"There's an old saying; just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get you. I have my own variation: just because you're insane that doesn't mean that things aren't slipping in unnoticed through dimensional gateways..." ~ Christopher Knowles (h/t to The Daily Grail for quote.)
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Snarly Skepticism Joe Nickell OWL AWARD Goes To:
Bill Nye, The Science Guy, for the following comments made on the Larry King Live program, July 19, 2008,concerning the UFO sightings during nuclear weapons shutdowns:
NYE: He did tell him and he saw something. And, coincidentally, the missile shut down.
KING: All right. OK. The guy saw something.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Coincidentally is called... (CROSSTALK)
KING: Wasn't that a weird coincidence?
And the winning comment from Bill Nye is . . .
NYE: Yes. I mean I've - many times I've flipped a light switch and you hear a siren.
There is evidence that something caused missiles to malfunction during test launches. Former Air Force officers tell their incredible story about the film that was confiscated by the CIA and what was on it and why don't officials want us to see it.
Find out right now on LARRY KING LIVE.
We begin with allegations that UFOs have interfered with missiles at U.S. Air Force bases and aliens are monitoring nuclear warheads and bombs.
Our first guests claim UFOs have activated missile systems at five Air Force Bases in five different states. They also claim a cover-up, that the United States government is keeping the information secret.
Former Air Force officers and an investigator are here with their stories.
Here in Los Angeles is Robert Hastings. He's author of "UFOs and Nukes." I have the book right here. The book is available at ufohastings.com. He has been investigating sightings at weapon sites for years.
Bob Salas is a former captain U.S. Air Force base - of the United States Air Force. He was at Malstrom Air Force Base in 1967, where there were claims that a UFO caused missiles to malfunction. He's co-author of "Faded Giant."
Bob Jamison is with us, a former U.S. Air Force officer. He was at Malstrom, as well, in 1967 and he says his superiors told him UFOs caused the malfunctions.
And in Peoria, Illinois is Dr. Bob Jacobs, former lieutenant, U.S. Air Force, former U.S. Air Force photographic instrumentation officer. A UFO showed up on film that he shot in 1954 at Vandenberg Air Force Base and that was later confiscated by CIA agents.
We'll start with Robert Hastings. How did you get -- what's your explanation for UFOs at nuclear weapon sites?
ROBERT HASTINGS, AUTHOR, "UFOS AND NUKES," RESEARCHES SIGHTINGS AT NUCLEAR WEAPONS SITES: I can simply say, after 35 years of research, that these incidents have taken place. There are hundreds of declassified documents which indicate that UFOs have demonstrated a distinct and ongoing interest in our nuclear weapons sites. I've also interviewed nearly a hundred gentlemen who were involved in these incidents at various Air Force bases. This is very widespread. What you're seeing here this evening is the tip of the iceberg.
KING: What do they do to cause something to not work?
HASTINGS: I think that's probably still an unknown. I know that Boeing engineers attempted to duplicate some of the malfunctions. They did succeed in doing that, but they still can't determine what initially caused them. Bob Salas can address that.
KING: Bob, what happened at Malstrom in 1967?
BOB SALAS, FORMER USAF OFFICER, WORKED AT BASE WHERE MISSILES MALFUNCTIONED: In 1967, I was on duty as a missile launch officers. I got calls from my guards upstairs. First, I get one call saying that they're seeing strange lights flying in the sky. And I didn't pay too much attention to that. About five minutes later, the main security guard -- the flight security controller calls down and says he's looking at a glowing red object, very large, hovering over the front gate. And he wants to know what to do.
I tell him to secure the facility. We hang up. I go to tell my commander. So within seconds of that call, my missiles start shutting down. I recall losing all 10 of them.
KING: You didn't see the object?
SALAS: I didn't see the object because I was obliged to stay underground in the capsule.
KING: By shutting down we mean what?
SALAS: By shutting down what I mean is they were not launchable. They were in no go condition, disabled.
KING: How long to restart them?
SALAS: Well, I'm sure it took over a day and maybe (INAUDIBLE).
KING: Now, Bob Jamison you were there too, right?
BOB JAMISON, FORMER USAF OFFICER, SUPERIORS TOLD HIM UFOS CAUSE MISSILE MALFUNCTIONS: Yes, sir. KING: And you were in the Air Force?
JAMISON: Yes, I was in the Air Force. I was...
KING: And where were you when this was happening?
JAMISON: Yes, I was a tightening - I was a tightening officer, a missile targeting officer. I was at home relaxing and I got from job control to come in. A missile had gone down. My job as a target officer was to bring them back up. And so I went in to...
KING: But you didn't see the incident, you just went to the missile?
JAMISON: No, I went to the incident. I went to the site. It's Great Falls, Montana, just outside of Great Falls, Montana.
KING: What did you make of the story?
JAMISON: Well, I know that it's The Skeptic Society. I went into job control after I got to the hangar. I was called in. I went to the hangar. I went to the job control. And I noticed they have a map of the whole complex, the green lights where the missiles are good. But there's one small area with 10 red lights. It means those missiles were out.
KING: Is it possible they just malfunctioned?
JAMISON: That doesn't happen. Very rarely does a missile malfunction. And I don't think any - much more rare would be two at the same time. But never 10.
KING: Now, Bob Jacobs, what were you filming and where were you?
DR. BOB JACOBS: I was in charge of optical instrumentation at Vandenberg Air Force Base in from 1963 to '66. That's California. That's right there on the coast. And our job was to photograph, with high speed instrumentation, every missile launch from Vandenberg going down the test range. They wanted to find out if we could figure out a place to put a telescope where we could get a side view of the missile, so that we could see all three stages of powered flight.
So I went up to Big Sur, California, up on an air - on the U.S. Forest Service road on Anderson Peak and installed a telescopic site up there. And the Air Force flew in a huge catarctic telescope from the Cape. It was built by Dr. Walter Manning at the Boston University.
They put this telescope up there. And with that thing, which had a focal length of 2,500 inches, we photographed an Atlas missile raising up out of the fog cover and flying downrange. We got all three stages of powered flight. And as the dummy warhead and the package flew on down the range, we were all celebrating the fact that we had seen the thing and accomplished the mission.
When I got back to the base with the film, the next day I was called into the office of Major Florenze J. Mansmann. And there were three people in gray suits standing in there. There was a .16 millimeter camera and a screen set up.
Major Mansmann said lieutenant, sit down and watch this. And he turned down the lights, turned on the camera - on the projector and the film came on. And I recognized it as the film that we had shot at Big Sur the previous day.
Toward the end of the flight, I was looking at Major Mansmann saying pretty good stuff, huh sir?
And suddenly he said just watch this.
And as I watched, the warhead - the dummy warhead, the chaff that was put out in front of it as the decoy to deflect the Russian anti-missile missile tracking radar - everything was flying along and suddenly, in the same direction this stuff was flying, at about 8,000 miles an hour, an object came into the frame, shot a beam of light at the warhead, flew up to the top, shot another beam of light at the warhead, flew around the direction it was flying, shot another beam of light at the warhead, flew down to shoot another beam of light at the warhead and then flew out the same way it came in.
KING: Well, I don't understand. Why didn't you see this when you were shooting it?
JACOBS: Well, it was 600 or 800 miles away from us.
KING: Oh, I got you.
JACOBS: All of this...
KING: And they confiscated...
JACOBS: We only could see this...
KING: They confiscated...
JACOBS: Well, first of all, Major Mansmann said to me, what was that?
Were you guys screwing around up there? I said, no, sir. And he said then tell me what that was. And I said we got a UFO. And he said, lieutenant, you are never to speak of this again. As far as you're concerned, this didn't happen.
KING: Hold on, guys.
JACOBS: And for...
KING: We've got to take a break. OK. That's weird. Do you think there's an actual defense plan for aliens?
It sounds crazy. We'll ask about that next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not alone in witnessing something extraordinary. That's the bottom line.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Powerful beaming spotlights.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Triangular in shape, sitting on three legs.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No type of aircraft that I've ever seen before.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rapidly maneuvered and quickly disappeared.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Accelerating to very high speeds.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were just trying our cars...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what we were seeing, it don't resemble anything known to us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Bob Jamison, we'll make this clear, you were asked to say nothing?
JAMISON: I was not asked to say nothing. In fact, no one admonished me and I did not sign an oath saying that I can't say anything.
KING: So, what - there was no cover-up as far as you were concerned?
JAMISON: That's correct.
KING: You just...
JAMISON: I can tell. I can speak about it.
KING: You can tell what you saw. Do you think there's a plan for invasion by aliens?
JAMISON: I wouldn't presume to know that. I simply know that the U.S. government does not obviously appreciate people, such as myself and these gentlemen, speaking out about this. What we're describing, on an ongoing basis, decade after decade, at multiple Air Force bases, is just disruption of our nuclear missiles.
KING: We have an e-mail from Kyle in Plainville, Massachusetts: "Why would UFOs only disable U.S. defense systems and not another country? Is there a lesson to be learned in all of this?"
Or do you think maybe - Bob Salas - they have disabled other countries?
SALAS: They have. I know that there have been events in the Soviet Union where they have interfered there. They've been seen in just any country you could name. You know, I do disable communications that's (INAUDIBLE).
