UFOs and Nukes

[TheHelix]

Mr Hastings -
I thought you weren't going to waste your time, or cyberbreath, on me?

My point to Mike (perfectly illustrated by your tone when replying to me) was that, while you might be helpful and polite to people who don't disagree with you, you soon drop into insults and threats when challenged.

 

[TheHelix]

...this is totally off-thread, but, here it is for you, Helix.

Errr... relevance? Why on earth did you feel it necessary to post that?

...To the debunkers, one has to ask, "If this is all delusion and lies," would not the root cause of such a psycho-social abberation be worthy of intensive study?

Yes, and it is.

 

[Gareth]

Helix, without going into too much detail, what exactly is your problem with RH's work?

Do you think he is making stuff up? Misrepresenting what he is told?

Surely if there was fabrication on Roberts part it would eventually catch up with him.

I was always under the impression that RH was simply relaying stories told to him by military folk.

 

[TheHelix]

Gareth - There is little point me posting any "problems" I may have with RH when the whole thing has already been covered in detail in the BAUT forum. I suggest you read it if you are genuinely interested.
If his past behaviour is any guide all he would do anyway is paste extremely lengthy excerpts from his book, rather than answer specific questions while claiming to be "too busy" to reply - although he seems to have plenty of time to say things like "bend over" to me within a very short time of my first post.

 

[pixelsmith]

ohh... now i see the problem with Helix...not that there is anything wrong with it.

 

[Robert Hastings]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Robert Hastings
The Helix has twisted the facts about my posts on the BAUT forum, pun intended
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

TheHelix: That's not a pun.

RH: Oh, so you're not a twisted, DNA double helix. My mistake.

 

[mike]

again going on my own experience Helix misinterpreted the facts, and formed an erroneous conclusion.

the "order" in which events occur are very important.

Mr Hastings has been answering questions ive posed, for at least a month now, only recently have i taken a moment to thank him for his time.

Thats NOT the reality Helix tried to insinuate , that being that i only got such replys because i had praised Mr Hastings prior.

cause and effect ... the order in which these events took place is very very important.

now Helix has opened with a premise and conclusion in regards to the subject, but as ive demonstrated the current track record in my experience , is one of misinterpretation of the facts leading to a poor conclusion.

will i buy the book ? i might.... the choice is mine

at the end of the day im grateful to anyone who puts their own time and money into researching this topic, and then shares that data with me

the alternative is these people dont write books, dont do radio casts, dont visit sites and collect evidence, which leaves me looking out my window hoping to see a UFO as my sole source of data.........
im grateful there are people who take the time to research and present data in this field, im pretty sure no one here is getting filthy rich in doing so, i know when i buy a book that most of the cost is in the paper and publishing. thats why hard covers cost more than the smaller soft covers...
i have hundreds and hundreds of books and they all cost something

 

[TheHelix]

pixelsmith - you are obviously very pleased with yourself, judging by the smiley. Care to explain your marvellous joke in English? The only sense I can make out of your comment is maybe that you think my "problem" (typical, anyone disagreeing with you has a "problem" lol) is I don't like being insulted. FYO I am far too long in the tooth to give a toss what RH, or anyone else, says about me. I merely quoted RH to highlight his debating style.

RH - You are just so witty! Have you looked up "pun" in a dictionary yet? Doesn't look like it. Good to see you have lots of free time today.

Mike - As far as I can see you never challenged RH in any way, so he was never rude, nor threatening, nor patronising, which was my point. I quoted your particular comment because it seemed typical of the generally fawning attitude to RH in this thread.

Lawdy lawdy - it's like being back in the playground while the chief bully and his minions pick on the kid with ginger hair.
Who's next out of the woodwork?

 

[dorkbot]

I've read RH's book and in my opinion a reasonable person should come to one or more of the following conclusions from the material he presents therein:

1. A significant number of people that operate and secure the nuclear arsenal of the United States have had UFO encounters in the immediate vicinity of nuclear weapons.

2. A significant number of people that operate and secure the nuclear arsenal of the United States have either conspired to falsely claim UFO encounters in the immediate vicinity of nuclear weapons or share strikingly similar hallucinations of UFO encounters on duty.

3. Mr. Hastings is fabricating the quoted witness testimony presented in the book.

If there are other conclusions that are reasonable then I would like to hear them. The first two conclusions are so alarming that we should all welcome any evidence that shows the third conclusion is correct. Please refer me to such as soon as possible.

I've read through the first ten pages or so of that BAUT thread and scanned the rest. Thanks for the link. I do think it is worth visiting and reading through for yourself to guage the level of debate occurring. From what I have read thus far it seems largely mired in procedural pedantry rather than point/counterpoint. If Mr. Hastings's occupation for the past 35 years had been that of rodeo clown I should think he would still be entirely qualified to operate a tape recorder.

I would very much like to see a timed and moderated formal debate before a university audience between Mr. Hastings and anyone the BAUT forum cared to nominate as that thread is a giant mess.

 

[Gareth]

Helix seems to think were a bunch of die-hard believers and that he is at ATS.com

 

[mike]

Mike - As far as I can see you never challenged RH in any way, so he was never rude, nor threatening, nor patronising, which was my point. I quoted your particular comment because it seemed typical of the generally fawning attitude to RH in this thread.

which leaves us with a hypothetical premise, that had my questions "challenged" him i would have got poor results in return.
but im honestly not sure the assumption is correct.
any question could be interpreted as a "challenge" (to my authority). and its regretable that your experience differs from my positive one.
i think its to do with approach vectors, i had my questions answered, you did not

i'm satisfied with my results, you appear not to be with yours...

the manner in which ive conducted myself, has given what seems to me to be an optimum result.

looking back at the records, it seems i have challenged some people, for example we had one person who said he/she was in direct contact with an ET race, and would pass on and supply the answers to said questions

when i asked if they had any dietry taboos, the response indicated that that person felt my question was flippant and insulting. it was as i assured them a serious question as all life here eats food, and i felt the data was worth asking for.....

so it does happen, ppl do get challenged by my questions sometimes, and as you can see , when that happens i dont get results.

it could be because of my approach, or the interpretation of the person reading the question, all i can do is look to my own approach vector for any chance of fine tuning my end of the comunication to get optimum results back.

 

[skunkape]

Errr... relevance? Why on earth did you feel it necessary to post that?

I'm a huge fan of crappy Canadian hair-bands from the 80's. My three kids are named Helix, Rush, and Triumph.

