UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 10

Re: sTARBABY & A New CSICOP Coverup? - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:27:17 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:23:04 -0500
Subject: Re: sTARBABY & A New CSICOP Coverup? - Rudiak

>From: William Scott Scherk <wss@uniserve.com>
>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:28:54 -0800
>Subject: Re: sTARBABY & A New CSICOP Coverup?

>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>>Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:31:24 -0800
>>Subject: Re: sTARBABY & A New CSICOP Coverup? - Rudiak

>>Lots of doubletalk from this Mr. Scherk - no? It is also
>>very interesting that he suddenly appears here on UpDates
>>for the first time the moment I accuse the SI of perhaps
>>engaging in a new coverup. Is he just a common net Troll
>>looking for a little attention?

To answer my own question, probably. We've all encountered these
types before on other chat groups. They are the hand grenade
throwers, the smart asses, the hecklers, the insulters, the
attackers, the harrassers, the character assassins, etc.

Mr. Scherk _pretends_ to be all reasonable here. He also wrote
me a superficiously civil email, politely asking for permission
to reprint my response to his first post to Updates. He even
signed off "kind regards."

So what's wrong with this picture? The problem is he was
simultaneously already savaging me over on his website. The
following (according to time stamps) was posted to his website
Dec. 6 only 3 hours after his phony polite email to me:



Saturday, December 06 2003
Are UFOs real, really really REALLY real? Rudiak v Moore


(Dr Rudiak responds to the "Smoking Gun article" with a letter
purportedly mailed to SI: Math Vs. Moore On Roswell

Of course, UFO-as-alien-craft believers don't accept this. There
is no particularly consistent story debunking the Mogul
explanation, however. Some believe in a massive, complex cover-
up, and others beleive that the Mogul explanation is a
perfidious hoax. One such person with a hoax hypothesis is Dave
Rudiak. Apparently much of his waking life is given over to
debunking the Mogul hypothesis . . . on the UFO updates mailing
list, his most recent posting gives some idea of the depth and
breadth of his theory, full of "hoax!" and "hoax!!!" and "HOAX

See: Re: sTARBABY & A New CSICOP Coverup? - Rudiak

I can't do justice to Dr Rudiak's arguments. One corner of the
internet is bulging with his output ("HOAX!!!"). The posting of
his linked above is in response to a few questions I posted.

Another response to my questions was that of one Alfred

Both make fascinating reading, if you ever wonder what the true-
believers sound like in full rant.

A sample of Lehmberg:

-- and from the demented Rudiak:
Since we are all nothing more than "UFO nutbags," in Mr.
Scherk's mind, this apparently justifies the Skeptical Inquirer
publishing anything they want that's "anti-UFO-nutbag," even if
it involves omission, distortion, defamation, and promotion of
an "anti-UFO-nutbag" hoax, all in the name of "science and
reason" of course.

(Rudiak had visited this blog and quoted from my earlier
'nutbag' post. Now I guess he thinks I am some kind of CSICOP
operative . . . )
17:46:25 - wss - No comments! - 0 TrackBacks


Notice, among other things, that Scherk insinuates that I never
sent off a rebuttal to the Skeptical Inquirer (I "purportedly"
mailed it), and does it again below in his latest UpDates post.
I especially love his use of the word "demented" to describe me.
That was a real nice touch, but exactly what one would expect
from another of these phony-baloney defenders of "science and

This is Mr. Scherk in full bloom displaying his real personality
and agenda. There is nothing polite, sincere, or honest about
the man. I wrote a pretty damn nasty email back to him after
this, pointing out the obviously huge hypocritical disconnect
between his "polite" request for reprint rights and what he
already had written on his website. Scherk wrote back this
morning, playing the fool, as if nothing had ever happened. Only
seriously disturbed or coldly calculating people behave this

Scherk has a long Net history of these sort of malignant
personal attacks, which frequently includes calling others
"demented." E.g., check out the following links:


http://www.wsse.ca/nucleus2.0/reason.php (see Nov. 26 and Nov 18)




Etc., etc. Do a Google Usenet search for more.

We have all seen people like Scherk before prowling the
Internet, disrupting groups, and savaging people. They are
commonly called trolls. They are low-lifes who enjoy playing
games with people, hoping to get a rise out of them, or maybe
having darker, more sinister motivations. I leave it to the
psychologists to explain their inner demons.

>Or is he a shill for the
>CSICOP/Skeptical Inquirer, trying desperately to avoid
>publishing my rebuttal article? "Forget about it. Nobody
>reads us anyway."

