Letter to the Editor

T. R. P. Gibb
1967 Science  
Markowitz' failure to find detailed reports in print is puzzling. That he should base his arguments on the minor Chiles-Whitted case (of which it is true that my evaluation is at variance with Hynek's) or such a brief observation, made under unfavorable conditions, as the Tombaugh case, tends to indicate that he is not really interested in the best documented sightings; on the contrary, he is deliberately selecting borderline cases in an effort to cast doubts on the validity of current official
more » ... of current official and private attempts at systematic data-gathering. Otherwise, how can we understand that the Forcalquier photographs {(taken by a professional astronomer) or the observations made at Toulouse and Mount Stromlo observatories, or the Loch Raven Dam and Socorro cases, all of which are extensively documented in print, should have escaped his attention? He goes as far as stating that no unexplained physical trace has ever been left after the observation of an unknown aerial phenomenon, while one of the books he quotes in his bibliography describes at length the investigations conducted by Soviet physicists at the site of the Siberian explosion in 1908, which come very close to meeting the conditions Markowitz himself has set for "evidence." Elsewhere, commenting on my survey of the observations of unknown celestial objects gathered and studied by Le Verrier, he kindly reminds me that the intra-Mercury planet theory is an impossibility, as if I had ever suggested that the objects in question were such a thing. Thus, Markowitz is guided by one and only one idea: that one may not consider the "intelligent control" hypothesis unless one is willing to abandon entirely the rational processes upon which science is based. It is a disturbing fact that such grossly irrational arguments should still enjoy popularity in the scientific world ....
doi:10.1126/science.158.3806.1266-a pmid:17801846 fatcat:qzxzekou5jf2fj3ov563s3r26m