 

[Robert Hastings]

Science, sort of​

<O
<OSpeaking of the BAUT forum, here is an appropriate excerpt from my book, UFOs and Nukes:</O
<O
“From time to time in the history of science, situations have arisen in which a problem of ultimately enormous importance went begging for adequate attention simply because that problem appeared to involve phenomena so far outside the current bounds of scientific knowledge that it was not even regarded as a legitimate subject of serious scientific concern. That is precisely the situation in which the UFO problem now lies. One of the principal results of my own recent intensive study of the UFO enigma is this: I have become convinced that the scientific community, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance.”<O></O>
<O> </O>

Dr.JamesE.McDonald <O></O>
Senior Physicist, Institute of Atmospheric Physics<O></O>
Professor of Meteorology, University of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1laceName>Arizona</ST1lace>​

<O></O><O> </O>
Scientists universally profess allegiance to the lofty principles comprising the Scientific Method, both in the pursuit of their own research, as well as when reviewing the work of their peers. Therefore, one might predict that they will indignantly dismiss the suggestion that, on occasion, they have temporarily abandoned those cherished principles. Nevertheless, as regards the subject of UFOs, very few scientists actually practice what they preach. <O></O>
<O> </O>
In essence, to engage in science is to search for knowledge. This exploration is conducted through the systematic collection and objective analysis of facts. If one aspires to understand the nature of an unexplained phenomenon, one must first assemble and evaluate data—or, at least, impartially examine the data gathered by others—before drawing conclusions. <O></O>
<O> </O>
Unfortunately, most scientists reject outright the validity of UFO research, refuse to engage in it, and deliberately ignorethe intriguing data compiled by a handful of their more inquisitive, less-biased peers. If this were not enough, despite their profound unfamiliarity with the subject, many of these same intransigent individuals pontificate about UFOs in the most shameless and presumptuous manner. If they were to apply this same “methodology” to their own research, their colleagues might justifiably consider their conduct incompetent, if not fraudulent. Nevertheless, it is rare to hear a scientist speak or write knowledgeably about the UFO phenomenon, and rarer still to find one who has actually studied it.<O></O>
<O></O>
Accuse a scientist of being closed-minded about UFOs and he or she will recoil: “I’m not closed-minded, but I am skeptical!” Because the former term implies inflexible prejudice and the latter one prudent caution, it is understandable that these UFO “skeptics” would prefer to view themselves in a more flattering light. <O></O>
<O> </O>
One scientist who has advocated a comprehensive, unbiased investigation the UFO phenomenon, astronomer Dr. Bernard Haisch, defines a Skeptic as, “One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.” Haisch's website is www.ufoskeptic.org.<O></O>
<O> </O>
By Haisch’s definition, very few scientists are true skeptics on the subject of UFOs. On the contrary, over the years, most have behaved as self-appointed experts, having all the answers, without first investigating any of the facts. Although scientists profess a deep curiosity about little understood or unknown phenomena, when it comes to UFOs, this assertion rings hollow. At the moment, the UFO phenomenon is a blind spot in most scientists’ field of vision. There is definitely something there to be seen, but they can not, or will not, bring themselves to take a look.<O></O>
<O></O>
As noted above, the late Dr. James McDonald—one of the few scientists to have actually studied the UFO phenomenon before holding forth on the subject—once pointedly criticized the thoroughly unprofessional posture toward UFOs he observed among his colleagues and the scientific community at large.<O></O>
<O> </O>
Sad to say, some 40 years after Dr. McDonald’s lament, the same smug, dismissive attitude toward the phenomenon remains firmly entrenched in scientific circles, resulting in a pervasive, self-imposed ignorance about UFOs among those who supposedly seek the truth. At the beginning of the 21st century, it remains true that the overwhelming majority of scientists, if they consider UFOs at all, consider them to be beneath their dignity, and worthy of outright derision. With this self-righteous stance, they have effectively abdicated their collective professional responsibility in the most unscientific manner. This is not so much an accusation as it is an objective statement of fact.<O></O>
<O> </O>
Fortunately, despite the collective disinterest in UFOs exhibited by the scientific community as a whole, there have been a few brave pioneers. In the mid-1960s, Jim McDonald was well ahead of the curve, with his repeated, plaintive calls for a legitimate investigation of the UFO phenomenon. Seeking to review the available data for himself, he persistently demanded an opportunity to review the Air Force’s UFO files—at least those held by Project Blue Book—and was ultimately granted access to the ones that were not classified. <O></O>
<O> </O>
After a thorough review of those files, McDonald wrote, “As a result of several trips to Project Blue Book, I’ve had an opportunity to examine quite carefully and in detail the types of reports that are made by Blue Book personnel…There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of [UFOs] years ago, yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Blue Book investigators and their consultants.” <O></O>
<O> </O>
Despite, or perhaps because of, the Air Force’s ongoing attempts to suppress the frequently high-quality data on UFOs it collected, McDonald began to investigate the phenomenon on his own time and at his own expense, while ignoring the very real risk to his scientific reputation. This diligence paid off and, by 1968, McDonald was widely regarded—although not among his still-dubious peers—as one of the world’s leading scientific experts on UFOs. Consequently, he was invited to address congress on the subject, during hearings held that year. McDonald’s full statement before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, presented on July 29th, may be found in the U.S. Congressional Record, as well as on the Internet. <O></O>
<O> </O>
While acknowledging that the overwhelming majority of UFO sightings undoubtedly had prosaic explanations, and that a great many questions about the phenomenon remained unanswered, McDonald succinctly summarized his conclusions regarding the most credible of the unexplained cases: “My own present opinion, based on two years of careful study, is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial devices engaged in something that might very tentatively be termed ‘surveillance’.” <O></O>
<O> </O>
Although this was merely an opinion, it was after all an informed opinion on UFOs, something very few other scientists could offer, then or now. Many of McDonald’s published papers, private research notes, and personal letters relating to his investigations of the UFO phenomenon are now accessible online, providing insight into the cautious, rational reasoning underlying his dramatic conclusions.<O></O>
<O> </O>
There is an old joke about the intellectual who sniffs, “Well, it may work in fact, but it will never work in theory.” While most UFO skeptics are quick to dismiss as impossible the idea that UFOs are alien spacecraft, very few of them will ever make the effort to learn whether any evidence exists to suggest otherwise. Instead, they merely continue to assert that, as an idea, it simply does not work. However, as the joke implies, the real question to be asked is whether it works in fact. That is, is there evidence in the real world which lends credence to the validity of the ET hypothesis of UFOs.<O></O>
<O> </O>
Granted, the proposal that UFOs are alien spaceships is decidedly “counter-intuitive”. For most scientific professionals, the notion just doesn’t make sense and almost certainly has no basis in reality. However, as is often the case in science, many ideas which initially seem impossible, or at least highly unlikely, eventually turn out to be true. As a noted cosmologist once observed, “The greatest obstacle to the advancement of science is the illusion of knowledge—the notion that one already knows the answers.”

