Leading Skeptics and Debunkers

Dr. Donald H. Menzel

Dr. Edward Condon

Edward Uhler Condon was a distinguished American nuclear physicist, a pioneer in quantum mechanics, and a participant in the development of radar and nuclear weapons during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project. The Franck–Condon principle and the Slater–Condon rules are co-named after him.

He was the director of the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) from 1945 to 1951. In 1946, Condon was president of the American Physical Society, and in 1953 was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

During the McCarthy period, when efforts were being made to root out communist sympathizers in the United States, Edward Condon was a target of the House Un-American Activities Committee on the grounds that he was a 'follower' of a 'new revolutionary movement', quantum mechanics; Condon defended himself with a famous commitment to physics and science.

Condon became widely known in 1968 as principal author of the Condon Report, an official review funded by the United States Air Force that concluded that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) have prosaic explanations. The lunar crater Condon is named for him.

The Condon Report

In the late 1960's, the United States Air Force issued a contract to the University of Colorado to carry out a scientific study of evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. The director of the project was Prof. Edward U. Condon, a distinguished and influential physicist who made no secret of his opinion even at the outset that no substantive evidence for extraterrestrial visitation was liable to result. The study was relatively brief (2 years) and had a notably low budget (app. $500K) for a serious scientific study. When the Condon Report was released in 1968, the American scientific community accepted its negative apparent conclusion concerning evidence for extraterrestrial visitation in a generally uncritical way, and to some extent even an enthusiastic way since it offered an end to a troublesome situation. An endorsement of the Report by the National Academy of Sciences took place following an unusually rapid review and the Air Force quickly used the Report as a justification to terminate any further public involvement with the topic of UFOs. Project Blue Book closed up shop. The negative conclusion of the Report is more apparent than real however, since there is a substantial discrepancy between the conclusion in the "Summary of the Study" written by Condon singlehandedly, and the conclusion one could reasonably draw from the evidence presented in the body of the Report. (Bernard Haisch, UFOSkeptic.org)

In 1968, Dr. Condon stated:

"Unidentified flying objects are not the business of the Air Force."

Phil Klass

Dr. Carl Sagan

Robert Sheaffer

Michael Shermer

(The Amazing) James Randi

James Randi is a retired professional magician ("The Amazing Randi"), author, lecturer, amateur archaeologist/astronomer. Born in 1928 in Toronto, Canada, where he received his high school education. He was naturalized a U.S. citizen in 1987, and now lives in Florida. He is single.

James Oberg

James Edward Oberg (born 1944) (often known as Jim Oberg) is an American space journalist and historian, regarded as an expert on the Russian space program.

After service in the US Air Force, he joined NASA in 1975, where he worked until 1997 at Johnson Space Center on the Space Shuttle program. He worked in the Mission Control Center for several Space Shuttle missions from STS-1 on, specialising in orbital rendezvous techniques. This culminated in planning the orbit for the STS-88 mission, the first International Space Station assembly flight.

During the 1990s, he was involved in NASA studies of the Soviet space program, with particular emphasis on safety aspects; these had often been covered up or downplayed, and with the advent of the ISS and the Shuttle-Mir programs, NASA was keen to study them as much as possible. He privately published several books on the Soviet (and later Russian) programs, and became one of the few Western specialists on Russian space history. He speaks English, French, and Russian and has used his language skills and a friendly demeanor to gain access to the heart of the Russian and European space establishments. (As a result, he has often been called to testify before the US Congress on the Russian space program.)

In the 1990s, Oberg authored Space power theory, sponsored by United States military as a part of an official campaign in changing perceptions of space warfare, specifically deployment and use of weapons in outer space, and its political implications. In Oberg's view, "space is not an extension of air warfare but is unique in itself."

