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: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:20:13 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 20:51:45 -0400
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: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 01:08:39 -0400

>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
>investigator.

I certainly hope so, since, given my previous public statements,
I'd have to throw myself out of the field.

>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
>ufology.

In real science, if you screw with the data once, that's
supposed to be the end. No one can trust you. Ever.

That's why I don't take certain people seriously. I don't have
the time to reinvestigate every case they make claims on. I have
to go on the fact that, in general, they have been shown to be
unreliable. Just as I put no credence in Greer, even though he
may hit a nugget of truth once in a while, I also put no
credence in Klass - because I don't have the time to determine
whether or not he is distorting evidence or physical law to
force fit a case.

>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?

Having never seen a debate among the community we usually refer
to as skeptics/debunkers (they call themselves "skeptics" BTW,
so please, no arguing about terms) about such practices among
their own, I can hardly imagine who would do the censuring
except us.

Of course, they would, with justice, argue that we don't do
enough house cleaning either. As I've pointed out elsewhere, at
least among ufologists, an institutional infrastructure to deny
publication to the nuts and the liars is just not available to
us.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
- Original digital art, writing, and UFO research -

UFO cases, analysis, classification systems, and more...
http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/index.htm
------


[ 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