Skeptics-Honesty and UFOs

[Decker]

I received an email note from a guy in Australia yesterday concerning an incident that happened to me on my first radio show, UFOs Tonite. It involved the very last interview I ever conducted with Phil Klass when he ended up shouting Bullshit on my radio show and hung up. The reason he did this was because during the interview we began discussing the Washington DC overflights by UFOs in 1952 and that the Air Force took approx. one hour to get jet interceptors there instead of right away. I had always been curious about that fact and finally I spoke to Al Chop prior to his death and this was what he told me ... that at the time the military air bases there were having their runways repaired and re-surfaced. Subsequently the jets had to be flown in to DC from Delaware. At anyrate that reminded me of short article I had written a number of years ago for a website that dealt with items involving space and of course UFOs. I thought some here might find my article of interest. Here it is.
Don

UFO Enigma
Editorial: Skeptics or Debunkers?
By Don Ecker, Director of Research
From The Desk of UFO MAGAZINE

As I started to think about this month's topic for Destination
Space, I had several things going on at once. I have been
working on a book of Lunar Anomalies and of course my job with
UFO Magazine takes most of my time. Just about a week had passed
since I had started reading a new book we received at the
magazine, a book that I just reviewed and that will end up being
the next "must have, must read" for this generation. This book
is titled "UFOs and the National Security State" written by one
Richard M. Dolan. (I will be talking more about this book in the
future.)

While all this was going on I also received, addressed to me,
something I immediately put a jaundiced eye on, a letter trying
to get me to subscribe to the Skeptical Inquirer. Now why would
I feel so strongly about the Skeptical Inquirer? And what is the
Skeptical Inquirer? Well, in the letter it was described as the
"magazine for science and reason" and that can't be too bad, can
it? Let me give you a paragraph or two from the letter:

"This magazine is created by editors, scientists, and writers
who are as fascinated by the extraordinary and the mysterious as
you are. But unlike most of the 'wide-eyed' amateurs who call
themselves experts, they're not afraid to look a little
closer... to ask some pointed questions... to bring science to
bear on the issue-because they want to truly solve the mystery,
not wallow in it. (Oh goody! My comment) That's where the fun
is. And, believe me, it's a wild ride!"

Oh yeah, it is a wild ride for sure. But wait, just like the
Ginzu Knives commercial, there is more! I also received a
"personal note" from Nobel Laureate Leon M. Lederman addressed
to 'me.' It started with: Don Ecker

"Dear Friend, I have found great articles in the Skeptical
Inquirer that *debunk such examples of 'junk science' as UFOs in
Roswell, cold fusion, ghosts and haunted houses, astrology,
fortune tellers, crying statues, etc., etc. The exercise of
rational (scientific) thinking is essential to preserving our
long-term commitment to rationality. Skepticism is an essential
attribute of good thinking. Sincerely, Leon M. Lederman Nobel
Laureate-Physics 1988."

Ooo, I felt better already. I decided to compile a list of
writers, former and current for the Skeptical Inquirer and see
what kind of rationality we came up with. And one or two names
have expired or gone on to that great rational hall in the sky,
so if still alive, I am sure they would write for the Skeptical
Inquirer. Here goes.....

What skeptical observation can begin without mentioning Dr.
Donald Menzel, the grandpa of all UFO skeptics? Menzel was the
man who put the "ad" in "ad hominem." Of course next would be
Philip J. Klass, who bills himself as the Sherlock Holmes of UFO
investigations. (Oh, really?) Jim Oberg, former NASA contractor
and "up and coming" debunker. Carl Sagan, pop astronomer, former
SETI proponent and debunker extraordinaire would fit right in
there, and I cannot forget another "up and comer" Michael
Shermer. Now some meaner guys, (not to suggest some of the above
were not nasty now and then) Martin Gardner, Joe Nickell, Curtis
Peebles, and Robert Sheaffer. This list is kind of a "Who's
Who."

