Skeptical Inquirer magazine: Published by UFO Skeptics or Disinformation Agents?

reply to post by Imtor


Imtor, thought you made some fair points there mate and I also thought Terry Hansen brought up some intriguing points about CSICOP in Mr Hasting's article -I don't know if you've seen it before but he's conducted some extensive research into the corporate media's involvement with the UFO subject and there's a good presentation by him below that's well worth a watch.

Google Video Link

Hansen continues, “CSICOP can accurately be described as a propaganda organization because it does not take anything approaching an objective position regarding UFOs. The organization’s stance is militantly anti-UFO research and it works hard to see that the news media broadcast its views whenever possible. When the subject of UFOs surfaces, either in the news media or any other public forum, CSICOP members turn out rapidly to add their own spin to whatever is being said. Through its ‘Council for Media Integrity’ CSICOP maintains close ties with the editorial staffs of such influential science publications as Scientific American, Nature, and New Scientist. Consequently, it’s not too hard to understand why balanced UFO articles seldom appear in those [magazines].”

link

Cheers.

Very relevant video, karl12, clarifying an important aspect of the UFO question in general.
Thanks for posting.

And the thread title somewhat interesting, raising the question of the motives of disinformation agents (those who believe UFOs are real yet work to convince the public otherwise) who pose as sincere skeptics. Is it just following orders, good pay, true belief that the public must be protected from this information, some combination of those, the notion that if ET wants to stay hidden it’s probably wise, in some cases something more sinister, or what?

Drunkenparrot, who posted an excerpt from the 341st Wing History (I incorrectly called it a preliminary report in a previous post) relating to the Echo Flight shutdowns, in which it was claimed that "Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight during the time of fault were disproven..." won't be interested in the facts surrounding this officially-sanctioned sleight-of-hand--since his mind is made up--but others reading this post might benefit from the following excerpt from my book:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Regarding the supposed non-involvement of UFOs in the incident, [researcher Jim] Klotz eventually located and interviewed the wing historian, David Gamble, who had actually written the lengthy document. Gamble told Klotz that while compiling material for the history, he had in fact learned of reports of UFO activity within Malmstrom’s missile field. However, when he inquired about those reports, Gamble said he had received “no cooperation” from those in-the-know and, furthermore, stated that written changes regarding “the UFO aspect of the missile shutdown incident” had later been made by his superiors.

Consequently, official version of the wing history states, “Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight during the time of the fault were disproven.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In other words, the passage in the document was a deliberate effort by Gamble's superiors to squelch rumors of UFO activity at Echo. On the other hand, those who say that UFOs were indeed present at the time of the shutdown include Col. Walter Figel--one of the launch officers on duty, who took the call from the guard who was observing the "large, round object" hovering "directly over" one of the Echo missile sites--as well as missile maintenance tech Hank Barlow, who brought up some of the missiles, who says that he was explicitly told of a UFO-involvement by persons at the Echo Launch Control Facility just hours after the shutdown. And, of course, there is the link to the audiotaped statement by Boeing engineer Robert Kaminski that I posted earler, in which he says he was told of a UFO-involvement in the Echo shutdowns by his liaison at Malmstrom.

Anyone who has not actually listened to my taped conversations with Figel, available at my website, is spinning his wheels. And people wonder why I don't spend a lot of time posting on blogs. Let's see: do I spend time researching, on the one hand, or waste time arguing with biased people too lazy to do their own research or even review my documented work, on the other.

Hmmmmm. Tough choice...

BTW, Xtrozeo, who said there was no nukes-related UFO activity in the 1980s? You didn't experience it, but others did. You can't even spend a few minutes reading the articles at my website to learn how wrong you are. It's much easier to just post another of your uninformed comebacks. The "for what purpose?" question has been answered--as best as possible, given the fragmentary data currently available--on my About page.

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Oh you don't do you, well I most certainly do and believe most skeptics fall into that category myself and a host of others as well.

The vast majority of people on all the polls are believers by the way.

So to actually want proof of something or debunk something means you're a disinformation agent? The internet is teeming with disinformation very little of it from the sceptical crowd.