Showing posts with label Michael Shermer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Shermer. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 15, 2026

Gun Slinger Jesse Michels, vs Michael Shermer's Shadow

Gun Slinger Jesse Michels, vs Michael Shermer's Shadow - www.theufochronicles.com - © All Rights Reserved

“I want you to debunk harder.”—Jesse Michels


     Having just finished watching the Michael Shermer interview conducted by American Alchemy host, Jesse Michels I have to say that Michels never ceases to amaze me. By appearance, he seems like a scruffy looking, tee-shirt wearing kid (“the kid” is my nick-name for him, replacing John Greenewald) who has no business interviewing the caliber of
By
Frank Warren
The UFO Chronicles
© All Rights Reserved
7-14-2026
guests he has on his show. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Also I believe he’s 45.)

In short order one gets past his incongruous appearance and becomes entranced by his intellect and amazing recall, citing facts and sources thereof in a blink of an eye—he’s a gunslinger! ©The UFO Chronicles. All rights reserved.

Saturday, January 31, 2026

UFO Skepticism at a Crossroads: What Michael Shermer Leaves Out About UAP

UFO Skepticism at a Crossroads - What Michael Shermer Leaves Out About UAP © All Rights Reserved - www.theufochronicles.com


     Long time, noted skeptic, Michael Shermer, in his new column on UFOs/UAPs is a familiar, articulate expression of classical skepticism: most sightings are misperceptions, the evidence for extraterrestrials is thin, and extraordinary claims still demand extraordinary proof. As a broad framing, that much is uncontroversial. The difficulty is
By
The UFO Chronicles
1-30-2026
© All Rights Reserved
that his piece leans too heavily on yesterday’s talking points and underplays the significant, empirical shifts in how governments and scientific institutions are now treating UAP.

The result is an essay that reassures hardened skeptics but does not quite engage with the data-rich environment that has emerged since 2017.

© The UFO Chronicles. All rights reserved.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Michael Shermer Sheds Light on UFOs, Out-of-Body Experiences

Dr. Michael Shermer at The University of Connecticut 4-10-13

By Kim Halpin
www.dailycampus.com
4-11-13

      Dr. Michael Shermer came to the Student Union Theatre Wednesday night to shed light on seemingly out-of-this-world experiences.

Publisher of The Skeptic quarterly journal and executive director of the Skeptic Society, Shermer has spent his life dedicated to research on psychology, evolution and history. In his presentation to students and staff he sought to examine topics such as conspiracy theories, out- of-body-experiences and UFO sightings using the theories he has researched.

His magazine delves into a new topic every issue that some people are skeptical about and attempts to debunk it. One issue focused on artificial intelligence. Shermer joked, “We looked into it… we’re five years away – and always will be.”

Other issues that received attention were global warming and conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and even the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook. What Shermer is looking for, however, is evidence and the “burden of proof” that falls on the person making a claim so different from everyone else’s beliefs. . . .

Monday, February 04, 2013

What Is Skepticism, Anyway? | VIDEO | TEDTalk

Bookmark and Share

What Is Skepticism, Anyway?





See Also:

Neil Tyson at Penn State: Embrace Skepticism; Don't Buy into UFO Hype

"To Be a Skeptic Means to Evaluate Claims Skeptically, Not Just to Adhere to a Certain 'Party Line'"

[UFO] Skeptics or Debunkers?


SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

New Company, Truth Market Offers Cash Incentives To 'Expose or Prove' Political, Commercial and Scientific Claims

Bookmark and Share

TruthMarket

Launching the First Marketplace for Truth-Telling™, TruthMarket™ Offers the Public Tools and Incentives to Take Action Against False Political and Commercial Claims

By www.prweb.com
9-11-12

TruthMarket which enables grassroots, crowd-funding of cash incentives to challenge political and commercial lies and misrepresentations launches with live challenges to hot controversies

     Atherton, CA (PRWEB)– TruthMarket, a division of Truth Seal Corp., today announced its plans to play an aggressive role in improving the state of political and commercial communications by launching its Marketplace for Truth Telling. TruthMarket offers the public a platform that enables grass-roots crowd-funding of citizen campaigns to publicly expose false claims and reinforce true claims. Cash incentives will encourage individuals to initiate, challenge or prove political, commercial and science claims.

