The sTarbaby affair exposes extremist skeptics as an anti-truth cult

Brown Bomber

DENNIS RAWLINS is a cofounder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and served on CSICOP's Executive Council from 1976 to 1979. Until 1980 he was an Associate Editor of Skeptical Inquirer.

Disillusioned by the skeptics decication to orthodoxy and not truth he reveals in great details the shameless tactics of the leading "skeptics" of the day, including James Randi of JREF and exposes them as frauds. http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html

--Kaiser--

So sceptics are the real frauds by, what, not believing ideas for which there is no evidence? Right....

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

So sceptics are the real frauds by, what, not believing ideas for which there is no evidence? Right....

Read the account and get back to me.

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Read the account and get back to me.

As I've said time and time again on this site, I will not wade through reams and reams of what is likely to be claptrap. If there is evidence then it should be a able to be presented in a concise format (and not a Youtube video either)

humanji

For f*cks sake, then read the two paragraphs that are quoted in the OP. Nobody has said what you claim. So stop trying to start an argument. Either read the article or don't post in this thread.

--Kaiser--

humanji wrote: »

For f*cks sake, then read the two paragraphs that are quoted in the OP. Nobody has said what you claim. So stop trying to start an argument. Either read the article or don't post in this thread.

I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to summarise what the site contains (those two paragraphs say very little), assuming they have actually read it. Too many discussions on the site involve posting ultra long Youtube clips or ultra long passages from another site

Sacksian

I think this is a fairly measured response article: http://cybercomputing.com/freeinquiry//skeptic/resources/articles/klass-crybaby.htm

"Even on easily ascertainable matters, Rawlins chooses to rely on his vivid imagination or recollections rather than take time to check the facts. For example, in "sTARBABY," Rawlins claims that he was an "associate editor" of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, as well as being a member of its editorial board -- which he was [not]. Rawlins makes that claim in seven different places in his article. One would expect that a person who imagines himself to be an associate editor of a publication over a period of several years would at least once look at that publication's masthead, where its editorial staff is listed. Had Rawlins done so he would not have made this spurious claim."

Another interesting anecdote about Rawlins from that article:

"In the years following "sTARBABY", Rawlins has continued to receive publicity by making sensational charges of scientific coverup and fraud. In 1988 he made national headlines by renewing an earlier charge he had made before CSICOP's founding, this time supposedly supported by a new- found document: that Admiral Peary never actually reached the North Pole during his famous expedition in 1909, but instead fabricated his navigational records to make it appear as if he had.

...As reported in a Baltimore Sun story syndicated Feb. 2, 1989, "Since October [Natl. Geographic] Society President Gilbert M. Grosvenor and others had quietly endured Rawlins' public calls for debate and unconditional surrender on the Peary issue." The Society was willing to take seriously an analysis by the British explorer Wally Herbert, based on other evidence, that a navigation error may have caused Peary to miss the pole by about 45 miles. "Suggesting that Peary might not have reached the Pole is one thing," said Grosvenor. "Declaring Peary a fraud is quite another." Rawlins held his own "informal press conference" afterwards, reports The Sun, in which Rawlins "admitted he had confused time readings for chronometer checks with altitudes of the sun and had mistaken serial numbers on the chronometers for navigational observations." Rawlins conceded, "My interpretation has some problems, and I acknowledge that. It's fair to say that, if I'm saying Peary was a fraud, I think I have not yet met the burden of proof."

Finally, in December, 1989, a 230-page report commissioned by the National Geographic Society was released, concluding that Peary actually did reach the Pole. As reported in a story on p.1 of the New York Times, Dec. 12, 1989, a new analysis of Peary's records by professional navigators concluded that Peary's final camp was not more than five miles from the Pole. "The report said, there was no evidence of fraud and deception in the explorer's records. But one critic, Dennis Rawlins, a Baltimore astronomer and historian, said he remained convinced, despite the new study, that Admiral Peary did not reach his goal and had faked his claim." Robert Sheaffer, Nov., 1991

hooradiation

So, the guy who lied about his credentials and has an apparent axe to grind, has made things up about people he doesn't like.

Not exactly meeting the definition of exposé, I think.

Tzar Chasm

Sacksian wrote: »

I think this is a fairly measured response article: http://cybercomputing.com/freeinquiry//skeptic/resources/articles/klass-crybaby.htm

"Even on easily ascertainable matters, Rawlins chooses to rely on his vivid imagination or recollections rather than take time to check the facts. For example, in "sTARBABY," Rawlins claims that he was an "associate editor" of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, as well as being a member of its editorial board -- which he was [not]. Rawlins makes that claim in seven different places in his article. One would expect that a person who imagines himself to be an associate editor of a publication over a period of several years would at least once look at that publication's masthead, where its editorial staff is listed. Had Rawlins done so he would not have made this spurious claim."

