Robert Sheaffer — August 24, 2014

[manxman]

He isnt a debunker to the max, his interview confirmed that beyond any doubt, shaeffer is a lazy debunker, he doesn't do his own research, he relies on dogmatic debunkers conclusion's for 'research' reference's, it's a circle jerk, as the others do the same thing, not many do actual in-depth research, and even less of them research multiple cases for prolonged periods, infact i dont know any that do.

 

[Randall]

He isnt a debunker to the max, his interview confirmed that beyond any doubt, shaeffer is a lazy debunker, he doesn't do his own research, he relies on dogmatic debunkers conclusion's for 'research' reference's, it's a circle jerk, as the others do the same thing, not many do actual in-depth research, and even less of them research multiple cases for prolonged periods, infact i dont know any that do.

I find it a shame that certain players have co-opted the words "skeptic" and "debunker" and that in doing so those words have become synonymous with "denier". If a case can truly be debunked, then let's all learn from it. And I'm sure we all agree that constructive skepticism is a valuable tool. So let's use it too. Let's give back the constructive, honest skeptics and debunkers their status as useful analysts and relegate the rest of them to the land of pseudoskeptics, deniers and bullies.

 

[manxman]

Intellectual integrity.

That's what it boil's down to, a sheer lack of it.

 

[Randall]

Intellectual integrity. That's what it boil's down to, a sheer lack of it.

To be fair, I don't want to see this turn into skeptic basher thread. Personally I'd like to build bridges between ufologists and skeptics by continuing to have them on the show now and then and by encouraging them to participate in the forum. As irksome as they can be sometimes, they also challenge us to do as much as we can to back-up our claims and beliefs with verifiable evidence, and that isn't a bad thing. Klass, Sagan, Sheaffer, Moody, Printy, and the like provide valuable counterpoint, and whether or not it's accurate, it forces us to think.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

To be fair, I don't want to see this turn into skeptic basher thread. Personally I'd like to build bridges between ufologists and skeptics by continuing to have them on the show now and then and by encouraging them to participate in the forum. As irksome as they can be sometimes, they also challenge us to do as much as we can to back-up our claims and beliefs with verifiable evidence, and that isn't a bad thing. Klass, Sagan, Sheaffer, Moody, Printy, and the like provide valuable counterpoint, and whether or not it's accurate, it forces us to think.

To be fair, I don't want to see this turn into skeptic basher thread. Personally I'd like to build bridges between ufologists and skeptics by continuing to have them on the show now and then and by encouraging them to participate in the forum. As irksome as they can be sometimes, they also challenge us to do as much as we can to back-up our claims and beliefs with verifiable evidence, and that isn't a bad thing. Klass, Sagan, Sheaffer, Moody, Printy, and the like provide valuable counterpoint, and whether or not it's accurate, it forces us to think.

To be fair, I don't want to see this turn into skeptic basher thread. Personally I'd like to build bridges between ufologists and skeptics by continuing to have them on the show now and then and by encouraging them to participate in the forum. As irksome as they can be sometimes, they also challenge us to do as much as we can to back-up our claims and beliefs with verifiable evidence, and that isn't a bad thing. Klass, Sagan, Sheaffer, Moody, Printy, and the like provide valuable counterpoint, and whether or not it's accurate, it forces us to think.

Disagree. I can think much better when I know the intentions of the group I interact with are looking for the "truth" of a case or phenomenon. The main people these type of skeptics aim at are the fruit loops of this culture. But they suck the air out of the room for the rest of us. Instead of common sense discussions it becomes a discussion of all things irrelevant. Their are people on this forum that point out different perspectives without essentially calling me a dumb ass. Put it this way, does the discussion become about the person or does it stay on the case?

 

[SRL+]

To be fair, I don't want to see this turn into skeptic basher thread. Personally I'd like to build bridges between ufologists and skeptics by continuing to have them on the show now and then and by encouraging them to participate in the forum. As irksome as they can be sometimes, they also challenge us to do as much as we can to back-up our claims and beliefs with verifiable evidence, and that isn't a bad thing. Klass, Sagan, Sheaffer, Moody, Printy, and the like provide valuable counterpoint, and whether or not it's accurate, it forces us to think.

Too late, because personally, I could give a rip in what Bob believes. As scientific research shouldn’t be about whether or not someone believes in UAPs/UFOs/ghosts or goblins, it’s about letting science do its thing, in wherever that thing may lead to. It’s about the roadblocks that hard core skeptics construct in the attempt of keeping mainstream science from conducting credible research. Anyone outside of Bob’s opinions hoping to extend an olive branch of peace in his direction is just dreaming, as they are in for a rude awakening when being poked in the eye with it. Bob has shown his true colors in his interview here, and has left himself dangling and twitching, whilst from the Paracast’s gallows. And that’s a good thing because he’s been assisting in perpetuating this mess for decades. So, go ahead and make your peace, just don’t forget to utilize your headgear. And just for the record, this by no means is not to suggest that to have Bob join us wouldn’t be anything other than a sheer joy, in knowing that he will respond with the same honesty, as having presented in his interview. And Randall, you may be a well-informed amateur Ufologist, but what you’re dealing with here is a well-seasoned debunker, a veteran of the trenches, and that’s going to be one tough nut to crack. As for every point you make, he’ll have several. Gene and Chris played Bob very well considering there was little arguing that may have sent Bob packing.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

One more thing: The upcoming appearance of Chris Rutkowski will serve, in part, as a rebuttal to Sheaffer. You'll be hearing from a seasoned investigator who has impeccable credentials and knows how to separate the fakes and conventional objects from potential unknowns.

 

[technomage]

I'm a skeptic who's skeptical of absurd reductionist explanations for anomalous phenomena. I'm also skeptical of people who think they have certain knowledge about the universe and human psychology.

 

[Randall]

... And Randall, you may be a well-informed amateur Ufologist, but what you’re dealing with here is a well-seasoned debunker, a veteran of the trenches, and that’s going to be one tough nut to crack. As for every point you make, he’ll have several. Gene and Chris played Bob very well considering there was little arguing that may have sent Bob packing.

How dare you call me an "amateur" I've been paid at least 4 or 5 times ... LOL .

 

[SRL+]

How dare you call me an "amateur" I've been paid at least 4 or 5 times ... LOL .

I guess I’ll just have to take that back then.., sorry.

 

[Randall]

I guess I’ll just have to take that back then.., sorry.

Not to worry. My sense of humor escapes even me sometimes . It's true I've been paid a few times, but I find the idea of "professional" versus "amateur" in ufology to be irrelevant. The last time anyone might be able to call it a profession was when Hynek was on contract with the government. Otherwise, making a living doing ufology has more to do with sales or obtaining charity money than doing something that can be equated with a profession. Although, I suppose that a case for professionalism might be made for someone who has a high degree of knowledge, experience, and integrity, and who is actively involved in ufology. Personally I think that the drive to get paid in ufology can be detrimental to the field because it adds pressure to be sensational or to withhold information unless it's paid for. Really though, I didn't mean to get all serious, I was just trying to poke a bit of fun at myself .

 

[Wulfi]

Radar wasn't that bad back in the day. Ask German pilots that were flying across the channel towards England. It's all just a bunch of excuses.

 

[SRL+]

Not to worry. My sense of humor escapes even me sometimes . It's true I've been paid a few times, but I find the idea of "professional" versus "amateur" in ufology to be irrelevant. The last time anyone might be able to call it a profession was when Hynek was on contract with the government. Otherwise, making a living doing ufology has more to do with sales or obtaining charity money than doing something that can be equated with a profession. Although, I suppose that a case for professionalism might be made for someone who has a high degree of knowledge, experience, and integrity, and who is actively involved in ufology. Personally I think that the drive to get paid in ufology can be detrimental to the field because it adds pressure to be sensational or to withhold information unless it's paid for. Really though, I didn't mean to get all serious, I was just trying to poke a bit of fun at myself .

This is my final thought on this matter…..

 

[fastwalker]

Here is a link to Dark Matters radio were Don Ecker plays the two Keyhoe interviews and the Edwards report. http://www.dqrm.com/shows/DMR/2012/wk01/dmr-09-th.mp3
If the link does not work just go to his site and search Keyhoe. I had to listen to this again after listening to the Sheaffer interview and I kept thinking after all these years, nothing new under the sun when it comes to the skeptic, I especially chuckle when Wallace talks about UFO's being the imaginations of liars, hoaxers, etc. Let's not forget Wallace never apologized to Keyhoe either after Keyhoe's Documents were proven correct. Yep, nothing new under the sun, look Ma, swamp gas... I encourage everyone to revisit these interviews to see how things continue to remain the same.