Rick Hayes-Roth, Ph.D., the founder of TruthMarket, states that “false claims, half-truths and biased polls are polluting public dialogue, tainting public opinion and undermining politics, commerce and public trust.” Instead of getting angry, he adds, "it’s time to do something constructive and give the public a mechanism to openly challenge false claims and reinforce honest dialogue." . . .

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

VIDCAST | Larry King Now: Tom DeLonge, James Fox, Michael Shermer and Chase Brandon Discuss UFOs On Larry's New Show (Full Episode)


Bookmark and Share

Tom DeLonge, James Fox, Michael Shermer and Chase Brandon Discuss UFOs On Larry's New Show





See Also:

VIDEO | Larry King Now: Larry's Back and He's Talking UFOs

LARRY KING LIVE | VIDCAST: ". . . Have UFOs Shut Down Our Government's Defense Systems?"

LARRY KING LIVE: Hawking's Warning On Aliens is Discussed with Dr. Michio Kaku, Dr. Seth Shostak, David Brin and Dan Aykroyd


SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

VIDEO | Larry King Now: Larry's Back and He's Talking UFOs


Bookmark and Share

Larry King, James fox, Michael Shermer & Tom DeLonge on Larry King Now





See Also:

LARRY KING LIVE | VIDCAST: ". . . Have UFOs Shut Down Our Government's Defense Systems?"

LARRY KING LIVE: Hawking's Warning On Aliens is Discussed with Dr. Michio Kaku, Dr. Seth Shostak, David Brin and Dan Aykroyd

UFO NEWS | Larry King to Host Show on New Internet TV Network


SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Is There No End to the Excuses We’re Given?


By Dennis Balthaser
1-24-08

Dennis Balthers, UFO, Excuses, Michael Shermer, James McGaha, Skeptics, Larry King     In a previous editorial I mentioned that I don’t normally research UFO topics such as sightings, abductions, crop circles or cattle mutilations, while concentrating on Roswell, Area 51, Underground Bases and the Pyramids of Giza. I do however have an interest when a high profile case comes along, trying to stay abreast of how it develops, is reported, and normally swept under the rug in a short time period.

In the last 10 years, 3 cases of sightings have surfaced which have generated an interest for me, and the official response to each case by the military and/or government agencies have followed a similar pattern, as well as the major media outlets handling of the information.

Recent television “news” shows such as Larry King Live on CNN is a good example. Devoting too much airtime to skeptics and debunkers like Michael Shermer and James Magaha, does absolutely nothing to educate the public on the information available, from credible witnesses. Both of these gentlemen have an obvious agenda that appears to feed directly into the television show host’s biased reporting of these events. Just once, I would like to hear Shermer or Magaha admit that we possibly don’t know what these witnesses are seeing, and allow a serious investigation to transpire. In my own research I welcome opposing views that have factual information presented, believing that I can become a better researcher by such views. Shermer and Magaha cannot accept the fact that many of these witnesses that come forward are simply asking for someone in authority to explain to them what they saw. In my opinion neither of these two gentlemen fall in to the “someone in authority”category. Those that are in authority of course seem to have had a lot of experience in not being truthful with the witnesses and the public when making an official statement, going as far back as the Roswell Incident 60 years ago.

Retired military personnel, serious researchers like Stanton Friedman, and others are invited on the shows, but often times are cut off or interrupted by the host or skeptics not giving a fair balance to the viewing public that is desiring information, consequently coming away with distorted information

Another serious mistake hosts like Larry King make are comments such as, “do you believe in UFOs?” UFOs EXIST, and have for many years, and have been admitted to by the military as far back as the 1940’s and 50’s, so it’s not a matter of “if” they exist, but rather in my opinion, what these UFOs are, which have not satisfactorily been explained in the three cases I will mention later.