In short, pontificating about UFOs from the comfort of the armchair contributes nothing to the solution to the problem. To honestly attempt an understanding of UFOs, one must actually investigate the UFO phenomenon, however pointless or distasteful this proposal might seem to some. As that street-smart sage, New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra, once observed, “You can see a lot just by looking.”

<O>--Robert Hastings</O>
<O>ufohastings.com</O>
<O> </O>

 

[Drew UK]

Mr Hastings, keep bulldozing - let the weeds take care of themselves!!

Thanks for this elaborate input.

To get back on topic - I see some rational on the Nuke/Atom bomb question.

Think about it like this - if the "monkey-ape/chimapanzee" ever discovered the art of "fire" and devastate the tropical rainforest in the south america/african regions - how would we react?

Bearing in mind we pay little attention to them now - yet they are particularly adept in showing all semblences of ourselves - tribal warfare, farming, disinfection sessions (using some kinda plant), toolsmiths - using broken rock to break clams, hunting and gathering, compassion, caring, dominance of heirachy, communication, lying ("crying tiger") so others of higher cast "class" escape leaving the cheeky monkey to grab the goodies of whatevers left.

If we were threatened by such a "step change" but not really an unsurprising intellect - we would be forced to react - not because they are from this planet but because the rainforest holds such wealth and abundance of knowledge that we have not even scraped the surface of.. pharmaceuticals/new species/development etc...

We would have no choice, somehow, to protect it.

It is my belief, that all forms of life have value - that elementally they are raised (mysteriously) to another energy level - that life must be given the dynamics to evolve - not to be destroyed, to study rock is easy - heamatite - Fe2O3 (well maybe not!!) - to study a frog, well - its more entertaining, we need company - they probably do, too...

Space, is probably colder than we think "life is a precious commodity" - it just hasn't sunk in yet - we're still swinging in the trees.

Also, justification of humanoid appearance is rational - we have done the test 2x - 2 legs/2arms/2eyes/frontal mouth/"mating zone - depends on preference" - given the array/biological battles and permutations we have endured and also the various form of predators - we came out on top to the best of our abilities. It is best posture for the environment/pressures/temperatures we live in - I think that this one is reproduced well also in our ancestoral monkey kingdom also.

Keep up the good work

Regards,

Andy.

 

[Robert Hastings]

Hi Andy, thanks for your supportive words. During my relatively brief interaction with the BAUT forum posters, I kept thinking about the "utter bilge" guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_van_der_Riet_Woolley

On appointment as Astronomer Royal, Richard Woolley reiterated his long-held view that "space travel is utter bilge." Speaking to Time in 1956, Woolley noted:<O></O>

"It's utter bilge. I don't think anybody will ever put up enough money to do such a thing...What good would it do us? If we spent the same amount of money on preparing first-class astronomical equipment we would learn much more about the universe...It is all rather rot" <SUP>[4]</SUP><O></O>

Woolley's protestations came just one year prior to the launch of Sputnik, five years before launch of the Apollo Program, and thirteen years before the first landing on the moon.

END OF EXCERPT

This is but one of countless examples of the arrogance exhibited by many members of the scientific community or by scientific crusaders--persons promoting a "rational", approach to dissecting reality.

To be sure, most of these haughty, dismissive types are experts, or at least highly knowledgeable, in their own fields or areas of interest. However, unfortunately, their egos permit them to believe that they can authoritatively hold forth on subjects they have never investigated and know little or nothing about. With a few exceptions, that's the BAUT crowd to a T, at least in their pronouncements about UFOs.

--Robert Hastings
ufohastings.com

 

[Robert Hastings]

Furthermore, most scientists have been duped by sleight-of-hand expertly pulled-off by Dr. Edward Condon, back in the 1960s. Another excerpt from my book, UFOs and Nukes:

The Condon Committee Con Job<O></O>​

Although most scientists today are completely unaware of this fact, in the late 1960s, the sole government-sponsored scientific study of the UFO phenomenon—informally known as the Condon Committee—actually found persuasive evidence to support the contention that UFOs are something other than manmade or natural phenomena. However, as I shall discuss shortly, this startling finding was effectively masked in the project’s final report, through a spectacularly successful sleight-of-hand by the study’s own director, physicist Dr. Edward Condon, whose blatantly anti-UFO bias was a already matter-of-record well before the report was released in late 1968.<O></O>

Ironically, for four decades, countless scientists skeptical of UFOs have pointed to the official findings of the Condon Committee as justification for ignoring the phenomenon as a legitimate subject for study. Despite their own sincerity, because of their unfamiliarity with the facts, these persons simply do not understand that they have been thoroughly duped.<O></O>

Informed persons—those familiar with Condon’s often scandalous behavior during his association with the study—frequently argue about whether the UFO project’s flawed final report was merely the result of Condon’s naked prejudice toward his subject, or the result of some as-yet undocumented government subterfuge in which he participated. Regardless, the negative spin Condon put on the committee’s findings smack of whitewash, a fact bemoaned by a number of the project’s own scientists, following the publication of the final report.<O></O>

How and why did this travesty occur? Equally important, why did the national media slavishly portray the study as an objective scientific inquiry? The Condon Committee, formally known as the <ST1<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1laceType>University of <st1laceName w:st="on">Colorado UFO Project</st1laceName></ST1, was undertaken at the Air Force’s request, and funded by a $500,000 grant it provided. From 1966 to 1968, a panel of scientists from various disciplines evaluated 91 reported UFO sightings—some drawn from confidential Air Force files, others from published sources. While the investigations themselves—with a few notable exceptions—were fairly rigorous and objective, project director Condon repeatedly displayed distinctly unscientific behavior in relation to his task, while the project’s coordinator, Robert Low, was caught privately enunciating what was, at the very least, an arguably questionable approach to organizing the supposedly objective investigation.<O></O>

In a memorandum dated August 9, 1966, Low had written, in part, “Our study would be conducted almost entirely by non-believers who, though they couldn’t possibly prove a negative result, could and probably would add an impressive body of thick evidence that there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific community, would present the image of a group of non-believers trying their best to be objective but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer.” <SUP>8</SUP><O></O>

Moreover, notes respected researcher Jerome Clark, “Low also suggested that if the study focused less on ‘the physical reality of the saucer’, and more on the ‘psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFOs’, then ‘the scientific community would get the message.’ ” <SUP>9</SUP><O></O>

Low’s defenders, including leading UFO debunker Phillip Klass, have tried to explain away Low’s seemingly incriminating proposal for the project’s composition and aims. They argue that Low was simply attempting to present the project in the most benign terms possible to dubious faculty members at the <ST1<st1laceType w:st="on">University</st1laceType> of <st1laceName w:st="on">Colorado</st1laceName></ST1, in a bid to soften their resistance to participating in the controversial UFO study.<O></O>