Is he fronting for CSICOP? Who knows? As we shall also see
below, he obviously reads and frequently references the
Skeptical Inquirer, as his following recent debate with Kathy
Reason (who also sometimes posts here) demonstrates (concerns
lawsuit against recovered memory critics, psychologists
Elizabeth Loftus of CSICOP & Melvin Guyer):

(Scherk no longer playing the fool)

(Kathy Reason responds)

Loftus/Guyer are defended and Scherk blames the victim,
following exactly the tactic of the S.I. articles. (Loftus,
incidentally, is another one of the CSICOP "Fellows", so it was
a case of CSICOP defending their own again. For a list of their
"Fellows," see: http://www.csicop.org/about/fellows.html)

Also check out the Google Usenet archives, where Scherk makes
many references to S.I. articles. If not a CSICOP operative, he
is very obviously a CSICOP groupie.

This of course proves nothing. But isn't it interesting that
Scherk published his first trashing of UFO Updates (we're all
"nutbags") on Nov. 30, the very same day, practically the same
instant, as Updates reprinted Dennis Rawling's "sTARBABY" expose
of a cover-up by CSICOP in its early days.

Then on Dec. 3 was my "sTARBABY" post where I compared what I
was currently going through with the S.I. to what Rawlings
experienced. The _very next day_, Scherk was here on Updates for
the first time slumming with the "nutbags," defending the S.I.
right to print what they believed to be true (never mind that it
was really defending a hoax), and then irrationally arguing I
shouldn't bother with the S.I. because they were losing the
argument in the public arena and nobody read them anyway.

All "coincidence" and done by Scherk acting strictly on his own?

>The camp that asserts an alien UFO crash at Roswell is the
>majority, dominates TV programming, radio broadcasts, web sites
>and newsletter publications. This camp produces and sells the
>most books, tapes and videos, attracts the most tourists to its
>'crash sites,' and the most attenders to its conferences.

>There is Science Frontiers, X-Project, Fortean Times, Strange
>Magazine, Parascope News, Journal of Scientific Exploration,
>FATE magazine, The Anomalist, Narratives of the Weird . . . And
>umpteen thousands of websites and mailing lists.

>In my opinion, the alien/UFO hypothesis has won over the public

Yada, yada. Here he goes again. I repeat, what does this have
to do with anything? Here's what the real issues are about:

1. Mogul scientist Charles Moore advanced a clearly hoaxed Mogul
balloon trajectory calculation as part of an obvious effort to
debunk the Roswell case in the 1997 book he co-wrote with with
Benson Saler and Charles Ziegler, "UFO Crash at Roswell, The
Genesis of a Modern Myth." The book was published in the
prestigious Smithsonian Press, which claims to be scientifically
peer-reviewed. The book was promoted as a "scientific" treatment
of the Roswell case and his conclusion of calculating a
trajectory "exactly" to the Foster Ranch crash site has been
trumpeted as virtual proof in debunking circles that Mogul
explained the Roswell case. Of course, since Moore's "exact
calculation" turns out to be a fraud, what he did was actually
pseudoscientific and a total abuse of scientific ethics.

2. Brad Sparks and I exposed the hoax a year ago. I did an
extensive writeup detailing the hoax on my website:


3. In the March/April 2003 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer, Dave
Thomas wrote a defense of Moore, claiming I was engaging in
nothing more than character assassination, attacked my website
but deliberately avoided discussing the math facts detailed
therein (characterizing them instead as "quibbles" and "shrill
accusations"), reproduced Moore's bogus calculation, proclaimed
victory ("We both got 2 + 2 =3, so what's the problem?"), and
then personally attacked me as "incompetent." Thomas' SI


4. I found out about the article during the summer. I mentioned
that I was drafting a response in an UpDates post:


5. A week later Thomas turned up for the very first time on UFO
Updates (sound familiar?) with a feeble replay and defense of
his SI article. I responded with a lengthy rebuttal. Thomas
never answered back. (So much for Thomas and any pretense he is
interested in true scientific debate.)




6. In mid-October, I sent off my finished rebuttal to Kendrick
Frazier, longtime editor of the Skeptical Inquirer. I have
heard absolutely nothing back from Frazier, and it's going on 7
weeks now.