Many television documentaries on the subject of UFOs follow the same biased approach. A good example of one such show was the National Geographic special, in which researchers Stanton Friedman, Don Schmitt , myself and others devoted our years of research freely to filming of the show, only to have the debunkers override the show to an extremely biased conclusion.

Many shows on television (documentaries and news shows), as well as newspaper articles that do report UFO incidents, insist on bringing what I refer to as the “woo-woo” aspect into what could, and should be reported as a story that could well be the story of the millennium. Why then do the people in tinfoil hats, sci-fi film clips have to be included? If that is their way of being balanced they obviously don’t understand the subject of Ufology to begin with, and is it any wonder that the subject is not taken more seriously than it is, due to the reporting it receives?

If we are ever to have objective coverage of this subject, changes must be made not only how television documentaries are presented, but news media outlets should also be presented differently than what has become the norm. Many radio show hosts are trying to do this in live interviews they conduct with serious researchers and witnesses, and I compliment them for doing so.

As for the military and government agencies that do publicly get involved in trying to explain a certain case, their historical record is also extremely questionable, and seems to get worse with each case. Remember we have had four excuses for what happened in Roswell in 1947 in the past 60 years, and many of us believe we have still not been told the truth. The excuses given in most cases are not satisfactory, and it is disheartening to me that witnesses must be made to look like they are not qualified to comment on what they saw, when the truth in most cases is the simple fact that the witnesses don’t know what they saw, and the excuses given do not correlate with what they saw. Is it any wonder that most sightings go unreported because of the ridicule, embarrassment or threats the witnesses will have to deal with, if they report it?

Having been in the military myself, and a proud life-long American supporter of our troops, I believe those military personnel in the United States that are supposedly in a position of authority, and in fact speaking for the military, are deceiving the public and in some case outright lying to us, and it must stop.

The three cases that I mentioned earlier that I have been interested in following the developments of are the Phoenix lights, the O’Hare airport case, and recently the Stephenville, Texas case. In all three cases credible witnesses have come forward asking someone to explain to them what they saw and experienced.

Of the three cases, the Phoenix lights probably had the most witnesses, with many taking photographs and video film of the event. The excuse given by those in authority and still used by skeptics and debunkers, was that the Phoenix lights were flares being dropped by the Maryland Air National Guard. Since the government is experienced in spending our tax money without accountability, why not notify the public in Phoenix that the Guard will again drop flares over the same location, same time of night and altitude, so they can again be filmed and compared with the original event.

The O’Hare airport case also had credible witnesses, (pilots and ground personnel) that witnessed a craft over the second busiest airport in the country and our government and military didn’t seem concerned with National Security, waving it off as a weather phenomenon. United Airlines even tried preventing the witnesses from commenting.

And now we have the Stephenville, Texas case, again with what appear to be several credible witnesses, and the military original stated no aircraft were in the area of the sightings. “TWO WEEKS LATER”, in the interest of public awareness, the military admits it was in error, and had “TEN” F-16 Fighters in the air near Stephenville on the night of the sightings. How the hell does the military loose or not be able to account for 10 F-16’s, (that are not quiet), being in the area of the sightings 2 weeks later. MUFON investigators and others are still investigating the Stephenville case, and I’ll await their findings, but I feel the military explanation after a 2-week delay was again unacceptable.

In all my years of doing research, I thought the Air Force had shot themselves in the foot several times, particularly with the 1997 “crash test dummies” excuse for Roswell, but I really believe they have outdone themselves with the Stephenville Texas sighting, by not accounting for ten F-16s for two weeks. How much longer will the American public have to put up with the excuses we are being given, when all we want to know is what is actually being seen by credible people who help to pay the salaries of these individuals in authority, that continue to give us lame excuses. It’s time for accountability.
McGaha Antics

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Larry King & UFOs in Texas

Larry King Logo & Flying Saucer
By CNN
1-24-08

     Was there a UFO sighting in Texas or not?

People saw something, but what?