Regardless, one of the Condon Committee’s concerned staff members, psychologist Dr. David R. Saunders, later leaked Low’s memorandum to Donald Keyhoe, director of the civilian National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), who had long advocated an end to government secrecy on UFOs. Keyhoe subsequently shared the contents of the memo with Dr. James McDonald. According to Jerome Clark, “The Trick Memo confirmed McDonald’s worst suspicions about the Committee. In response, he wrote a seven page letter to Condon, explaining point by point, his problems, frustration and disappointment with the Committee’s shortcomings.” <SUP>10</SUP><O></O>

Condon was infuriated by the letter and called a meeting of the project’s staff to attempt to learn how McDonald had obtained an internal project memorandum. Saunders freely admitted that it was he who had sent the memo to Keyhoe. According to Saunders, Condon then called him “disloyal” and reportedly said, “For an act like that you deserve to be ruined professionally.” At this, Saunders reports, he responded by saying that his loyalty lay with the American people, while Condon’s own loyalty seemed to be to the Air Force.<SUP>11</SUP> Saunders was subsequently fired from the project by Condon for his actions, together with another staffer, Dr. Norman Levine, who had also been involved in the memo’s unauthorized release.<O></O>

Following his dismissal, Saunders’ would later say that “to present Low as a plotter or conspirator is unfair and hardly accurate.” However, he continued, Low had been “hasty and foolish to express such ideas on paper—especially foolish if Low really believed what he was saying.”<SUP> 12</SUP> Nevertheless, Saunders defended his decision to release the controversial memo, and later wrote a book, UFOs? Yes!, co-authored with Roger Harkins, in which he strongly criticized the actions of Low and, especially, Condon, during the UFO project.<O></O>

Such criticism was well-deserved. Condon had already revealed his own suspect attitude toward the supposedly scientific study, well before the furor over the Low memorandum erupted. According to <ST1Clark</ST1, “In late January, 1967, [NICAP executives Donald Keyhoe and Richard Hall] gave Saunders a clipping from The Elmira Star-Gazette, dated January 26. Condon was quoted as saying [during a lecture] that he thought the government should not study UFOs because the subject was nonsense, adding, ‘but I’m not supposed to reach that conclusion for another year.’ Saunders was stunned. He asked if Condon could have been misquoted, but Keyhoe reported that several NICAP members had been present when Condon delivered his lecture; one of them had resigned from NICAP in protest, arguing that the Condon Committee was nothing more than pretense.”<O></O>

If this were not enough, it is now known that one of the committee’s members, psychologist Michael Wertheimer, had openly argued against any consideration of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) well before the project concluded its work, a position openly supported by project administrator, Robert Low. In other words, even before the data-gathering phase of the study was completed, some key members of the committee—including Condon himself—had already reached the de facto conclusion that UFOs could not possibly be alien spacecraft. Obviously, this rush to judgment effectively precluded an objective analysis of the facts.<O></O>

To further illustrate this point, after the various case investigations had concluded, one committee investigator, astronomer William K. Hartman, had actually written that some of the unsolved cases he examined were in fact consistent with the extraterrestrial hypothesis of UFOs. When Condon read this conclusion in Hartman’s draft report, he wrote, “Good God!” and crossed out the passage. Given that it was Hartman, not Condon, who had investigated the cases in question, this negative editorial spin by the project director was at least presumptuous, if not downright deceptive.<O></O>

The UFO project’s shortcomings finally came to light when an exposé by John Fuller was published in the May 1968 issue of LOOK magazine. Titled, “Flying Saucer Fiasco”, the article laid bare the various questionable actions and attitudes exhibited by some of the Condon Committee’s leading members.<SUP>13</SUP> The resulting widespread public indignation was predictable and even some scientists began to question the UFO project’s objectivity and purpose.<O></O>

Researcher Dr. David Jacobs notes, “When the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) covered the ongoing Committee controversy in an issue of its official journal Science, Condon first promised to grant an interview apparently in the hopes of offering his side of the conflict. Shortly thereafter, however, Science editor Daniel S. Greenberg reported that Condon announced it would be ‘inappropriate for Science to touch the matter, withdrew his offer of cooperation, and proceeded to enunciate high-sounding principles in support of his new-found belief that Science should not [review] the subject until after the publication if his report.’” <SUP>14</SUP><O></O>

A few other scientists, notably astronomer Frank Drake—founder of the SETI movement and an outspoken critic of the hypothesis that UFOs are alien spacecraft—expressed deep doubts about the Condon Committee’s overall objectivity. At one point, Drake fired off a letter to the National Academy of Sciences, in which he argued that the UFO study had been “tainted” and should, therefore, be discredited.<O></O>

But there was another type of fallout from the exposé in LOOK magazine, as David Jacobs further notes: “The Fuller article even helped inspire Congressional hearings. Representative J. Edward Roush spoke on the House floor, arguing that Fuller’s article brought up ‘grave doubts about as to the scientific profundity and objectivity of the project’. In a Denver Post interview, Roush suggested that the Trick Memo proved that the Air Force had indeed been dictating the Project’s direction and conclusions.” <SUP>15</SUP><O></O>

The committee’s final report was released in the fall of 1968. In the introduction, titled “Conclusions and Recommendations”, Condon wrote: “Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.” <SUP>16</SUP><O></O>

Consequently, despite the evidence amassed—nearly 30% of the cases investigated by the committee were judged to involve “unknown” craft or other unexplained phenomena—the study’s final report, written by Condon himself, stated that there existed no basis for continued Air Force investigation of the UFO phenomenon. If one had read only Condon’s introduction, but not the actual report itself, one might reasonably conclude that the idea of UFOs, as an objective reality unto themselves, had been irrefutably disproved. However, a careful examination of the report as a whole yields an entirely different impression.<O></O>

In his 1999 book, The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence, astrophysicist Peter A. Sturrock examined the failings of the Condon Committee and their consequences. One review of the book correctly notes, “[The Condon Committee] report has clouded all attempts at legitimate UFO research since its release. Much of the public, including the scientific community and the press, erroneously assumes that this project represents a serious, in-depth look into the issues.” <SUP>17</SUP><O></O>

The review continues, “Sturrock assiduously dissects the Condon Report and makes it clear that the study is scientifically flawed. In fact, anyone who actually reads the report carefully will be surprised to find that Edward Condon, who personally wrote the Summary and Conclusions, did not investigate any of the cases. Rather it was his staff that did the legwork. That is why [Condon’s summary] is internally inconsistent with the body of the document, [which supports] some UFO cases, while the summary does not.” <SUP>18</SUP><O></O>

