SIGHTINGS


 
Phil Klass And CSICOP
Respond to SSE Call
For Official UFO Study
Contact Matthew Nisbet 716-636-1425 x 219
<SINISBET@aol.com>
http://www.csicop.org/">http://www.csicop.org/
7-6-98
 
 
 
The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) Responds to the Recent UFO Report Sponsored by the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE)
 
 
AMHERST, NEW YORK - In a statement issued today, members of the international Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) responded to recent recommendations on UFOs released on June 29, 1998 by the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE.)
 
Background:
 
A panel of SSE-selected scientists, after reviewing evidence presented by SSE-selected UFO investigators, concluded that although none of the physical evidence "points to violation of known natural laws or the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence," it may "be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science." The report recommends that institutional support be given to UFO investigation and research. Prompted by these findings, in the days following the release of the report, some in the UFO community have renewed calls for Congressional hearings on UFO phenomena.
 
Statements:
 
Paul Kurtz CSICOP founder and chair, Professor Emeritus, SUNY at Buffalo.
 
"Why is this news? The observation that some things sighted in the sky are unknown and merit further investigation is not a new revelation. We are committed to an open-minded and inquiry into any responsible paranormal claims. CSICOP has encouraged UFO research for more than two decades, and has published the results of rigorous UFO investigations. Some cases do remain unexplained. But that we should now devote government resources to further research is questionable. In our view, the government should not divert funds and time from other more fruitful scientific projects. Given limited resources for scientific research, the evidence to date regarding UFOs does not merit such strong attention. The idea that we should devote the business of the United States Congress to hearings on UFOs borders on the ridiculous.
 
"The release of the report appears well-timed to gain publicity for the SSE and their claims. It occurs a week after the release of the X-Files movie and during the week of Fourth of July when news is slow."
 
Philip J. Klass CSICOP fellow, Senior Editor with Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, leading UFO investigator and author.
 
The SSE recommends the creation of government funded UFO research projects like the one called GEPAN (Groupe D'Etudes des Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non-identifies), created in 1977 by France which reported to the highly respected French space agency - CNES. In 1988, after more than a decade of UFO investigations, GEPAN's budget was drastically reduced, its mission was refocused to emphasize collecting reports of reentering satellite debris and meteorites, and its name was changed to SEPRA (Service d' Expertise desPhenomenes des Rentrees Atmospheriques).
 
"During GEPAN's 11-year research effort, its most impressive UFO case involved a peasant living in Trans-en-Provence who claimed a strange craft hovered over his yard in broad daylight. GEPAN strongly endorsed the caseb ased on its investigation into alleged UFO-caused effects on nearby plants,which GEPAN/SEPRA director Jean-Jacques Velasco described to the SSE's panel of experts. Velasco did not inform the SSE panel of scientists that a recent investigation by a pro-UFO French investigator - Eric Maillot - indicates that the Trans-en-Provence case is a hoax.
 
"It is unfortunate that the SSE did not assemble a more balanced roster of UFO investigators to present evidence to the panel of scientists. The whole evaluation process appears suspiciously weighted to one side of the UFO debate."
 
Kendrick Frazier Editor of Skeptical Inquirer: The Magazine for Science and Reason and CSICOP fellow.
 
"There's really nothing new in the report. I have serious doubts there is any real scientific paydirt in the UFO question, not the kind that merits taxpayer money being spent. The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena. I have no objections to the scientific panel that reviewed the UFO testimony for the study. But the eight people who provided the testimony and evidence are all strong UFO proponents and believers. They have been promoting the UFO cause for decades. There are no skeptical researchers among them. This is very curious if one is to contend this is some kind of balanced assessment."
 
 
 
CSICOP is an international, non-profit organization dedicated to the critical examination and investigation of claims of the paranormal and fringe science. Founded in 1976, CSICOP is always receptive to departures in thought, yet insists that they be tested before they are accepted. CSICOP maintains anetwork of distinguished scientists and academics that includes five Nobel laureates, Jill Tarter, Marvin Minsky, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawkins. The bi-monthly journal the Skeptical Inquirer: The Magazine for Science AndReason, is the main forum for publication of these inquiries. Both CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer are based at the Center for Inquiry, Amherst N.Y.



UPDATE

Editor, New York Post
www.nypostonline.com/070198/editorial/2874.htm
 
Dear Editor,
 
The Editor of the New York Post has criticized the Washington Post for being "taken for a good long ride" by the Society for Scientific Exploration. The Washington Post publicized the report of a panel of independent scientists who evaluated UFO sighting evidence and concluded that because, some sightings were unexplainable, they deserve further serious study.
 
The tone of the editorial indicates that the editor knows next to nothing about the present understanding of UFO sighting reports, next to nothing about the history of the subject and next to nothing about the intense debate continually being carried on within the community of scientifically oriented UFO investigators.
 
The editor asks, why would "actual science professors put their name to a report like this?" The implied answer is that these professional scientists are "given to wild fantasies." The editor presents this idea with certainty, even citing previous examples of scientists with wild ideas (e.g. Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday) without stating that he/she had actually talked to any of the UFO panel scientists to assess their level of "wildness".
 
According to the editor, the SSE panel says the reason UFO sightings have never been taken seriously is fear of ridicule or because of a government conspiracy. The editor calls this a "big lie." It is clear from this that the editor really does not understand what has been going on. The fear of ridicule is real. I was on a call-in talk show in the Washington, D.C. area and heard Dr. Jay Melosh, one of the panel scientists and a UFO skeptic, tell the talk show host that for a young scientist to become publicly interested in studying UFO sightings could be professional suicide. The implication is that such studies should only be carrier out by tenured professors or scientists with well established backgrounds in conventional science. As for the government conspiracy aspect, it is clear from the historical record, available to anyone including the editor for review (e.g., the UFO files of Air Force Intelligence released within the last 12 years, the UFO files of the FBI released 20 years ago and now on line at www.fbi.gov and the UFO files of the CIA released some 20 years ago) that the US intelligence agencies and the Air Force in particular took these sightings, especially the ones by Air Force personnel, very seriously. Furthermore, according to the FBI "X" file (yes, it includes sighting reports entitled "Security Matter - X"; look it up in the web documents!) in 1952 Air Force intelligence told the FBI that 3% of the sightings could not be explained and that the objects reported in these sightings "may possibly be ships from another planet such as Mars."(FBI document dated July 29, 1952). On the same day that AF Intelligence told this to the FBI, in a press conference the AF General in charge of Intelligence, John Samford, told the American public that all the sightings were natural phenomena. This sort of contradiction between what the Air Force would say privately and what it would say publicly has led to the present state of confusion over just what information the Air Force uncovered year ago. It is no wonder that the citizens of this country suspect that they have not been told the whole story.
 
The editor correctly points out that UFO sightings have been "exhaustively invesigated by genuinely openminded people over and over again." The editor then states that "there is no - repeat, no - convincing evidence of space aliens visiting the earth in suspiciously Hollywoodesque flying saucers." I suppose the crux of the matter here is not "Hollywoodesque" but rather what one accepts as "convincing evidence." Under ordinary non-UFO conditions multiple witness, daytime reports of phenomena seen clearly and for considerable time durations (many seconds to minutes) and perhaps supported by film, video or radar would be at least mildly convincing to the intelligent person. There are such UFO sightings (several of which were evaluated by the panel and left unexplained) for which there seems to be no possibility of misidentification, delusion or hoax. At the very least these sightings point toward something new, something unexplained. Some of these sightings also involve descriptions of objects which seem to be constructed craft of some sort. (Note: Hollywood, starting in the 1950's, has followed the UFO/saucer sightings with the creation of "Hollywoodesque" saucers, not the other way around.) It is certainly true that the field of UFO research is littered with the hopes, dreams and faulty theories of many people who "want to believe," but the hard core of the UFO evidence does not lie within this litter. If the editor would take time to look beyond the Hollywood glitter and the tabloid press, the editor would find that the UFO subject is grounded in much more solid information.
 
