding. The "blue ribbon
panel" is the typical sham, much like CSICOPs claim to be a
scientific organization.

 >"By Shaeffer's own admission the CSICOPs cult doesn't do field
 >investigation of cases. They only opine and call it science."
 >This shows nothing more than Wendy's problems with reading
 >comprehension (as well as spelling). The quotation she is
 >objecting to is "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." This statement is, I
 >submit, perfectly unobjectionable. We can all agree that nobody
 >has ever looked at ALL of the many thousands of UFO reports, and
 >indeed, nobody ever will. Apparently Wendy thinks that 'CSICOP
 >has not examined all cases' is equivalent to 'CSICOP has
 >examined no cases.' Duh.

There we go, folks. Avoidance of the fact that CSICOP does not
do field investigations, fails to consider raw data and
proclaims it is a scientific organization. Shaeffer's dance of
avoidance of the issue repeats the "there are too many cases"
line. That doesn't wash. It is not the number of cases. It is
the bottom line fact that the cases CSICOP does concentrate on
are not scientifically reviewed, only opined over and Shaeffer
admits that CSICOP does not review the raw data. Clever little
critters, these CSICOPian cultists. Science by proxy. Wow,
enough to make any legitimate scientist or scientific
organization cringe.

 >To my statement "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" [did she really transcribe that latter part
 >correctly?] she replies: "Notice the complete lack of data or
 >documentation to back this CSICOP scientific assessment?".
 >Wendy, people do not generally cite reams of documentation in TV
 >interviews (which is what she appears to be quoting here - as I
 >said, I'm not familiar with the exact source). However, if you
 >take the trouble read the UFO books written by myself, by Philip
 >J. Klass, and by James Oberg [or even look at their table of
 >contents], you would find critical examination of cases such as:
 >Travis Walton; Betty Hill; "astronaut UFOs" including Gordon
 >Cooper; Mexico City UFOs, and many, many other "classic" cases.
 >"An opinion is not science, no matter how fervently CSICOP
 >desires it to be." To claim that these and other cases examined
 >are not the 'cream of the crop' as continuously cited by the UFO
 >proponents themselves is simply ignorant. Wendy appears to be
 >following in the footsteps of the celebrated Robert Anton Wilson
 >by vehemently criticising the authors of books she has not read,
 >and an organization she seems to know nothing about.

Yes, Shaeffer is quoted correctly. Notice the nervous twinge by
questioning it? I have read the books of the CSICOPian cultists
and they are not representative of legitimate scientific
analysis of the cases discussed. Shaeffer admits that CSICOP
does not look at the raw data regarding the cases and certainly
doesn't do field investigations. Yet, CSICOPians have the
audacity to proclaim scientific objectivity. Now that's

Here we also have the typical ploy the CSICOP cult uses when
it's legitimacy is in question. I am accused of being critical
of Shaeffer and CSICOPian cult members due to ignornance. How
absolutely funny to be accused by a psuedo-scientific
organization such as CSICOP of using the same tactics they use
with reckless abandon. Now that's really funny and certainly
proves my point that CSICOP cultists are illegitimate in the
area of science.

Bob, I'm really glad you ran to your proverbial "Daddy." Tells
all of us a lot about you, son. Unfortunately, Shaeffer admits
to saying what is quoted, so therefore you have learned the
source and he gives you and all the UFO UpDate's readership
reinforcement as to CSICOP illegitimacy. Way to go, Bob!

Wendy Connors

[ 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