Interesting read, an atypical author for this genre. Any opinions?
Yes, I just bought the book and am reading it now. I agree it’s one of the most interesting UFO books in a long time, far more interesting than Leslie Kean’s.
On the one hand, Alexander is one of the most “skeptical” of UFO believers. Here is a list of stuff he does NOT believe in: the Roswell crash, MJ-12 secret UFO panel, big govt. UFO coverup conspiracy, NASA UFO conspiracies, Corso’s ‘alien reverse engineering’ claims, etc. When he spoke to the recent MUFON Symposium in Irvine, CA, he provoked great hostility in the audience. They viewed him as a debunker (the very worst thing one can be). See my 5-part writeup of the MUFON Symposium on my Blog http://www.BadUFOs.com .
On the other hand, here is a list of stuff he DOES believe in: UFO/ET visitations, Rendlesham, the Belgian UFO wave, etc.
In a nutshell, I’d say that Alexander is Hynekian in his approach, and goes into error for the same reason: great over-reliance on uncorroborated “eyewitness testimony.” He seems to think that if a ‘reliable witness’ reports an anomalous flying craft, then by golly such a craft must exist. Whereas the history of skepticism, past and present, is replete with examples of how “reliable witnesses” aren’t. Remember the Royal Society of London, which rose out of superstition to be the first true scientific body in the world, largely because of its motto “Nullius in Verba” (words alone count for nothing).
I chatted with Alexander a bit at MUFON, and he was reaching out toward the skeptics for discussion and debate. (No way could he have a reasoned discussion with the MUFON crowd.) I don’t think he would ‘join’ us and become a skeptic, but it would be interesting and possibly instructive to have a dialog.
As for the second posting about the Anne Jacobsen book, its claims have been pretty well shredded by reviewers. See my “Commie Nazi Saucer Crashed in Roswell” (Psychic Vibrations, Sept. / Oct 2011). See this review by Robert S. Norris, an authority on the history of the Manhattan Project and other defense-related subjects:
Hers is a deeply flawed book—and not only because she has added new, outlandish tales to the story of a top-secret military facility. All too often, Jacobsen’s history of the activities that did occur at the facility is filled with errors of commission and omission. One has to wonder what role her editors played in overseeing this book, and why so many mistakes and preposterous claims survived editorial review.