From: jrblack@teal.csn.org (Roger Black)
Subject: Re: Menzel and UFOs
Keywords: ufo
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:47:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.174037.20201@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert 
Sheaffer) writes:

> In article <Bw4y81.FvH@csn.org> jrblack@teal.csn.org (Roger Black) writes:
> 
>> Menzel should be taken with a very large dose of salt.  A number of the
>> people who dealt with him in the early years of ufology (such as E.J.
>> Ruppelt, the head of Project Blue Book from 1951-53, and J. Allen
>> Hynek, the science adviser to Blue Book for many years) apparently
>> considered Menzel to be arrogant, devious, and dishonest.  Many of his
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> "scientific" explanations of UFO sightings were so outlandish that even
>> people who were sympathetic to his conclusions were embarrassed by his
>> arguments.  People on both sides of the UFO controversy had a great
>> deal of difficulty understanding why such an intelligent and capable
>> scientist was so determined to make an ass of himself in public when it
>> came to UFOs.
> 
> This is nothing short of slander 

It is slander only if it is false.  Truth is always a sufficient defense.

> against a respected astronomer

The respect of one's peers is no guarantee of infallibility or even
integrity, especially outside one's field of expertise.  Linus Pauling
won a Nobel Prize for chemistry, but an awful lot of skeptics question
both his competence and his integrity in other areas.

> whose
> contributions to the science of astronomy far outweigh any those of any 
> pro-UFOlogist in the field. 

Probably true, but irrelevant.  Menzel's contributions to astronomy,
which were immense, prove nothing about the validity of his statements
on UFOs, which have very little to do with astronomy.

> I agree that Menzel was sometimes arrogant
> (many distinguished, elderly scientists sometimes get that way). 

Distinguished, certainly.  Elderly?  Hardly.  Born in 1901, he was only
a hair over 50 when he began debunking UFOs.  Middle aged, perhaps, but
not elderly.

> I further agree that sometimes he was careless (who isn't?). 

Menzel's errors of fact and logic regarding UFOs go far beyond
carelessness.  That's what is so puzzling.  Why did someone who was so
masterful in so many other areas (atmospherics, communications, and
cryptanalysis as well as astronomy) suddenly become so incredibly
sloppy and irrational when it came to UFOs?  The only reasonable
answers that have been suggested are fanaticism and duplicity.  Care to
choose one?

> But
> to call him "devious and dishonest" is a reprehensible and groundless
> insult to the memory of an oustanding scientist

He may well have been a paragon of virtue in every other area of his
life, but when it came to UFOs he seems to have been a real skunk.
Those who worked with Menzel in Project Blue Book and related programs
considered him devious because, among other things, he used false
pretenses in an attempt to obtain files which he had been properly
denied access to.  He was considered dishonest because he twisted facts
and tortured the laws of physics to justify "explanations" which a
scientist of his competence and experience _had_ to know were
untenable.  He even went so far as to propound bizarre and exotic
theories for Blue Book cases which the Air Force had already given
satisfactory and prosaic explanations for.  Why?

> who taught and did research for many years at Harvard University.

I fail to see how spending "many years at Harvard" is any guarantee of
either scientific competence or moral integrity.  Are there really no 
liars or fools at Harvard?

>> Stanton Friedman may have found the answer to that question after
>> Menzel's death, when he obtained access to Menzel's personal papers and
>> discovered that Menzel led a double life:  Academic scientist by day,
>> intelligence agent by night.  Over the years he apparently worked for
>> both the CIA and the NSA, as well as a number of military agencies and
>> industrial concerns, and he held a Top Secret Ultra clearance.  Given
>> the history of the intelligence community's systematic subversion of
>> UFO organizations and their repeated efforts to spread confusion and
>> disinformation on the subject, Menzel's ties to that community are more
>> than a little suspicious.

> Whoever has more confidence in Friedman, who calls himself the "flying
> saucer physicist" and has been a full-time UFO promoter for many
> years, than in Dr. Menzel, is seriously deluded. 

This is not a question of "confidence", but of facts.  As far as I
know, Friedman's evidence for Menzel's "secret life" has not even been
challenged, much less refuted.  