In the book, Dr. Sturrock writes about the scientific community’s sharply-divided response to Condon’s final report, noting that “critical reviews came from scientists who had actually carried out research in the UFO area, while the laudatory reviews came from scientists who had not carried out such research.” <SUP>19</SUP><O></O>

In other words, those self-satisfied individuals who had always dismissed UFOs, without so much as glancing at the data, were quite pleased by Condon’s claim that the subject deserved to be ignored by science—because that was already their own position. On the other hand, persons such as Jim McDonald and J. Allen Hynek, who had actually investigated the phenomenon, were outraged by Condon’s misleading statements. Hynek criticized Condon’s final report as “singularly slanted”, noting that it had “avoided mentioning that there was embedded within the bowels of the report a remaining mystery; that the committee had been unable to furnish adequate explanations for more than a quarter of the cases examined.” <SUP>20</SUP><O></O>

Unfortunately, due to the length of the Condon Committee report, which ran nearly 1000 pages, very few reporters actually read it before wrapping up their stories to meet publishing deadlines. Consequently, most media accounts covering the report’s release almost invariably focused on Condon’s easily-accessible, negatively-slanted conclusions—to the exclusion of the study’s many positive findings about the UFO reality.<O></O>

Influential columnists, including The New York Times’ science editor, Walter Sullivan, applauded Condon’s disingenuous statements as the last word on the subject and urged the Air Force to move onto more important things. Only later, long after their stories had been published, did a few inquisitive reporters actually get around to reading the UFO project members’ individual reports which, in many cases, clearly pointed to the presence of an unexplained phenomenon worthy of further scientific study.<O></O>

But the damage had been done. Because the initial media hoopla surrounding the release of the report had painted such a dismissive picture of UFOs, it regrettably reinforced most scientists’ negative assumptions and erroneous perceptions about the phenomenon. Whatever his motives, Edward Condon had pulled off a wonderfully slick sales job—boldly dismissing all UFO sightings as the misidentification of known, natural phenomena or manmade aircraft, as well as a few hoaxes—even though his own study had concluded otherwise.<O></O>

In response to the report’s official conclusions, most scientists—led astray by both Condon’s misleading remarks and the supposedly astute pundits in the national media, who should have recognized duplicity disguised as science—nodded knowingly and with great satisfaction when they read that Dr. Condon had finally killed the UFOs. Betrayed by a debunker—and their own biases—they relegated the phenomenon to the proverbial intellectual trash heap, and washed their hands of the whole matter.<O></O>

--Robert Hastings
ufohastings.com

 

[Gareth]

I havent clicked over to the BAUT forum yet. I usually would but I dont really have the patience to read through an Internet feud right now.

How would you accurately describe those folks Robert? Mostly critical thinking skeptics (a category I like to think most of us here are in)? Or classic debunkers?

 

[Robert Hastings]

Hi Garath,

As noted above:

"To be sure, most of these haughty, dismissive types are experts, or at least highly knowledgeable, in their own fields or areas of interest. However, unfortunately, their egos permit them to believe that they can authoritatively hold forth on subjects they have never investigated and know little or nothing about. With a few exceptions, that's the BAUT crowd to a T, at least in their pronouncements about UFOs."

I might add, that a lot of them accused my ex-military sources of being liars, using only bogus information they found online--but did not verify before uncritically parroting it--and their own biases to come to that conclusion. In fact, the roBAUTs had already posted a number of slanders about former missile launch officer Bob Salas, even before I joined the fray on their blog. I initially jumped in to defend his credibilty and honor, something else TheMatrix failed to mention in his posts here.

Robert

 

[Robert Hastings]

>Another excerpt from UFOs and Nukes:</O>
<O></O>

<O>Interesting Facts About CSICOP's (now CSI's) Leading UFO Debunkers </O>​

<O> </O>
<O></O>
Why, one might reasonably ask, am I so strident in my criticism of UFO debunkers? Because, first and foremost, they really do impede the progress of scientific understanding, despite their own self-image as champions of truth. But also, I confess, because I have had to endure so many of these zealots while speaking about UFOs at colleges and universities.<O></O>
<O> </O>
To be sure, over the last 27 years, I have also met a great many perfectly polite astronomers, physicists and psychologists who were not members of the debunking crowd. Despite their own profound unfamiliarity with the UFO phenomenon, these well-intentioned persons nevertheless felt compelled to stand up at the end of one of my lectures and calmly rebut my research findings. This type of reflexive academic response toward controversial subjects is to be expected, and I have generally regarded these persons’ criticisms—despite the one or more misconceptions invariably underlying them—as an opportunity to educate those who are sincere but uninformed. Therefore, I have always attempted to respond, point-by-point, to the objections they raise.<O></O>
<O> </O>
At the other end of the spectrum, however, I have also been subjected to a great many anti-UFO tirades, hurled at me by overzealous professors whose laughably inaccurate statements about UFOs are uttered—and sometimes snarled—with unassailable conviction. Alas, I have discovered that, when it comes to UFOs, the hallowed halls of academia are awash in pseudoscientists. <O></O>
<O> </O>
Yes, pseudoscientists. The very same debunkers—one might also call them pseudoskeptics—who dismiss UFO research as “pseudoscience” are worthy of the very epithet they so self-righteously hurl at UFO proponents. May I suggest that pseudoscience is precisely what a debunker engages in when he or she makes unequivocal, dismissive pronouncements about a subject he or she has never studied. Pseudoscience is also practiced when one defiantly and intentionally ignores compelling data gathered by a few courageous scientists who have actually dared to study that shunned subject.<O></O>
<O> </O>
Over the years, I have found that a great many of the debunkers in my lecture audiences had one thing in common: they had read one or more of the supposedly objective articles on UFOs which routinely appear in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)—which has only recently renamed itself the Committee for Skeptical Investigation (CSI). <O></O>
<O> </O>
Although most of the debunkers I encounter tout Skeptical Inquirer as a source of credible, scientific information on UFOs—which it is not—when I question them, I find that virtually none of these UFO critics know anything about those responsible for publishing this “skeptical” magazine. I, on the other hand, made it my business long ago to find out exactly who was so intent on fervently debunking UFOs, year after year, decade after decade. I must say, what I discovered surprised me. At the same time, I was not at all surprised. <O></O>
<O></O>
The Executive Editor of Skeptical Inquirer is Kendrick C. Frazier. Many years ago, I discovered that Frazier was in fact employed—beginning in the early 1980s—as a Public Relations Specialist at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Yes, the same Sandia Labs that has been instrumental to the success of America’s nuclear weapons program since the late 1940s, through its “ordinance engineering” of components for bomb and missile warhead systems.<O></O>
<O> </O>
In my opinion, Frazier’s affiliation with Sandia Labs—he recently retired after working there for over two decades—is highly significant, given the hundreds of references in declassified government documents, and in the many statements by former military personnel, which address ongoing UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites over the past six decades.<O></O>
<O> </O>
Considering these disclosures—which clearly establish a link between UFOs and nuclear weapons—I find it interesting, to say the least, that the longtime editor of the leading debunking magazine—whose pages routinely feature articles discrediting UFOs and those who report them—worked for over 20 years as a public relations spokesman for one of the leading nuclear weapons labs in the United States.