KING: We have an e-mail from Eric in Atlanta, Georgia: "What can be done, if anything, to force the U.S. government and/or military to declassify and release all it knows about UFOs?"
Dr. Jacobs, when do you think that would happen?
Do you think that would happen?
JACOBS: It would take a revolution in public opinion. The problem with this field is that it's surrounded by so many crackpots and weirdoes who make a joke about it, that those of us who take it seriously and think that something definitely is going on and it needs to be scientifically investigated, are laughed at. The technician here in the studio where I am, I said were talking about UFOs tonight and her face lit up and she got that kind of hmmm look, which is typical of what happens to us.
I think that we need to a real scientific committee to be put together to look into these things. I think Rob (INAUDIBLE) too.
KING: I agree.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely.
KING: Bob Salas, do you agree?
SALAS: Yes. I would like to make a comment real quick. The Air Force has perpetrated a fraud, especially in our case. They claim in their statement about UFOs that nothing has -- no UFO incident has ever affected national security.
And we lost 20 missiles during the cold war. They also stonewalled the Condon Committee at that time. The Condon Committee had heard about our incident and were told to go away. They said they were told that no UFOs were involved.
And then the Air Force turns around and uses the Condon Committee as a reason not to further investigate UFOs.
KING: Robert Hastings, in doing all these shows, what confounds me is, if all of this is The Skeptic Society, what are they afraid of?
What's the government afraid of?
HASTINGS: Victor Marchetti is a former high level CIA official. He wrote the book "CIA and The Cult of Intelligence" in 1975, a best- seller. The CIA tried to prohibit that being printed.
He, Victor Marchetti, in 1979, wrote an article regarding what the CIA thought about UFOs. He alluded to rumors at the agency of crashed UFOs and the recovery of bodies of aliens. More to the point, Victor Marchetti said that, in his view, as an intelligence analyst, he thinks that the power structures, the elite, the status quo, people in every country on earth who are in on the secret, are really trying to maintain their own power and status and don't want to rock the boat.
KING: An e-mail from Christian, Brighton, Colorado: "When is the Air Force going to stop lying to the people and finally tell them the truth about alien visitation? The American people are paying their salaries and they are supposed to defend and respect the Constitution of the United States of America."
Bob Jamison, do you ever think we'll ever see it?
Do you think we'll ever see an Air Force official, the secretary of the Air Force come on and say here's the story?
JAMISON: Perhaps through more programs, such as this we can get the public tuned to the fact that there were - are UFOs. They're not going to hurt you, I don't think. And they haven't hurt anybody that I know of. And I think that, perhaps, through more programs such as yours and such as these people are bringing out...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And a government investigation immediately.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: An open investigation.
KING: There's never been one, right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
SALAS: Not really, no. I mean in 1968 was the last Congressional hearing on UFOs -- 1968.
KING: Forty years.
SALAS: Forty years. We need another one. We need a strong one. Hopefully, the next administration will do that.
HASTINGS: There's been a lot of behind-the-scenes manipulation of Congress by the military lesson personnel. KING: Because of what -- fear of what?
HASTINGS: Well, again, Larry, these gentlemen are talking about nuclear missiles being dropped offline. The Pentagon does not want the Russians or, previously, the Soviets to know that. It's going on in the Soviet Union, as Bob Salas has said. But I have interviewed persons who were involved with the Minutemen missile bases in the '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s. And they say this is continuing to occur.
I've actually interviewed a gentleman a year ago who said that his missiles were activated by UFO. And I describe that in detail in my book. I asked him to come on this program and he declined, I think because he's uneasy about talking publicly.
KING: There are skeptics, not a surprise. Bill Nye, the science guy, is here when LARRY KING LIVE returns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It does not contain any pattern of purpose or of consistency.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it's not a weather balloon nor an aircraft nor a missile. It is something else.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know what they saw in '47, but I'm quite sure it probably was Project Mobile.
CWO JOHN HAU (RET.), U.S. NAVY: Nothing we had at the time, could fit the description, size and shape.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Go to CNN.com/larryking right now and take our quick vote.
Is the United States government hiding knowledge of UFOs?
Let us know what you think.
Joining our panel is Bill Nye, the science guy. He's a scientist, engineer, best-selling author and Emmy winning television personality. He's, by the way, a member of The Skeptic Society and a fellow with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.
Now, Bill, assuming that these distinguished gentlemen are not lying, we have three former members of the Air Force and Robert Hastings who's looked into this for a long time, what's your thought?
BILL NYE : Well, in the skeptical world, in science, we look at claims. We look at individual claims. So I noticed that in the intro to your show and stuff that you -- there are several UFO incidents all mixed in together.
But let's talk about the one in 1967, right? This is your problem at Malstrom Air Force Base in Montana.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Malstrom.
NYE: So the nuclear missiles went down right?
So if you go look at the documents that these guys have offered, if I understand it, as evidence, you look at some of them -- and you don't have to look read it, but you see there's something blacked out, OK, redacted. That's a guy's home address. They don't want you to publish your home address.
Here's one with a whole bunch of people's office phone numbers and stuff. And it looks spooky and scary.
KING: But what's your point?
NYE: Well, it looks spooky and scary, but it turns out that that day, or the day before, the power had gone out in some of the chiller units, the air conditioning, OK?
And Boeing was called out - Boeing makes the Minuteman missile - because all these things went down and they wanted to know what had happened.
KING: So the man who called him and said he saw something outside, he didn't see something?
NYE: Well, let me just say, when you see something, a lot of people see something. And a lot of people see things that are really - they can't identify. But that doesn't mean they were - it's quite a leap...
KING: So you're saying it's a coincidence.
KING: This guy thought he saw something and the missiles go out?
NYE: And then you talk to people who were there...
KING: All right. Bob Salas, how do you respond?
NYE: ...and it's very compelling. And these documents
KING: Hold up.
NYE: I just want to address this.
KING: OK. Let him respond.
NYE: When you respond, address that one of the officers suspected that somebody had been drinking, OK?
SALAS: I never heard that.
SALAS: I never heard that explained that anybody was drinking.
Let me say, first of all, the missile shutdowns had nothing to do with power failure. There is triple redundancy on power. We've got Montana Power. We've got a backup generator. We've got batteries, OK?
KING: You've never seen missiles go down due to a power failure?
SALAS: Not really, because of all that backup on power. So this had nothing to do with power. The second point. The flight security guard that reported this was about less than 100 feet away from this object. He was looking at it through his window. It was right outside the front gate, right above the gate. It was a glowing red object, pulsing.
NYE: OK. Did you see it?
SALAS: No. I couldn't see it.
KING: No, he delegate 2006 election it.
SALAS: I couldn't see it. I couldn't leave the capsule. But within seconds after that report, the missiles shut down.
Now, was that a coincidence?
NYE: Well, it's hearsay, as we say in the courtroom.
SALAS: It's not hearsay.
NYE: Well, you're saying that this guy told you.
SALAS: It was testimony.
KING: Well, you're not saying -- I'm not asking you -- you don't think he's lying?
KING: All right. So the guy did tell him?
NYE: He did tell him and he saw something. And, coincidentally, the missile shut down.
KING: All right. OK. The guy saw something.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Coincidentally is called... (CROSSTALK)
KING: Wasn't that a weird coincidence?
NYE: Yes. I mean I've - many times I've flipped a light switch and you hear a siren.
SALAS: What if the same thing happened a week earlier, only this time 10 missiles go down, a lot of security guards see the UFOs right above the what are five other missile bases...
NYE: OK. So why don't we...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ...on repeated occasions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that a coincidence, too?
I mean you can buy the two - are those two coincidences?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ...the 1950s, '60s, '70s and '80s.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, but here's the thing. It's not...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's over a hundred people, they'll...
NYE: Well, in science it's not evidence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wish Edgar Mitchell were here. But in any case...
KING: It may not be evidence, let's say, but it is certainly a source of...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, a hundred people are telling the same story at different Air Force bases over a four week period.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These guys were entrusted... with weapons of destruction by the U.S. government.
And there's a hundred now who are coming forward and saying UFOs shut down their nuclear weapons.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So we have a mass psychosis... among our nuclear missile forces?
KING: Hold it. In the interests of time, Dr. Jacobs, he takes pictures, he comes back, they call him in. They show him the pictures of this strange thing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I saw it. I'm an eyewitness.
KING: He saw it. They confiscate.
KING: And they confiscate it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not talking about people who reported...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wouldn't be surprised...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead.
KING: Yes, go ahead.
JACOBS: Do you mind if I speak, Mr. Comedian?
KING: Go ahead.
JACOBS: I was there. I was there. I saw the film with my own eyes. I'm not lying.
Why would I?
I'm a university professor with a Ph.D. and a lot of years of good respectful research. So the (INAUDIBLE) officer may not have seen the UFO, but they saw the results of it. I saw the damn thing on film with my own eyes, so don't call me a liar and you weren't there, I was.
NYE: I didn't -- with all due respect, I'm not calling you a liar. It's just quite a step to say there was a film with remarkable images on it that the CIA confiscated, which I saw and which...
JACOBS: It's quite a step they did.
NYE: Yes. Which is quite a step from there to say it was definitely a spacecraft from another civilization. That's the leap that the skeptical community is reluctant to take.
