Revisiting the Analysis

Sheaffer's retrospective critique of Lewis-Kraus's article in The New Yorker suggests that he believes the journalist should have expressed greater skepticism.

For instance, Sheaffer notes that Lewis-Kraus "merely mentions" Kean’s book on life-after-death research without elaboration. In another instance, Sheaffer claims to discern Lewis-Kraus's true motives, suggesting he withholds the name of a British researcher who supposedly debunked the Rendlesham incident, despite Lewis-Kraus's apparent agreement with this debunking.

Sheaffer raises numerous concerns, such as Lewis-Kraus describing his conversations with Kean as "greatly pleasurable distractions" and implying a subtle insult directed at skeptic Mick West, likening his demeanor to that of a mental health professional. Moreover, Sheaffer presumes he falls into the category of UFO debunkers described by Lewis-Kraus as "overtly hostile," spending a significant portion of his critique defending against this characterization.

Sheaffer read the New Yorker article and perceived what he perhaps wished to see: more naïve UFO coverage from the media, compounded by the previous questionable reporting from The New York Times, 60 Minutes, and others. To substantiate his claim of "credulity," he resorts to critiquing the sincere attempt of a reporter striving for fairness.

Let us now explore the overlooked nuances within Lewis-Kraus's article, which Sheaffer disregarded to facilitate his critique of the alleged credulity of journalist Gideon Lewis-Kraus. Below are excerpts and observations made by Lewis-Kraus that Sheaffer omitted from his analysis:

— Lewis-Kraus opens his piece by referencing Steven Greer's May 2001 National Press Club presentation, at which Leslie Kean was present. She describes the conference attendees as "some good people," but adds that "some of them were making outrageous, grandiose claims."

— Lewis-Kraus critiques Greer's "Executive Summary" as "woolly," questioning why, if these spacecraft are so advanced, they supposedly crash frequently.

— He notes that ufologists possess an unwavering belief in the imminent Disclosure, a term denoting the government's acknowledgment of its comprehensive UFO knowledge.

— Lewis-Kraus concludes a section on the media frenzy following Kenneth Arnold's 1947 sighting by quoting an astronomer from The New York Times, who attributed the surge of reports to a "mild case of meteorological jitters" coupled with "mass hypnosis."

— After acknowledging that 20% of UFO reports lacked terrestrial explanations, Lewis-Kraus concedes, "On the other hand, there was no dispositive evidence—perhaps the wreckage of a crashed saucer—and, as a RAND Corporation scientist reasoned, interstellar travel was simply unfeasible."

— He observes that valid concerns regarding "genuine incursions over U.S. territory could be drowned out in a sea of bizarre hallucinations."

— Reflecting on the media's involvement in the government's discrediting efforts during the 1960s, he asserts that this manipulation culminated in a TV special, "UFO: Friend, Foe or Fantasy?," where CBS's Walter Cronkite relegated UFOs to the oblivion of the third category.

— Lewis-Kraus emphasizes that "Ninety-five percent of supposed UFOs had mundane explanations: unusual clouds, weather balloons, atmospheric temperature inversions. Luminous orbs could be attributed to Venus; silent triangles were likely linked to classified military technology."

— Discussing Roswell, he characterizes it as a situation where any credible evidence has become hopelessly intertwined with myth.

— In 2014, he notes, Kean "began breaking stories ... with an unusual recklessness."

— UFO believers, akin to debunkers, "tend to discount or overlook inconvenient facts."

— Though Sheaffer criticizes The New Yorker for not naming the British debunker who has extensively written about Rendlesham, Lewis-Kraus makes it clear that this researcher "exhaustively demystified the case."

— He quotes Robert Bigelow, who believes, as one source remarked, that "there are aliens walking around in the supermarket."

— "Kean remains steadfast in her belief that she and an insider unveiled something significant, but a former Pentagon official recently suggested that the program she revealed was of little significance compared to the one she initiated."

— Lewis-Kraus reports that Elizondo’s successor preferred anonymity, "lest UFO enthusiasts swarm his doorstep."

— In July 2020, he observes that Kean’s UFO reporting with Ralph Blumenthal "veered into fringe territory."

— "The former Pentagon official expressed that he found Kean's evidence lacking. 'There are terms in Leslie's slides that we don’t use—stuff that we would never say. It doesn’t pass the smell test.'"

