Robert Sheaffer — August 24, 2014

[SRL+]

RE: Elizabeth Loftus in relation to eye witness testimony

As anyone may conclude after viewing the videos below, the adult test subjects were asked to recall distant childhood memories which were then strongly influenced by Elizabeth Loftus’s research. This had very little if anything to do with an individual having a recent experience, rather, the manipulation of distant memories. Loftus then goes on further to describe the nuances of more recent experiences on test subjects in relation to false, suggested memories. Such as, not that an individual was in and driving a vehicle during the time of an accident, rather, the driver failed in noticing, and ran a stop sign. Then Loftus suggested to the test subjects it was actually a yield sign, with some actually believing it. Just as an aside, not everyone’s memories may be false, or have been manipulated.

Again, it should be fairly obvious to most anyone that even though the test subject’s memory was able to be influenced, it doesn’t change the fact that indeed, they still remembered a vehicle being involved in an accident, with a driver behind the wheel. The power of suggestion is nothing new here, and has been known since the Greek, and Roman eras.

So, in one respect Bob is partially correct, however, not entirely, which is a major problem with any type of investigator who may be predisposed in any type of preconceived belief, in leading the witness or experiencer astray.

Investigating, as an art form may take many years to refine. Take for instance an attorney engaged in deposition: when someone is being deposed prior to a trial they are questioned about events pertaining to the case. Usually, the individual in which is being deposed draws from memory in seeking images from consciousness first, then assigning meaning, (words), to their narrative. Any additional outside facts surrounding their narrative are then held up to their narrative in being viewed through the critical lens, in hopefully providing additional illumination. If their image of events is clouded, they cannot assign any meaningful words, and their recollection, along with their testimony may be called into question. This happens quite frequently with individuals who think they know, when in truth, only portions of their true recollection are partially known.

Trial attorneys can be extremely effective in separating the signal from noise concerning the truthful testimony of a witness, as they are highly trained professionals.

BTW, Vallee is acutely aware of the nuances of investigation, as once the media arrives at the scene of a sighting or zeroes in on the experiencer, memories may become distorted, in corrupting the case. Bob doesn’t seem to understand this. Why?

Bob is supposed be a genius, and has been a professional expert on UFOs for decades. He has not the faintest clue as to the Hessdalen Project created in 1983. Most all of us here know about it, and most of us aren’t experts. What about Bob, what’s his excuse?

Hessdalen light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bob failed to recognize the fact below in dismissing it's possibility.

Sharp and Grove developed 'receiverless' wireless voice transmission technologies for the Advanced Research Projects Agency at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in 1973. In the above mentioned journal entry to American Psychologist, Dr. Don Justesen reports that Sharp and Grove were readily able to hear, identify, and distinguish among the single-syllable words for digits between 1 and 10. Justesen writes, "The sounds heard were not unlike those emitted by persons with an artificial voice box (Electrolarynx). Communication of more complex words and of sentences was not attempted because the averaged densities of energy required to transmit longer messages would approach the [still] current 10mW/cm² limit of safe exposure."[7]

Microwave auditory effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoping that Bob may possibly be available, I think that we would all welcome his participation here. Perhaps, in the remotest of all possibilities of assisting in clearing up some of his misconceptions.

This man was practically copying and pasting the entire interview, with a lackluster performance that only the misinformed debunker could possibly accomplish.

On one final note here: I have the utmost respect for the Royal Society of London and the use of the scientific method. However, I cannot now find nearly as credible the MENSA Society.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Remember also that we needed Robert to put his skeptical cards on the table. And it's all so simple. Witnesses are unreliable and mistaken whenever they claim something seems unconventional. He is not above ignoring or altering inconvenient facts. He's also clearly not innocent of what he claims UFO observers do.

That covers most of what these debunkers are about.

 

[manxman]

Careful Gene that's almost controversial.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Don't get me started.

 

[SRL+]

Remember also that we needed Robert to put his skeptical cards on the table. And it's all so simple. Witnesses are unreliable and mistaken whenever they claim something seems unconventional. He is not above ignoring or altering inconvenient facts. He's also clearly not innocent of what he claims UFO observers do.

That covers most of what these debunkers are about.

As you well know, there’s a lot more of what Bob has stated in the interview that are half-truths at best, which haven’t yet been touched on.