As a journalist, he writes for several regular publications, mostly online; he was previously space correspondent for UPI, ABC and currently MSNBC, often in an on-air role. He is a Fellow of the skeptical organization CSICOP and a consultant to its magazine Skeptical Inquirer. In 1991, PBS transformed his book Red Star In Orbit into a documentary series. HBO has optioned Red Star in Orbit for some future made-for-TV miniseries. At about the same time Oberg launched a six-year battle for official recognition of Robert Henry Lawrence, Jr. (1935–1967) as a United States astronaut; United States Air Force officially recognized Lawrence in January 1997.

James McGaha

Paul Kurtz

Paul Kurtz (born December 21, 1925 in Newark, New Jersey) is best known for his prominent role in the United States skeptical community. He has been called "the father of secular humanism." He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, having previously also taught at Vassar, Trinity, and Union colleges, and the New School for Social Research.

Kurtz has published of over 800 articles or reviews and has authored and edited over 50 books. Many of his books have been translated into over 60 languages world-wide. Among his most important[citation needed] are "The Transcendental Temptation," "Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Secularism," , "The Courage to Become," and "Multi-Secularism: A New Agenda." His published bibliography of writings from 1952 to 2003 runs over 79 pages.

Kurtz founded the publishing house Prometheus Books in 1969. He is also the founder and past chairman of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)), the Council for Secular Humanism, and the [Center for Inquiry]. On May 18, 2010, he resigned from all these positions. Moreover, the Center for Inquiry accepted his resignation as chairman emeritus and board member, the culmination of a years-long "leadership transition," thanking him "for his decades of service" while alluding to "concerns about Dr. Kurtz’s day-to-day management of the organization."

Seth Shostak

SETI Institute Senior Astronomer

Seth is an astronomer with a BA in physics from Princeton and a PhD in astronomy from Caltech, and is involved with the Institute's SETI research. But he's also responsible for much of the outreach activities of the Institute. He is science editor for "The Explorer", gives more than 50 talks annually for both academic and general audiences, and writes magazine articles (and books) about SETI. He also teaches informal education classes on astronomy and other topics in the Bay Area, and is the inventor of the electrical banana, a circumstance he claims has had little positive effect on his life. He is the host for the SETI Institute's weekly radio program Are We Alone?

Before coming to SETI, Seth did research work on galaxies using radio telescopes at observatories and universities in America and Europe. His avocations include photography, filmmaking, and electronics.

Dr. Jill Tarter

Astronomer Jill Tarter is Director of the Institute’s Center for SETI Research, and also holder of the Bernard M. Oliver Chair for SETI. She is one of the few researchers to have devoted her career to hunting for signs of sentient beings elsewhere, and there are few aspects of this field that have not been affected by her work.

Jill was the lead for Project Phoenix, a decade-long SETI scrutiny of about 750 nearby star systems, using telescopes in Australia, West Virginia and Puerto Rico. While no clearly extraterrestrial signal was found, this was the most comprehensive targeted search for artificially generated cosmic signals ever undertaken. Now Jill heads up the Institute’s efforts to build and operate the Allen Telescope Array, a massive new instrument that will eventually comprise 350 antennas, each 6 meters in diameter. This telescope will be able to enormously increase the speed, and the spectral search range, of the Institute’s hunt for signals. A subset of the full array will begin operations in the Fall of 2007.

Joe Nickell

Joe Nickell (born December 1, 1944) is a prominent skeptical investigator of the paranormal. He also works as an historical document consultant and has helped expose such famous forgeries as the purported diary of Jack the Ripper. In 2002 he was one of a number of experts asked by scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. to evaluate for authenticity the manuscript of Hannah Crafts' The Bondwoman's Narrative (1853–1860), possibly the first novel by an African-American woman.[2]

Nickell is Senior Research Fellow for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and writes regularly for their journal, the Skeptical Inquirer. He is also an associate dean of the Center for Inquiry Institute. He is the author or editor of numerous books.

Nickell holds B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Kentucky. His Ph.D. is in English for graduate work focusing on literary investigation and folklore.

Nickell has worked professionally as a stage magician, carnival pitchman, private detective, blackjack dealer, riverboat manager, university instructor, author, and paranormal investigator, as well as listing over 200 "personas" on his website.