It's easy to envision die-hard UFO enthusiasts reading Lewis-Kraus's article and believing that The New Yorker had formed an unholy alliance with Sheaffer and the skeptical community, convinced that the author had embraced a skeptical stance while attempting to undermine UFO "nuts" entangled in "fringe territory" amidst a "maelstrom of kooky hallucination."

The fact-checking procedures at The New Yorker are well-documented within the journalism industry. Long before Skeptical Inquirer was promoting skepticism, The New Yorker had editors meticulously reviewing every line of prose to ensure accuracy. In the early 2000s, during the peak of American newsrooms, The New Yorker reportedly employed over a dozen fact-checkers.

Kean has similarly described a rigorous editing process at The New York Times, where she and her colleague Ralph Blumenthal undergo intensive scrutiny for nearly every claim they make. Does Skeptical Inquirer genuinely believe that these mainstream outlets, along with 60 Minutes, are not approaching the subject with diligence?

What Are We Skeptical Of?

Sheaffer's biting commentary reveals his selective skepticism. He emphasizes the origin story of the Pentagon's AATIP program rather than the phenomena it was tasked with investigating.

He summarizes this at the end of his critique of The New Yorker:

> The program emerged due to Robert Bigelow and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV, who was then the Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate). Reid arranged a lucrative $22 million government contract for his primary campaign donor, Robert Bigelow. Leslie Kean learned of this and co-authored several articles about Pentagon UFOs in The New York Times. The rest is history—drunken history, in fact.

A few observations:

1. Outside of acknowledging Bigelow as a campaign contributor, almost every detail of this narrative (and much more) is covered in Lewis-Kraus's article.
2. Sheaffer's skepticism—common among skeptics regarding UFOs—fails to extend to more significant and relevant inquiries: What information do government officials possess that leads respected public figures like Luis Elizondo and Christopher Mellon to declare, through podcasts, that we are being visited by extraterrestrial beings? What have they witnessed? What do they know? What national security concerns inhibit their ability to elaborate? Does Sheaffer genuinely believe this is merely a quest for more congressional funding? In the absence of Skeptical Inquirer standards of evidence, such reasoning resembles a conspiracy theory.
3. Sheaffer contends that this behind-the-scenes collaboration between a congressman and a wealthy contributor was the sole reason for AATIP—not because "the Pentagon" or "the Navy" had concerns about UFOs (or "UAPs," as they prefer).

How does one even engage with this perspective? This is not skepticism; it is a toxic blend of cynicism and delusion. Sheaffer seems to assert that Elizondo, Mellon, Alex Anne Dietrich, and other Navy pilots and sensing equipment operators—some of whom have experienced PTSD from their encounters—are either lying, delusional, or profoundly misguided—all of them!

Let us clarify what skepticism entails; it is not inherently negative. In the realm of ufology, it is essential—pertaining both to the phenomenon itself and to the claims of investigators. It is also a necessary prerequisite for journalists, the best of whom come equipped with finely tuned bullshit detectors.

To conclude, we turn to a remark from Ross Coulthart, an investigative journalist whose credentials and body of work extend beyond UFOs, rivaling those of Kean.

Recently, he was interviewed on the Theory of Everything podcast by the endlessly inquisitive Curt Jaimungal. Here, Coulthart reflects on what he "believes" UFOs to be and addresses accusations that he has prematurely concluded they are "aliens."

> "It may still be true that America possesses anti-gravity technology. Perhaps they developed it independently, or maybe it has nothing to do with aliens. There might be a clever disinformation campaign designed to project the notion that America is invincible due to alien technology. I don't know, but I believe we should maintain an open mind. I was recently criticized by a debunker who claimed I believe in aliens and UFOs. That’s not necessarily the case. I’m exploring the mystery, which is what journalists should do. There’s a fundamental misunderstanding here; people often assume that because I engage with this subject matter seriously, I must credulously accept everything everyone says. That is not true, and I don't think we should."

While Skeptical Inquirer will likely continue its detached oversight, Coulthart, Kean, Lewis-Kraus, and others have stakes in the narrative and connections that Sheaffer, Covalito, and Harrison can only aspire to. It's wise to focus on those actively advancing this dialogue.

> Trail of the Saucers is curated by writer/producer Bryce Zabel and published by Stellar Productions. Zabel co-hosts the popular podcast Need to Know with Coulthart, available on major platforms.*