 

[Tina.Sena]

An okay episode. But IMO Sheaffer was too dismissive of eyewitness testimony. UFOs appear randomly as they may be under intelligent control. There's no hope of gaining physical evidence in many cases.

I am also less willing to call witnesses liars than he is. (Yes, I know he doesn't consider most to be. But he did call a few liars.)

I have to agree. I am not religious at all, but when I was eighteen I went to Fatima, Portugal and saw something that made no sense to me. I tried very hard to dismiss it and joke about it and I spent a great deal of time (years, actually) searching through various Astronomy publications for something to explain what I saw. Nothing came close. It may be some strange natural phenomena, as yet unknown, but something is there.

For Sheaffer to suggest a mass hallucination brought on by religious fervor just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.

 

[Sentry]

Jim Moseley was fascinated with Fatima, and he asked me to gather some material on it for Saucer Smear. Most of the research went unused, but I've got two articles on it at my blog. I have to say, I was a bit dispointed in Robert Sheaffer's discussion of it, but not surprised at his confusion.

Like UFO cases, most of what we know about Fatima is second-hand, and written years afterward. Not everyone saw the Sun dance, some saw nothing, others figures or faces in the sky. The Catholic Ghurch got involved, but they didn't care about anything but the claim that there was an alleged visitation by Mary. Their investigation just didn't bother with the sky, and there's no good documentation.

When Lúcia, (the only surviving child) wrote her memoirs as an adult, the story solidified, and there were other accounts, also written by religious people. The story picked up some embelishments.

I don't know what happened, and can't offer an explanation. All I can say is that it was not well documented, and its story is possibly contaminated by those with a religous or poitcal agenda.

I don't think it was a flying saucer, though!

 

[Sentry]

Regarding witness reliablility:
A litle bird told me that a prominent UFO researcber is about to release a paper that has some interesting data on the accuracy of UFO witnesses.

Edited to add:

Now Released
A new study by Chris Rutkowski, utilizing the database in the 25 year study:
A Comparison of UFO Sighting Reports Between 1989 and 2013 with the list of
Visually Observed Natural Re-Entries of Earth Satellites compiled by Ted Molczan

 

[Wade]

First Chris teases us then Curt

Are you in a position to at least tell us if this report might embellish Roberts talking points about witness reliability on the most recent show ?

 

[Sentry]

If by embellish, you mean cause him to choke, yes.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

As you well know, there’s a lot more of what Bob has stated in the interview that are half-truths at best, which haven’t yet been touched on.

I know his comments about the Hill abduction are questionable. Kathleen Marden, Betty Hill's niece, says as much and we'll have her on to talk about this and other topics late in September.

 

[manxman]

It was the false teeth bit that hooked my interest in the hill case, the way Stan friedman tells it.

 

[Vance]

At the expense of stopping him at every turn of phrase, we let him hang himself. Listen to the rest and you'll see the ultimate contradiction in what he says.

That was the take home message I got.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I think he did a good job of hanging himself, with a bit of prodding from us. No need to interrupt at every shoot-from-the-hip turn of phrase to get the message across.

 

[manxman]

Im listening to the show now, at the part where shaeffer is ''name dropping'' [hyneck sagan etc].

but before i forget, note to chris on sharing the e book, Dropbox would be ideal, it would also be ideal for collaborative work on case's your researching, google it, it is free and dead easy to use.

 

[manxman]

funny at about 48 min's when he is talking about rendalshem, he mutters on about lights in the sky, then he says

'' then there were some light's in the sky 2 night's later, well they went out to take alook, got scared and came back to base after a couple of minute's''

ffs, a nuclear weapon's base, ''got scared'' it's like he think's he is addressing a class of 12 yr old's.

 

[SRL+]

RE: Interview at 15:15

Bob, in 1968 while as a student under the direction of J. Allen Hynek, who at the time was chairman of the astronomy department at Northwestern University contacted Phillip Klass who then recruited Bob to join Klass’s skeptical movement. Bob went on to say that he knew Hynek to a fair extent, and they had discussions, (arguments?), pertaining to the UAP/UFO enigma. Bob went on farther to state that Hynek “felt that if credible persons reported incredible things, these incredible things must be really happening, and we have to bend science to try to explain them”. Meanwhile.., Bob said that he was arguing with Hynek “that there were other “things” like historical accounts of witchcraft, and people being burnt because a woman had changed herself into a rabbit, or something”.

