Is There No End to the Excuses We’re Given? (By Dennis Balthaser)

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 . . .

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

Cheers,
Frank

I couldn't agree more. Why have a "skeptic" that doesn't say anything logical? Again as I said in another thread, these shows should have someone from www.defensetech.org or Jane's Defence on.

Shermer's catch all answers are worthless, he could say "flying dinner fork" was what everyone saw because it keeps the alien answer off his lips and helps him to sell his magazine. Not that Shermer is always wrong, I don't mean to demonize him, he is right about some nonsense out there, but his views are stuck in what science believes "now".

Imagination is what spurs scientific advancement but Shermer in his mind draws a line at "what we know now is all I'm going to admit as a legitimate answer". That's fine, someone needs to play that part in the debate, but when you don't acknowledge that position is shakey, then it becomes an ego over reason statement.

reply to post by Atomic


Ha, not true at all.

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.

The program I saw the other gave far more time to wintnesses of UFO events. When there are two sides trying to prove points why just have on sides argument, thats like controlled media, the very thing some of our members say we have and is unfair yet they are calling for it!!! In Shermers defense he did say it could be Military black project technology they can't talk about due to national security, which IMO is the most likely answer as this thing is now showing up everywhere over the past 10 years.

Originally posted by pompano
In Shermers defense he did say it could be Military black project technology they can't talk about due to national security, which IMO is the most likely answer as this thing is now showing up everywhere over the past 10 years.

Yes, it could very well have been a military black project.. however, Michael Shermer doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of extra-terrestrial life being visiting Earth.

His position is that there's only 2 possibilities: people misidentified what they saw or it was a black project. In his opinion looking for any other answer is a waste of time.

Disregarding possibilities and not wanting to research them just because they go against your personal opinion or belief has a name: bad science.


edit: spelling.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by danx]

reply to post by pompano


Michael Shermer's background is in psychology(!), not aerospace engineering...he is the wrong guy to have on to give alternate answers. I mean I could, or you could, or anyone on this board could say "black budget" but that doesn't make us an expert on unknown aerial phenomenon. He's not the right guy to have representing the counterargument, he doesn't have the credentials. If you were having a heart attack, would you want a guy that writes TV scripts for Grey's Anatomy operating on you, or a doctor that's a heart specialist?

I mean if I was hosting a show, I would say "Well Michael...what craft, what propulsion system, what use, and what scientific sources do you have that explain what the witnesses saw? What experience do you have in the military aerospace arena that makes you an expert to be on my show explaining these craft?".

I'm not saying he's wrong, or that it can't be military, but you can't just substitute the magical catch phrase: "black budget" for "aliens" and get away with it and not be challenged in the same manner. There are holes in the "black budget" answer when it comes to this (James Fox did a great job explaining this on King's show). This phenomenon isn't new, so you have to look back even before WWII and say "hey I wonder where a craft like that came from before we even had a black budget?". I like Shermer as a person and how he challenges people, but he's generalizing in this case.

Not every past UFO has been proven to be military, so why should this one be accepted immediately as the final answer?