Interestingly, Skeptical Inquirer's publisher's statement, or “masthead”, which appears at the beginning of each issue, never once mentioned Frazier's employment at the highly-secretive, government-funded laboratory. Instead, the magazine merely listed, and continues to list, his profession as "science writer"—a reference to his having written several books and articles on various scientific subjects. Also curious is the fact that various online biographies on Frazier—including one written by himself—also fail to mention his two-decade tenure at Sandia Labs. An odd omission indeed. <O></O>
<O> </O>
Over the years, Frazier has been quick to dismiss the astonishing revelations about UFOs contained in government documents declassified via the Freedom of Information Act. He claims that researchers who have accessed thousands of U.S. Air Force, CIA, and FBI files have consistently misrepresented their contents. In one interview he stated, "The UFO believers don't give you a clear and true idea of what these government documents reveal. They exaggerate the idea that there is a big UFO cover-up." <O></O>

Just as Frazier strives to minimize the significance of the declassified revelations about UFOs, it is likely he will also attempt to downplay the relevancy of his former employment with one of the U.S. government's top nuclear weapons labs, as it pertained to his magazine's relentless debunking of UFOs. He will presumably assert that his skeptical views on the subject are personal and sincere, and were in no way related to, or influenced by, his public relations position at Sandia National Laboratories.

However, regardless of his response, I believe that Frazier’s long-term employment at Sandia is very relevant, and raises questions about his impartiality, if nothing else, given his enduring track-record of publishing stridently anti-UFO articles in Skeptical Inquirer. <O></O>
<O> </O>
One such article, an attempted debunking of the Big Sur UFO Incident, was earlier discussed at length. As noted, two former U.S. Air Force officers have unequivocally stated that, during a 1964 weapon systems test, a UFO disabled an experimental dummy nuclear warhead in mid-flight as it raced downrange toward its intended target. My own well-documented investigation of the dramatic incident has now thoroughly discredited the factually-inaccurate article by Kingston A. George featured earlier in Skeptical Inquirer. If one compares the first-person accounts provided by the two former Air Force officers with the badly-flawed, highly-misleading synopsis of the incident published by Sandia Labs PR Specialist Frazier,one might reasonably ask whether a cover-up of sorts—a disinformation scheme—was behind the debunking article. But the reader may judge for himself or herself. <O></O>
<O> </O>
Furthermore, the CSICOP-nukes connection does not end with Kendrick Frazier. James Oberg, one of CSICOP’s leading UFO debunkers, once did classified work relating to nuclear weapons at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, located on Kirtland AFB, less than a mile from Sandia Labs. From 1970-72, Oberg was an Air Force officer whose assignments with the Battle Environments Branch at the weapons lab involved the development and utilization of computer codes related to the modeling of laser and nuclear weapons—according to one of Oberg’s own online resumes. <O></O>
<O> </O>
Oberg further wrote that he had also been a “Security Officer” while at the weapons lab, meaning that he was responsible for monitoring the security procedures used to safeguard the classified documents generated by his group. As we will see in the chapter on the Big Sur UFO Incident, Oberg once privately chastised Dr. Bob Jacobs—one of the former Air Force officers who leaked the amazing story—for releasing “top secret” information relating to the case. Once a security officer, always a security officer, I guess. <O></O>
<O> </O>
I first became aware of Oberg’s “skeptical” stance on UFOs after he wrote an article for the December 1978 issue of OMNI magazine, in a column called “UFO Update”. A superficial review of Oberg’s comments in that article might lend the impression that he was even-handedly covering the UFO controversy. Far from it. A closer examination reveals Oberg’s subtle but persistent use of anti-UFO propaganda, not to mention his failure to identify himself to OMNI’s readers as an active-duty Air Force officer.<O></O>
<O> </O>
Fortunately, these tactics and omissions did not go unnoticed. In the following issue of OMNI, in a letter to the editor, Robert Barrow wrote, “C’mon James Oberg. If you plan to continue writing your skeptical UFO articles under the guise of proper scientific literature, please be fair. First, the OMNI readership should be aware that not only are you working with NASA but you are a U.S. Air Force officer in fine standing as well. In fact, while I knew you as Captain Oberg, I shouldn’t doubt you are now Major Oberg. As a former USAF staff sergeant, I can appreciate that and wish to congratulate you if you have achieved a higher rank...Your consistently skeptical articles are probably making some of your superiors far happier than anything you might write to the contrary...”<O></O>
<O> </O>
Not surprisingly, Oberg’s published response to Barrow’s letter rejected the inference that he was writing skeptical articles about UFOs to please his superiors. He wrote, “...I don’t have any idea what my Air Force superiors think about my UFO activity, since I have never had any directives, one way or another. It’s easy to reject any unwelcome opinions as part of a ‘government plot’, and you’re welcomed to that paranoia if it suits you. It also is a direct smear on my honesty and motives…” <O></O>
<O> </O>
Well, first, Barrow did not say that Oberg was a part of any government plot. He was merely pointing out that, given the longstanding controversy over the U.S. Air Force’s handing of the UFO problem, Oberg should have candidly acknowledged his affiliation with the Air Force in his OMNI article—in which he debunked UFOs, exactly as the Air Force had for decades. As such, Burrow’s comment was a perfectly valid criticism. (I might also note here that Oberg’s failure to inform OMNI’s readers about his active-duty military status—until after it had been exposed by Barrow—is reminiscent of Kendrick Frazer’s own failure to inform Skeptical Inquirer’s readers of his two-decade-long affiliation with the U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program—in the magazine’s masthead, which appears in each issue—at the same time he was publishing article after article debunking UFOs, including at least one highly important sighting directly related to nuclear weapons.<O></O>
<O> </O>
Moreover, Oberg’s indignation over being “smeared” by Barrow is laughable, given his own countless public attacks on UFO proponents over the years, in which he frequently questions the sincerity and motives of those who report or investigate UFOs. <O></O>
<O> </O>
In another letter responding to Oberg’s article, journalist Terry Hansen, wrote, “How sad to see such a poor article on UFOs in OMNI’s first issue. James Oberg is certainly [not an objective] authority on the subject. His article tries to come across as unbiased, but even someone with a superficial knowledge of the issue can see that it is laced with distortion and innuendo...If ‘UFO Update’ is representative of the type of coverage controversial issues will receive in the future, then OMNI has little to offer a questioning mind.”<O></O>