JACOBS: Listen, I didn't -- hey, pal, listen to me. I didn't say it was a space ship from another civilization. I said it was something in the air that we couldn't identify. Therefore, it was an unidentified flying object. It was shaped like two saucers put together with a golf ball on top. And it fired a beam that we assumed was a plasma beam at a dummy warhead and knocked it out of space. Tell me what happened. Tell me who did that. Tell me in 1964 who had that technology, pal. Not us and not the Russians and nobody I know of.
So come on Mr. Skeptic, what about it?
NYE: So what's your conclusion?
So what's your conclusion?
JACOBS: What's your conclusion?
NYE: What are you saying?
Well, my conclusion is that something happened that you don't know what it was. And I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with another aspect of military testing in the sky that night. And it's a much more reasonable explanation...
JACOBS: There was nothing in our inventory that could do possibly do that.
NYE: So let's do this other little thought experiment, everybody. OK, let's say this has been going on since 1967, routinely, right?
There's an old joke in broadcasting...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to do this with baking soda and vinegar, Bill?
KING: Hold on. We're running out of time.
NYE: It's an old joke in broadcasting...
KING: What is it?
NYE: Well, it's like trying to photograph a car wreck. At one time, considered an impossible thing to do. If you sent out a news crew, OK, let's go shoot a car wreck, that was a joke. Well, now, routinely on the nightly news we see car wrecks. We see car wrecks on the freeway, we see car wrecks behind us. KING: Why was it a joke that your...
NYE: Because there's -- because there didn't used to be a camera everywhere. There are millions and millions of cameras. There are billions of digital pictures taken every week.
KING: So you're not saying there are no UFOs, you're saying they haven't been proven?
NYE: I'm saying that it's quite a step to see something you don't know what it is in the sky to say that there are alien spacecraft...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you've got to understand Dr. Jacobs...
NYE: ...that are monitoring our nuclear weapons.
KING: He has seen this, Dr. Jacobs.
NYE: Well, I understand that.
KING: Now, so you're - if you're questioning what he's seen...
NYE: No. Well, I'm questioning his -- the conclusion that the technology did not exist in 1964 to produce images on film that the CIA would want to confiscate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I may?
JACOBS: Well, in 1964 you were trying to figure out what...
NYE: That's quite a step.
JACOBS: In 1964, you were trying to figure out what girls were. I was in the service as a senior scientist (INAUDIBLE) capacity.
NYE: Sir, you can attack me...
JACOBS: So get off your skeptic high horse, pal.
NYE: But that doesn't - well, it just doesn't...
JACOBS: You're attacking us.
NYE: It's quite a step...
JACOBS: You're the one who's making ad hominem attacks and saying that's quite a step.
You bet it's quite a step.
HASTINGS: If I may? The other retired Air Force officer involved in it was charged with photo analysis of this film. Florenze Mansmann, who's now deceased.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Florenze J. Mansmann.
HASTINGS: I've spoken to his widow. I have correspondence -- private correspondence between Dr. Jacobs and Dr. Mansmann, actually. And 20 years later, they are marveling over what they saw. Mansmann's professional assessment at Vandenberg in 1964 was that this was an extraterrestrial craft.
NYE: OK. So he made that conclusion.
HASTINGS: That's correct.
NYE: OK. All right.
HASTINGS: And I can send you -- I will give CNN -- I'm trying to get the national media involved in this as much as possible. I will send anyone any correspondence for any newspaper, any radio station, TV station, any scientist, any member of your group, all of the original documentation...
KING: All right, we...
HASTINGS: ...where these gentlemen are discussing the subject 20 years later.
KING: All right, we're going to have -- we're going to do a lot more on this, because we do a lot on UFOs.
We thank you all for coming. And we thank Dr. Jacobs.
But when we come back, we're going to really get into it -- a double debate. We're going to have a physicist, a lecturer, a researcher and a documentary filmmaker go up against Bill Nye and Dr. Seth Shostek into a two versus two on this whole subject.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think it was possible it was from another world?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My Air Force training says I can't think that way, OK?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know what I saw. And I get very upset. And I was wondering why they won't find out what it was?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Until somebody actually sees it, they have no idea. No idea.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A story this big, there's no way it could be kept secret. What do you say to something like that, who says that?
COL. GORDON COOPER (RET), ASTRONAUT: Well, somebody's kept it pretty secret for quite a while, haven't they.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Four distinguished gentlemen will now debate that reasonably. They are here in Los Angeles, Stanton Friedman, a physicist, lecturer and a UFO researcher and author of "Flying Saucers and Science." James Fox is a documentary film maker and UFO researcher, the executive producer of "Out of The Blue," and finishing up a new film, the working title "Beyond The Blue." Bill Nye, our science guy, remains. And in Boston is Dr. Seth Shostak, the senior astronomer for the SETI Institute. That stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. He's the host of the weekly radio program, "Are We Alone."
All right, Stanton, it is Bill's contention that, yes, people have sighted things. Yes, there are reports. But we don't know there are unidentified flying objects from other planets.
STANTON FRIEDMAN, PHYSICIST: Well, you know, I admire Bill's courage. I can't imagine a well-trained scientist who's an expert at communicating science to the general masses of people, who has courage enough to go on a national, international television program, to talk about something which he hasn't researched, something which he knows nothing about and pretend he's being a scientist about it. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the debunkers making their research be proclamations.
Bill showed a document with, you know, names redacted. How about this is a CIA document, it took me five years to get, about UFOs. Not just names redacted.
KING: Are you saying, Stanton, as a physicist, that there are unidentified flying objects that have come from other places?
FRIEDMAN: Yes. I'm going beyond that. That's why the book is flying saucers and UFOs.
KING: They would be unidentified.
FRIEDMAN: Yes, I'm saying some UFOs are intelligently controlled extraterrestrial spacecraft. We're dealing with a cosmic Watergate, meaning a cover-up by the government. And there are no good arguments against those two. And we're dealing with the biggest story of the millennium.
KING: Before I have Bill respond, let's have Dr. Shostak respond. Doctor, what do you know or not know?
SETH SHOSTAK, SR ASTRONOMER, SETI INSTITUTE: Stanton likes to say, those of us who are not doing the UFO research shouldn't opine about them. And I find that not such a convincing argument, because frankly, I don't do black hole research. I'm an astronomer. I don't do black hole research. But I can read a paper about black holes and decide whether it sounds credible or not. Is the guy who did it credible? Was the paper reviewed? Are other scientists convinced? Can I repeat the experiment?
There's no reason Bill Nye, nor I, can't offer a serious opinion on this subject. So I regret that he said that.
Secondly, you're not offering --
KING: Don't interrupt. Let's bring in James Fox. You're not a scientist, but a filmmaker - do you know that objects have come from other places, not the Earth?
JAMES FOX, DOCUMENTARY FILM MAKER: Here's my theory.
FOX: Two possibilities, the observed phenomena -- By the way, I've got a little document here that was released from the Air Material Command, General Nathan Twaining (ph), admitting on the 23rd of September, 1947 that the phenomenon is real and not visionary or fictitious.
KING: What do you know?
FOX: Basically, there's an observed technology for at least 60 years that one can easily establish, the ability to hover without making sound, without disturbing the air and accelerate from the standpoint to out of sight in the blink of an eye. Either there's an agency within some government in the world that is in possession of that technology and has kept it under wraps for 60 years. I can definitively say that.
KING: The government could be ours.
FOX: And it's terrestrial explanation. There's a terrestrial explanation for that technology, or there isn't.
KING: Or the government could be ours, too.
FOX: Or the government could be ours, which would explain that they've kept this technology under wraps for 60 years or more.
KING: Could you unequivocally, Bill, say there are no objects coming from outer space? Can you say that?
NYE: Of course not. There are definitely objects coming from outer space. There's 100,000 tons of --
KING: I mean manned alien.
NYE: -- dust that lands of day. Put a sheet out every night. You will find dust.
NYE: I'm very skeptical. As we say in science, the simplest explanation is generally the best one. So here's our problem, I think: people are confident that the United States government has covered things up.
NYE: And indeed, if you read recent publications, stuff declassified last year, and I didn't read the book, but if you read something like "Legacy of Ashes" about the CIA, the CIA has covered up a lot of things. A couple times, they got their own forces shooting at themselves because one part of the organization didn't tell the other part of the organization.
KING: What's your point?
NYE: My point being that the U.S. government could have accidentally led people to believe that there was a lot more going on than there really was. And so this ability of the U.S. government to create these rumors, generally inadvertently, may I say, has led people to have confidence that when they can't explain something by traditional means, it must be some amazing, never-before experienced --
KING: Before we continue, let's take a look at a clip from James fox's new movie. It involves a Japanese airliner. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ahead on the radar, approximately five miles in front of your 6:00 position. Do you concur?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We cannot identify the type. It's quite big.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The CIA said, to all the people there, this event never happened. Who are you going to believe? Your lying eyes or the government?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Why is the government covering up, Stanton?