So, what is it that I think that suggests I am not ready to buy
the "honest effort" that these guys put out to bring rationality
to UFOs? And... why is it that the UFO subject is always thrown
in with the ghosts, astrologers, haunted houses, fairies and so
on? After all, when the United States Air Force was publicly
chasing saucers they did not have a "fairies officer" or a
"ghost" officer or a "haunted house" officer, but they did have
a UFO officer on *each Air Force base. That should say
something. But my experience by and large is that the skeptical
community "explains that which is un-investigated, and does not
investigate that which is unexplained." Let me explain.....

Philip J. Klass is today considered to be the premier UFO
skeptic alive. Klass, now fast approaching 80 years of age, has
slashed and burned his way across the landscape for about 35
years. Over the now almost 15 years I have been chasing the
phenomenon, I have had a number of encounters with "kindly old
Phil." Now please, do not get the idea that I am billing myself
as the "know all and seen it all" guy, but I have been around
the block with a bunch of skeptics in all those years. In my
encounters with Klass, Oberg, Sheaffer, Shermer and others I
have found that *without exception they *all have taken a page
from Robert Low, Project Coordinator of the Condon Committee,
and instead of attacking the cases -- they will attack the
witnesses. Slashing and burning the word, reputations and
character of people reporting on the UFO phenomenon. (In a
humorous moment when I was on Larry King Live debating Jim Oberg
on the STS-48 shuttle UFO, Oberg accused me of coming on the
program to sell magazines when I asked him if he was operating
under any security restrictions. The "ad hominem attack!)

I do not have either the time or space to give you a litany of
each skeptic I have named, so this month I will simply zero in
on one, Phil Klass.

Klass entered the UFO scene around 1966. A former editor with
Aviation Week & Space Technology, he would seem to be an
excellent choice to examine the UFO subject and present an
honest and critical eye on some of the more difficult UFO cases.
Alas, that was not to be. After Klass wrote his first UFO book
"UFOs-Identified" where he claimed UFOs were anomalous, but not
alien, Klass theorized that UFOs were caused by ball lighting
and free floating plasmas. Even the University of Colorado study
(Condon) found this theory to be scientifically unsustainable.
Dr. James McDonald, an atmospheric physicist and proponent of
legitimate UFO study, tore Klass's arguments apart using
scientific reasoning and facts. Klass then decided McDonald must
be dangerous and dealt with, after all he was "pro-UFO."
McDonald was working for the Office of Naval Research who funded
his trip to Australia to conduct cloud-physics studies, and
Klass went on a rampage at ONR writing letters demanding to know
who funded McDonald to conduct UFO research in Australia, and
later trips McDonald was to take to Europe and the USSR. Klass
also enlisted other sympathetic journalists to assist him in a
campaign that lasted 1 and one half years. The ONR conducted an
audit of McDonald that cleared him, but then cut McDonald off
from any further grants. They were afraid of further bad press.
At this point I would ask the Skeptical Inquirer about rational
and scientific open mindedness.

Klass's position is such that if anyone is willing to propose
that some cases might possibly be explained as off world
technology, then they are only seeking celebrity status or
attempting to make money. At this point, Klass then zeroes in on
the character of the researcher. In 1983, Klass began an attack
directed against the University of Nebraska because they were
sponsoring a UFO conference. In a conversation with the
university's administrator Klass charged that "ufologists 'seek
what the Soviet Union does, to convey to the public that our
government can not be trusted, and I resent it as an American
citizen." He equated UFO research with communism, as un-
patriotic and anti-American. Klass went on to phone faculty and
further claimed that for the university to sponsor such a
conference (UFOs) was comparable to the dilemma they would face
if the American Nazi Party wanted to hold a conference there.
Later CSICOP spokesman Mark Plummer wrote that he found nothing
excessive in Klass's claims.

I had personal experience with Klass on two different occasions
when he displayed his fanatic anti-UFO sentiments. In 1992, I
was invited to debate Klass in Denver, sponsored by ParaNet and
MICAP. During the debate we began to discuss the Frederick
Valentich case. This was a case of a young Australian pilot who
disappeared in 1978 after radioing that he was being approached
by a huge UFO. (The RAAF became involved in this case, but no
aircraft or body was ever located.) Klass began by calling
Valentich a "drug smuggler." I was not about to allow him to get
away with that and demanded he prove his assertion. His proof?
Valentich had four life preservers in his aircraft. Klass has
operated on the assumption that if the case cannot be discarded
because the claims can't be disproved, then it *must be a hoax
because UFOs simply cannot be real!

