From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:29:55 -0500 Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:08:14 -0400 Subject: Re: Illegitimacy of CSICOP - Lehmberg >From: Bob Young <YoungBob2@aol.com> >To: email@example.com >Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 16:00:55 EDT >Subject: Illegitimacy of CSICOP >Errol: >Could you please post this response from Robert Sheaffer to >Wendy Connor's recent posting? Thanks. ...Brought your big brother in to fight your battle for you? Heh. It's really only evidence how desperate you and he are regarding the crumbling foundations of your bogus reality. I'll cross your toe-drawn line. >Bob Young >-------- >From: Robert Sheaffer <firstname.lastname@example.org> >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. Oh ,but she will I think, Mr. Sheaffer, but forget that. George Bush (senior) did something stupid once and remarked that if it wasn't caught on tape, he didn't do it. In your preceding statement you seem to pretend that you (may) have no knowledge of saying what has been reported you said. Have no fear, your gaffe will be cited as Georges was. Most will be informed that you did something stupid, and by extension, continue to do so. >I don't want to spend very much time on such lame stuff, for >obvious reasons, so I'll make only a few points: Well - that's CSICOPs whole problem in a nut shell, isn't it! Quick with a blithe dismissal and an airy ridicule, your pointed finger of empty accusation points three fingers of truth back at a specious "self," - lame, lamer, and lamest. >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.) Oh - I see. Then you _do_ remember saying something stupid, after all. And I'm reasonably sure the blue ribbon panel did exist, probably until the individual members copped to CSICOPS canted agenda and moved off in distaste because their consciences were offended. And as to animosity? Well - what would you expect as an eventual reaction to us becoming aware of the strangulation you perform as you cinch the drawstring of the bag you would slip over our heads. You've gotten off LIGHT, in my estimation. Your grace is about at an end. >And the panel was a very Big Deal at the time. So this argument >reveals nothing more than her own ignorance. Yeah, Yeah. ...But what happened to the panel, and why don't you talk about who they are/were? Additionally, if you really thought she was as ignorant as you would have us believe, you wouldn't even be responding to her here. >If she had read my >book "UFO Sightings," she would have learned about this Blue- >Ribbon panel. Wasn't that the book where you unctuously propose by way of specious intimation that UFOs are mere sightings of Venus, Mr. Sheaffer? Jimmy Carter (past president, nuclear engineer, Naval Officer [and so at LEAST an amateur astronomer...]) and I laugh at your soggy-bottomed presumption. >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. It's the fool who's read your book, Mr. Sheaffer, or at least someone who is irritated at having their time so egregiously wasted. But if she knows about some of the ancient stupidities you have uttered then I am willing to bet that she has at _least_ _skimmed_ your tiresome tome. Ya' think? Moreover, your baseless pronouncement that she has not read your book does not make it so, but baseless pronouncements are the CSICOPians stock in trade, so I'm less than surprised. >"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). There's the last refuge of the losing scoundrel, Mr. Sheaffer. Assuming the roll of the grammar-nazi when words otherwise fail you, you're plagued with the weakness of your specious riposte, and you are saddled with a world view more invalid with each passing day. Moreover, you misspelled "criticizing" later on in the piece indicating _your_ lack of comprehension, Mr. Sheaffer? What's gravy for the goose is gravy for the gander, after all. I mean - you'd be consistent ...wouldn't you? >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. Ironically? You and yours are part of the reason why the attempt shall not be made! Anyone capable of the MEANEST objectivity knows that genuinely unexplained cases hover around 20% of the cases already WEANED from prosaic explanations. This is _well_ known and has been for many years, Mr. Sheaffer. Please deny it and so demonstrate, then, the ponderous magnitude of your canted bias. >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. Even if the speaker's orientation _is_? No... once burned, twice shy and your BIC is always flicking! >We can all agree that nobody >has ever looked at ALL of the many thousands of UFO reports, and >indeed, nobody ever will. That's YOUR fault, Mr. Sheaffer. I'll bet you're proud. >Apparently Wendy thinks that 'CSICOP >has not examined all cases' is equivalent to 'CSICOP has >examined no cases.' Duh. No. She is saying, as other credible persons have pointed out, that Robert Sheaffer "only tends to look at the "evidence" which supports Robert Sheaffer's anti-UFO conclusions" not to put too fine a point on it. Venus is not the beginning and ending of our ufological provenance, Mr. Sheaffer. You do us all a colossal disservice to pretend that it is. >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" Rest assured that there are none of us out here surprised by _that_, Mr. Sheaffer. >[did she really transcribe that latter part >correctly?] You'd know better than her, Mr. Sheaffer. Whatever _she_ typed, the message from you and your equally myopic associates is well known. >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). No? Then caught short, why are you squirming? Haven't Mr. Oberg, or Mr. Pflock been giving you lessons in "plausible deniability." >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. Knowing enough of your medieval organization is knowing too much about what is truly bogus and not enough about what is truly scientific. You're the problem Mr. Sheaffer, not the solution, the oppressor of science, not the savior of science - the dark and not the light. Moreover, the tighter you squeeze the more of us slip through your fingers to see that your emperor is as naked as hydrocephalic newborn. ...and you know it. >Robert Sheaffer - robert at debunker dot com - >Skeptical to the Max! ...an indictment, sir, not an attribute. And let me take this opportunity to apologize in advance for any malformed constructions, misspellings or malapropisms, Mr. Sheaffer, forgetting that they are not really the point... are they?! Lehmberg@snowhill.com ~~=D6~~ EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his VSN URL. http://www.alienview.net JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND - John will be released eventually. He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put one together for him; the bigger it is - the more attention he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail. $350.00 pledged - $200.00 collected! "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by the scabrously specious scurrilous.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp