You might say that I
view Robert Sheaffer as the resident skeptic on the program because, while we
disagree on many topics, we can discuss those disagreements in a civilized
fashion. This week, he and I talked about some of the current topics in the world
of the UFO. You can listen to the show here:
https://www.spreaker.com/episode/46641154
In the last few months
there has been a discussion about the Travis Walton abduction and we began with
that topic. Mike Rogers has said that he was through with Walton, that the
story was a hoax, that the UFO sighting was real and that no one saw Walton abducted.
Rogers also reversed himself on a number of these points.
Robert Sheaffer
Sheaffer and I talked
about the story that Philip Klass had offered Steven Pierce ten thousand
dollars to say that the story was a hoax. Sheaffer was of the opinion that the
original claim had come, not from Pierce, but from Rogers. Sheaffer, who had
researched the story in the personal papers of Klass held in an archive, said
that he seen a transcript of the first telephone call between Klass and Pierce.
This came about after the allegation about the bribe was made in a book. From
the transcript, Shaeffer said that it seemed both men had been surprised by the
allegation. Sheaffer was certain that no such offer had been made.
I did ask if a tape of
the conversation existed, but Sheaffer wasn’t sure. Apparently, there are some
tapes in the archive. Sheaffer said that not all that long ago someone had
asked for permission to review the material, but was told that the archive was
closed and would be for about a year. That, of course, didn’t answer the
question. Given the controversy, it would be nice if the tape did exist, but in
my experience, I have been accused of altering tapes, editing tapes, and
leaving out critical statements when a witness was confronted with words that
he or she didn’t like… even when they heard themselves uttering the phrases,
they claimed they hadn’t uttered.
Just last week, I
talked with a person familiar with the story who said that the offer was made
in a Western Union Telegram, which could render the telephone transcript as
irrelevant. There seems to be no evidence that Klass had ever used Western
Union to make such an offer. That allegation seemed to be stretching the point
to breaking.
We did get deep into
the weeds about the exact location of the abduction part of the Walton incident
with a suggestion, that has been raised by others, the site has been moved so
that a fire watch tower could be used to create the light show for those in the
truck with Rogers. Of course, Rogers, when I spoke with him didn’t accept the
idea.
I also wanted to talk
about some skeptics accepting any solution to a sighting no matter how
ridiculous that explanation might be. Although I used Levelland as an example,
we did talk about the Lubbock Lights. Sheaffer said that an analysis of the
photos showed that two of the pictures, when set one on top of the other
suggested that the lights had not moved in relation to one another. For those
who wish to learn more about that, you can read it here:
https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread906605/pg1#pid15505257
I have, in the past,
discussed these pictures at length, including my interview with the
photographer, Carl Hart, Jr. You can read that posting here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2006/08/carl-hart-and-lubbock-lights.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2019/01/historys-project-blue-book-lubbock.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/04/carl-hart-jr-lubbock-lights.html
Sheaffer did mention
the Coast Guard pictures taken in 1952. There has been an explanation offered
for what caused the lights. Here Sheaffer took up a skeptical argument, meaning
that he was skeptical of the explanation.
 |
| The Salem, MA, Coast Guard Picture. |
Finally, we talked
about the artifact, either natural or artificial that had passed through the
Solar System not all that long ago. I’ve talked with Dr. Loeb about it on this
show a couple of times and you can listen to those shows here:
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/07/galileo-project-and-avi-loeb.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/01/x-zone-broadcast-network-dr-abraham-avi.html
Next week, I’ll be talking to Rob Mercer about his discovery of some of the Project Blue Book files and the fact that he found a complete index with all the names in it. In the publicly released version, all the names had been redacted.
6 comments:
Mr. Sheaffer's anti-UFO prejudice is manifest. His lone mission is to seek to destroy the credibility of all alleged UFO encounters. This is the premise of his "investigations and research."
There is no will to believe here, but rather a mind that is completely closed off to the wondrous world of UFOs.
If a flying saucer landed on his head he'd put it down to dandruff.
Mr. Sheaffer did not think much of Project Galileo's desire to view objects in orbit based on the idea that the Military does this already and with better resolution. Perhaps. But the problem is that to protect our national security they do not make all the data public. So, right now the sizes of objects that are publicly reported are listed as "small, medium, large". Not helpful. In the old days they gave the crosssectional area. Also, the precision of the object location is not good. No reason the US should help bad actors in aiming at our assets. Finally, some US military satellites are not listed at all.
But the main issue with the Military approach is that it is a fence, not a whole sky radar mapping. Objects must pass through the fence to get located (it is assumed the objects are orbital). Then the problem is how to correlate that location data with a launch. They always reference a launched object. If they can't do this, we do not see it in the dataset. They await until they can (maybe never). So, if it is a small rock (or lots of rocks) that enters orbit briefly, we never see it. It might as well have never happened. What use is such a database for natural debris flux or alien interlopers? So, this is where the Galileo Project concept may be useful.
To reiterate, if a launcher is suborbital, it likely does not pass through the radar fence and we get no data or record it did so. If some vehicle goes into orbit or visa versa and does not enter into the radar fence, no data. If the vehicle is radar invisible, then no data. Can Galileo Project "see" an object? Depends on how it does it. While an object going orbital could be radar invisible and optically invisible, it still is passing through a background. Block a star in your invisible spaceship and it should be apparent. They can't mimic the entire galaxy from every viewpoint on Earth on their vehicle. But it is tedious to do all this work. Needles in haystacks.
I am sorry to say, but these types of interviews are really not adding much to the discussion. He admitted that he doesn't have an open mind to different (non-terrestrial) explanations. His operating assumption is that UFOs can't be extraterrestrial, so therefore mundane explanations, no matter how ridiculous (despite his protestations), are all he looks for. Kevin, I appreciate your professionalism, but the only way an interview like this can add anything, is if you take off the kid gloves and challenge these so-called skeptics. Sheaffer's first response to any case is: "well, there is this guy, uh, can't remember who he is or, uh, what exactly he said, or where he said it, but he said this is fake, hoax, parallax, etc." His second response is to parrot other skeptics--who themselves have made egregious errors in interpretation--without any reflection or in depth investigation of his own. And unless I am mistaken, Sheaffer has no hard science training (with advanced degrees) at all! It is painful to hear him than wax on on topics like telescopes, optics, atmospheric effects, etc. He completely doesn't understand the project Loebe is setting up, and is wrong that astronomers using existing telescopes haven't reported UFOs. I could go on and on. The point here is that unless you push people like sheaffer into the inevitable corners created by their arguments, then very little is gained.
Unless and until credible and compelling evidence is produced, there no reason to take UFOs seriously. "Evidence" is not blurry photos, eyewitness testimony, anecdotal stories and crazy conspiracies about a "deep state" coverup. It's been over 70 years; bring us a piece of the flying saucer. Show us the alien bodies. It has never happened and it never will happen because it's nonsense.
There are many good cases with multiple chains of evidence. Evidence does, in fact, include testimony especially multiple and independent witnesses, some very high quality photographs, radar cases and interaction with the environment. The problem is that you have to dig through a lot of nonsense to get to the good evidence.
Post a Comment