The attack dogs of ufology are usually pretty good at going after guys like me whenever we say or write anything that is even remotely skeptical. Fair is fair - if one is going to step into the public arena and hold forth on any subject, one can expect some criticism, even of the mean-spirited, personal attack variety.
However, I wonder whether these ufological pit bulls are going to go after Michael Salla just as quickly, and vehemently, for his most recent Exopolitics Journal column, wherein he labels ufologists Stan Friedman, Kevin Randle and Brad Sparks as "debunkers".
I would hope so, but I doubt it - "even-handed" and "fair-minded" are not two terms that I would associate with these people, although maybe this time they'll prove me wrong.
For those who missed it, here is what Salla, who will apparently go to any lengths in order to promote exopolitics fraud Philip Corso, wrote about Stan, Kevin and Brad:
"Some of Corso's critics have gone so far as publicly dismissing Col. Corso as a fraud and 'literary hoaxer'. Corso's strongest critics include veteran UFO researchers such as Stanton Friedman, Dr. Kevin Randle and Brad Sparks who collectively have expressed their skepticism. Many of the criticisms made against Corso cross the Rubicon dividing objective criticism and outright debunking. This invites speculation of the motivations of Corso's critics who undertake such a concerted debunking effort against a highly decorated whistleblower whose revelations do much to clarify the UFO phenomenon."
In other words, if you disagree with Michael Salla, no matter how much good, hard work you've put in over the years (decades!) researching and writing about the UFO phenomenon, and no matter how reasoned and well researched your critiques might be, then you are a "debunker" - no better than the dreaded Phil Klass (somewhere Klass is no doubt spinning in his grave)!
In case you weren't sure where Salla stands, however, here is what he wrote about Brad:
"Sparks' criticisms of Corso fail to be consistent. Sparks has been the most dismissive of all Corso's critics when it comes to Corso's background. This suggests to this author that he is motivated to disparage Corso regardless of the documentary evidence supporting Corso's claims."
This is ludicrous, as anyone who has read Brad's detailed rebuttals of Salla's Corso hooey over the past year is aware. He's waded through more UFO-related documents, and talked to more genuine insiders, than most of the rest of us, including Salla, will ever see or talk to in a lifetime. Brad is motivated to get at the truth of the matter, even when it requires him to reconsider his own previously held positions in light of new evidence. To suggest otherwise is shameful.
What about Stan and Kevin?
"In the case of Friedman and Dr. Randle, both try to disparage Corso by emphasizing his alleged claim in his affidavit of having served on the NSC itself. They ignore Corso's repeated statements, made earlier, to having been a staffer assigned to the NSC. They put great emphasis on what is obviously an oversight on Corso's part that can be attributed to his deteriorating health. They ignore previous interviews and writing which consistently claim that Corso had served on the NSC staff. This suggests both Friedman and Randle are intentionally posturing to disparage the significance of Corso's testimony by over emphasizing inconsistencies in his testimony."
Newsflash for Salla - Kevin, and especially Stan, have been two of the most vocal proponents of the ETH, crashed saucers, government conspiracies (they created the terms "Conspiracy of Silence" and "Cosmic Watergate", for Pete's sake) and covert groups (MJ-12 for Stan, the "Unholy 13" for Kevin) for decades now. If they don't buy Corso's story, that should tell you something!
Salla then concludes:
"The failure of Randle, Sparks and Friedman to consider alternative explanations for inconsistencies in Corso's testimony; their overblown emphasis on the significance of the inconsistencies; and their lack of effort to reach a balanced conclusion over the pros and cons of Corso's testimony, suggests they have crossed the Rubicon from objective criticism into debunking."
Here's the truth, folks.
Stan, Kevin and Brad have all responded as politely and patiently as possible to Dr. Salla's "theories" over the past year - Kevin, at his blog "A Different Perspective", even printed, without comment, a rebuttal by Salla to something that Kevin had written.
It has been Salla that won't look at the evidence objectively. It has been Salla who has taken the low road, with his ad hominem attacks and his petty posturing. It is Salla that has crossed the "Rubicon" of reasoned discourse.
I'm sure Stan, Kevin and Brad will be a bit more diplomatic than I'm about to be, but I've had it. Salla has really gone too far this time. Besides, they're elder statesmen - I'm just the new guy, the "New Thug", the "klasskurtzian". People seem to expect me to "go after" people.
Fine - when people deserve to have someone "go after them", like Salla does, I aim to please.
So here it is...
Michael Salla's Phd isn't worth the paper it's printed on, not because it isn't from an accredited institution of higher learning, but because Salla has disgraced himself, and brought disrepute on his chosen field of study (ufology), through:
(a) his actions and statements;
(b) his lack of academic comity with his fellow researchers, and;
(c) his failure to apply even the most minimal standards of academic and intellectual rigour.
In other words, he (and his goofy fellow travellers) are a blight on the serious study of the UFO phenomenon.
It's time for ufology to give them the collective heave-ho.
Don't appear at their conferences.
Boycott any radio programs or conferences that have them on.
Ban them from Internet groups and lists.
Give them the cold shoulder from this point forward.
They deserve nothing more, and the serious study of the UFO phenomenon demands nothing less.