FRIEDMAN: In my book, I have a whole chapter on six reasons for it. You want to figure out how they work. You worry about the other guy figuring out how they work before you do, because they make wonderful weapons delivery and defense systems. You don't want them to know you know they know kind of thing. If a big announcement were to be made, there would be -- what, church attendance would go up, mental hospital admissions would go up, the stock market would go down, but there would be a big push for earthling orientation. No government wants that.
And fourth, some of the religious extremists --
KING: Do you, Dr. Shostak, believe there would be a panic?
SHOSTAK: No, absolutely not, Larry. Polls have shown since the 1960s that something like 50 percent, 60 percent Americans believe we're being visited by saucer sailing aliens that occasionally abduct you for experiments that are inappropriate on a first date. And nobody's rioting in the streets about that. "New York Times" announced it tomorrow, I think people would say, I knew it all along.
KING: Our latest Associated Press poll shows 14 percent of Americans claim they've seen a UFO and 34 percent say they believe in UFOs. James, you had eyewitnesses you spoke to in Arizona, right, who told you they saw. They saw what?
FOX: There was a craft. It's a the boomerang shaped craft. It's up to a mile across. It's flew extremely slowly.
KING: A mile across.
FOX: A mile across. It flew extremely slowly. People had to fly directly over. We're not talking about an ambiguous light off in the distance. Directly over their house, so low they could have hit it with a rock.
KING: How many people told you they saw it?
FOX: There's been over 1,000 people who have come forward. I talked to at least 150 from all over the state of Arizona, including the governor of Arizona, who did launch an investigation with the Pentagon, local Air Force base, Luke Air Force Base.
KING: What happened in the investigation?
FOX: They shrugged their shoulders and said, we don't know what that thing was.
KING: How do you respond? They're not lying, Bill. What do you think?
NYE: My recollection was the Air Force said they had a flight of F-16's that dropped flares that night. It's a big V.
KING: These people are not --
FRIEDMAN: That was at 10:00, not 8:30.
FOX: The real thing happened at 8:30. It started in the north and headed all the way down.
NYE: One explanation is --
FRIEDMAN: People couldn't tell time.
NYE: One explanation is people -- something happened in the evening and we have confused the time. Another explanation is there's an alien spacecraft.
KING: OK. Are you open to that possibility?
NYE: Not in the case of the one in Phoenix. In this case -- I don't have the documents in front of me, in all fairness.
FRIEDMAN: You haven't studied the evidence is what it boils down to, Bill.
NYE: That's where I really disagree with you, Stan. I've studied the evidence pretty well.
FOX: When this craft took off -- and I talked to people across the state of Arizona. They said, had I blinked I would have missed it. It didn't make any sound. It didn't disturb the air. It didn't make a sonic boom. And it was at least a mile across, including the governor of Arizona saw this thing.
FRIEDMAN: And he's a pilot
FOX: And he's a pilot and former captain in the Air Force.
NYE: On CNN we had footage of that.
FOX: No footage of that. I'm about to uncover footage that --
KING: Let me get a break. Why do we presumes that aliens, if they are out there, are so much smarter than we? Interesting question. We'll try for an answer.
Stanton, a good point from an avid listener. We've lived through many administrations of this. We've lived through Johnson, Nixon, all right, a whole bunch. We've had Republicans, Democrats, scientists. All of them are covering up? Nobody, nobody - no official has ever said, I want to look into this?
FRIEDMAN: As they say --
FOX: Jimmy Carter on camera -- I was the first person to get Jimmy Carter on camera saying that he tried to launch an investigation and he got nowhere. I got Gerald Ford in a phone interview, he did the same thing. KING: How could a president get nowhere?
FOX: He got nowhere. Bill Clinton tried to launch an investigation.
KING: The CIA is hiding all this from presidents?
FOX: We don't know it's the CIA. It's some sort of quasi- government, quasi-military --
NYE: Here's the thing, the CIA hides stuff from the president, but that doesn't mean they are extraterrestrial.
KING: Why, Stanton, on this topic would there be a giant cover- up?
FRIEDMAN: Because it affects everything we think about ourselves. As I said, if we make a declaration that indeed aliens are visiting, people are going to want to push for an earthling orientation. We have 300 million people --
FOX: What orientation?
FRIEDMAN: A new identity. Instead of as Americans, Chinese, Greeks, Peruvian --
FRIEDMAN: Who speaks for the planet. We're going to hold an election, right? But the Chinese have 1.3 billion. India has one billion. We have 300 million. We're not going to give up that -- they have a common goal to stay in power. That's what government is all about, Larry. You know that.
FOX: Look at it on a smaller scale, like with Fife Symington. Fife Symington made a joke out of that sighting that happened in 1977. He had one of his aides dressed up in an alien suit. This massive craft flies over the state of Arizona. The governor said there was mounting pressure from his constituents to get to the bottom of it, growing hysteria. He holds a press conference. He has his aide dress up in an alien suit and males a joke out of the whole thing.
The reason why he did that - he told us ten years later - is because they didn't know what it was. People were freaking out.
KING: An e-mail from Anne in Duncan, Oklahoma: "UFO conspiracy theorists say the U.S. government is conspiring to keep extraterrestrial contacts a secret. Why wouldn't aliens themselves make their presence known to the world? If they can travel light years to get here, they don't need government permission for anything." Don't you think they would do that, Seth?
SHOSTAK: Of course they would. Look, you just have to look at the historical analogs, Larry; 1492, Columbus lands in America. Ten years later, Spain is sending 25 ships filled with colonists to the Americas. If you had asked the North American natives ten years after Columbus, do you think we're being invaded? It doesn't matter what their military wanted to do, what the chiefs wanted to do. They knew they were being invaded. It's been more than 60 years since Roswell. As far as I can tell, my flights still take off on time from the local airport. No aliens whatsoever.
KING: Why don't they come, James?
FOX: Here's the thing.
FRIEDMAN: I don't talk to the squirrels in my backyard, Larry.
FOX: I asked this exact question to Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut, sixth man on the moon; I said why won't they just land? He said -- he really looked at me and said, well think about it, James. Don't you think if you went to a distant world, don't you think you would want to sit back and observe a little bit?
KING: Why do they observe Wyoming and not Washington?
FOX: Washington was buzzed in 1962. It was captured on radar, photographed, caught on photograph.
NYE: That's your claim. What do I do?
FOX: It's a fact.
NYE: What do I do as a civilian when the U.S. Air Force says, well, that was some flight testing we were doing and we covered it up. What do you do when they declassify the --
FOX: Are they hiding this technology for 60 years? Maybe they are. But if they're hiding this technology, they shouldn't be, because somebody's in possession of technology that could really be beneficial to all of humanity.
FOX: I don't know. Maybe they're not. Maybe it is alien visitation. I don't know. I can't prove that. But I can tell you --
KING: Do you think aliens have visited here?
FRIEDMAN: No question about it. The evidence is so powerful. And I wish that Seth, who when he attended my lecture admitted he hadn't read any of the --
KING: What do they want, the aliens, do you think?
FRIEDMAN: I got a whole long list of bottom line, they're here to quarantine us.
KING: Quarantine us?
FRIEDMAN: Hey, we're primitive society whose major activity is tribal warfare. I worked on fusion propulsion systems. Everybody in the neighborhood is going to know about fusion. That's what makes the stars work. Within a short time, we'll be able to take our brand of friendship, which everybody else calls hostility, out there. Remember, this is a planet that killed 50 million of our own kind in World War II.
NYE: You're saying the aliens are afraid that we will take over their technology?
FRIEDMAN: I didn't say that.
FOX: This is all speculation right now. Let's start talking about the facts.
NYE: That's where we disagree, is on the facts.
FOX: We have government documents basically stating that these things exists.
NYE: Have you been to Wright Patterson Air Force Base?
FOX: Of course I have.
NYE: You've been there, Larry, it's cool.
KING: They don't show you an alien, do they?
NYE: I had security clearance for a while.
FOX: What would you do if you saw one of these things?
NYE: First of all, I would take a picture of it, a good one.
FOX: Then what?
NYE: Then I would look at the picture carefully.
FOX: And then laugh at yourself because no one would believe you.
KING: Let me get a break.
KING: Einstein's theory of relativity, you can't travel faster than light, right?
FRIEDMAN: Yes, but as you get close to the speed of light, time slows down. You can go 39 light years in six months pilot time if you're at 99.99 percent speed of the light. We physicists make particles that go --
NYE: They become infinitely massive.
NYE: Here's what I'm saying, that's a much better explanation that we don't know enough about it. But -- but, Stan, you made a point before break that the U.S. Air Force will not let you see everything. I should hope not. I hope the U.S. Air Force has a few things up their sleeves.
FRIEDMAN: I had 14 years under security.
NYE: But that doesn't mean that the stuff that you can't see at, for example --
KING: Let me get a call in. New Orleans, hello.
CALLER: I would like to know how often are eye-witnesses given a polygraph to prove that they're telling the truth rather than making up a story just to be on TV?
KING: Are they, James?
FOX: It happens.
KING: Are they given polygraphs?
KING: It has happened. Benny Hill passed one on national television.
KING: Seth, you are a skeptic? You think we'll ever know the whole story, or will never know the whole story? Seth?
SHOSTAK: The bottom line is this: Stanton has some insight into alien sociology. He knows what they want. He's failed to convince the scientists of the world. When he does that, you'll have real investigation in this. It will move from the area of fantasy to real science. I'm waiting for that to happen.