Lots of controversy, lots of talking a cover-up next on LARRY KING LIVE.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was no even trail of any kind of flare behind it. It was a solid object with lights.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All of a sudden, at one time, they all just shot off in this direction over here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't explain it. We couldn't explain it. But it was real.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Earlier this month, several people witnessed mysterious lights in the Texas skies, and we sent our cameras to Stephenville, Texas to check out their claims. This is what we learned. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look off this way, we have some lights approaching us at a high rate of speed. Came within probably a mile of us, about 3,000 foot over the ground, very unusual lights, not from around here. It went past us towards Stephenville.

The lights reconfigured, turned into flames, and then it disappeared.

It came back by this way, and it had two military jets in pursuit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I looked back to the Southwest and there was a very bright light. A couple of seconds later, the second light came on. The next day, a friend of mine calls, and tells me about a UFO sighting that had come over my house. I'm not saying I saw a UFO, but with all the reports from everybody else, apparently that's what I saw.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They came right across the sky, across the northern edge of Stephenville, Texas, which I'm two blocks from the courthouse right here. They were quite large, and moved quite slowly. They were at low altitude and made absolutely no noise at all.

They were glowing red. The lights were moving together as though they were in formation, or attached together in some way, invisibly or something, I don't know. We don't know what they were.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Originally, the Air Force said nothing was going on in the area, but now they claim they were training that night. Is that true or is this a cover up? Let's meet our panel to see what they make of this information.

Here in Los Angeles, Captain Robert Salas, the United States Air Force, retired. Back in 1967, Bob was a missile launch officer at Maelstrom Air Force Base in Montana. He says a UFO hovered over his nuclear missile sight and disabled all the missiles. He wrote a book about it called "Faded Giant." In Washington, James Fox, the documentary filmmaker of "Out of the Blue." and in San Francisco, Michael Shermer, the publisher of "Skeptic Magazine," author of a new book titled "The Mind of the Market."

I know you weren't involved in this, captain, but does this story surprise you?

CAPT. ROBERT SALAS (RET), UNITED STATES AIR FORCE: It does not surprise me at all. Seems like every time there's a credible UFO story out there that involves the Air Force, the Air Force has some kind of reason to discredit it. Certainly, that was the case in my story, also.

KING: We're now also joined by Sergeant Jim Penniston, United States Air Force, retired, as is Captain Salas. He was a Woodbridge security supervisor at the Brentwaters Woodbridge Base. He said he sat with a UFO on the ground for 45 minutes before it hovered over him and shot into the air. Why weren't you taken seriously, sergeant?

SGT. JIM PENNISTON (RET), UNITED STATES AIR FORCE: Well, I believe that at the time, we were taken very seriously, just that I think the Air Force wanted to go ahead and make sure that they had a handle on the situation.

KING: James Fox, I know you have been probing this for a long time. We have never got an answer to this. Why do you think the Air Force doesn't want this out?

JAMES FOX, AUTHOR, "OUT OF THE BLUE": What are they going to say? We don't know what's flying around with impunity?

KING: Why can't they say that?

FOX: I wish they would. If the Air Force is listening tonight, why don't you tell us the truth?

KING: Why do you think they don't?

FOX: I think to admit that there are objects of unknown origin flying around in our airspace with impunity, that can fly rings around our fastest jets, they probably are fearful of releasing that information. I want to say something --

KING: Hold on, Jim. Michael, now that they have said that there were objects flying in the sky, do you think this is a cover up here or this is a cop out? What do you make of it?

MICHAEL SHERMER, "SKEPTIC MAGAZINE": I think before we assume that there's some sort of conspiratorial cover up, we have to remember that, you know, bureaucratic agencies are not always going to be swift to give a proper answer until they check with channels on what can be given to the American public in the interest of national security.

Remember, we're at war, so we are not likely going to be told about top secret aircraft and so on. Somebody has to check with somebody, has to check with somebody up top before they leak it to the press what was actually going on. We should expect that kind of thing, not a cover up, just national security interest.