The next run in with Klass happened near the end of January
1995. I had invited Klass on my two hour, weekly radio program
UFOs Tonite!. During the program Klass had threatened to hang up
when I challenged him about his assertion that Major Jesse
Marcel, when picking up debris from the Roswell Incident, was
trying to claim a $3,000 reward offered by a newspaper for proof
of a flying saucer. Klass got very testy when I challenged him
on the statement that Marcel, the intelligence officer of the
most elite military group in the world, would attempt collect a
reward. (By the way, there is no proof of such a reward being
offered that I was ever able to locate.) He threatened to hang
up at that point. Later during the program we were discussing
the 1952 overflights of Washington DC, when Klass tried to
suggest the Air Force was not worried because they took over an
hour to send up jet interceptors. I informed Klass the reason
was that the local Air Force bases were repairing runways and
the jets had to be flown in from Delaware. (I had the proof
including a statement by Al Chop who was then the Air Force
liaison with its Blue Book operation) Klass became enraged and
began screaming "Bullshit!" over the air. When I expressed my
indignation to him, he became embarrassed and hung up his
telephone mid-show! (Another time Klass "lost it" and began
screaming profanities to a national audience occurred about 1993
on the Larry King show. Klass appeared with Travis Walton and
Mike Rogers, and Rogers accused Klass of being a government
agent. Klass in a 'klassic-display' of temper screamed, 'MIKE
ROGERS!, YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR!") This is the rational thought
demonstrated by the likes of the Skeptical Inquirer and CSICOP
that I have encountered.

The bottom line is the fact that UFOs are real (but I am not
saying necessarily ET, but some cases _do_ suggest that) and the
United States Government is hiding the information. Perhaps they
still feel that they are 'protecting us', but I don't buy it.
When my tax dollars help defray the costs of all these damned
secret programs, and then I am lied to, to boot... well, damn
it, I feel used. _And_ - if the skeptics are honest, and not
much proof of that yet - either... in their heart of hearts they
know it to be true. More on this later and remember to keep your
eyes to the skies.

 

[spacebrother]

Thanks for this, Don.

Klass was an asshole, pure and simple. I've heard stories of his underhanded dealings and mean-spirited activities from many researchers, good and bad. He was probably working for someone, or sublimating some horrible traumas, or both. He was a founding member of CSICOP, along with other blind-faithers like Martin Gardner and James Randi. CSICOP (now ridiculously renamed CSI) is still a haven for fundamentalist skeptics, who are just as bad (or maybe worse, since they claim to stand for reason and the scientific method) than fundamentalist believers.

Two articles of mine on the topic may be of interest:

UFOMystic What CSI(COP) Is About

UFOMystic Masters Of Deception

On the back cover of the third issue of my old magazine, we published a bumper sticker-sized graphic which read "PHIL KLASS IS A FINK." Klass wrote and said he was going to sue for $1,000,000.26. He said that the 26 cents was for the stamp he used to send it. This was obviously a joke, but somewhere I still have that letter.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Thanks for this, Don.

Klass was an asshole, pure and simple. I've heard stories of his underhanded dealings and mean-spirited activities from many researchers, good and bad. He was probably working for someone, or sublimating some horrible traumas, or both. He was a founding member of CSICOP, along with other blind-faithers like Martin Gardner and James Randi. CSICOP (now ridiculously renamed CSI) is still a haven for fundamentalist skeptics, who are just as bad (or maybe worse, since they claim to stand for reason and the scientific method) than fundamentalist believers.

Two articles of mine on the topic may be of interest:

UFOMystic What CSI(COP) Is About

UFOMystic Masters Of Deception

On the back cover of the third issue of my old magazine, we published a bumper sticker-sized graphic which read "PHIL KLASS IS A FINK." Klass wrote and said he was going to sue for $1,000,000.26. He said that the 26 cents was for the stamp he used to send it. This was obviously a joke, but somewhere I still have that letter.