FOX: Here's the problem. I just got back from a meeting with the French CNES, the French equivalent of NASA. France has - I don't know if people know this, but France just released their UFO files, which basically confirms that the UFOs are real.
KING: They say that.
KING: France has announced that UFOs are real?
FOX: The head of CNES just released 50 years of profiles. I went to interview the guy, Jacques Patenet, just recently, and I said to him, this is an amazing discovery. How are the French reacting to that? He said, no one is jumping out of windows.
KING: Not only is anybody jumping out of windows, it ain't a story. I haven't seen it.
FOX: It did get covered a little bit, not a whole lot, but a little bit.
KING: Why not?
FOX: I don't know.
NYE: There's a lot of things --
FOX: You had a show about it. England followed suit and releasing their documents. I asked him. I said, what would you like to say to the American government? He said, don't be afraid to tell the people the truth.
NYE: Exactly. You see something in the sky that you don't know what it is, it doesn't mean they're aliens.
FOX: Sixty years of technology --
KING: But if France announces that they're there, why doesn't that impress you?
NYE: What does they're there.
FOX: It's 50 years of scientific study.
NYE: You guys --
FOX: It's been soil analysis, photographic analysis.
NYE: When I was young you couldn't make a plane without a vertical tail. Now you can. That doesn't mean that there are aliens.
FOX: I'm not saying there are aliens. I'm saying there are disk shaped craft, physical phenomena that defy physics as we understand it today.
KING: Do they defy physics?
FRIEDMAN: No, it means we don't know how to duplicate it yet. That doesn't mean it's impossible. I worked on fusion propulsion systems. It's what goes on in the sun, a lot of energy per pound in material, back 40 years ago, Larry. We haven't built a big system because it takes a lot of money and effort.
KING: Guys, we're out of time. Thanks. Another in our series of programs searching for an answer.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
As readers of Snarly Skepticism, or any one of my other three hundred blogs know, I don't like skeptibunkie debunker pathological skeptoid randi-bots. Not one damn bit. But fair is fair, and, while I hate to do this, I will say that I applaud Thompson'g recent blog entry, In Defense of Chip Coffey. Well, not the whole post, hardly any of it, but this part, yes, very much so:
What I won’t tolerate, however, is some of the ignorant bigotry being thrown Coffey’s way by several posters on skeptical message boards across the interwebs. The vast majority of the reaction against Coffey and Psychic Kids comes from a place of reasonable outrage and disgust, but there have also been some disturbingly homophobic remarks as well. There’s really no polite, delicate way to put this, but Coffey seems to be a gay man. Whether he is or isn’t shouldn’t matter to anyone at all. And the stupidest remarks have come from morons who equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Yes, reinforcing a child’s mental delusions without the supervision of a medical professional constitutes psychological abuse. But to imply anything further than that is not only baseless, it’s juvenile, brain-dead, and reprehensible. If you’re an ignorant homophobe, you have no place defending science and reason in any way.
I'm very glad Thompson said so, good for him.
Although, I will quibble about this:
Now, I know I’m going to receive some criticism for speaking against ridiculing Chip Coffey’s sexuality while having previously ridiculed his physical appearance. There are many reasons why one is okay and the other isn’t—mostly having to do with fighting a widespread and irrational hatred toward an entire group of human beings—but I’ll leave you with a simple one: Chip’s sexuality does nothing to hurt these poor children, but those creepy googly eyes might just give them even more nightmares.
We can't much help the way we look either; oh we can lose weight, get in shape, if you're so ignorant you have a comb over you can get a clue, things like that. But we're not responsible for being short, or tall, or having "bug eyes" and all the rest of that stuff. Making fun of the way people look (except for comb overs and a lack of fashion sense) is falling back on ad homs.
But yes, Thompson is correct in saying that Coffey's gayness (if he is, and well, he does seem to "be a gay man" indeed) has nothing to do with anything.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
But I'll try.
For the last time; you can't "believe" that UFOs exist. STOP ASKING THAT QUESTION! "Do you believe UFOs exist?" Just stop.
Of course they exist. People see them every day, from all over the world. Reports of odd craft have been pouring in for years. Decades. If you like (and I do) centuries.
What most everyone means when they ask this question is: "Do you believe that UFOs (either some, or all) are from outer space, piloted by aliens?"
Well then. That's a completely different kettle of fish.
It may sound like obsessive nit picking to go on about this, but this is highly annoying. And when it comes from the skeptoid crowd, it's ironic, for they are the ones sooooooooo intent on minutiae, on playing word games, on critical thinking! You can't play games with language and expect to have a genuine conversation about UFOs.
I like what he says here about Vallee on Sagan and the UFO phenomena itself in regards to science:
Vallee himself has also taken Sagan to task in this case, for proposing a scientific process: getting extraordinary evidence first, before forming a hypothesis on the basis of existing investigations and doing an extraordinary investigation. Nowhere else in science, or its possible objects of inquiry, are we expected to start with extraordinary evidence (which usually isn't available yet) then go to the process.
MORE BRANE SPACE
Copernicus has written two other posts (as far as I can tell) concerning UFOs for his blog: Further Speculations on the Nature of UFOs, and A Perspective on the UFO. I only skimmed both articles, but I can’t wait to get back to them. The first seems to be a scientifically thoughtful piece on Vallee’s theory (others share this theory as well, it’s akin to what Jung said about UFOs, etc.) on UFOS as mental projections, the latter on the reality of UFOs -- which does not equate the reality of aliens.
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Cult of the Fundamental Skeptic. During my own rant about the program, I had completely forgotten about Nye’s pathetic attempt at discrediting witnesses -- as Ritzmann comments:
I listened last night as Mr. Salas conveyed his experience at Maelstrom, and then heard Nye trot out the old mainstay of skeptics: someone was drinking. I couldn't even believe someone would suggest that in the Maelstrom case. It's just plain stupid.
That was truly a pitiful moment.
Ritzmann says a lot of good things. For example, on Shostak (who said, to King, that (paraphrasing here) “Oh, sure, the aliens would land on the white lawn!” now, how the hell would he know that? -- Ritzmann writes:
SETI and Shostak ignore the most obvious flaw: a culture that has evolved completely independent from earth (think about that - completely independent of us) likely wouldn't have any similarity to us. That includes radio signals. I hold the same opinion of SETI as Friedman does, not so much in the sense that "they" are here, but that it's a huge gamble to assume they'd use technology that we could "hear". They are for all intent and purpose "alien", and therefore all bets are off for similarities in technology. Remember, if such cultures are out there, they have evolved completely apart from us.
As to the very purpose and existence of SETI, and Shostak’s diconnected belief that looking waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there for radio signals from ET is rational, Ritzmann asks:
Shostak has less "proof" of alien signals existing then do his UFO counterparts that an exotic culture is already here. Yet he continues his marginalising of the UFO subject. Does anyone see the hypocrisy in that, or is it just me?
No, Jeff Ritzmann, it isn’t just you! It’s not only “hypocrisy” it borders on the insane.
Ritzmann also wonders if psych testing on the pathologicl skeptibunkie wouldn’t be a good idea. Sure would. It’s always nice to come across others who’ve also experienced the truly bizare and yet downright creepy, at times, wrath of the skeptoid. I’ve been lied about, “cyber followed,” harassed, and threated in my ten years or so of being on-line more than a few skeptibunkies.
Finally, I like what Ritzmann says about his own opinions on UFOs. Like Ritzmann, I’ve also experienced some unpleasant responses from a few “believers” on the pro UFO side. I don’t think the aliens are neccessarily love and light and here to save us; hell, I don’t even know if they’re aliens! As in, from space. And I’m paranoid and cynical enough to believe that much of what we interpret, or are made to believe are ET visitations, are manipulations by our own governments.
Ritzmann, like many of us (oh jeez, that sounded a bit cultish didn’t it?)isn't a space brother loving goofball, or believes that all UFOs are operated by ET. That’s something the pathological skeptic won’t get. They wont’ get it because they don’t want to get it.
Good piece by Ritzmann.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
This makes twenty-five different threads about Bigfoot! Astounding.
You can also go to my Bigfoot blog Frame 352 click on the JREF Bigfoot Thread and Counting list for links to all the threads.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Friday's program had not one, but two debunkers: Bill Nye, Bow Tie Guy, and Seth Shostak of SETI.
Nye was pitiful. Weak. Shostak did his usual; he did seem a bit more aggressive than normal; maybe that was because of Nye's limp attempts at debunking. (Nye reminds me of a Martin Short character he did years ago; Nathan Furm. Anyone remember that? The nervous, sweating, lying lawyer who responded to questions about his shady dealings, while shakily trying to light a cigarette, with "Why don't you ask yourself that?")
Martin Short, as his character Nathan Furm, sleezy lawyer guy.
