Saucer Smear
Saucer Smear is a fun flying saucer 'zine whose slogans are "Dedicated to the Highest Principles (haha) of Ufological Journalism" and "Shockingly Close to the Truth!" These guys report gossip from the UFO community, have feuds with investigators and skeptics, and do report on some truly unusual stuff. The force behind the fun is the Saucer & Unexplained Celestial Events Research Society. On-line archives go back to 1994. The latest issue (Dec. 2005) features:
Forces of Nature Descend Upon Smear Headquarters As Editor Issues Annual Appeal For Funds..."Buzz" Aldrin Breaks Silence On Apollo 11 UFOs...The Latest High Wierdness From Peru...And From Puerto Rico...Scientists Replicate Mysterious Orbs...Bob Durant On Disinformation...Toadfall in Montana...Alien Ambassador Merlyn Merlyn II Found Dead In Navada Desert...Linda Moulton Howe, Science Reporter?...Was The Wrong Adamski Killed By Aliens?...Two New Documentaries...William Moore Snubbed, Insulted, & Affronted, and Still Doesn't Like Phil Klass Very Much...
Forces of Nature Descend Upon Smear Headquarters As Editor Issues Annual Appeal For Funds..."Buzz" Aldrin Breaks Silence On Apollo 11 UFOs...The Latest High Wierdness From Peru...And From Puerto Rico...Scientists Replicate Mysterious Orbs...Bob Durant On Disinformation...Toadfall in Montana...Alien Ambassador Merlyn Merlyn II Found Dead In Navada Desert...Linda Moulton Howe, Science Reporter?...Was The Wrong Adamski Killed By Aliens?...Two New Documentaries...William Moore Snubbed, Insulted, & Affronted, and Still Doesn't Like Phil Klass Very Much...
posted by Johnny at 3:36 PM
1 Comments:
You're right. The zine is fun. From the articles in it that I have read, the overall slant is toward debunking.
Debunking's a great thing, if for no other reason than it expresses legitimate dissent to a growing ufological orthodoxy. However, like most debunkers the webslinger has a tendency to gloss over weak points that beg closer examination.
Examples are numerous, but I'll cite just one: a letter by physicist Charles Moore on the editor's proposal to review Corso's "The Day After Roswell." Professor Moore states that because the shipment of alien wreckage would neither (a) be shipped over ground, nor (b) pass by where Corso was stationed, that the whole scenerio is not credible enough to be investigated.
Okay. I agree that I wouldn't trust Corso if he told me it gets dark at night. Moore's statements certainly seem reasonable. Yet Moore's expertise is in physics. His credentials to examine Army methodology have not been established. Secondly, an expectation of normal reaction to extraordinary events could very well happen. So it might not matter that Corso's station was out of the way, or that the military would be expected to fly the wreckage to Wright Field.
I'm not saying that the point of view is invalid. I'm not even sure I disagree with it. But I do notice this pattern in debunking, whether good reading or not.
Post a Comment
<< Home