<O> </O>(Continued below)

 

[Robert Hastings]

Years later, Hansen later went on to write an excellent book entitled, The Missing Times: News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-up, which I highly recommend to anyone wishing to better understand how the type of information contained in my own book could have been successfully kept from the American people—scientists and laypersons alike—for so long. In fact, I put Hansen’s book on my short list of “must-reads” as far as the official government cover-up of UFOs is concerned.<O></O>
<O> </O>
Regarding CSICOP, Hansen examines the possibility that the skeptical organization was infiltrated early on by a small but determined group of U.S. government-affiliated operatives, whose true motives have far more to do with disinformation than skepticism. He writes, “[The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal] is an organization of people who oppose what they contend is pseudo-science...CSICOP, contrary to its impressive-sounding title, does not sponsor scientific research. On the contrary, it’s main function has been to oppose scientific research, especially in areas such as psychic phenomena and UFOs, two topics that, coincidentally or not, have been of demonstrated interest to the ffice:smarttags" /><ST1lace w:st="on"><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:country-region>U.S.</ST1lace> intelligence community over the decades. Instead, CSICOP devotes nearly all of its resources to influencing the American public via the mass media. As author Jerome Clark, editor of the International UFO Reporter, once pointed out, ‘CSICOP’s ability to influence media is legendary. It’s Manual for Local, Regional and National Groups devotes 17 pages to ‘Handling the Media’ and ‘Public Relations’ and, tellingly, a mere three to ‘Scientific Investigations’…’ ”<O></O>
<O> </O>
Hansen continues, “CSICOP can accurately be described as a propaganda organization because it does not take anything approaching an objective position regarding UFOs. The organization’s stance is militantly anti-UFO research and it works hard to see that the news media broadcast its views whenever possible. When the subject of UFOs surfaces, either in the news media or any other public forum, CSICOP members turn out rapidly to add their own spin to whatever is being said. Through its “Council for Media Integrity” CSICOP maintains close ties with the editorial staffs of such influential science publications as Scientific American, Nature, and New Scientist. Consequently, it’s not too hard to understand why balanced UFO articles seldom appear in those [magazines].”<O></O>
<O> </O>
Hansen further notes, “CSICOP’s public stance on UFOs is best personified by [the late] Philip J. Klass, head of the organization’s UFO Subcommittee. Klass isn’t a scientist. In fact, his education is in electrical engineering. After graduation from <ST1lace w:st="on"><st1laceName w:st="on">Iowa</st1laceName> <st1laceType w:st="on">State</st1laceType> <st1laceType w:st="on">University</st1laceType></ST1lace> in 1941, he went to work for the avionics division of General Electric, one of the nation’s largest weapons and nuclear energy contractors. In 1952, Klass joined the aerospace trade publication Aviation Week & Space Technology, where he has often written about ‘black budget’ military projects such as those covertly funded by the CIA...Over the decades, Klass has made a name for himself publicly sparring with UFO researchers and injecting his particular spin on UFOs into the mass media at every opportunity, not always accurately or with much scientific merit...Despite his lack of scientific credentials, Klass has enjoyed remarkable popularity with the news media.” <O></O>

Hansen might have added that Klass’ long-time employer, Aviation Week, is known informally in some quarters as Aviation Week and CIA Leak, due to its remarkable track-record of routinely scooping its competition by publishing articles based, in part, on information provided by government insiders. Indeed, Aviation Week & Space Technology may accurately be considered as the mouthpiece for many of the key players in the aptly-named military/industrial complex.

To illustrate the rather cozy relationship between the magazine and the intelligence community, in particular, I will note that Klass once boasted in a private letter that he could cite as character references both Admiral Bobby R. Inman (USN Ret.)—the former Director of the National Security Agency, who also held Deputy Director positions at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency—and Lt. General Daniel O. Graham (USA Ret.), the former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In the letter, Klass stated that “Both men have worked with me and gotten to know me [through] my efforts for Aviation Week."

Hansen, whose diligent journalistic investigation of CSICOP goes well beyond that conducted by any UFO researcher, observes, “If the [CIA] had wanted to set up a front organization to debunk the UFO phenomenon, it could have hardly done a better job than to infiltrate CSICOP and encourage its media management activities. Perhaps its not surprising, then, that Philip Klass has occasionally been charged with being a covert government agent, a charge he has vigorously denied...”

Hansen goes on to note that during a 1994 confrontation with Klass, at a CSICOP meeting in Seattle, the UFO debunker first said that an official UFO cover-up would not be possible because the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1lace w:st="on">U.S.</ST1lace></st1:country-region> government could not keep such an important secret. When Hansen challenged that assertion, and cited examples of other important secrets which the government had successfully kept from public view—such as decades-old cryptographic-related programs—Klass apparently reversed himself and admitted that some secrets could indeed be kept long-term. Then, in what was arguably a very telling comment, Klass told Hansen that some secrets should be kept, for reasons relating to national security. He went on to mention that his employer, Aviation Week, had once agreed to keep secret its knowledge of the SR-71 spy plane, at the government’s request. If nothing else, this admission by Klass only further illustrates the magazine’s cooperative, mutually-beneficial relationship with the various agencies and departments of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1lace w:st="on">U.S.</ST1lace></st1:country-region> government—in which one hand washes the other, so to speak.

“So,” Hanson summarized, “under cross-examination, Klass had gone from claiming the government can’t keep secrets to saying that it can, it must, and even that his own publication had been complicit in keeping government secrets. Klass did not appear very happy about the course this conversation had taken and he soon reverted back to his [initial] claim that UFOs did not exist...A charitable view of Klass is that he is simply a zealot, another of those for whom scientific dogma supplies the reassuring psychological bedrock that others find in religious fundamentalism. When confronted with evidence that calls into question his core beliefs, Klass responds—as any fundamentalist would—by rejecting the evidence. Thus, his duplicity can be accounted for by human nature. One does not need to resort to more conspiratorial explanations.”

“On the other hand,” Hanson continued, “Klass also has many of the qualifications one would expect in a deep-cover propagandist. He has a history of working for the secretive military-industrial complex, a demonstrated aptitude for duplicity, a District of Columbia address, remarkable mass-media savvy and success, an evident belief in the necessity of government secrecy and, of course, cover as a journalist with Aviation Week.”

Hanson has much more to say in his book regarding the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1lace w:st="on">U.S.</ST1lace></st1:country-region> government’s routine use of the mass media to spin or suppress information it wishes to keep from the public. The Missing Times is a remarkably well-documented exposé and should be read by UFO proponents, skeptics and debunkers alike, not to mention any American citizen who has ever suspected that the news offered by the national media is not always what it appears to be.