Klass was a difficult person, no question, at least in terms of his relationship to the UFO subject, but as far as I know there has never been any evidence presented that he was "working for somebody," i.e. an intel agency. Indeed, the FBI thought he was a complete pain in the ass, as I pointed out back in 2006 in "Phil Klass - A Spy for the FBI?"

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2006/02/phil-klass-spy-for-fbi.html

When Phil Klass died last year, more than a few people said words to the effect of: “Now that he’s dead we’ll be able to check his files and find out if he was working for the government.”

Well, the FBI has released its files on Klass (the files can be found here, thanks to CUFON). A few pages were withheld in the interests of national security, which probably has nothing to do with UFOs and everything to do with some of the material about which Klass wrote, and was looked into for national security violations for having done so, as well as redacted information within the released files, most of which seems to relate to personal information, or sources and methods.

So – was Klass an agent of the FBI?

Hardly.

The materials in the FBI files show that the FBI thought Klass was a pest, and that they didn’t have a great deal of respect for him or his opinions.

For example, a memo dated 21 February 1975 reveals that on the 18th of February, 1975, Klass called the Editor of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin to complain about an article by famed ufologist Dr. J. Allen Hynek, “The UFO Mystery”, which has appeared in the February, 1975 issue. According to the memo, Klass “derided” the decision to publish the article, suggested that by doing so the FBI had “given its endorsement to a hoax (that UFOs are extra-terrestrial in origin),” and called Hynek a “fraud”. Klass then stated that he had “investigated UFO sightings with the thoroughness of the FBI over a period of many years” (a statement which must have amused the FBI), and had not found “one shred of evidence that they were from beyond earth’s atmosphere”.

When Klass was informed of the FBI’s positive view of Dr. Hynek, especially that he was affiliated with a leading university (Northwestern), Klass replied, “He won’t be for long!”

This didn’t affect the FBI’s assessment of Dr. Hynek, as is clear from the memo: “All of his writings and public statements that were examined prior to the publication of his article in the Bulletin disclose a meticulously objective and scientific view of the UFO phenomenon.”

In other words, the exact opposite of the FBI’s view of Klass. The memo concludes by stating that, “In view of Klass’s intemperate criticism and often irrational statements he made to support it, we should be most circumspect in any future contacts with him.”

This was a remark that followed Klass from that point on whenever he dealt with the FBI, often being referred to in later memos. For example, when Klass wrote two letters in 1987, the first to question whether the FBI employed psychics, and the second to complain about a psychic being brought in to lecture to students at the FBI Academy, the memo attached to the letters and the FBI’s responses includes the reminder that the 1975 memo had stated ‘in view of Klass’ intemperate criticism and often irrational statements… it was recommended that the Bureau be most circumspect in any future contacts with him.”

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2685/863/1600/kelley.jpgUndeterred, Klass followed up on 14 June, 1975, with a letter to FBI Director Clarence Kelley in which he wrote:

“The enclosed photo-copy of a headline and feature story in a recent issue of the tabloid “The National Tattler” is a portent of the sort of “FBI endorsement” for the flying-saucer myth that you can expect to see, repeatedly, as a result of the article on UFOs carried by the February issue of the Law Enforcement Bulletin. That article was written by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the spiritual leader of the vocal group of “believers” and “kooks” who claim that we are being visited by extraterrestrial spaceships. While the FBI did not endorse Hynek’s views per se, the decision to publish his article and to alert law enforcement agencies as to what to do “if they land,” has embroiled the agency for all time.”

Klass continued:

“The Hynek article published by the FBI encourages law enforcement officers to take the time – from much more pressing duties – to take calls from people who report seeing UFOs and to in turn relay such calls to Hynek’s own UFO group. Surely in these times law enforcement officers have more useful things to occupy their time and attention.”

At the end of the letter, Klass offered to write an article for the Law Enforcement Bulletin that would present the “other side” of the UFO issue.