Nickell has evaluated manuscripts and written works for authenticity, including the purported diary of Jack the Ripper (which he helped to reveal as a forgery), and Hannah Crafts' mid-nineteenth century novel The Bondwoman's Narrative, whose authenticity he supported.

Bill Nye (The Science Guy)

Dr. Michael Persinger

Michael A. Persinger (born June 26, 1945) is a cognitive neuroscience researcher and university professor with over 200 peer-reviewed publications. He has worked at Laurentian University, located in Sudbury, Ontario, since 1971.

Michael Persinger was born in Jacksonville, Florida and grew up primarily in Virginia, Maryland and Wisconsin. He attended Carroll College from 1963 to 1964, and graduated from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1967. He then obtained an M.A. in physiological psychology from the University of Tennessee and a Ph.D. from the University of Manitoba in 1971.

During the 1980s he stimulated people's temporal lobes artificially with a weak magnetic field to see if he could induce a religious state (see God helmet). He claimed that the field could produce the sensation of "an ethereal presence in the room". This research has received wide coverage in the media, with high profile visitors to Persinger's lab Susan Blackmore and Richard Dawkins reporting positive and negative results respectively. Dawkins reported a range of minor effects (relaxation, sensations in his limbs, etc.), while Blackmore reported "One of the most extraordinary experiences" she had ever had.

Michael Persinger has also contributed to research into the Miracle of the sun at Fatima and other Marian apparitions. He theorized that the stimulation of the cerebral-temporal lobe may have been the actual cause of the Marian apparition phenomenon. He believes the religious content of the experiences may have been a result of their obsession with religious themes and their lack of education. He has contributed to 2 papers about The Miracle of the Sun.

Persinger has also come to public attention due to his 1975 Tectonic Strain Theory (TST) of how geophysical variables may correlate with sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Persinger argued that strain within the Earth's crust near seismic faults produces intense electromagnetic (EM) fields, creating bodies of light that some interpret as glowing UFOs. Alternatively, he argued that the EM fields generate hallucinations in the temporal lobe, based on images from popular culture, of alien craft, beings, communications, or creatures. In the UK, Paul Devereux advocates a variant geophysical theory similar to TST, the Earthlights theory. However, unlike Persinger, Devereaux generally restricts such effects to the immediate vicinity of a fault line. Devereux's approach also differs from Persinger's in holding triboluminescence rather than piezoelectricity as the "more likely candidate" for the production of naturally occurring UFOs. Devereux doesn't advocate, as in Persinger's TST, that the phenomenon might create hallucinations of UFO encounters in people, instead proposing an even more radical hypothesis: that earthlights may possess intelligence and even have the ability to read witness' thoughts.

UFO researchers critical of the tectonic strain theory admit that, while observations of diffuse lights during (and sometimes before and after) very severe earthquakes may give some weak support to some parts of TST and Earthlights theory (see Earthquake lights), they question the ability of fault lines to generate luminous effects and hallucinatory experiences under much less severe conditions(as cited above). Nonetheless, even TST critics such as Rutowski think such theories may hold some promise for explaining a small percentage of UFO phenomena, although they doubt that they can ever offer a comprehensive explanation for the vast majority of unexplained UFO cases. Other UFO researchers (mainly in the U.K) believe this very limited interpretation of the TST is brought into question by the clustering of UFO reports within areas prone to faulting - such as the Pennine region of northern Britain. While acknowledging the drawbacks of Persinger's theory, they feel that amended versions of it may account for a significant proportion of "True UFO" reports.

Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson

John Prytz (John Prytz)

Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Philosophy On UFOs: Some Comments

Sooner or later, nearly every astronomer, especially if they have a relatively high public profile, has got to face the UFO issue and expound upon whether there is any scientific credibility to the idea that some UFOs are bona-fide alien spacecraft. One such astronomer, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson of the Hayden Planetarium, New York City, has indeed made his point of view known. He doesn't deny the theoretical possibility, but that is about as far as the credibility goes. I take issue with some of his opinions as this essay details.