It’s fairly obvious here that Bob holds animosity toward Hynek , as these “persons” who reported these "incredible things” were none other than Jacques Vallee and his late wife who when only after compiling data that suggested patterns of a newly emerging phenomenon presented their findings to Hynek, and that is precisely when Hynek changed positions, in favor of researching the UFO phenomenon.

So, once again here, we have Bob describing in what only could be possibly considered as a half-truth in a most deceptive, and misleading fashion. BTW, I highly doubt that Hynek would say “we have to bend science to try to explain these things”.

Again, what about Bob? Why is he unable to tell the unvarnished truth?

Just wondering here, if Bob passed or failed in Hynek’s classes, as J. Allen was pretty mellow, and probably let Bob slide right on through. Then again, maybe Bobs grumpy because J. Allen didn’t give Bob the grade that he felt that he had deserved.., so instead, decided to take a poop in Hynek's Easter basket.

 

[Randall]

Most skeptics would probably agree that it's irresponsible to draw conclusions without having sufficient evidence to support one's position. Why then do skeptics tend to draw the conclusion that all the objects in UFO reports are something mundane, when they don't have sufficient evidence to support that position? And why do some skeptics, tend to believe certain types of information e.g. military sources, when it suits their position, but dismiss it when it doesn't? How can skepticism be objective when it begins with a bias in the form of doubt or an assumption to be proven false?

But these aren't the only problems I've encountered, and I'm glad we were able to get Robert Sheaffer as a guest on the Paracast, because it gives us a chance to see how his brand of skepticism works. By "brand" I mean that not all skeptics use the same approach. Sheaffer has a measure of status in the skeptical community associated with CSI ( formerly CSICOP ), and as such, we're not just talking about an informal attitude of reservation or doubt, but of skepticism as a more formal system of identifying weaknesses in arguments for or against specific claims.

I don't know Robert well enough to know if his personal position on UFOs is different than his skeptical position, but it should be noted that formal skeptical positions don't ( or at least shouldn't ) preclude the possibility that claims of a plausible nature could be true. So if you listen carefully, although the interview includes a lot of rhetoric against the reality of alien visitation, it avoids claiming outright that none is actually taking place. Instead, what we hear are a lot of reasons why what we may think is reasonable to believe could be wrong.

Having been involved in ufology for many years, I fully appreciate how a skeptical filter is a valuable tool when evaluating UFO reports, and I'll give any skeptic credit where credit is due. However at the same time, I think it's important not to think that it's OK to use conclusions from other kinds of claims and apply them to ufology as if they have the same relevance ( they don't ). It's also important not to justify one's skeptical position with generalizations that are simply untrue. For example at about 2:07:13 we hear Sheaffer make the claim:

Sheaffer | 02:07: 00 | "Technology follows science. It doesn't precede. So science breakthroughs have to come first, and then technological breakthroughs can follow behind the science."
​

So we might ask ourselves then: Has there been technology in the past that has come before the science, and the answer is "Yes". Let's consider a few pieces of technology that came into being before science had been invented: First example: The boat. There is no question that boats are a type of technology and people were building them long before the Archimedes Principle was discovered in the second century BC, and if science had never come along, I have little doubt that steady improvements to boats would have continued until large and sophisticated seagoing vessels had been created without their builders knowing exactly why they stayed afloat.

Another example is the spring: One of the oldest tools that uses the spring is the bow ( bow and arrow ). Again, people were making bows long before there were scientists around. Want more? Ceramics. According to Wikipedia, the great part of the history of ceramics is prehistoric. There are more examples, but the point is that it's entirely possible to stumble across some sort of natural principle and learn how to use it to one's advantage without knowing any science at all.

Skeptics might argue that such examples still qualify as science, and that the participants were simply unaware that they are doing it. However that claim doesn't stand-up. Accidentally discovering something and improving it by trial and error may bear a resemblance to science, but it's not science. It wasn't until the Islamic Golden Age that the foundation for the scientific method was laid ( Wikipedia ). So let's not move the goalposts apart so far that we can justify calling anything merely resembling science, "science". When we do that we move dangerously close to promoting pseudoscience.