Kelley’s response was contained in a letter he wrote dated 23 June, 1975:

“Quite contrary to the news clipping you enclosed, Dr. Hynek’s article has been accurately and rationally reported by the media throughout the country. None of the responsible media, to my knowledge, have ignored the clearly stated theme of the article: ‘[r]egardless of the source of UFOs or their legitimacy, these sightings represented a real problem for law enforcement…’ to whom persons normally first report their observations. This is the only premise the FBI has endorsed in publishing the article. I could not agree more with your implication that law enforcement personnel should look after their primary responsibility – crime, not UFOs. This is precisely the reason we believe the Center for UFO Studies can help free law enforcement personnel from investigating and reporting on phenomena unassociated with crime.”

Fairly kind words re: CUFOS from the FBI, and certainly not the disparagement of the UFO phenomenon for which Klass was no doubt hoping (Kelley politely declined Klass’s offer to write an article in response to Hynek’s).

Privately, FBI officials were scathing about Klass. Attached to the Kelley letter is a memo that states:

“Klass is well known to us… [He] is deficient in all points of his argument, particularly concerning the credentials of Dr. Hynek which would scarcely be better. Hynek has been associated professorially with some of the finest universities in this country and is recognized in the most prestigious scientific circles. On the otherhand, Klass has no such sterling reputation and has twice been under FBI investigation in connection with the unauthorized publication of classified information. Both of these cases have been closed.”

This latter point, about Klass publishing classified materials without authorization, is ironic, given his role in the MJ-12 circus. Other memos in the file reveal that the only reason Klass wasn’t prosecuted is that the classified information he had used could not be declassified for the purposes of prosecution (Memo, 11 May, 1976).

Lucky for Klass.

What can be gleaned from these files is a portrait of a man who was neither respected nor liked by the FBI, who was in fact seen as an “accusatory and argumentative” trouble-maker, and who could not be trusted, given both his previous publishing of classified material and his “intemperate criticism and irrational statements” (i.e. he was a loose cannon).

In the vernacular?

He could be a mean-spirited pain in the ass – no surprise there to many ufologists – but he was also about as far from being an FBI agent as you could get.

​

I think we should accept Klass for who and what he was - a cantankerous, opiniated bastard, who as Bruce Maccabee pointed out after Klass's death forced researchers to be better at what they were doing in order to refute Klass' critiques... some of which, contrary to what a lot of ufologists would like you to believe, actually made sense.

Paul

 

[Decker]

Paul,

Thanks for that very thoughtful critique of Klass. You pretty much summed up my take on him also. Apart from being a vicious (when crossed or embarrassed) guy, he could also be a charmer upon occasion. I recall back in the early days of UFO Magazine Vicki would call him for a quote on something and he always flirted with her in a very friendly way. If he and I were not talking UFO cases he was always friendly with me. I guess it was not until he and I met in Denver for that debate that I really got an in-depth view of what a SOB he could be. Which brings to mind something Mosely had in Saucer Smear after Klass died. Bill Moore had sent Mosely some missive about Klass which in effect said he was glad Klass was gone. You know, something like "my mother always said that if you can't say something good about somebody, don't say anything. Well, Klass is dead ..... Good!" Mosely thought that was very un-cool.

Me? After what he did on my radio show in Jan. of 1995 I never spoke to him again. I was pretty P.O.ed at him. Now? Well I guess I don't have to worry about it or him any longer.

Don

 

[Hoffmeister]

I don't think Klass was an Asshole, but I do think that most of his explanations were a bit lame. Whether there is any truth to the topics he tried to debunk or not, I don't know... but I actually don't think he was very good as a skeptic as most of explanations were laughable, and he clearly hadn't put much effort into them.
From what I can tell, Don met him on a few occasions and said he was generally a nice enough guy. His rant on the show though before he hung up was a bit odd, although i think it was due to Dwight hitting it at him pretty strong in that episode.