When it comes to the emotive subject of UFOs (as in alien spacecraft), scientists just don't want to know or enter into the debate if it can possibly be avoided, for the prime reason that those who make the UFO = alien spaceship equation fail to either put up or shut up. That's 'put up' in terms of the sorts of evidence that scientists tend to have to 'put up' when they make claims. If they have to 'put up', they expect in turn that others will 'put up' evidence to them. The scientific consensus is that UFO = alien spaceship buffs haven't done an adequate job in the 'put up' department. One such scientist with that point of view (POV) is the fairly well known astronomer, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson. While overall reasonably correct in that POV, some of his arguments are flawed and lack credibility in my POV.

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on UFOs.mp4

When it comes to evidence for this or that explanation for a UFO sighting, especially the UFO = alien spacecraft explanation, eyewitness testimony is suspect. Or so relates astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson via several YouTube clips relevant to his take on UFOs. But wait, there's more!

Dr. Tyson quite correctly points out that the "U" in UFO stands for "unidentified" and that's as far as anyone seeing, what to them is an Unidentified Flying Object, can expound upon. One should not jump to the conclusion that "U" equals alien spacecraft. No argument there. However, he also points out, an equally valid comment, is that we don't like mysteries like things that are unidentified and so therefore we do tend to jump the gun and jump to unwarranted conclusions in order to identify the unidentified and maybe unidentifiable. No argument from me there either other than to point out that we leap to the conclusion of UFOs = alien spaceships in favour of some other explanation probably because there must be something suggestive of that possibility; there's something in the observational date that points to alien ships and not to something else.

He notes that there exist natural phenomena and conditions which can befuddle someone not familiar with those phenomena. No argument on that observation either.

HUMAN PERCEPTION

But he goes slightly off the rails by suggesting the least likely form of bona-fide evidence is human perception or eyewitness testimony. Optical illusions are a case in point as he delights in pointing out. However, relative to man-made or designed optical illusions, there are not all that many natural ones, although there are some of course, like mirages or that 'sinking' ship as it passes beyond the visible horizon.

I get the impression from Dr. Tyson's comments that eyewitness testimony has as much reliability as a $7 bill. Human perception is absolutely 100% fallible. Although eyewitness testimony is a cornerstone in legal proceedings, courtroom lawyers have a field day in discrediting eyewitness testimony. Experiments by psychologists prove overwhelmingly that any sudden and unexpected event witnessed by ten people will result in ten different versions of what happened, but not drastically so. I mean ten witnesses will differ on the height, weight and attire of the person in the unexpected happening, but they won't differ on the fact that it was a human and not an elephant!

Humans are actually pretty good when it comes to the details, otherwise why would law enforcement officials ask you to point out the criminal in a police line-up or the news reporters question witnesses to some unusual news happening? To take just one of thousands of possible examples, you can easily tell your face from your parent's faces and from the face of every other person you know (in person) or have frequently seen (like Dr. Tyson's on YouTube). You know a new and different face when you see one. You can tell a human face from say a reconstructed one of Homo erectus. You can distinguish a primate face from a feline face from a canine face from a bovine face. You can tell apart the face of a penguin or an eagle from their ancient ancestor, the T-Rex. If you can't tell apart a frog face from a crocodile face from a shark face from a spider's face, there's something seriously askew. Assuming there's nothing askew; you can tell apart all these examples of faces despite the fact that they are all faces.

Therefore, in your day-to-day life, 99.9% of what other people tell you they saw (i.e. - Joe Blow drinking down at the pub) you'll believe them. Human perception is flawed, but it's all you got for all practical purposes - despite zillions of smart-phone cameras around snapping anything and everything. People don't tend to tell you they saw Joe Blow at the pub AND show you their smart-phone camera picture of Joe Blow at the pub since you obviously wouldn't believe them without the pictorial backup.