Another interesting anecdote about Rawlins from that article:

"In the years following "sTARBABY", Rawlins has continued to receive publicity by making sensational charges of scientific coverup and fraud. In 1988 he made national headlines by renewing an earlier charge he had made before CSICOP's founding, this time supposedly supported by a new- found document: that Admiral Peary never actually reached the North Pole during his famous expedition in 1909, but instead fabricated his navigational records to make it appear as if he had.

...As reported in a Baltimore Sun story syndicated Feb. 2, 1989, "Since October [Natl. Geographic] Society President Gilbert M. Grosvenor and others had quietly endured Rawlins' public calls for debate and unconditional surrender on the Peary issue." The Society was willing to take seriously an analysis by the British explorer Wally Herbert, based on other evidence, that a navigation error may have caused Peary to miss the pole by about 45 miles. "Suggesting that Peary might not have reached the Pole is one thing," said Grosvenor. "Declaring Peary a fraud is quite another." Rawlins held his own "informal press conference" afterwards, reports The Sun, in which Rawlins "admitted he had confused time readings for chronometer checks with altitudes of the sun and had mistaken serial numbers on the chronometers for navigational observations." Rawlins conceded, "My interpretation has some problems, and I acknowledge that. It's fair to say that, if I'm saying Peary was a fraud, I think I have not yet met the burden of proof."

Finally, in December, 1989, a 230-page report commissioned by the National Geographic Society was released, concluding that Peary actually did reach the Pole. As reported in a story on p.1 of the New York Times, Dec. 12, 1989, a new analysis of Peary's records by professional navigators concluded that Peary's final camp was not more than five miles from the Pole. "The report said, there was no evidence of fraud and deception in the explorer's records. But one critic, Dennis Rawlins, a Baltimore astronomer and historian, said he remained convinced, despite the new study, that Admiral Peary did not reach his goal and had faked his claim." Robert Sheaffer, Nov., 1991

In fairness peary's claims are fairly dubious, he claims to have covered spectacular distances when it was just him navigating.
I'd call bulls it on it too

Interestingly the national geographic are the ones that confirmed his initial claims so maybe they have a vested interest in not seeing them debunked

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

DENNIS RAWLINS is a cofounder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and served on CSICOP's Executive Council from 1976 to 1979. Until 1980 he was an Associate Editor of Skeptical Inquirer.

Disillusioned by the skeptics decication to orthodoxy and not truth he reveals in great details the shameless tactics of the leading "skeptics" of the day, including James Randi of JREF and exposes them as frauds. http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html

So do you believe that the "Mars effect" is a real thing, BB?

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to summarise what the site contains (those two paragraphs say very little), assuming they have actually read it. Too many discussions on the site involve posting ultra long Youtube clips or ultra long passages from another site

... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ...

If you don't want to be involved in a discussion based on a piece of text you don't have to read it. If you do want to be involved you do have to read it. Nobody is twisting your arm either way.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So do you believe that the "Mars effect" is a real thing, BB?

I'm skeptical. More to the point have you an opinion on CSICOP's cover-up?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm skeptical.

So why are you not convinced of the evidence that was supposedly covered up?
Why, if the effect was not proven, was it covered up?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

More to the point have you an opinion on CSICOP's cover-up?

I've yet to see any evidence of a cover up beyond one guy's unsupported testimony.
Why do you believe him?

Any comment on the lies he's told that have been pointed out by Sackian?

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ...

If you don't want to be involved in a discussion based on a piece of text you don't have to read it. If you do want to be involved you do have to read it. Nobody is twisting your arm either way.

Bull****. I stand by every word of what I posted. And from the forum charter:

When posting links to documents or videos give as much information as you can. In particular with regards to videos, give the name of the video if there is one or a brief description, the running time and the creator or show it may be taken from if it is known. The more detail that is available for a link or video means it will be easier to search for and other users will also know what to expect from it.

Tzar Chasm

King Mob wrote: »

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm skeptical.

So why are you not convinced of the evidence that was supposedly covered up?
Why, if the effect was not proven, was it covered up?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

More to the point have you an opinion on CSICOP's cover-up?

I've yet to see any evidence of a cover up beyond one guy's unsupported testimony.
Why do you believe him?

Any comment on the lies he's told that have been pointed out by Sackian?

I couldn't be arsed reading the articles you posted, so would you mind outlining the points you are trying to make in a concise manner, please

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Bull****. I stand by every word of what I posted. And from the forum charter:

Why so abrasive?

A synopsis has been provided Either familiarise yourself with the topic and comment or don't familiarise yourself with the topic and don't comment. I'm not asking for blood.

humanji

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Bull****. I stand by every word of what I posted. And from the forum charter:

Don't post in this thread again.

Torakx

That was an interesting read about the Mars Effect.

Im a little confused though.
The guy who is spillig the beans now, he worked for a paranormal debunkers magazine?
And his editor/chief was fixing results to give the boot to this guy he was competing with in another mag?

Sounds to me like there is just too much politics and ego's in everything.
Truth is becoming unneccesary.Whats important is what you believe, not whats true