UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 3

sTARBABY & A New CSICOP Coverup?

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:05:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:56:12 -0500
Subject: sTARBABY & A New CSICOP Coverup?

>From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:42:17 -0500
>Fwd Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:42:17 -0500
>Subject: sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins

>Critics ...have
>questioned the Committee's commitment to objective, scientific
>investigation of paranormal claims and have accused some CSICOP
>spokesmen of misrepresenting issues and evidence.

>The story that follows, written by a man who is himself
>skeptical of the paranormal, confirms what critics of CSICOP
>have long suspected: that the organization is committed to
>perpetuating a position, not to determining the truth.

>(The Editors of FATE Magazine).

>...I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to
>debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some
>of those who make a career of opposing occultism. I now believe
>that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a leading
>anti-UFO spokesman, he might hide the incident from the

>...How these things grow! In 1975 and 1976 it was just a dumb,
>arrogant mistake by only three CSICOP Fellows. In 1977 it was
>their BS report, deliberate deception-cover-up. The next year,
>1978, brought Kurtz's attempts first to bribe me and then
>(secretly) to eject me...

Dennis Rawlins' lengthy FATE Magazine account (excerpts above
and below) of CSICOP's cover-up and censorship of material plus
their vindictive tactics against people is exactly what I am
experiencing right now concerning my expose of Charles Moore's
Mogul balloon trajectory calculation hoax. Dave Thomas, another
of those CSICOP "Fellows", tried to defend Moore in the
March/April 2003 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer. Did he do it
by factually refuting my arguments? No, of course not! That
would have been too scientific of the Skeptical Inquirer. What
Thomas did was dodge my arguments and personally attack me.

Moore claimed to have used historical wind data and calculated a
trajectory taking his lost Mogul #4 directly to the Foster Ranch
crash site and, therefore, supposedly demonstrated that his
Mogul balloon accounted for the Roswell incident.

But when Brad Sparks and I went over his model and calculations
in his book "UFO Crash at Roswell: Genesis of a Modern Myth" we
discovered Moore had engaged in a little myth-making of his own.
Moore had flagrantly cheated with his math to get his balloon
there. We found many instances where he claimed to be doing one
thing, but did something else entirely, including secretly
changing his assumptions, making up false numbers (like 100/12 =
350 or 852/2.8 = 100 for rise rates), and finally miscalculating
his table to get his final trajectory (also contrary to the way
he said he was doing it).

A year ago, I first detailed all this on my website at:


I was soon attacked by debunker Tim Printy on his website, and
again by Printy and Bruce Hutchinson on UFO UpDates. They badly
lost that debate, and Printy finally slunk away while
disingenuously proclaiming victory. On his website, Printy
claimed he stopped debating because of the insulting tone of my

Well, there is the given reason and then the _real_ reason. The
real reason was that Printy had no defense and was getting
pounded. There was no way he could defend Moore's math (100/12
does not equal 350 no matter how you try to spin it), and he
also got exposed at the end doing some lying and false data
manipulation of his own. (For a list of posts in that debate,
see "Math vs. Moore" and "Mogul Mangled Math" starting Oct. 9,


Now we come to Dave Thomas' Skeptical Inquirer article. Like
Printy, Thomas simply reproduced Moore's mathematically
incorrect calculation of his table to reproduce his phony
trajectory, proclaimed victory, and then attacked me as

Regarding all my math arguments on my website pointing out
Moore's many math "mistakes," Thomas, like a good propagandist,
simply dismissed them as "quibbles" and "shrill accusations."
In other words, he didn't present them at all, not even the
super-simple and obvious ones like 100/12 does not equal 350. No
wonder Moore "didn't want to get into the math." (Why not,
unless there was no way to defend it?) Thomas, like Printy,
also tried to spin my charges against Moore as being merely
personal and nothing more than character assassination.

I found out about this article in the summer and started
drafting a rebuttal to it. (I might add that Brad Sparks added
a lot of helpful suggestions here.) I made note of drafting a
rebuttal on UpDates in July


A week later, Dave Thomas suddenly made an appearance on
UpDates, again claiming I was engaged in "character
assassination," and the whole debate represented nothing more
than "disagreements" over how to model:


My detailed response to Thomas (which he never responded to,
because like Printy, he had no defense)


My final version of my Skeptical Inquirer rebuttal I sent off to
editor Kendrick Frazier along with a cover letter in
mid-October. The rebuttal is now up at my website, along with
my comments about how the S.I. article was in serious violation
of their own stated editorial policy. See:


I also went into this in my cover letter to Frazier, further
noting that the S.I. had also put themselves in the position of
aiding and abetting a hoax. I insisted that my rebuttal be
reprinted in full, stating that this was both the fair, not to
mention scientific thing to do. Real science journals have the
integrity to _always_ print rebuttals by persons whose work has
been attacked within their pages. There can be no meaningful
debate or science if one side is getting grossly misrepresented
and then censored when they try to respond.

>The next day [Skeptical Inquirer editor Kendrick] Frazier offered
>this alibi for nonpublication of my September 18 report: ...Frazier
>confessed to a "gut feeling" that I might be right in some of
>my criticisms.

>...When he read this Frazier blew his stack again
>and on November 9 wrote a memo declaring he had deleted only
>"one sentence from a late-added footnote." ...False -- there were
>in fact a dozen deletions.

>Frazier's letter conveniently confused his right to edit (which
>I never had questioned) with his right to alter the meaning of a
>brief note telling the reader where to obtain the unedited

Now we get to the current status of my rebuttal sent off to the
same Kendrick Frazier, who over 20 years ago censored Dennis
Rawlins because what Rawlins had to say was contrary to CSICOP
dogma and embarrassing to their ruling inner circle, like Paul
Kurtz, James Randi, Phil Klass, and the like.

My rebuttal and cover letter was sent over 6 weeks ago. I wrote
Frazier I was busy for a month (overseas visiting my son), but
then we could deal with it when I was available. I have heard
absolutely nothing from Frazier, not even a simple one-line
acknowledgement by email that my manuscript had been received.

Now maybe Frazier himself is busy or out-of-town. I'll give it
a few more weeks. But it is beginning to smell exactly like the
old, familiar Skeptical Inquirer M.O.: Circle the wagons to
protect your own people and CSICOPs religious skeptical dogma
and don't let the Skeptical Inquirer readers know what's really
going on. What they don't know won't hurt them. Or, in other
words, just another CSICOP cover-up.

They can easily disprove this by simply printing my rebuttal in
its entirety. We'll see.

David Rudiak