Nye once again tried to get away with his "It's quite a leap to go from things in the sky to aliens from space" routine, -- putting words into people's mouths -- but the panel of witnesses and researchers wouldn't have it. Good for them. The only person saying UFOs are aliens from space was Stanton Friedman, and that's his opinion. An opinion based on evidence, data, and research. It's not ultimate proof, but Stanton's view seems to be "Look, based on all the evidence, it seems clear to me that the conclusion is the little buggers are here." He's clear about it, and that's why he uses the term flying saucers. UFOs remains an unknown, as it should, (in spite of the efforts of anti-UFO debunkers who like to say "everyone really knows UFO means little green men") and Flying Saucers, in Stanton's perspective, means "aliens from space in craft flying over our heads." I like it.
Nye held up a redacted FOIA paper with only the address blacked out, to prove there's no cover-up going on; the only blacked out information was the person's address, to protect our good citizens. Yeah, I know. I laughed when Stanton held up paper after paper of almost completely blacked out documents. Once again, a case of the PS (pathological skeptic) not doing their homework. Lame, Nye,very lame.
The ridiculously stale question was raised: "Why don't the aliens land on the white house lawn?" and Shostak tells King that "Why, sure they (the aliens) would!" How the hell does he know that?
I loved Dr. Bob Jacobs,retired USAF photographic instrumentation officer, who, in the 1960s, had his film of a UFO confiscated by the CIA and was told in no uncertain terms to keep quiet about the whole thing. He came in fighting. He wasn't going to put up with Nye's bull, and he didn't. If I remember right he called Nye a "clown," and a "comedian," among other things. Good thing they weren't sitting in the same studio;I believe Jacobs would have decked Nye.
One of the things that continues to amaze me is the feigned naivete of the skeptic. "Why, our government (or any government) wouldn't want to maintain control over us." Even after acknowledging that the U.S. government had engaged in cover-ups of various kinds in the past, Nye and Shostak, as most skeptoids, can't bring themselves to say that the government is capable of doing heinous things, of covering up, of implementing intentional debunking campaigns. Even though the documented facts say otherwise! By our government's own admission that is documented, the government has created officially sanctioned debunking campaigns, enlisted the help of various scientists, media, academic institutions, etc. and the skeptibunkies either don't know this, or pretend not to know this. That, my friends, is pathological.
It gets down to this: why do they care so damn much? What do the Nyes, McGaha's, Nickells and so on of the world care if others think there are aliens? It's not about that though, as much as they'd like us to think that's what they think.
Remember, Nye kept putting words into people's mouths both times he was on King; insisting that the other person believed in aliens. While some do, many other witnesses and researchers either don't think that, or, don't know if it's aliens, military craft, or what. What we all do know is that something very strange is going on.
Why wouldn't scientists,as Stanton and others asked Nye last night, care about that? Instead of honestly looking at the evidence -- and on a global scale, not just the U.S. -- and trying to figure out what is going on -- for it IS going on -- they are positively frenzied in their efforts to deny.
They lie. They put words in people's mouths. They make surreal non-sequitors and goofy analogies. They don't look at the evidence. They don't think they have to. They insult. They make arrogant comments to witnesses and researchers about their credibility, their education, their mental health. This of course, in the context of "belief" in aliens, but also when it comes to the subject of UFOs. Why?
Why wouldn't any rational person, scientist or otherwise, not look into the overwhelming evidence that there are craft in our skies that no one can explain (at least publicly) and that the government agencies, from the Pentagon on down, cannot and will not address this? Doesn't it bother them that when huge weird things fly over our cities our various government agencies that we pay taxes to don't even bother to pretend they know what's happening? Used to be they at least cared to lie; now they shrug, say they don't know, and hang up. Oh, two, three, six weeks later or so, sometimes years later, they'll come and say it was flares, or jets, or something. Mostly though they don't know anything about it. They seem almost pleased they don't know anything about it. They don't care, they don't do anything, they don't know. That sure makes me feel all safe and warm and protected like.
No one's talking aliens here (not much) let's just stick to what we do know for a FACT and that is: really weird things flying, zipping, floating, etc. along up there. You can't deny that. And if you do, you're simply stupid. Intentionally, woefully ignorant, stubborn, and stupid. Most of all, pathological, since denying what is literally above your heads is crazy talk.
For scientists and critical thinkers, there's a lot of sloppy "thinking" going on:
1. Mistaking evidence for proof.
2. Using evidence and proof interchangeably.
3. Making assumptions and stating them as fact: i.e., "If you're curious about UFOs, you clearly believe in aliens."
4. Ignoring the documented facts released and acknowledged by world governments.
5. Denying that aliens either could be here, or are here, yet making statements as to what they would think, and how they'd behave.
6. Begrudgingly admitting that, sure, there are unexplained lights in the sky but so what, big deal, who cares? They're "just lights."
7.Ignoring the specific questions put to them while veering off on bizarre tangents that have nothing to do with what's being discussed.
All adds up to some very irrational behavior indeed.
Friday, July 18, 2008
The Intimates: Preaching to the Choir – by Andrew T. Durham
I know I may be preaching to the choir, but bear with me as an outside observer:
Human history is saturated with encounters with people or creatures unknown. I want you to notice I didn’t say that history was “peppered” or “littered” or “splattered” with these incidents. Human beings have a close and personal history with a presence whose positive acknowledgement seems to have died with the American Indian spiritualism of North America, and the intentional persecution of the nature based Wicca belief system, among others. There are ancient carvings, paintings and sculpture depicting flying machines of all type, as well as strange people like none that existed at the time. Scientists easily dismiss this as the work of imagination. This is cute on its face, but it ignores a rather massive psychological principle: a person cannot conceive or imagine something that he doesn’t have a reference for in reality. Our imaginations are based on material from our experience, even at its wildest. So where did these flying machines in ancient times come from? Certainly not an imagination that from which it was impossible to spring.
As these encounters have taken on a less ethereal and more immediate nature in the 20th century, the cacophony of debunking has risen exponentially. The grand daddy of debunking was, of course, the cover-up of the Roswell crash. I am not going to get into this incident other than to say the jury has returned on this long ago. This incident happened exactly (and as fantastically) as described. Major Jesse Marcel, in the late 70’s before his death, stated unequivocally that what they found in that desert was not of this world. Period. He was there. His son saw the wreckage. End of freakin’ story. Get over it.
Yet, the debunking continues. Even when it’s not a current issue.
No deep psychology going on THERE.
Author and propagandist Carl Sagan took on this issue in true passive/aggressive fashion in the early 80’s by first being interested in things unidentified to becoming a rabid debunker of anything UFO. He even did the same turn on the Mars images of both the Face and the pyramids. Sagan, it is known, was a key advisor to at least one government think tank related to the phenomenon during the same period.
No, there are no coincidences there.
But this piece is not about the mental disorder that beleaguers otherwise intelligent people. We need only remember this: “Intelligence and wisdom never go to the same party together, and if they do, they’re never seen talking to each other.” And they’re rarely present in any one person. No, I want to get into patterns. Because the writing, as it were, is on the wall…and, apparently, in crop fields.
Author Whitley Strieber was mostly likely the first to coin the term “visitors” to the enigmatic presence connected to the lights in the sky and to bedroom visitors that didn’t come from a bar. Strieber correctly observes that these people are not just visitors. They seem to be very familiar with us. No matter what they are.
Because of the magnitude of this presence – which is immense – I have come to call these folks “Intimates”. If this is indeed a presence from another world, then even I know it is definitely NOT a scientific team from another planet. If their scientists are anything like ours, both they and we are doomed. No, these curious wanderers are our Intimates. And they are apparently quite frustrated. I mean, look at what they have tried to do to get through to us:
The Roswell crash; the massive flyover of Washington, D.C. in the 50’s (um, hello?!?!); the beginning of personal abductions; the continual engagement with the air forces in many nations; the “epidemic” of abductions and the conversion of major scientists (i.e. John Mack) to understanding; the relentless appearance of unexplainable crop circles; and the esoteric involvement with children all over the world…and let’s not forget the single best documented unusual experience ever: The Fatima Phenomena (thousands of witnesses, folks. THOUSANDS.)
This whole experience has unfolded in a manner indicative of a real effort. And it is intensifying. To deny that something is happening – no matter what – is just insanity. But, I am preaching to the choir. Which brings me to the point of this submission:
The choir is all that matters. Don’t try to convince anyone; they won’t be convinced. Don’t try to argue with anyone; they will not relent to fact. And don’t try to protest the Power Elite; the blinds will be drawn.
Did it ever occur to anyone that these Intimates have shown themselves to whom they have shown themselves because they know what they’re doing? The Intimates apparently don’t want some people to know. Otherwise, they would. Yes? So, let not your heart be troubled.
I am an outsider. I have never had a paranormal experience. I have never seen a UFO. I have never seen a ghost. I’m just a writer who passed Reading Comprehension in high school and can, therefore, read the writing of thousands of years on the wall. We, as a species, are on the verge. Yes, there are some dark things going on, too, but there is this sense of something huge about to happen. I can’t qualify that.
But for those who believe, and for those who know, there will be no rest anytime soon, to be sure. So what is to be done?
I’m not expert, but try this: go to a major scientific conference wearing a t-shirt you’ve had created. It will be in small font, neatly set and says, simply, “I don’t believe in aliens, either. But a bunch of little people appeared in my room and I told them where you live. Have a nice day.”
To be continued….