 

[Randall]

Disagree.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. Are you saying you do want this to turn into a skeptic basher thread? Or that you don't agree with the idea of building bridges between skeptics and ufologists? Or that we shouldn't have them on the show or participating in the forum? Or that we shouldn't have evidence to back up our claims? Or that they don't provide valuable counterpoint because at the very least it forces us to think? Those are the only points I made, and I have a hard time thinking you would actually disagree with any of them, so there must be something I'm missing.

I can think much better when I know the intentions of the group I interact with are looking for the "truth" of a case or phenomenon. The main people these type of skeptics aim at are the fruit loops of this culture. But they suck the air out of the room for the rest of us. Instead of common sense discussions it becomes a discussion of all things irrelevant. Their are people on this forum that point out different perspectives without essentially calling me a dumb ass.

Those are all good points, and I believe I did indicate that skeptics can be irksome at times. But I imagine ( although I've never actually met any ), that a certain number of the so-called "true believer" crowd could be equally irksome. Maybe both sides have a little trouble retaining their objectivity at times.

Put it this way, does the discussion become about the person or does it stay on the case?

In the largest percentage of reports all we really have to go on is the word of the person providing the information, and therefore I think that the reliability and trustworthiness of the person cannot be dismissed when granting credibility to a report. While it may be true that unreliable and untrustworthy people can still have a genuine experience, perhaps even observe a genuine alien craft. Are we going to place as much confidence in a self-confessed fraud as we are to a veteran Air Force pilot? I don't think so. If we are to take reports from people seriously, we also need to have confidence in them.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. Are you saying you do want this to turn into a skeptic basher thread? Or that you don't agree with the idea of building bridges between skeptics and ufologists? Or that we shouldn't have them on the show or participating in the forum? Or that we shouldn't have evidence to back up our claims? Or that they don't provide valuable counterpoint because at the very least it forces us to think? Those are the only points I made, and I have a hard time thinking you would actually disagree with any of them, so there must be something I'm missing.

Those are all good points, and I believe I did indicate that skeptics can be irksome at times. But I imagine ( although I've never actually met any ), that a certain number of the so-called "true believer" crowd could be equally irksome. Maybe both sides have a little trouble retaining their objectivity at times.

In the largest percentage of reports all we really have to go on is the word of the person providing the information, and therefore I think that the reliability and trustworthiness of the person cannot be dismissed when granting credibility to a report. While it may be true that unreliable and untrustworthy people can still have a genuine experience, perhaps even observe a genuine alien craft. Are we going to place as much confidence in a self-confessed fraud as we are to a veteran Air Force pilot? I don't think so. If we are to take reports from people seriously, we also need to have confidence in them.

What I'm referring to is that in order to look at a case you have to be open minded which to my thinking includes being skeptical as well. The two go hand in hand. What I don't have tolerance of is in the debunkers. There clouding the field with nonsense. An example, you don't walk up to a dead cow and say "aliens", you don't even say aliens when the rancher says there was a disk in the sky....and if at the end of a case you don't have much to go by you still don't get to say aliens. I realize that there's a host of people who would jump to that conclusion. But if anyone's to be serious about this subject they have to plow right by folks like that, including the opposite spectrum of Shaeffer's. Most people on this forum are skeptical and open minded. That works for me.

 

[Dr.Strange]

Just finished listening. Sheaffer comes off as a bit of a Fundamentalist Materialist committed to a narrow and dogmatic model of reality. His "rationalism" was at times wildly irrational. Just my 2 cents.

 

[manxman]

Worth more than 2 cent's imo.

 

[Randall]

Most people on this forum are skeptical and open minded. That works for me.

Me too . I only have one person on my Paracast ignore list ( example here ), which is fewer than I have on my ignore list over on the JREF. As might be expected, those on my ignore list over on the JREF are of the foaming at the mouth rabid skeptic variety, while the one example here seems to be on the opposite end of the spectrum ( but still not as bad as some so-called skeptics I've had to contend with ). I guess that puts me somewhere in the middle. So I get support and criticism from both sides.

 

[Constance]

The term 'skeptibunker' appears to have been available for quite a while now to cover the likes of Shaeffer and Oberg. We know who they are and who their predecessors were. It's time to stop lending credibility to them by arguing with them.