> Friedman has
> been promoting many UFO hoaxes over the years, including the ridiculous
> "Gulf Breeze UFO photos" and the "MJ-12 papers". 

Careful.  Friedman has indeed been pushing the MJ-12 documents, which
he seems to believe are genuine.  I think he is mistaken, but I have no
grounds for doubting his sincerity.  Do you?  If so, please put your
proof on the table.  If not, you'd better choose your words a bit more
carefully.  You have come perilously close to accusing Friedman of
_knowingly_ purveying falsehoods.  That's a very serious charge.  

> If we are comparing
> credibility and character, I would rate that of a respected scientist
> like Menzel over that of a slick UFO huckster like Friedman any day.

Again, I am not interested in "comparing character" but in establishing
facts.  

However, if you want to talk about slander (as you did in your opening
statement), here we have a fine example of it.  I suspect calling a
fellow scientist a "slick UFO huckster" is not only slander, but
slander "per se" in that it impugns your opponent's competence or
fitness for his chosen profession.  That means Friedman wouldn't have
to show malice or actual damages if he chose to sue you for slander,
but only that you said it--unless, of course, you have proof of your
charges.  If so, let's hear it.  If not, perhaps you should consider
taking it back.

> Friedman and pals would like us to forget that, during World War II,
> virtually EVERY scientist in the U.S. became involved in military
> research, most of which was highly classified. Even the late Dr. J.
> Allen Hynek, a saint to those in the UFO movement, did classified
> research on military projects during World War II. I heard him say
> this myself. Even Asimov and Heinlein did secret military research,
> and had high clearances; does this make them suspect?

The cases are not at all comparable.  Yes, lots of people did
classified work during the war.  But how many of them _never_ talked
about it for the rest of their lives?  Did Asimov or Heinlein keep
silent to their dying day?  Or all of the other myriads of erstwhile
spooks and technocrats?  Hardly.  By the time of Menzel's death,
everybody and his brother were writing books about the good old days:
inventing the Bomb and the programmable computer, breaking the Japanese
and German codes, deceiving the Axis about the Normandy invasion,
smuggling Nazis out of Europe so they could take us to the moon.  But
not Menzel.  Menzel never told his friends and colleagues about his
secret activities; apparently he never even told his wife.  Whatever he
was up to, he took it to the grave with him.

As for Hynek, he was apparently involved in secret military activities
as late as 1973, without ever telling even his closest friends what he
was up to.  And, yes, I _do_ find that suspicious.  Don't you?

>> In any case, for the most part his activities in these areas were kept
>> secret from the public, his academic and scientific colleagues, his
>> closest friends, and even his family.  But they do seem to have been
>> known to the author(s) of the so-called "MJ-12" UFO documents, who put
>> Menzel's name on an otherwise plausible list of government officials in
>> the alleged UFO control group.  This is, in fact, one of the strongest
>> arguments that the MJ-12 documents, while almost certainly bogus,
>> originated from somewhere within the bowels of the U.S. intelligence
>> community instead of some lone hoaxer's basement.
> 
> The "MJ-12 papers" are garbage. 

Do you actually read what other people write, or do you just free
associate?  Like I said:  "the MJ-12 documents [are] almost certainly
bogus."  No argument there.  The question is, whose garbage are they?
Richard Bissell of the CIA said that in terms of format and style they
were indistinguishable from the real thing.  Pretty good for an amateur
forger, don't you think?  Richard Doty of AFOSI said he thought they
originated from within the Defense Intelligence Agency.  Now why would
a counterintelligence agent say such a thing unless either (1) he
genuinely thought it was true, or (2) he was trying to deflect
attention from the real source of the hoax, which might be a bit closer
to home?  Either way, the finger points to the intelligence community,
not some rogue private citizen.

> They were confabulated by a hoaxer
> using a photocopied signature of Harry Truman taken from a real
> letter in the Truman library. 

Probable, but not yet certain.  Friedman has some cogent arguments to
the contrary.  And there's a hell of a lot more to MJ-12 than a forged
signature.  Yes, MJ-12 is a hoax--but a very sophisticated and
carefully crafted hoax nonetheless.  What I want to know is, who did
it, and why?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 James Roger Black                                     jrblack@csn.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic