Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:52:03 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by garymatalucci@gmail.com:

On Feb 4, 11:17�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:43:25 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com>:

On Feb 3, 9:30�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:52:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <scie...@zzz.com>:

OFFICIAL NOTICE: The following Debunkers MUST Leave the Usenet
Immediately!

Gonna hold your breath until you turn blue, Artie?

Dismissed,
Sir Arthur

Run away! Run away!

...OFFICIAL notice...weasel...

Met that watery tart with the sword yet? Now go away before
I taunt you a second time.

...debunkers...your ilk...kooky cult...OFFICIAL notice...debunkers...

Hi, Artie! Forget to post under your handle? Turned blue
yet?

Run away! Run away!

You no-good debunkers, you are pitiful and beyond worthless!  I heard
from the grapevine that ETs REFUSE to mind-scan debunkers because they
get headaches!  Truthfully, there is nothing to mindscan with a
debunker because they have no brain, like Casanobrain.

Yes, it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that debunkers are #1) evil;
#2) hell-bent in destroying This Island Earth and #3) have an unholy
alliance with the Dark Side.  You want proof: try CUJO, Hagar, Borsch
and Casanobrain!

TURN YOURSELF IN debunker and please forward a list to FEMA of all
debunker friends, sympathizers, enablers, and suspected debunkers.
The STATE needs to question them!

Academia and UFOs by Stanton T. Friedman

I have had an unusually good opportunity to observe the reaction of
the academic community to UFOs, having lectured on the topic "Flying
Saucers ARE Real" at more than 600 colleges and over 100 professional
groups, such as management clubs, in all 50 states and 9 Provinces.

Not only has there always been a question and answer session after
each lecture, but there have been classroom visits and seminars.
Sometimes I was told to be sure to leave time at the end of a
colloquium for commentary.

Clearly, they thought they could show that this UFO stuff was all
nonsense. I made sure that in those sessions, often entitled "Flying
saucers and Physics,” that I touched on a number of technical topics
about which I thought they would be ignorant: "You are all familiar
with the fusion and fission nuclear rockets, or electromagnetic
submarines, or data on maximum acceptable acceleration, etc.? Are any
of you aware of these?" Usually none were.

The point was that the students could see that their profs really
weren't with it. The best one prof could come up with was, "How come
you haven't published in any physics journals or given a paper at a
meeting of the American Physical Society?”

"Didn't you see my letter in Physics Today?  Besides, why give a
lecture to 50 people at an APS meeting when I can talk to hundreds or
thousands and get press coverage to tens of thousands with my
lectures?" I was somewhat relieved when that evening there was a
packed house with people even sitting on the stage.

I have generally found that while there have been a number of
courageous academics such as Dr. David Jacobs, Dr. Alvin Lawson, and
Dr. Ed Zeller, who have taught classes on UFOs, the general approach
of the science profs has been negative. It seems to be based on a
number of basic facts:

1. Arrogance: "If these things were real, it would be important. If it
was important, I would know about them. I don't, so they must not be
real. Besides any so-called physicist without a PhD and working, God
Forbid, in industry, isn't worth listening to anyway."

Before Dr. J. Allen Hynek would see me, back in the 1960s, he had an
associate listen to my lecture at a college in Chicago. Only if I
passed muster would we go to Hynek.

One of Allen's first questions was, "Why didn't you get a Ph.D.?" I
told him I was tired of working my way through university as a union
waiter, and wanted to get out in the real world.

2. Ignorance of the data. At the beginning of my lecture the focus is
on five large-scale scientific studies of UFOs. After a brief review
of each, I ask, "How many have read a copy of this study?" Typically
it is less than 2%. If they were going to challenge me, I wanted the
audience to know that they hadn't looked at the data.

One physics prof started the question-answer session with a whole
bunch of "You said...." Every one was a gross distortion of what I had
said-for example, claiming I had said Betty and Barney Hill were taken
to Zeta Reticuli and back in 2 hours!!!

Somebody shouted, "How about taking some sensible questions?" The
skeptic walked out. "Who was that?" A professor of physics. Obviously
he hadn't heard what I said, as opposed to his notions of what a
foolish believer would say.

Rather surprising to many people, I have had fewer than 12 hecklers in
over 700 lectures. Two were drunk.

3. Appeal to authority. Often academics have read maybe one skeptical
book, such as by Donald Menzel of Harvard or heard the late Carl Sagan
on TV or in Cosmos, or have heard or read comments by writers such as
Phil Klass. "These people have shown there is nothing to flying
saucers, so I need only echo their views." Certainly they don't feel
they need to validate the explanations.

4. Irrational notions of what science is all about. Carl Sagan, during
a meeting at his home, stressed reproducibility as the key. I wrote a
long response pointing out that there are at least four kinds of
science:

A. The experiments in which everything is under the control of the
experimenter, and in which the experiment can be repeated by the
scientist and anybody else who reads his papers.

B. Those measurements made in circumstances in which the scientist
cannot control all the variables, but can predict certain crucial
ones, such as the timing and location of eclipses. One cannot create
eclipses on demand, and one cannot guarantee good weather at the
location, but one can be well prepared to make scientific measurements
when they occur.

C. Those situations in which one can neither control nor predict, but
can be prepared when something of interest has happened. Earthquakes
and solar storms are two examples. Seismographs are located in many
places. Particle detectors can signal that a solar storm has occurred.

And finally, D. Those events or activities involving intelligence.
These might include murder, rape, aircraft or automobile accidents, or
observations of flying saucers It is the approach to data gathering
and evaluation which must be scientific. One measures skid marks and
blood alcohol levels, and listens to voice recorders.

I can guarantee that more than 30,000 people will be killed in
automobile accidents in the USA over the next 12 months, but I can't
predict just when or where or who will be involved.  In these cases
witness testimony is of great importance.  Our entire legal system
depends upon it.  Rarely is DNA crucial in determining guilt.

Fear of public ridicule also plays a major role in keeping academics
away from the subject.  Hynek would ask an academic to do a test on a
soil sample, and the academic would say, “I will have one of my grad
students look at it, but you can’t use my name!”  What good is a test
without the tester’s name?  Besides, one out to go to a commercial
testing or forensic laboratory, where secrecy can be maintained and
the tester will stand behind his work—normally involving tests which
he does often and which results must be able to stand up in court.