What Don said rings true though.... if you don't believe in it, and you think its all nonsense... why spend 20 years of your time coming up with explanations for it?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Lest anyone mistake me, let me make it crystal clear - Klass could indeed be charming when he wanted to, but he had a dark soul. His actions with respect to Jim McDonald were unforgiveable, and his letter to the NRC here in Canada warning them about Stan Friedman years ago (a nifty find by Rich Dolan) was about as underhanded as it gets.

It's not the debunking that bothered so many people (nothing wrong with debunking bunk) - it was that Klass couldn't see beyond his knee-jerk disbelief, and wouldn't look at cases objectively. Sometimes it worked out for him, because the case was lousy... but other times he made himself look ridiculous, as in his absurd explanations for the classic 1957 RB47 case.

He was the ultimate yin to the true believers yang, and every bit as nasty as some of the worst believers are when it comes to trashing people who don't agree with them. A pox on both their houses.

 

[spacebrother]

I am aware that Klass could be nasty to anyone for apprently the slightest transgression. I stand by my assessment.

As far as I know, Gardner was unequivocal in his a-priori dismissal of ALL claims of phenomena that were not comfortably covered by existing theory. That is not scientific inquiry. It is more like a faith-based system of belief. Read Rawlins' article.

I don't use vitriol unless I think it is justified. CSICOPer Joe Nickell can be comfortably placed in the fundamentalist skeptic category, but he partially redeemed himself with his recreation of a Nazca line figure using only rope and posts in the ground, refuting ancient astronaut proponents.

Klass offered to meet a researcher I know at an airport over 100 miles from the researcher's home. Klass never showed up. When asked why he didn't make the meeting, Klass responded that he "just wanted to see if you would show up." That's just one example. Paul's cites others. It shows a mean spirit and that equates to "asshole" to me.

As for his theories explaining UFO phenomena, I tend to think he was like a stopped clock. His service seems to have been to keep the dumber UFO researchers and fans on their toes, and to convince those who are not that interested in the phenomenon that there are simple explanations to all UFO encounters. Once again, that smacks of faith, not science.

I retract my comment about "working for someobody." It was meant as bombast. I don't seriously think that he was any sort of "agent," it's just that some of his explanations were so ridiculous that they seemed below his intelligence.

 

[Frank Stalter]

 

[spacebrother]

What counts is fair and honest debate on "fringe" subjects and cases.

Aw, I'll bet you say that to all the skeptics!

No, just those in whom I detect a tendency towards fundamentalism.

I know that this is the in-vogue way to dismiss skeptical thought but, at least in this case, you couldn't be more demonstrably wrong. Gardner wrote many essays on new ideas in physics and philosophy, ideas that were decidedly NOT comfortably covered by existing theory. Have you read any of them?

No, but if you point me in at any online, I will. I'll wager that he stayed far away from any speculation on what are considered "paranormal" subjects. Any helpful suggestions as to why experimental evidence seems to support some phenomena like ESP or mind-over matter are most likely missing from his oeuvre. Maybe I was thinking of Paul Kurtz!

I never indicated that "believers" were more fair than skeptics. However, they seem just as fair as fundamentalist skeptics. Both groups seek to refute their critics without offering an open forum for debate. I make a sharp distinction between true skeptics and fundamentalists. I consider someone like Marcello Truzzi to have been a true skeptic, while Klass was more like a fundamentalist. Truzzi once asked how CSICOP could combine an attitude of impartial inquiry with a stance of scientific authority when there was an initial assumption that all claims of the paranormal were erroneous or fraudulent, which is part of the reason why he resigned from the organization.

My point was not to be disingenuous by bringing Klass and Gardner into the Rawlins debate, but to point out that some of the members of CSICOP seem determined to defend scientific dogma, rather than pursue an honest inquiry into unknown areas. Klass, Nickell, and Randi have demonstrated this over the years, at least to my mind. When Randi refused to trust a third party to judge his ESP challenge (by placing an object to be "remote viewed" in his possession, rather than in the hands of a mutually agreed-upon neutral observer) I would call that a form of fundamentalism.