KING: Do you think Captain Salas is lying? Do you think --

SHERMER: No, not at all. I think we're not always reliable observers. It's hard to say. We misunderstand, honestly misunderstand or misperceive things. I think before we say something is out of this world, let's first make sure that it's not in it. And just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it's, you know, extraterrestrial.

KING: I have to get a break, let me pick up with that and more on the comments of Michael right after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bunch of BS. If you all want to believe it, that's fine with me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There was something that just came straight across our house and then just zoomed right on off. And I don't know what it was, so --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it was just low flying airplane.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think your wife's crazy --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, it was not. I guarantee you it was not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Captain Salas, Michael is saying that you're not corrupt or anything, you just didn't see what you saw.

SALAS: I said I didn't even see a UFO. I was in a capsule, 60 feet under ground, and the UFO was reported by my topside guard. A bright red oval object hovering outside the front gate.

KING: He told you?

SALAS: He told me in very -- he was very agitated, frightened when he told me this over the phone. Now, the reason I believe that what he told me was true is because they had no access to our missile system. They had no way to control it. While this object was up there, my missiles shut down. And, these Minuteman Missiles are very reliable, as you might imagine. Nuclear weapons we're talking about here.

KING: Shut down.

SALAS: They shut down one after the other. I remember losing all of them. And not only that, but ten more missiles were shut down under similar circumstances; UFOs were observed at another launch control facility. So, this is 20 missiles in 1967 were shut down with UFOs.

KING: And sergeant, you sat with a UFO on the ground?

PENNISTON: Yes, I fully investigated it, myself and my team. We went around and checked the parameter of the craft out. We measured it. We took temperature readings. We took photographs. We did a complete examination, thorough examination of the craft on the ground.

FOX: Penniston, talk about the symbols that you saw on the craft. I find that remarkable.

PENNISTON: Well, the symbols -- if it wasn't astonishing enough just to have a craft like that in front of you, then, looking for crew compartments and things like that, and intakes, we find -- measuring about three feet, we find symbols that were etched into the side of the craft, that to this day, I have no idea what they are, but it's amazing.

KING: Where did the craft go?

PENNISTON: Well, after the 45 minutes, Larry, it went up -- it lifted off. It started emulating a very bright light. And it started to raise to tree top level, and then it momentarily sat there above the tree line and then took off at incredible rate of speed.

KING: Did it make a lot of sound?

FOX: No sound.

KING: No sound. James, you weren't there. Let him tell me.

FOX: Sorry.

KING: It made no sound, Jim?

PENNISTON: No sound, Larry. And the most interesting part that I found about it is that there was no air displacement. I mean, something leaving that fast has to have sonic booms. It was literally gone in a blink of an eye. It had to have air disturbance.

KING: James, we have asked you this before; why wasn't the Sergeant Penniston and the Captain Salas story front page news?

FOX: I don't know. You are forcing me to speculate, Larry.

KING: That's all we can do.

FOX: I think the lack of an explanation -- clearly, the Air Force feels compelled to come up with a conventional explanation, when clearly there just isn't one. We were in Stephenville for the last three with a whole camera crew, interviewing witnesses, and whatever it was, it certainly wasn't military jets, because, you know, a silent flight, 90 degree angle turns.

KING: I will go back to this. So, the -- let's forget the Air Force. The "New York Times" doesn't believe you? They don't believe Captain Salas. They don't believe Sergeant Penniston. They don't believe you. Right? Is that what our guess is? They don't believe you?

FOX: I think the tables are turning, don't you, Jim?

SALAS: Well, you know what, here is what I find. Let's talk about Texas, if you don't mind, about the Air Force in Texas. Here is a public relations officers, right, they release a statement from the 301st, saying that they made an error. I'm going to tell you right now, 21 years in the service, the Air Force don't release statements that say they made an error.

What they are doing is covering their tracks. If they said there were ten aircraft out there, out there in the area --

KING: Jim, I got to get a break. We'll come back to you. I want to get Michael's response to this. We are close on time.

Anderson Cooper will host "AC 360" at the top of the hour. What's up, Anderson?

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: We have breaking news from the campaign trail. A major endorsement that could have a major impact on two Republican -- one Republican and one Democratic candidate.