What does the above have to do with the issues at hand? It is entirely possible, though unlikely, that some secret Earthly sub-culture stumbled across some natural phenomenon that allows them to create the alien craft we call UFOs. It's also possible that aliens stumbled upon this same phenomenon and built their ships around it without knowing exactly why it works the way it does. If true, that could explain what seems like a discrepancy between their transportation technology and other kinds of alien technology, e.g. their curiosity about basic biology.

Another thing that CSI type skeptics tend to do that is related to the above, is frame everything in scientific terms. Science is an excellent tool, but it's not the only tool we have. We also have critical thinking, which is an accepted academic practise for establishing whether or not it's reasonable to believe certain claims based on evidence that may or may not be scientific. It works in conjunction with other tools like logic, philosophy, deductive reasoning, virtually anything, including science when it is available, that can advance the seeker toward the truth. So if you ever get into a debate with a skeptic, don't let them establish the ground rule that the only valid evidence is scientific evidence. For them, the debate may be that simple, but the UFO phenomenon isn't.

Another issue to touch on is the notion of the trained observer:

Sheaffer | 01:00: 37 | "Is there such a thing as an observer training class? Of course not. There isn't. Never has been."​

In response to the above, we might want to ask Mr. Sheaffer if he recognizes the following:



The above is Naval Aviation Observer/Flight Meteorologist Badge, one of several military trained observer badges that date back to 1922 and are awarded to navigators and other support personnel on naval aircraft. Air Observers also took special classes at Air Observer Schools:



Another example of trained observers are meteorologists. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition. In the year 2008 there were 9,400 people employed as Atmospheric scientists in the USA. This does not include individuals employed in college and university departments of meteorology or atmospheric science, physics, earth science, or geophysics; these individuals are classified as college or university faculty, rather than atmospheric scientists. About 34 percent of atmospheric scientists are employed by the Federal Government; most of these work in the National Weather Service.

Then there are astronomers. Few would deny that astronomers are trained observers of the sky, and the number of those in the USA is between 6000 and 7000. According to the NOAO, there are about 100 US colleges and universities that offer a Ph.D. in astronomy and many more that offer other undergraduate degrees. These numbers don't include amateur astronomers, of which there are many more thousands.

As for UFOs in particular, the group I'm with offered a distance learning course that included material on identifying various cloud types and their altitude ranges, basic skywatching, basic meteorology, and field trips to observe these natural phenomena, plus some basic aviation history and field trips to air shows and airports to get an idea about what various aircraft look like both day and night at varying distances. So the whole idea that there is no such thing as a trained observer and that there have never been classes for such is clearly false.

Now let's take a look at the issue of radar. When @Gene Steinberg asked him about the Washington National Sightings in 1952 ( great question ) we have the following quote:

Sheaffer | 01:10: 00 | "I didn't say that there were never any simultaneous sightings. I said that there wasn't any real consistency in terms of where the objects were, how they were moving, and so on. By today's standards those were very unsophisticated radars in 1952, and in fact Phil Klass wrote an article oh I think sometime around 1990 which he pointed out this fact hat as a radars have improved over the years, as the electronics has gotten better there are fewer and fewer radar/ufo cases, and most of these cases that we have are looking at the old radars. So he's arguing that you know as radar gets better it gets better at able to distinguish false targets from real ones, and we don't see these radar ufos as much as we used to.​

Now let's consider this statement made by Gilbert R. Levy, Chief, Counter-Intelligence Division, Director of Special Investigations dated 29 July 1952:

"At 2320 hours, 25 July 1952, two (2) Air Force F-94s were dispatched from New Castle AFB Delaware, for the purpose of intercepting objects which have been sighted on radar. One of the F-94s reportedly made visual contact with one of the objects and at first appeared to be gaining on it, but the object and the F-94 were observed on radar scope and appeared to be travelling at the same approximate speed. However, when it attempted to overtake the object, the object disappeared both from the pursuant aircraft and the radar scope. The pilot of the F-94 remarked of the "incredible speed of the object." ( document reproduced here ).​

The same document says the radar operators described the radar returns as "good sharp targets". So as we can see from the above there is at least one example of consistency as to where the object detected on radar was because it was tracked by both the radar and seen visually by the pilot. In fact, it makes no sense to say that there "wasn't any real consistency in terms of where the objects were, how they were moving, and so on." because by their very nature, radar/visual sightings are visual confirmations of objects detected on radar. Therefore they provide consistency between highly trained personnel.

However that's not where the problems with Sheaffer's statement ends. Let's have a closer look at the issue of standards where he says that "By today's standards those were very unsophisticated radars in 1952." That may be true to some extent but so what? Sheaffer's argument is an informal fallacy, an example of applying standards that seem to support his argument but which don't address the real issue. If technical performance is the issue, all that matters is whether or not the radars used at the time worked well enough for their operators to detect objects in the sky and determine with reasonable certainty what they represent, and the fact is, radar in 1952 was perfectly capable of doing that.

The other issue regarding radar that Sheaffer mentions is that, "... as radar gets better it gets better at able to distinguish false targets from real ones, and we don't see these radar ufos as much as we used to." Assuming this is true, which, doesn't actually seem to be the case, one of the main reasons has nothing to do with radar detection, but with how the signals are filtered e.g. with transponder technology. Transponders are pieces of equipment used on known aircraft that allow them to be identified by air traffic control centers. Because of them, modern aircraft traffic control operators can apply filters to remove or de-emphasize returns that don't use transponders. This helps to remove what is called "clutter".

Obviously alien craft aren't going to be using transponders, so it's a logical fallacy to assume that because they're filtered out by civilian radar, they aren't there. What then about all the targets captured by military radar? According to researcher Timothy Good in his excellent book Beyond Top Secret ( 1996 ), the US Naval Space Surveillance System had made over 10 million uncorrelated observations since the 1960s, most of which were probably mundane in nature, but that still suggests that the number of unknown objects that are detected was hardly decreasing.

Also, because we civilians don't have access to current military radar data, there is no way to know whether there are more or less radar/visual detections of alien craft than before. Therefore it's another logical fallacy to assume that simply because we don't have access to the data, that the phenomena can be explained away as the result of better radar.

On the issue of memory and human perception, I'll defer to @S.R.L.'s post here, adding only that the skeptics tend to downplay the capacity of humans when it's convenient and emphasize our superior abilities when it's convenient. They employ this double standard rather than accepting the fact that human perception and analysis remains the most advanced on the planet and is still superior in the area of pattern recognition. That's why we have the captcha. Human perception and intelligent analysis is the product of millions of years of evolution and only recently have machines come anywhere close to rivaling human performance, especially when aided by technology such as optics.

The ultimate fall-back for the skeptic is that those who make claims unsubstantiated by objective verifiable scientifically valid evidence is that the witness could be either lying or fabricating the story. That is certainly true, and it should not be ruled out as a possibility when investigating individual cases, but is it reasonable to simply insert "fabrication" as a conclusion whenever all else in the skeptic's arsenal fails? What about those cases where investigators ruled out fabrications and every other reasonable mundane explanation, but still end up with a report in which the object is believed to be unknown?

Do we then say that the investigators are incompetent or lying too? I suppose we could, but isn't that game just a little too easy to play? If there's no other explanation then thousands of witnesses are simply lying or mentally disturbed to the point of confabulating their experiences. Finally, comparing modern day educated witnesses of the UFO phenomenon to medieval peasants who accused people of sorcery is a blatant straw man argument and has zero value. Skeptics know this tactic and call it out in others. So why do they use it themselves? Is playing debating game more important than using skepticism to help discern the truth?

Last but not least, I had to chuckle when @Christopher O'Brien said, "The Drake equation would suggest that there are billions and billions of civilizations out there." He's now officially on record as using that most famous of Saganisms, not as a skeptic, but as a paranormal investigator. Oh the irony is sweet .

 

[manxman]

Nice ebook Randal.




Only kiddin, i would like to listen to you debate a debunker, oopsy, i mean 'skeptic' on the paracast, you would give them a good run for their money imo, nice read.

Gene ?.

 

[Wade]

Being that the name of one of his sites is debunker.com and proudly calls himself skeptic to the max, in not so sure there is any point in quantifying his skeptical level or brand. As a debunker my feeling is that anything that goes against his personal belief system is summarily discarded. A person who's mind is made up probably shouldn't be allowed to even use skeptic in his branding, it should be debunker to the max.