You say that there were mistakes on both sides in the Rawlins episode. It seems that either of us could pick and choose whose mistakes we wanted to highlight. It seems clear to me that the committee of CSICOP balked when repeated analysis of the astrological data did not confirm their a-priori assumption that it was wrong, and they moved to change the statistical analysis until they arrived at the answer they wanted. That seems dishonest to me, whether you believe in astrology or not. Rawlins' "paranoia" does not affect that aspect of the debate.

I am interested in data that seem to indicate that we don't know everything about our interactions with the world, and that existing theories are inadequate to explain some observations (and repeatable experiments) which suggest that something like ESP may indeed be worthy of further study. To label that attitude as "pro-paranormal" is unfair I think.

The self-satisfied and superior attitude I have seen in some people who call themselves skeptics is just as galling to me as the blind faith of paranormal believers, although the skeptics seem to think a bit more! Both are closing themselves off to a clear search for truth, if such can be found in the paranormal field.

I will read Klass' response to Rawlins. When was Rawlins' response published? Maybe no one cared at that point.

As-yet unproven does not mean nonexistent to me, or at least worthy of further inquiry.

 

[dyingsun]

Thanks for the response, Greg.



But that is not what Rawlins reported.

You do know that what you describe above is how science is done: An unusual or surprising result gets tested from different angles. A scientific idea lives or dies as it gets confirmed or disconfirmed by other researchers. I hope that you also realize that it did turn out that there was a subtle problem with how the original French data was prepared, that there was no paranormal Mars Effect and that this was discovered due to the subsequent experiments (which were more than just new analyses of the same data). In other words, the doubters were right.

And by the way, Rawlins was one of the biggest doubters the entire time.

You seem to be saying that the data was fudged or lied about to get the answer desired. Even Rawlins doesn't say that. I hope you may note why I can then suggest that your plea for fairness seems sort of one-sided?

What Rawlins was mad about was that he thought that Kurtz was hiding one of the earlier analyses that seemed to confirm the Mars Effect. That analysis proved to be wrong (but Rawlins and Kurtz, presumedly, didn't know that at the time). Rawlins thought that Kurtz should have admitted it all to the press. And maybe he should have.

It is clear that Rawlins was also really peeved at the response and treatment he received from several of the researchers and Kurtz. And he didn't agree with some of the methods used, data used, etc. Some of it is just plain personal stuff.

The Rawlins sTARBABY piece was published in October 1981. It detailed stuff that had happened over the previous 6 or so years.

The evil skeptics let Rawlins respond for 6 pages in Skeptical Inquirer (Winter 1981-1982) just to show what censoring bastards they are.

Klass's CRYBABY was written in 1981 as well but never published although it was submitted to free-speech-loving Fate.

I appreciate this discussion. It gave me a chance to look into the matter in more detail and it gave me something to write about on my blog (which I have been neglecting).



As a amateur magician, I would call it Knowing How The Trick Is Done! Randi's challenges are written out AND agreed upon by both sides before the test takes place. Can you name the person being tested? I would like to look into this unfair changing of the protocols.

Hey, I'm in post-production,too. Mostly working on national TV spots.

Thanks,

Lance

I had to break into my post one last time to mention one other thing about Gardner. I hope you and anyone reading this will consider reading his Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. In this classic from the 1950s you will find Gardner exploring the idiocy of scientology before anyone had ever heard of that crap, he also explores UFOs in what I think you may find a surprisingly tentative way as well as a whole list of interesting paranormal and scientific topics. I usually reread it every year or two.

I am seriously confused here...not about the topic per se, but about you. I 'like' you....

 

[Hoffmeister]

So – was Klass an agent of the FBI?

Hardly.


Paul

Didnt Klass himself say that he was working for the Airforce/OSI?
Listening to the Kevin Randle episode of DMR recently Kevin seems to think that Klass said he was watching people in the UFO field for the Airforce, and went on to accuse Kevin of doing the same. Maybe just his little games though

 

[Paul Kimball]

Maybe just his little games though

I suspect that this was the case. The thing about intel agencies is that they're usually a lot more subtle than someone like Klass, and they tend to work from the inside, a la Bill Moore... or me.