Also, Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in South Carolina today with the important primary less than 48 hours today. Senator Clinton returning to the state with a revised strategy, one her husband, President Clinton, talked about today. We will examine that closely.

We'll also take a closer look at accusations about Senator Obama, charges that he worked for a slum lord in Chicago. There's, of course, much more to it. We will keep them honest.

And searching for the Fountain of Youth some people think they found it. It's called Human Growth Hormone, HGH. A lot of celebrities in Hollywood are using it. How it can help and how it can hurt, tonight on 360.

KING: That's Anderson Cooper, "AC 360," 10:00, 7:00 Pacific. Tomorrow night, Ringo Starr is our special guest. We'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Moved through the forest, bobbing and avoiding trees. Something broke into other objects. I definitely saw something under intelligent control that could do things that I don't think any human can do. I went out to disprove what I had heard had taken place, and was thinking at the time, why did I ever get involved in this? Nobody's going to believe me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can't deny it. It did happen. It's proven that it did happen. I can't explain it. We couldn't explain it. But it was real.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Michael Shermer, do these accounts seem ill-founded to you?

SHERMER: Well, not ill-founded. We're not perfect observers, and I think it's important to remember that the general public, all of us, and most people in government are way behind the curve of whatever experimental technologies the Air Force may be working on. And, you know, we didn't find out about the U-2 Spy Plane until one was shot down. We didn't find out about the Stealth Bomber until many years after it had been flying over the Mojave desert.

In fact, it flies over my house in Pasadena every January 1st over the New Years Rose Parade. And it's really spooky looking. It's quiet. It's black like a hole in the sky. You don't hear it. Imagine that it was dusk and we didn't know about it, it would easily be interpreted as a UFO.

KING: Why do you disbelieve it, though?

SHERMER: I don't. I need to make a distinction between are there extraterrestrial out there somewhere and have they come here. Science, by nature, is skeptical. I publish "Skeptic Magazine," that's what we do. Because there are so many strange ideas out there, usually that don't turn out to be true, it's -- the default option is skepticism until you prove otherwise.

KING: Michael, would you have laughed, for example, at the Wright Brothers?

SHERMER: But we actually have the plane, and --

FOX: I want to say something really quickly.

SHERMER: -- Actual physical evidence.

FOX: We need to make the distinction. We're not talking about extraterrestrial. We're not talking about aliens. A UFO is a exactly that. It's an unidentified flying object. A lot of these citings defy conventional explanations. Why can't we just say we don't know what it was?

SHERMER: Of course we can.

FOX: We're not talking about aliens. You are the only one talking about aliens. We're not talking about aliens.

SHERMER: Your film is based on aliens.

(CROSS TALK)

KING: Captain?

SALAS: The point I want to make is, my incident happened in 1967. We have an object that hovered over our launch control facility, not only ours, but another launch control facility, disabled ten nuclear missiles. So, if the question is, was that a U.S. experimental aircraft 40 years ago, why haven't we seen that aircraft today.

SHERMER: Well, there were hover aircraft in the late '50s.

SALAS: This was not an aircraft, sir.

SHERMER: It's hard to say. You are the only eye witness to that. The difference between constructing an entire new world view based on fragments of evidence, you can't really do that. FOX: Fragments of evidence? There's not fragments of evidence. Go to the archives, Mr Shermer, and look into it, and you can easily establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that flying saucers have been whizzing around our air space since the '40s.

(CROSSTALK)

FOX: You agree with me that 95 percent of those are explained.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: We are going to take a break and be right back with some more moments. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. James Fox, why not a Congressional hearing into all of this?

FOX: we had congressional hearings back in '66, I believe in '68. It's time we had more Congressional hearings. People have to get together and put pressure from their constituents to your representative, and we need to get this thing over with. This is ridiculous.

KING: Sergeant Penniston, does it bug you that while the polls say 80 percent of the public believes there have been Unidentified Flying Objects, you tend -- people like you are not believed.

