From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:39:40 -0500 Archived: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:08:07 -0400 Subject: Re: Debate Over Kean's Book In Skeptical Newsletter >From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:43:22 -0300 >Subject: Re: Debate Over Kean's Book In Skeptical Newsletter >>From: Giuliano Marinkovic <giuliano.marinkovic.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:04:33 +0200 >>Subject: Debate Over Kean's Book In Skeptical Newsletter >>In case you missed these rebuttals between skeptics George >>Michael and Robert Sheaffer over Leslie Kean's book UFOs: >>Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record, >>here is the complete chronology: >>On the March 28, 2012, in the newsletter eSkeptic, George >>Michael reviewed Leslie Kean's book. His review is titled Best >>Evidence For UFOs: >>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-03-28/#feature >>On the April 4, 2012 issue of eSkeptic, Robert Sheaffer rebutted >>George Michael's review. Sheaffer's rebuttal is The Day The >>Skeptics Society Wasn't Skeptical: >>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-04-04/#feature >>Two days before, Sheaffer also posted it on his blog where users >>also started a debate within the comment section: >>http://tinyurl.com/cbc68va >>And finally, in the latest issue of eSkeptic from April 11, >>2012; George Michael rebuts Robert Sheaffer's rebuttal. It is >>titled: Reply To Robert Sheaffer. Immediately, below you can >>find another rebuttal of the George Michael's rebuttal to >>Sheaffer original rebuttal, titled: Response To George Michael:) >>Link of latest two rebuttals: >>http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-04-11/#feature >Thanks for the references, Guiliano, >When one reads any script other than Sheaffer's one sees a few >facts thrown in whereas Sheaffers is an all out attack against >Kean and George Michael personally. He disproves nothing. >Sheaffer's laughable and amateurish attempt at a 'solve' with >Nickel on the Exeter Incident is a prime example of solve by >decree rather than the use of any facts. What I've just read as >a 'rebuttle' by Sheaffer to George Michael's piece is simply >that - an attack rather than any refutation of fact. >Looks like Shaeffer is bucking for the slot left empty by Phil >Klass. Hi, Don, I doubt that Robert Sheaffer seeks to fill Phil Klass's shoes. Around since the 1970s, Sheaffer has always been a distinctly secondary figure whom - if I may judge from what I witnessed when I was in both their company one day some years ago - Klass himself kept at some distance. Sheaffer was, and clearly remains, notable for his full-throated nastiness and consistent attitude of scathing contempt for anybody who presumes to hold views different from his. His rhetoric is littered with heavy doses of derision and sarcasm, as anybody who's tried to read his books and essay-length rants will be aware. He's a taste strictly for the True Disbeliever. Though I corresponded with Klass for two decades and was able to get along with him on some level, Sheaffer and I were not destined to share the same rough harmony. I ended correspondence with him in the early 1980s because his letters were so rude, condescending, and insulting that I understood early on - and told him as much at the time - that even moderately fruitful (much less merely polite) communication between us seemed a deeply unlikely prospect. My impression is that where his UFO-bashing is concerned, Sheaffer has basically just been going through the motions for some time now. Jerry Clark Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp