UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, February 13, 2014

UFO Skeptic(s) Dismissed Causes Frustration and Wrath

I received a ranting comment from French skeptic Gilles Fernandez, who is livid that I hadn’t provided a second posting at this blog of his loony “exegesis” of the 1896 Airship wave in California.

I had initially placed his first installment online as it was, to me, like the “outsider art” I’ve often placed here.

Monsieur Fernandez’ presentation was like that “art”: magnificently schizophrenic and errant. (I addressed his errors, as many of you know, but he didn’t refute my listings of his follies, but only came back with an offer of another litany of strange skeptical interjections about the 1896 Airship wave.)

When I chose not to clutter this blog with his manic musings, he wrote this:

“Wasn't you who said and claimed you will present in your blog the part 2 (and final one) of my humble 1896/97 airships' study. Where it is in your blog ?

You are a liar and have removed the part one! You allowed in your blog. Well that's ufology and now your blog!

If you have nothing to address / counter-arguments to this humble study excepting "Venus cant be misinterpreted as an UFO" (a totaly false claim), or Gilles enhanced Venus in Stellarium (and other stupid comments like these ones) please, forget to pronounce my name in your blog, OLD-GEEZER.”

He’s angry or mad; mad in the psychiatric sense.

Our friend Lance Moody, another skeptic, but a more rational one, has taken to try and counter comments from Joel Crook, the provider of Gaines Crook’s material, and an erudite thinker in his own right.

That Joel holds his own against Lance’s “onslaughts” is not dis-similar to David Rudiak’s push-backs at Kevin Randle’s blog when Lance begs to challenge Mr. Rudiak’s comments.

Yes, David Rudiak is rabid, while Joel Crook is moderate and restrained, academic actually.

This teases Lance, who likes to argue UFO points, but he (Lance) has found a foil that isn’t easily cowed. Mr. Rudiak usually just calls Lance and/or CDA and Fernandez a few names. Joel Crook attacks the argument.

James Oberg and Robert Sheaffer, both intelligent skeptics, also are dismissed by the UFO community, just as the angry, often nasty Philip Klass was.

The skeptics get more rattled and loopy, as Gilles Fernandez does, when UFO aficionados go forward with their belief that Roswell involved an alien airship crash, or the Hills were abducted by aliens, or the 1896 Airship wave was something more than a mistaken observation of the planet Venus.

The UFO crowd, me included, continue to speculate on the UFO phenomenon, and refuse to be sidetracked by errant and contrived attempts by the skeptical crowd to dissuade us that there’s nothing to UFOs.

UFOs, while on the wane as a topic of interest for the populace and media, generally, still hold a place in the curious heart of a few.

Skeptics hate that. And the Gilles Fernandezes of the world will have to accept that their anti-UFO arguments have not removed and will not remove the UFO obsession for some.



  • In the previous posting you brought up the Mantell case. Recall that there were multiple UFO sightings that day.

    Certainly the object chased by Mantell, and seen by other officers in the tower, was NOT Venus, but the various evening sightings that day were almost certainly of Venus. Details available in Blue Book files.

    Also, it was a local astronomer (not Hynek or Menzel) who first put forward the Venus answer for Mantell; the AF merely accepted his (false) solution, for a while anyway.

    The evening sightings were all of an object close to the horizon and 'skipping' about erratically, exactly where Venus was.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, February 13, 2014  

  • Yes, Christopher...

    I know that Venus has been A UFO for some observers, but the UFO sightings that whet my whistle could never be considered a mis-identification of Venus, except by a loon.

    You know the kinds of odd events or UFO sightings I highlight here: Socorro, RB47, Solway, et cetera.

    Not Venus-like by a long shot.

    And the 1896 Airship wave? I've placed enough about those sightings online which would preclude Venus as a cause, Gilles Fernandez notwithstanding.

    The problem for skeptics, you among them, is that the UFO crowd just will not accept your misgivings.

    Rightly or wrongly, UFOers keep at it, blindly, perhaps, eschewing any possibility that their sightings can be explained prosaically.

    This has got to be frustrating and is or was, apparently, for people like Klass and Fernandez.

    That's my point.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, February 13, 2014  

  • 'UFO obsession' is a good way of putting it.

    By Blogger Woody, at Friday, February 14, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home