In any event, perception in humans usually tends to be more than adequate, say when driving a car or playing a game of baseball. Humans have an excellent innate ability to judge height, depth, colour, direction of sound, types of sounds, motion, velocity (speed plus direction), etc. We'd better have those skills if we are to survive day-to-day; week-to-week; month-to-month; etc. from birth through death.

THE GAME OF TELEPHONE

Dr. Tyson makes much of the child's game of 'telephone' and how that relates to evidence of how unreliable eyewitness (or ear-witness) testimony is. It's that version of someone who told someone, who told someone, who told someone, who told someone, who told someone, etc. etc. That story that goes in ear number one ends up usually bearing little relation to what the last person in the chain relates what they were told. Cases where someone who told someone repeated many times over on down the line are indeed suspect, but that's not usually the case with UFO sightings. 'Telephone' is actually pretty irrelevant to UFO reports since the chain is usually just a chain of one link between two individuals - the UFO witness relates first-hand their story to the UFO investigator. There's no twenty-something someone who told someone links here. Direct first-person testimony is written down or otherwise recorded for posterity.

THE INEXPERIENCED LAYPERSON

Dr. Tyson makes the point that average Joe Blow citizen isn't usually all that familiar with astronomical and meteorological and optical phenomena and thus sightings of lights in the sky are frequently misinterpreted - Venus becomes an alien spaceship. However, not all UFOs sighted are reports of dot points of lights in the sky. UFOs have been seen close up on the ground and often exhibit a substantial disc when seen in the sky. That's why the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek (who was a pioneer in the scientific study of UFOs while also an astrophysicist like Dr. Tyson) came up with that category of UFO sightings called "close encounters" where misidentification of say a star for an alien spacecraft is unlikely since a star never exhibits a substantial 2-D or 3-D geometric shape.

ABDUCTIONS

Dr. Tyson also suggests (tongue-in-cheek?) that if you are abducted, you grab (steal) something off the alien's shelf in order to back up your claim with something that can be put on the slab in a lab for independent testing. That's flawed for several reasons. Assuming you've been abducted by aliens, you've got to think of it at the time under rather trying circumstances. That's if you're not naked on the slab being poked and prodded - you have no pockets available in which to squirrel something away, assuming there is anything in arm's reach to squirrel away in any event. That's also assuming you are not being watched. Even if you do nick off with something, elements and compounds tend to be uniform across the cosmos so an alien ashtray or knife could be made of the same stuff as a terrestrial ashtray or knife. Any alleged alien artefact would clearly have to be of such a nature as to rule out any terrestrial origin or a hoax. It's a sensible suggestion but a way more likely bet is that any alleged UFO abductee would pick up alien micro-organisms which might be detectable and cultured as evidence.

ALIEN PSYCHOLOGY

One obvious flaw in Dr. Tyson's reasoning is that, according to Dr. Tyson, if UFOs are alien spacecraft, why should said aliens land in a farmer's field as opposed to something more visible like touching down in Times Square (New York City). Well, aliens, by definition, are alien and will have alien motives; an alien psychology. We cannot determine before the fact how aliens should behave since we have no studies to hand on alien wetware, alien neurochemistry and alien motivations.

INEPT ALIENS: SHIT HAPPENS

Dr. Tyson also ridicules UFOs as alien spacecraft by noting the [Roswell] crash. How can advanced high-tech aliens navigate and travel across the galaxy then end up crash-landing? They must be pretty stupid inept aliens. Actually, it is in this case, an unusually inept example of reasoning by Dr. Tyson. Dr Tyson - shit happens! How many UFOs (if alien spacecraft) haven't crashed? Nearly all would be an appropriate answer. And how many of our Mars-bound probes have coasted safely through the relative vastness of interplanetary space only to crash onto the Martian surface at the final moment. Sometimes, albeit rarely, we have aircraft crashes. Most times aircraft don't crash. If terrestrial shit happens, extraterrestrial shit happens. These are fallible aliens, not infallible deities.