UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Apr > Apr 6

Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 01:08:39 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 09:39:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

>From: Brad Sparks <RB47Expert@aol.com>
>Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:03:08 EST
>Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate
>To: updates@globalserve.net

>>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>>Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 12:54:07 -0500
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate

>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Friedman vs. Krauss Debate
>>>Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 21:23:24 -0500

Dear Mr. Sparks,

My first reaction was not to answer your post.  But some
semantic discrepancies kept bugging me and I finally asked
myself: are you a man or a mouse?  Squeak, squeak was my answer,
so, let's get on with the friction.

>My distinguished colleague Mark Cashman, whom I consider to be
>the leading theorist in ufology today, has made some good points
>to augment the original, which I'd like to comment on or clarify
>a bit.

>Firstly, I don't agree with the original author's claim that
>every skeptical opinion is based on ignorance of the data
>whether deliberate or unintentional.

You mean me?  First rectification about your discourse:



Since Mr. Cashman apparently agrees with my post, I strongly
suggest that you rephrase your post in the following:

>Firstly, I don't agree, Mark, with your opinion that
>every skeptical opinion is based on ignorance of the data
>whether deliberate or unintentional.

Hyperbolic prose does tend to scratch my sensitivity.


>And an opinion can still be
>objective even if based on ignorance, because objectivity is not
>the same thing as "completeness" or "thoroughness," it simply
>means fair, unbiased and even-handed.  A skeptic can be
>objective even if uninformed.

An opinion can be based on ignorance as long as it is fair.  In
my thesaurus, fair has a couple of meanings.  I suppose that
your idea of fairness implies "characterized by honesty, justice
and Freedom From Improper Influence" ('The Merriam-Webster
Concise School and Office Thesaurus').  Please show me a "fair"
skeptic.  BTW, the same reference does mention "fair" as
synonymous of "exhibition" and related to "carnival and
festival".  Please show me an un-fair (sic) skeptic.

>Some skeptics, such as Menzel and Sheaffer, have provably
>distorted or ignored evidence, though I almost never see
>specific examples cited on this List (till Mark's posting and
>Jerry Clark's).

My actual post will take me about 2 hours of writing (eh, man,
I'm not Jerome Clark) and as much thinking.  If you want an
elbarorate history of information manipulation by skeptics,
I'll be glad to fill the bill.  One problem, though: it will
take me 6 hours of sweat and just to redo the work eminent
ufologists.  I do suggest:


One of the best sites... maybe going down in a near future.

>Some skeptics such as Klass and Oberg -- whom I have vigorously
>fought in the past -- have investigated cases in-depth and come
>up with negative results quite genuinely (Klass on RB-47 though
>I've proven him totally wrong, Klass on the Iowa Fireball and
>Crowder cases;  Oberg on STS-48 and Gemini 4, though we might
>disagree on points).  UFOlogists may disagree or fault the
>fact-finding but the disagreement is legitimate, e.g., Klass and
>Sheaffer are both simply mistaken about the weather report in
>the McMinnville case because they misinterpreted the standard
>reporting symbols ("O" does _not_ mean 0% cloud cover but 0 to
>10%).  Klass and Oberg may be faulted in other cases but in some
>they have "done their homework."


>This verbal abuse does serve to offend and scare off legitimate
>scientists who might otherwise be interested in investigating
>the subject of UFOs (I don't mean those establishment scientists
>who have chips on their shoulders and taunt ufologists to come
>knock them off, but those with genuine interest).  The UFO
>UpDates List is notorious for uncontrolled verbal attacks and
>abuse and is one reason I try to stay off of it for the most
>part.  Saying anything favorable about Klass -- even if
>ensconced in loads of criticism -- is the kiss of death on this
>list and others.

This is where 2 + 2 starts making 5.

Let's suppose, hypothetically of course, that Mark Cashman got
caught in some intellectual fraud regarding a UFO case.  Let's
suppose that it was proven beyond any doubt that Mark Cashman
"cheated" in the most outrageous way with a case (I let you
imagine the details).

My 2 cents that Mark would loose ALL credibility in the eyes of
the sane UFO field which regards him as a thorough and honest

Well, you tell me sir how it can be possible that people, who
have in the past committed frauds in regards of UFO cases, still
get freaking credit for hitting the target in other cases in

How is it that serious ufologists have to walk the razor edge
and can loose everything on a bad day?  How is it that other
objective skeptic oxymorons NEVER loose credibility, EVEN when
it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that they have
deliberately falsified the data to serve an obscure purpose that
can only be disinformation?

Please re-read your own posts sir.  I find them quite
enlightening: no irony in that, your post to Jerome Clark was
very good.

But please add 2 + 2.  I have grown tired of skeptics, not of
doubt - a prerequisite to all truth, but of skeptics - a sad
bunch on clowns.

Science has no alibi to ignore UFOs.

When you talk alibis, it is because a crime has been committed.
You may find suspects in ufologists.  Look elsewhere for the

Serge Salvaille

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com