© Andrew T. Durham, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
I've been rantinga about the following for years -- on the semantics of terms like "multiverse" etc. Seems Durham has issues with this as well:
By far my favorite pseudo-discovery of science was this past year, when scientists asserted they had discovered “another universe”. If you think about this, it’s hilarious if only on a semantic level. Any idiot knows that the word “universe” means everything, everywhere. You can’t have more than one EVERYTHING. Parallel universes may exist in the same physical space, but they are part of everything, even then. No, what these childish oracles are really saying is this: “We’re saying we discovered a whole other universe because we’re rather embarrassed that we have been saying for years that we have been able to quantify, map and assert that our universe is finite.” In other words, its all a diversion from the fact that THEY WERE WRONG AND THE UNIVERSE IS MUCH BIGGER THAN THESE SHALLOW LINEAR THINKING PRIMATES THOUGHT.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! Be still my beating heart!
I'm just going to jump around in non-linear anti-structure fashion and post tidbits from his article. Like this:
Some things just are. And because one chooses not to believe in a certain thing does not confer non-existence upon it. I don't know why people can't get that through their head.
Now before some "smock jockey" gets all smarmy and all, thinking that "Pink unicorns don't exist or do they just because I choose not to believe in them?" get real. That said, note Durham said "some" and use your head, we all know what he's talking about.
(I love the term "smock jockey" -- new one for me. I'm going to be using that one.)
Back to universes and UFOs and such:
To simply dismiss the unknown because you haven’t personally experienced it is an arrogance that is both pathetic and poignant at the same time. As an example, ask yourself this: how many credible, sane eyewitnesses does it take to convict someone of murder in this country? One? Two? Hundreds of thousands of people have seen UFO’s, the majority of whom were sane, credible and some were trained observers. Yet this is discarded out of hand. This makes no sense. None. Let me say again: simply because you choose not to believe in something does not confer non-existence upon it. Things just may not depend on your belief to exist. Imagine that. And even if UFO’s are not machines from another world, no scientist would say that there are no unidentified objects seen in the sky, no matter what they were. UFO means: unidentified flying object. It doesn’t mean: Holy crap this is an alien ship. I simply means no one knows what it is.
Yes, of course. WE all know that. Problem is, skeptoids have been using, of late, a new weapon in their guerrilla war, and that's the meme that "everyone really knows when we're talking UFOs we mean little green men from outer space." No, we don't. A whole hell of a lot of so-called "believers" don't. I don't. But the pathological skeptic does, or worse, pretends they he/she does, in order to marginalize the UFO phenomena and with it, all its witnesses, investigators, thinkers, researchers and "experiencers." By doing so, there is no need for seriously and honestly looking into the subject. Why bother? It's all just "little green men" fantasy.
There's much more, and take a look for yourself.
Monday, July 14, 2008
That's a response to what I posted about previously here.
For crying out loud, for a bunch of people who consider themselves rational and critical thinkers, they sure can be dense. The only "editing" was my deletion of an insulting comment left by Thompson of Amateur Scientist, the anti-Coffey skeptic.
Actually, she has a lot of good points, and her response to Brian's response is well reasoned. This is a good example how we skeptics make the believers angry.
Why, thank you!
Someone else responds (rose glass or some such) with this:
To make sure I wasn't getting this criss-crossed in my mind, because any rational personal could have seen these things. Given reasonable doubt, I went back and checked.
Well, it appears she's edited her blog without stating that she did so and removed Brian's third post from the comments in his defense.
[edit - no cache can't prove points] The blog is longer than the first time I read it.
I do not have a copy of her original blog and cannnot share
This is an example of the subtle twisting ways of the skeptibunkie. I have not "edited my blog" unless he/she means I have since posted new items, which is what a blog does. Goodness.
And yes, the person is correct I removed "Brian's third post from the comments in his defense." Here's where I'm sputtering a bit, because I said at the beginning of my reply to Thompson, that I'll play for the the first and only time. And yet, in typical skeptibunkie fashion, he responds anyway (the second time) leading off with an insult! So why would a blogger include a comment from someone who starts off by insulting them? (that's why I have put comments on moderation, as I remarked in one of my later posts here.) Lastly, tough, my blog, my rules. Really dahlings, who's the irrational one here?
Of course the "blog is longer than the first time I read it" -- I've since added new entries! Does this person not know what a blog is?
I do not appreciate the insinuation I somehow did something illegal, as it were. On the other hand, not at all surprising to come across such deeply rooted obsession with minutiae.
This is actually all very interesting, for I have personally known many children and families in similar situations as the ones in PK, and this has inspired me to write about that in the future.
Knowing the incredible terrier like tenacity of skeptics, I'm quite sure this will go on for sometime. After all, we're dealing with a forum that has, at last count, 23 separate threads on how Bigfoot doesn't exist.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Kevin Randle has an excellent post about the pseudo - skepticism UFO debunkers engage in when it comes to Roswell. On his blog A Different Perspective, Randle has a piece How Secret Was Mogul? which deflates (sorry) some of the bull headed ideas skeptibots have about what was known, and what wasn't, in terms of balloons.
Randle gives facts. Sensible, real, and obvious, facts. Yet these simple facts escape the notice of “skeptics” like Bill Nye for example, who sputter about Roswell. Either these skeptoids don’t do their homework when it comes to Roswell (and the UFO phenomena in general) or they are willfully ignorant. They intentionally obstruct and distract with a combination of disingenuous, sleight of hand, and implied insults concerning the intellect, honesty, and mental health of witnesses and investigators.
The comments that accompany the post are worth reading as well.
Knowing that he is an actor (which, according to Reagan Lee, gives him the right to lie egregiously)
Sigh. No, no I didn't say that. Just FYI.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Noun 1. high dudgeon - a feeling of intense indignation (now used only in the phrase `in high dudgeon')
indignation, outrage - a feeling of righteous anger
The Free Dictionary
The Usual Purple Tinged Hyperbole About UFOs
September 10, 2006
Wandering through the kingdom of anti-UFOism on the internet, I recently came across a few sites with the same message; so-called ‘name calling’ is just as bad as using racial slurs. Labeling the anti-UFOists, skeptics and or debunkers as any of the following: skeptoid, skepti-bunkie, Skepti-bunkie, New Thug, etc. is on the same level as being called any of the heinous names for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. (Also, using such labels as say, New Thugs or skeptibunkies, supports their opinion that the “name caller” is emotionally and psychologically deficient in some way.) The obvious -- that these offended complainers use terms like woo, kook, lunatics, true believers, ‘bleevers, etc. -- well, no need to point that out, so I won’t.
What does need to be pointed out is that this belief that being labeled just what one is, based on observation of their behavior (er, if you’re bashing ufos and ufo experiencers/witnesses/researchers, doesn’t that make you a debunker/skeptic/thug? Answer: yes, yes it does) is hardly “name calling.” A note to the thin skinned: ‘Skepti-bunkie’ is nowhere near the level of being called a f****** moronic idiot or other foul names. Neither is it anywhere close to being called a racist name. What those who are complaining about such silliness need to get is that it is completely disingenuous to pretend one is affronted by these labels, that they are on a par with victims of racial and ethnic slurs. That pompous opinion doesn’t set well with me; being pc has nothing to do with it. It’s insulting and it’s a lie to suggest that being called a ‘skeptibunkie’ is the same as being called an ugly name for someone’s race or ethnicity.
This pretense of being offended by, say, being referred to as a “skeptibunkie” or some other label is just another tactic used by anti-UFOists. Meanwhile, those of us who’ve experienced UFOs in various ways are called mentally ill, intellectually challenged, spiritually needy, liars, drunks, drug users, attention getters, drama queens, and more. Those all are worse than being called a thug, skeptibunkie, or Pelicanist. (Pelicanist is a term coined by UFO researcher Jerome Clark.) Let’s see: mentally ill drug user who’s a liar, or skeptical thug? Hmm, I’ll take ‘skeptical thug’ for eight hundred Alex.
The anti-UFO activists can be offended all he or she likes, sniff and sneer at being mocked, take offense at being called a New Thug, even though that is the behavior so often being exhibited these days (golly gee, what else do you call demands for the cultural cleansing of UFOlogy by non-UFOists?) But they do not get to be so damn arrogant and full of their own importance regarding their Crusade to Rid the World of Woo. (And UFOs -- anything outside of the most hard core nuts and bolts theories -- are considered woo to the skeptibunkie.) It is not honest or accurate for them to align themselves with those that are victims of bigotry, prejudice and hateful epithets. They’re not that important, and neither is their cause.
So, they're still up in arms over Psychic Kids, Paranormal State, and Chip Coffey. Going so far as to give links to various people at A&E to contact them with pleas to pull Psychic Kids off the air, since it's nothing less than child abuse, and these kids are mentally ill, if not also their parents, not psychic. How do they know the kids aren't psychic? Because there's no such thing as psychics, silly!
Anyway, someone over there goes on about me: (I'm so giddy with excitement)
More on the Internet front regarding Coffey and Psychic Kids;
I just read a post from Reagan Lee of Snarly Skeptics, a blogger who writes about critical skeptics, like Nye and now, Brian Thompson.
She posted a pretty scathing report about how skeptical people (lumps them together) are basically 'attacking' Coffey. Point in case for her, and she has some good points, is Brian Thompson's blog about Chip Coffey. However, she takes the basic skeptical defenses and arguing points, and twists them around to make her points about Brian's satirical rants on Coffey's show, Psychic Kids.