Frazier, as editor of the S.I., would have had to approve
Thomas' attack-dog article. Frazier and Dave Thomas both live in
Albuquerque. Both are "Fellows" of the Skeptical Inquirer.
Thomas is the President of the CSICOP New Mexico outpost NMSR
("New Mexican's for Science and Reason"). Frazier is one of
their "advisors." These guys are practically joined at the hip.
I have to go through Frazier to get my rebuttal against Thomas
published. Does anybody really think that either Frazier or
Thomas wants this rebuttal to ever make it into the pages of the

Frazier is also one of the founders of CSICOP, and one of the
people mentioned by Dennis Rawlings in his article on CSICOP's
coverup of their "Mars effect" scandal. (Rawlings, as you might
remember, accused Frazier of censoring him.) In addition,
Frazier was one of the editors of the 1997 CSICOP Roswell/UFO
debunking book "The UFO Invasion: The Roswell Incident, Alien
Abductions, and Government Coverups." Contributing writers were
Dave Thomas (what a surprise!) and others like fellow founding
CSICOPian Phil Klass, and Col. Richard Weaver ("retired"), head
USAF counterintelligence debunker in their 1994/95 Roswell
debunking report. CSICOPians tend to be very incestuous.

[BTW 1997, the 50th anniversary of Roswell, was a bull market in
the publication of Roswell debunking books. Prometheus books
(i.e. CSICOP) also published Phil Klass' and Kal Korff's anti-
Roswell screeds. The USAF came out with their infamous "Case
Closed" time-traveling crash dummy explanation for alien bodies,
and Col. Philip Corso also came out with his equally infamous
"Day After Roswell", supposedly "pro-Roswell," but possibly a
case of stealth debunkery because it was so full of obviously
inaccurate BS and exaggerated claims. Then there was Moore's
book with his Mogul trajectory hoax. Coincidence?]

>I would welcome a rebuttal from Dr Rudiak in the pages of SI,

Yeah, no doubt just like Dave Thomas and Kendrick Frazier
welcome my rebuttal. I'm sure Mr. Scherk will drop them and line
and plead with them to print it.

Again, we have a great example of Mr. Scherk's disingenuousness.
Go read above what he wrote on his website only two days ago and
judge for yourself whether this man is interested in honest
scientific debate. People who claim to "welcome rebuttal" from
people do not misrepresent and ridicule their responses and call
them "demented."

>whether in its letters section or as an article. From time to
>time, I note, such missives and articles have appeared (most
>recently exchanges between Rupert Sheldrake and his critics).

Note again his obvious familiarity with Skeptical Inquirer

>I would ask Dr Rudiak this: what measures has he taken to have
>any rebuttal published in SI?

Now he goes on the offensive. My answer: I did exactly as their
instructions to authors requested: submit two printed, double-
spaced copies of the manuscript plus an electronic copy on
floppy disk to the editor Kendrick Frazier in Albuquerque. I
submitted this in mid-October. Mr. Frazier has not responded.

>Did he write a follow-up to his
>original letter responding to Dave Moore?

"Dave Moore?" Is that some sort of mutant hybrid of Dave Thomas
and Charles Moore?

More likely it is a Freudian slip on the part of Mr. Scherk.
"Dave Moore" is a person who has also been the subject of Mr.
Scherk's posts over on Usenet, e.g.,


The carelessness with Scherk's little slip about "Dave Moore" is
revealing. It's typical Net troll behavior of typing without

(The whole "Dave Moore" thing concerned Moore and others being
attacked, even threatened, by another UseNet troll. Moore
apparently put up a whole website trying to expose the guy.
Admittedly without knowing all the facts here, at first glance
it appears Scherk was defending a fellow troll and playing
"blame the victim" again by attacking the troll critics.)

>Did he send an email
>to the editors? Did he propose anything of note?

I did as requested in their instructions to authors. They have
not responded. I plan to "remind" them about the rebuttal soon,
but it _their_ responsibility, not mine to follow up on this.
Scherk is just playing the "blame the victim" card again. As
mentioned before, on his website, he also insinuated I made this
all up. I "purportedly" sent off the rebuttal.

Any claim that they are not aware of my rebuttal are not
believable, as it is on my website:


as previously noted here on UpDates. (I also posted a slightly
different version to UpDates back on Oct. 7 with my stated
intent to send it off to the S.I. editor:


It is quite obvious that UpDates is followed by at least some
CSICOP groupies and word quickly gets back to the principles
even if they don't read this List. Evidence, e.g., Dave Thomas
himself suddenly appearing here last July, after I announced on
UpDates that I was drafting a rebuttal.

Scherk's equally sudden first appearance here, just this last
week, when the rebuttal subject was brought up again I guess
we'll just have accept for now as another coincidence.

David Rudiak