Very good point. On that same path, people may not agree with the data presented in my Body Snatchers, but I’m hardly a champion of the ET notion for Roswell, so that makes me a Roswell skeptic - albeit not a UFO skeptic.

There is this mentality in some quarters of ufology that you have to be a complete believer or a complete skeptic.

I’ve found that if we are honest with ourselves we all fall into that “Gray” (hoho) area.

Indeed, we need debunkers - like Stan Friedman, who debunked Bob Lazar.

Paul Kimball

BRAVO !!!!!! And Touche !!!!!!!!!
LOL!! ROTFLMAO !!!! You two have made my day!!!

Echoing what Nick wrote, I also want to add that if you take the time to look over the site, you will find that we do not have anything against skeptics or debunkers. What we do find annoying are fundamentalists of any stripe, be they UFO believers or non-believers.

Also, both Nick and I have been accused of being “skpetics,” so your accusations appear doubly strange and off-base.

What I find in T.V. shows on the paranormal is that if any skeptics are consulted, they are often the same ones (Joe Nickell and Michael Shermer, for example) offering similar explanations for widely differing scenarios.

The “skeptic” you refer to in connection with the Reed escapade is Royce Meyers, whose site I heartily recommend. I don’t consider him a classic “debunker,” although he has certainly brought to light a great deal of bunk in the UFO field!

P.S. While I may not agree with Stan Friedman, I would never bring up anyone’s appearance as a criteria for judging their work. Most would consider that sort of behavior as the mark of a morally and intellectually bankrupt whiner.

You have just written something truly remarkable - namely, something that totally distorts or misinterprets everything I said and which you comment on.

1. I *never* said that this list should be considered a cast in stone Top 10. Rather, I *specifically* pointed out that this was just a Top 10 put together by Paul, based on the various ufologists he had polled. I also said that my personal list would include other cases.

2. Re Stan: perhaps he may wish to reply to you calling him in a public forum a “BS artist”…

3. I specifically stated that the show contained good production and special effects. It is packed with visuals.

4. Your words re Rendlesham and what I *actually* said are so distorted as to be laughable.

Go back and read what I said. Absolutely nowhere did I say that Rendlesham and Roswell could be compared in terms of cases. What I actually said (and *all* I actually said) was the Roswell and Rendlesham were comparable in the fact that both had received a lot of commentary; both had been the subject of a lot of books; and both cases (regardless of what did or did not happen) involved a lot of people. And that was it. I make *no other* comparisons between the two, and certainly not the one you refer to re the spying balloon.

4. Re skeptics: again, you are *way* off mark. I actually said it can produce a “welcome balance” to get both sides across. And what I *actually* said and that angers me most is not that TV shows use skeptics, but that many such shows have a *pre-conceived* agenda to knock down the UFO angle, and so they then merely trot out the usual skeptics to comment. This is not a balanced approach of using beievers and skeptics. It is biased television. If you read my words again, you will see this: namely the problem I have is that it is the agenda of those TV shows/producers that have a conclusion in mind before they make the show! And although it certainly doesn’t happen everytime, I have personally seen this happen behind the scenes on shows I’ve been on.

And so what happens, is that the TV company in question often doesn’t employ the use of a skeptic to provide a balanced approach. Rather they employ the use of the skeptic to hammer home the conclusion/theory that the show wants promoting.

And I have to say that I have met far more skeptics who *haven’t* personally investigated the things they are commenting on, than I have uflogists who *have* personally investigated the things they are commenting on.

To go back to Stan, for example: those of us in Ufology may not agree on everything, but Stan has traveled extensively to archives in search of documents, for probably 100s of hours.

Paul traveled to the UK to interview people for the Rendlesham angle of the show. I have seen more than a few skeptics who have done neither, but instead who have merely pontificated about why this or that cannot be so from their living rooms.

So, I have no problem with people being skeptical per se. But I have a *big* problem with skeptics being used in TV shows to merely comment on a theory that the channel or writer or producer wants to use to knock down the UFO theory.

The main reason why I may not watch Paul’s doc. is because it sounds like it’s going to be mostly talking heads with no visuals which in UFOlogy is the main interest; something you can see. You can always read reports but it’s the visuals that keep and hold interest. Rather than reading about reports, no matter how well documented they are and no matter the respectability of the reporter(s), there are enough photos/films/videos to make the list into the hundreds, so 10 cases in 2007 is meaningless.

It bothers me someone as respected as Nick uses Roswell as a reference when he says: “Rendlesham Forest, England UFO landing of December 1980 that can arguably be classed as the British Roswell.” By using Roswell, it is understood then that a spying balloon train fell, NOT CRASHED!, in Rendlesham Forest for that is what happened in the vicinity of Roswell and Nick because he wasn’t personally there, nor anyone else can disprove that FACT.

Finally, Nick doesn’t like skeptics nor debunkers. Why is this? It is only natural to be a skeptic in light of insufficient evidence or questionable evidence as in the alien autopsy. And I’ve been a debunker and I’m proud of it. After extremely serious research I debunked not only Fred Steckling’s claims of alien bases on the moon, but another UFO personality on the West Coast who was bilking the gullible by claiming that he could contact UFOs and direct them in front of an audience. He was a liar and I proved him so.

So before you rail againts skeptics and debunkers, in general, be specific and name names and why you disagree with their skeptical view(s) and who debunked something or someone who later turned out to be innocent. For instance, the story of Dr. Jonathan Reed is viewed skeptically by more than a few UFO experts. A debunker did a great point-by-point debunking. We need skeptics and debunkers!

http://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Universe-Mechanics-Participating-Collection/dp/3540724133/ref=sr_1_1/104-3716947-3615932?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181478452&sr=1-1

Jess

Paul

Paul