The value of information is in what you do as a result of it. One has the option to ignore it or to pusue it. UFO information is of this sort. Clearly the editor intends to ignore it, which is fine. However, the editor should apply his/her own criterion of "sweet reason", leave out "true religion" and not criticize scientists who do wish to pursue this information in a rigorous manner.
 
Yours truly, Dr. Bruce Maccabee
 
 
From UFO Mind website (Not from Bruce)
 
Who is Dr. Bruce Maccabee?
 
"Dr. Maccabee has been a Research Physicist at the Naval Surface Weapons Center in Silver Spring, Maryland since 1972. His work has centered on high power lasers, underwater sound, and the Ballistic Missile Defense. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics from the American University in Washington, D.C. Dr. Maccabee was a member of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena. In 1975, he joined MUFON and was appointed State Director for Maryland and a Consultant in Photo Analysis and Laser Physics. In 1979, Dr. Maccabee and other ufologists established the Fund for UFO Research, where he continues to serve on the national board. His UFO investigations, include the McMinnville photos of 1950, the Gemini II astronaut photos, the New Zealand sightings, the Japan Airlines sighting, the Gulf Breeze case, and others. In 1993, he provided a briefing paper on UFOs for the President's science advisor. He conducted historical research and was the first to obtain the "flying disc file" for the FBI."





Response to CSICOP on Trans From Perry Petrakis <sosovni@aix.pacwan.net
 
(Snip)
 
Philip J. Klass CSICOP fellow, Senior Editor with Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, leading UFO investigator and author.
 
"The SSE recommends the creation of government funded UFO research projects like the one called GEPAN (Groupe D'Etudes des Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non-identifies), created in 1977 by France which reported to the highly respected French space agency - CNES. In 1988, after more than a decade of UFO investigations, GEPAN's budget was drastically reduced, its mission was refocused to emphasize collecting reports of reentering satellite debris and meteorites, and its name was changed to SEPRA (Service d' Expertise desPhenomenes des Rentrees Atmospheriques).
 
"During GEPAN's 11-year research effort, its most impressive UFO case involved a peasant living in Trans-en-Provence who claimed a strange craft hovered over his yard in broad daylight. GEPAN strongly endorsed the caseb ased on its investigation into alleged UFO-caused effects on nearby plants,which GEPAN/SEPRA director Jean-Jacques Velasco described to the SSE's panel of experts. Velasco did not inform the SSE panel of scientists that a recent investigation by a pro-UFO French investigator - Eric Maillot - indicates that the Trans-en-Provence case is a hoax.
 
"It is unfortunate that the SSE did not assemble a more balanced roster of UFO investigators to present evidence to the panel of scientists. The whole evaluation process appears suspiciously weighted to one side of the UFO debate."
 
 
The pro's and con's of the SSE panel may well be "weighted to one side" and may well be questionnable as to the motives behind the panel meeting. It is a fact that Velasco decided not to raise questions about the doubts shed on the Trans-en-Provence case by a handfull of French researchers. It would however be very unfair for anyone wishing to keep a real scientific approach towards the matter, to counter balance the SEPRA/GEPAN investigation with the report published by Maillot and his colleagues. The stance that the Trans-en-Provence case is considered solved by even the most skeptical French researchers would definitely be false as would be the opinion that Maillot has anything to do, even by far, with a "Pro UFO believer". Maillot has spent these past years trying to solve each and every case falling within his reach.
 
As opposed to the SEPRA/GEPAN report (which may or may not be relevant to the advancement of scientific research on ufos, that's not the point here), which contains lab analyses and thorough investigation, the "Maillot report" is based on nothing more than hearsay, anonymous opinions and speculation mounting up to an intimate conviction that thecase "could" be explained away. Anything but Science.
 
We, at SOS OVNI, are not defending any particular opinion on the Trans-en-Provence case. It may well have been a mundane object, it also could have been something else. But until we are able to oppose real scientific analysis to that which has already been done by SEPRA/GEPAN and the research labs, we do not allow ourselves to emit any peremptory assertion as to what it could have been... maybe.
 
Perry Petrakis SOS OVNI France


Sightings HomePage