My own opinion regarding CSICOP (or, now, CSI) is that if one is going to accept at face-value the many unfounded and dismissive claims about UFOs made by some of the key members of this “skeptical” organization, one should at least be aware of those persons’ longstanding professional affiliations. To summarize:

Kendrick Frazier: Employed as a Public Relations Specialist, for more than two decades, at Sandia National Laboratories, one of the <ST1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></ST1lace> government’s leading nuclear weapons labs. During the same period, Frazier served as Executive Editor for Skeptical Inquirer magazine, a position he continues to hold today.

James Oberg: A former U.S. Air Force officer who once did classified work related to nuclear weapons, and a long-time employee of NASA, a <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1lace w:st="on">U.S.</ST1lace></st1:country-region> government-funded organization which, in addition to its well-publicized endeavors relating to space exploration, routinely works with the Department of Defense on various classified projects, including the launching of spy satellites. Before his retirement from NASA, Oberg worked on the Space Shuttle program (1975-97); he currently serves as a space science consultant for NBC News and continues to promote his “skeptical” views on UFOs.

Philip Klass: Now deceased, Klass was employed, for over two decades, at a <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1lace w:st="on">U.S.</ST1lace></st1:country-region> intelligence community-friendly aerospace publication. By his own admission, Klass had developed close professional ties with at least two top-level intelligence officers—U.S. Navy Admiral Bobby Inman and U.S. Army General Daniel Graham—both of whom held, at various times, high-ranking positions with the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and/or the National Security Agency.

Well, call me paranoid, but I think I see a pattern here. For an organization ostensibly created to scientifically investigate paranormal subjects, including UFOs, CSICOP—especially its UFO Subcommittee—seems to be completely lacking in UFO experts with truly scientific credentials, but conspicuously top-heavy with individuals having <ST1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></ST1lace> government connections, of one kind or another. The reader may draw his or her own conclusions but, personally, I believe that one would be well-advised to assiduously avoid the highly-suspect spin regularly offered up by the UFO “experts” at CSICOP/CSI and, instead, consult other, genuine sources of scientifically-credible information on UFOs.<O></O>
<O> </O>
Let me be clear: I am not accusing the leading UFO debunkers affiliated with CSICOP/CSI and its publication Skeptical Inquirer of being government-sanctioned covert agents, or even UFO cover-up sympathizers—“assets” in intelligence parlance—who have engaged in a disinformation campaign designed to discredit UFOs, as well as those who report or investigate them. The reason I am not accusing them is because I have no proof to back up my personal mistrust of their motives.

However, having said that, I do make the observation that most of CSICOP’s leading UFO debunkers—that is, those who have served as members of the organization’s staff—share a very interesting and, I would argue, rather suspicious camaraderie relating to their professional backgrounds. <O></O>
<O> </O>
For whatever reason, these individuals are intent on claiming that there are no UFOs and, therefore, no <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1lace w:st="on">U.S.</ST1lace></st1:country-region> government cover-up of them. In view of their rather interesting affiliations, I merely ask: Wouldn’t Kendrick Frazier’s statements be more credible had he not spent his career doing public relations work for the <ST1lace w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></ST1lace> government’s nuclear weapons program? Shouldn’t Philip Klass—having worked for more than two decades as a journalist for one of the U.S. intelligence community’s most valued media mouthpieces—been more carefully scrutinized by the media, for a conflict of interest, when he tirelessly insisted that there is no government UFO cover-up? Even James Oberg’s own classified nuclear weapons-related work while with the Air Force, as well as his later involvement with the U.S. government’s space program, seems to fit this pattern of direct or indirect governmental ties on the part of those who ostensibly dismiss UFOs on purely scientific grounds, but who seem arguably more intent on dismissing the notion that there is an official UFO cover-up.<O></O>
<O></O>
(Yes, admittedly, almost all of my own sources have military backgrounds too. Importantly, however, unlike the highly-vocal UFO debunkers at CSICOP, most of them have divulged their UFO-related secrets only reluctantly, when pressed by myself or other researchers to do so. Therefore, as a rule, they have very cautiously presented their insiders’ perspective on national security-related UFO activity. This is, of course, entirely dissimilar in approach to the relentless, high-profile, anti-UFO public relations campaign undertaken by CSICOP’s debunkers over the years. I might also add that my own ex-military sources present their accounts in a simple, straightforward manner—and rarely insist that anyone believe them—whereas the ongoing UFO-debunking pronouncements by the CSI-COPs are routinely jam-packed with classic propaganda devices, obviously designed to influence public opinion.)<O></O>
<O> </O>
In any event, the question being asked here is whether or not CSICOP/CSI has had within its ranks a few persons who have a hidden agenda on UFOs, which has nothing to do with genuine scientific skepticism. While I don’t know the answer to this question, given the extreme, unscientific anti-UFO track-record of the organization, I think it needs to be asked. Regardless, whatever these debunkers’ affiliations and motives may be, the reader doesn’t need what they have to offer unless, of course, you’re masochistic by nature and actually enjoy being misled by pseudoscientific propaganda, government-inspired or not.<O></O>
<O></O>
<O></O>It goes without saying that the statements above do not apply to the CSICOP/CSI membership in general. It’s only natural and to be expected that an organization which bills itself as “skeptical” in orientation will attract persons with a similar philosophical outlook. CSICOP/CSI counts among its membership many world-renowned scientists and other respected intellectuals. There is no question that a great many of these persons share a sincerely incredulous outlook on various subjects classified as “paranormal”, including UFOs. Therefore, the fact that many of CSICOP’s members have rejected the validity of the UFO phenomenon—a subject about which they know little or nothing, and are not qualified to discuss authoritatively—certainly does not mean that they are secretly working for the CIA. Bias and presumption, rather than official deception, account for these self-appointed UFO experts’ flawed perspective on the phenomenon. If they have in fact been intentionally misled by CSICOP’s top UFO debunkers, they have no one to blame but themselves. <O></O>

I’ll conclude this chapter by simply saying that if one is sincerely seeking an objective, unbiased scientific assessment of the UFO phenomenon, one should bypass the sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious misinformation foisted on us all by Klass, Oberg, and Frazier. Instead, one would do well to read anything ever written on the subject by Dr. James McDonald or Dr. J. Allen Hynek—at least, anything written by Hynek during his post-Project Blue Book period, when his scientific investigation of UFOs was not hampered by the official restrictions under which he labored while affiliated with the U.S. Air Force.

Perhaps I am being overly optimistic but, who knows, once acquainted with some legitimate data on the UFO phenomenon—including that gathered decades ago by McDonald and Hynek—a few of the daring scientific skeptics reading this book might actually begin practicing their profession, when addressing the subject of UFOs, instead of just offering lip service to that practice.

--Robert Hastings
ufohastings.com