PENNISTON: You know, I -- it doesn't really bother me if they don't believe. I think the evidence is overwhelming. And, it's also compelling to believe that if these are unexplainable events, which the military clearly has demonstrated, then I would think that there would be higher numbers than that, as far as people believing in some type of the extraterrestrial craft. I would believe that.

KING: You think, Captain Salas, we're ever going to get the whole story?

SALAS: That's a good question, but I think we need to have the hearings. We need -- there's a preponderance of good witnesses out there that are ready, willing, able to testify. All my witnesses that I outline in my book, most of them are still alive, and would be more than willing to testify.

KING: In all honesty, I just recently ran into someone who, very logical person, who saw the Texas incident. He said, they were moving fast. They were making no sound. They were not airplanes. He wasn't crazy, Michael.

FOX: Can I say one thing really quickly?

KING: Hold it, James. Go ahead, Michael.

SHERMER: In science, there is the residue problem. In any given field, there's a residue of unexplained anomalies that no theory can account for every single one. So, James and I, for example, agree that 90 to 95 percent of all these thousands of sightings are explainable.

FOX: I agree.

SHERMER: What we're talking about is just that extra five or ten percent we can't explain. So, why not investigate, sure. But let's not construct a whole new world view around that.

FOX: We're not constructing a whole new world view. But I want to say really quickly, I met with a gentleman in Stephenville who unfortunately is not willing to go on the record right now because he's being harassed by the military. He's asked the military to stop harassing him. Their response is, stop talking about what you saw. And it's the most unambiguous -- he didn't see lights. He saw the craft.

SHERMER: Well --

FOX: And it was huge.

KING: They don't want him to talk about it?

FOX: He said, stop harassing me. They said, you stop talking about what you saw. I believe this guy. From the core of his being, he was being honest with me. There are being people harassed right now by the military, telling them to shut up.

SHERMER: What if it is a top secret military aircraft we don't want --

FOX: We should know about that technology. If they have technology that can fly around without making any sound without disturbing the wind, talking off in the flash of an eye -- it's obviously not getting here on Jet A fuel. With climate change and all these other issues, we should know about this technology. We paid for it.

SHERMER: In part, that's true. Except, on a need to know basis, there are certain national security reasons that people --

FOX: Then they've been hiding these craft for 60 years now. And I don't believe that.

KING: What are they afraid of, Michael?

SHERMER: Well, because if we have technologies, we don't want our enemies to know about. Naturally, we're not going to share it.

KING: Wait a minute. Iran is going to say, you -- we're going to do more on this. You never run out of stuff. Thanks for coming. Captain Salas' book is "Faded Giant."

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Do Extra-Solar Planets Really Exist?

Exoplanet

By Frank Warren
The UFO Chronicles
© 8-9-07


     For centuries the faith instilled in men of so-called science has weighed heavily on those who’ve looked towards the stars in regards to the existence of extra-solar planets. The cognition of heavenly bodies within our own solar system precipitated the belief there also exists what we call planets outside our solar neighborhood.

Ironically, at present just exactly what a planet is has come under scrutiny. The International Astronomers Union (IAU) is recognized as the world body in regards to resolving such matters; they state that the definition of a planet is “a body that orbits the Sun, it is large enough for its own gravity to make it round, and has 'cleared its neighborhood' of smaller objects.”

Paradoxically, by this definition alone there can be no extra-solar planets! This of course changes our astronomical history as Pluto does not fall under this definition.

Noteworthy allegations of exoplanets began in the 19th century; in 1855 Capt. W. S. Jacob of the Madras Observatory observed a binary star system, 70 Ophiuchi, to which he claimed it's orbit showed an anomaly, and it was "highly probable" that there was a planetary body in connection with this system. Moreover decade’s later, other prominent astronomers concurred with Jacob.

One hundred years later similar claims were made in regards to Barnard’s Star; today, current contemporaries have laid most of these allegations to the wayside.

At present exoplanet believers state that they have proof of the existence of over 200 extra-solar Jupiter sized planets; however, as Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!”