What bit does make sense on her blog, is often turned and transmuted into illogical points and conclusions about the skeptical uproar developing against Coffey by saying that skeptics allege 'Child Abuse', overly make fun of Coffey and can't prove their allegations against him. Brian, when he tried to argue those points (on her blog), he is simply told by her that (paraprase) 'Chip's making up information about being related to a Native American 'shaman' (and his use of the word in question), did not matter' because all people do it that way in Hollywood'. She also identifies herself as being descended from Native Americans.
No Native American person at this stage, if they have been educated about the New Age problem by their tribe or by those who are serious about their roots, accepts this notion, especially the use of the word 'shaman' - a Siberian term. From the Rainbow Family to Gabriel of Sedona, the greatest problem facing native culture isn't the government right now, but the New Age movement that is trying to co-opt various Native American traditions. This, in this case, also includes Mr. Coffey's story. Brian did good to point this out, as well as a factual error Coffey makes on his own testimonial page - listing this time, a reference with an address that does not exist.
That's part of the reason why I, when dealing with the A&E board, am pretty careful about what I say. I want people to understand there are very real holes in the bridge that is supporting the 'Psychic Kids' phenomenon. One can take a look back to James Randi's first shows in the UK - in my opinion, that's exactly how to handle paranormal claims, with wit, humor but most importantly, with factual truth.
Sigh. Oh well, what can I say? He didn't even get my name right! I didn't say it's okay with me that Coffey misrepresented himself, nor did I say it was okay that he calls himself a shaman in context of being Native American. I said it's splitting hares to go on about it forever and a day. And does this guy speak for every Native in the country? Of course not. Neither do I. What really is loathsome though is his need to support his own agenda and bias by saying that the "greatest threat facing native culture isn't the government right now, but the New Age movement that is trying to co-opt various Native American traditions." That's a reprehensible thing to say.
Okay, I like to think I'm done, we all know they aren't. After all, this is the forum that has, what, 20 separate threads on Bigfoot? They don't let anything go!
It's scary that these people think nothing of going so far as to actually call kids mentally ill and push for the cancellation of programs they don't like.
Shostak made sure he assured everyone, right from the start, he did not believe anyone was lying, or that it was a hoax, or that anyone was mistaken or deluded or "unqualifed" (in other words, pulling a McGaha) or mentally ill or any of the usual insults. He only said, quite reasonably, that he hasn't seen evidence presented by anyone that aliens are here.
He did, however, twice put words into people's mouths -- who made it a point to correct him -- that they thought it was extraterrestrial. No, they didn't, not MUFON. Others like Joiner said they thought so. Nothing wrong with that, that's their opinion.
Shostak did gloss over the huge amount of data on radar evidence in the area, as well as the overwhelming body of evidence that lends support to the very solid theory extraterrestrials are here, and have been here, for some time. Oh, Stanton Friedman, we needed you that night!!!!
MUFON said that the problem with SETI is that they're spending millions of dollars looking out into vast space for a big maybe; hoping to stumble on a signal that could be from ET. Instead of focusing right here on earth, and looking at the evidence available. We have data here, right now. Why ignore all that and spend your time gazing outwards into space?
Shostak got a bit defensive and said all funding is private donations. "Whatever." The point is, the fact that SETI exists at all and ignores what's right in front of them.
I wish they would have shown the footage from UFO Hunters of the white beam of light on one witness's property; that was one of the eeriest UFO photographs I'd seen. I also wished King would have asked Joiner why she thinks she was fired from the newspaper she worked for when she was reporting on UFOs, as well as talk about her website.
Guests on the program included the team from UFO Hunters; Bill Birnes, etc. I think they all did a very good job.
There's sure to be a transcript available soon, if not already, of the program.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Last night, Jim and I were watching a rerun of the UFO Files on the History Channel; this episode was on the Aurora, Texas crash in 1897. At one point in the program, after all kinds of talk about what happened, the search for, and discovery of some debris, etc. the voice over says, as they fade to commercial:
Skeptics fight back.
Jim and I both looked at each other at the same moment; we both said at the same time
"Skeptics fight back?! Was someone attacking them?"
It made me laugh; what do ya mean, "skeptics fight back?" Was someone in their sandbox, grabbing all their toys? Were any threats or accusations made at any particular skeptic? Did a UFO investigator choose off someone from SETI, the JREF, or the local Texas Anti-UFO Skeptic Society?
No, of course not. But still, "skeptics fight back!," dammit!
Turned out to be nothing really; just various theories, some townsfolk didn't believe it, some did, and so on. Nothing like a Shermer, Randi, Oberg, McGaha, or Nye, etc. (And a good thing, about a scientist testing some material that turned out to be a gear from a pump, and clarifications on the make up of the material, etc. Which seemed obvious, that it was from an earth made machine; do we really think aliens would have gears? Aren't they beyond that?)
Anyway, just a minor observation in the realm of Skepto Land.
Coffey makes me happy too; I think he’s good and genuine. Naturally, skeptics don’t think so, going so far as to accuse him of child abuse, for his part in A&E’s Psychic kids program.
On the skeptoid blog the amateur scientist, blogger Brian Thompson has come up with the Operation Coffey Roast. You can guess what that’s about.
Here’s the opening paragraph, and note the use of language to fling about innuendos:
You've seen him on Paranormal State making bug eyes and waving his arms around as he pretends to be a psychic medium. Now A&E, your one stop shop for racist bounty hunters and Criss Angel's greasy sex appeal, brings us Psychic Kids, a new low in television history starring Chip Coffey. Psychic Kids takes the worst element of Paranormal State, Coffey's ridiculous attempts to "help" "psychic" children by telling them spirits invade their heads and demons attack their brains, and turns it into the whole goddamn show.
No need to make fun of his looks, isn’t that an ad hom? (“bug eyes”) And he isn’t pretending to be a “psychic medium” he is one. At best, if you must, say he thinks he is one. But unless you KNOW for a fact he’s a liar and committing fraud, you can’t make the accusation he’s “pretending.” Isn’t that libel or slander or something?
Notice too how the inclusions of “racist bounty hunters” to imply by association Coffey is racist, as well as perverted: “Criss Angel’s greasy sex appeal.”
Full disclosure: I don’t like Paranormal State. I think the lead guy is a bit weird and full of himself, I don’t like his inserting Christianity into everything they do, nor his arrogance. (The way they completely ignored the advice of the Native Elders and went on ahead and dug up a hole anyway. Gee, guess what happened?) I don’t like them because, except for Coffey, they’re a bunch of whipper snappers (sorry kid, you’re not an “expert” in anything; you’re what, twenty-two or something?)
So amateur scientist guy is all up in arms about Coffey abusing kids in this way and has an idea: Operation Coffey Roast. He’s very clear; he’s going to go after Coffey, and with a vengeance:
The prime ingredient for a good roast is a healthy pinch of lampooning, which will be an important part of OCR. In the weeks ahead, I'll be featuring interesting factoids about Chip Coffey on this site. First up? The question of Coffey's paranormal heritage. In his bio, he claims to be the great-grandson of famous Cherokee medicine woman and shaman Minnie Sue Morrow Foster. For someone so famous, it's curious that the only references to her that come up on Google are from Coffey's bio and from a message board for real-live Native Americans discussing how they've never heard of her. Also, "shaman" isn't a Native American term. I suppose InStyle magazine was right in describing Coffey as "a cross between John Edward and Dr. Phil." They're all giant douchebags.
Okay, so I have Native blood too and Coffey could be full of it here but then again, and I’m not defending this mind you, Hollywood shameless self promotion is shamefully shameless, full of crap, and full of lies. Exaggerations, at best. Shrug. But really, “shaman” isn’t a Native American term, sigh, can you split that hare any thinner? Jesus H. Christ allmighty, grapsing are we not?
Thompson goes on to urge others to join in at OCR at a local pub. Well, all this has Coffey extremely peeved, seeing all this as a threat:
So good, in fact, that Coffey considered the announcement of OCR to be a physical threat. Here's the email he sent me about the original OCR blog post I wrote at CHUD.com:
Yesterday, Brian Thompson posted a blog on CHUD.com with content including what certainly appears to be a personal threat against my safety that he is planning during Dragon*Con.
I have alerted the authorities regarding this threat.
Skeptics think nothing of doing their best to insult, harass and threaten people (it’s happened to me, a number of times) and they think it’s funny. Well, Coffey may or may not have a point, but the point is, if he or anyone feels threatened, then you have to treat it seriously. No, instead of taking responsibility, he responds with this, including more ad homs about his appearance:
How self-important can a fake psychic be? Why would anyone threaten physical harm against a guy when making fun of him is so much more fulfilling? For example: Is that a chin or is he trying to mate with a toad? See? So much better than physical harm.
Yeah, cute. Accusing someone of being a fake, of abusing children, of intentionally frightening them, insulting the person, and urging others to poke fun as well as trying to get a TV station to get rid of you, all sounds like threats to me. It also sounds like malicious assault, or harassment; something legal like that certainly.
Oh I know, don’t tell me. Skeptics like him are doing it for the children.