In addition, akin to what skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer has pointed out in regards to other alleged phenomenon, “science is open to that, but just being open to it and what we would like to be true, does not make it true.”

It’s important to note that exoplanet believers have no direct evidence for their claims, save one—a blurry picture of an alleged planet. Given today’s computer technology e.g., Photoshop etc., one has to wonder about the origins of the photograph. Perhaps the European astronomers who first made the claim and presented the image were looking for notoriety, and or monetary rewards.

Even if the photograph of the distant light is genuine, other exoplanet believers are hesitant to jump on board! Its been pointed out that the distant light (or alleged exoplanet) "can’t be confirmed in having a gravitational connection to what’s thought to be it’s host star.”

What that leaves is circumstantial allusions in support of the exoplanet believer’s theorems. The bulk of the exoplanets which are alleged to be in existence by believers have not been seen by anyone, or photographed (excepting the a fore mentioned “blurry photograph” of a distant light); they haven’t been traveled to, or physically investigated in any way; there is absolutely no physical evidence. Additionally, there isn’t anecdotal, eyewitness and or documental evidence of any past proof of the existence of exoplanets.

What believers are left with for the most part is a detection method for a star’s wobble, wherein the conjecture is made by believers that an exoplanet’s gravity is causing a slight pull on it’s host star. This method is called Doppler Spectroscopy—the observation of Doppler shifts in the spectrum of the star around which the planet orbits.

From the onset of this methodology, as well as the believer’s first claim of the existence of exoplanets—there has been controversy within their own camp.

One of the early stars purported to host an exoplanet was 51 Peg; Dr. David Gray (Univ. Western Ontario) published a paper back in '97 suggesting that some undulations or oscillations of the star, are responsible for the Doppler shifts, rather than an orbiting planet—this polarized the astronomical community, and although Gray’s position may be overlooked today, it hasn’t been rebutted in any definitive manner; henceforth the exoplanet believer’s methodology is arguably flawed.

Admittedly, there are other indirect schemes in regards to the stars which believers imagine may host exoplanets; however, these are also indirect contrivances.

In the end like Seth Shostak of SETI says, “The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not those who find the data dubious.” Finally, Michael Shermer concurs: [regarding science] “the default assumption is that whatever the claim is, it's not true until it's proved. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.”

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Friedman vs Shermer

The 'Thrilla' On C2C

Friedman vs Shermer-2
By Frank Warren
© 8-1-07

     Noted Physicist, as well as renowned Ufologist, “Stanton Friedman” will debate skeptic, “Dr. Michael Shermer” on “Coast To Coast Radio” with host, “George Noory” tonight.

On their web site, C2C writes, that they will be “debating SETI, UFOs, ET’s and religion, making contact, myth-making and aliens, space travel, and abduction cases.”

Friedman, Shermer as well as George Noory all appeared on the “Larry King Show” recently; however, the anticipated rational, balanced, intelligent dialogue that was expected never came to pass. In its place was what appeared to be a predisposition on King’s part, reflected by, his at times, mildly sardonic attitude, combined with his meek administration as moderator of his own show. The latter permitted Michael Shermer to exercise his belief that “talking louder” and or “over people” would make him right.

This being the case, there is great anticipation for a “properly moderated” debate where “both sides” can make their respective cases, and given equal time to rebut.

Personally, one of the things that irked me the most on LK’s show was Shermer’s relentless discourse on science, or from “his position,” “the lack thereof” in regards to Ufology. He yielded the word like a sword, but wouldn’t let anyone, particularly Stan, to respond (or at least be heard) and “enlighten” him on the “supportive scientific evidence” apropos to the subject.

Another faux pas of the King show was having so many guests on at one time; this might be a “lure” for viewers to “tune in” but makes for an “impossible forum” for an hour show less the commercials. Obviously, giving a couple of hours, or more for just two speakers/guests will allow for points to be made, as well as their respective rebuttals.

Tonight’s show will certainly be one “not to miss!” Your editor predicts a “first round KO” by Friedman, after “pounding sagacity into” his opponent’s “incredulous noodle.”