Philip J. Klass, the eminent founder of empirical science's KGB squad, the group known as skeptics that work in the same fashion as the Torquemadas of the Spanish Inquisition in the modern progressive environment, recently passed away into the darkness he was such a fervent advocate of. Being the ultimate empirical enforcer, I was amused by a recent story turned up by Larry W. Bryant's FOIA request to the FBI for records on Klass after his death. While there were 56 responsive documents, all had been redacted except for two stories, one dealing with his position as editor of Aviation Week Magazine, where he was using the magazine to make authorized "leaks" of government secrets, and another little story dealing with Klass's conflict with FBI Directors. Klass apparently fancied himself in the league with the head law enforcers.
It seems the FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin had printed a story written by UFO researcher Dr. J. Allan Hynek describing how law enforcement workers could streamline taking UFO reports so as to free up resources. This need apparently arises when there is a rash of UFO reports, tying up resources dealing with on-going problems. Note, Hynek didn't claim the reports were accurate, or even dealt with reality, he just outlined the best way to handle them with a minimum of trouble. Klass went berserk. He contacted J. Edgar Hoover and demanded the FBI retract the story in full. The FBI, after careful research, refused, stating that Hynek was a respected member of the scientific community affiliated with a leading university. Not for long was Klass's response. He couldn't get Hynek fired, however, so he went to the CIA (how does the average Joe go to the CIA unless he's already there to start with). The CIA tried to influence the FBI, but the FBI was having none of it, and told the CIA Klass had a questionable character (that's probably why he was at the CIA). Then Klass waited until Hoover's successor was sworn in, and started in on him. Director Kelly, however, gave him the same response.
It's interesting to hear for once that the empirical enforcement arm failed in its enterprise to discredit anyone and everyone that questions empirical conclusions. Its foremost tool was devised by that uncelebrated, even by empirical science, astronomer, Carl Sagan. He is widely credited with authoring the aphorism, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In honor of Klass's passing, I thought I would set out some extraordinary claims and ask for the extraordinary evidence.
Empirical science is based on an extraordinary claim that gravity is a property of matter. In Science magazine's 125-anniversary issue, it admits that no one knows what gravity is, stating that it clashes with quantum theory, doesn't fit in the Standard Model, and nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. A property, in fact, is something used to classify matter, something like color or hardness. Gravity is a dynamic force, something that causes everything to drop to the ground and requires work to move dropped objects. Where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that gravity is a property of matter?
Empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Proving such a statement would seem to be quite simple. All empirical science has to due is measure all of the energy and all the matter in the universe on Friday, then do the same thing on two successive Fridays for proof, so why hasn't it? In fact, where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed?
Empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that light is a wave. This statement is based on Young's two-slit experiment where light from the same source is passed through two slits and then allowed to recombine and collect on a screen. When it is collected, it shows patterns of light and no light and these are analogized to water waves, where the crests and troughs of intersecting waves will cancel each other out. Since there is still water when the crests and troughs cancel each other out, and no light on the collection screen, there is no analogy. Where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that light is a wave?
Empirical science makes the quite extraordinary claim that no current force moves the planets in their orbits and no current force is causing a planet to rotate. In our experience with reality, we know with absolute certainty that nothing moves without a current force moving it. Things without current force come to rest with respect to the forces acting upon them, here gravity and the surface of the Earth. It is a basic tenet of the real world that motion requires force. Empirical science provides no explanation why motion is different in space than it is on the Earth, and in fact, claims that the laws of motion are applicable throughout the universe. Where is its explanation for how something in space could move without the application of a current force? It chooses to ignore explaining how something could move without a current force by saying, the force of momentum applies, that the motion of the planets was imparted to them by a swirling mass of gas some five billion years ago and, because there is no friction in space, nothing has interfered with that motion. But it is a measurable reality that plenty of stuff exists in space that would cause friction, and of course, plenty of frictional matter exists on the surface of the Earth, most prominently water and atmosphere. Where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that the planets move without the application of current force?
Empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that large planets such as Jupiter are made out of gas. It makes this claim using Newton's mass/gravity. However, Newton set out to prove the concept by computing the amount of gravity in the Earth and the moon, and then using it to predict the orbit of the moon. Newton's assumptions were erroneous, in order to compute the amount of gravity in the Earth and moon, he assumed they were both uniformly made up of the same particle, and his math didn't compute the orbit of the moon. Empirical science says his conclusion, that gravity was a property of and proportional to mass, was correct although his proof failed, and then uses Newton's conclusion to compute the amount of matter in planets using their orbits. The rock empirical science claims itself to be based upon is the rock of verification in reality. However, no one can verify how much matter is in a planet. Where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus are made out of gas, and where is any proof at all that empirical science can compute the amount of matter in a planet?
Empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that plants take in the carbon dioxide we exhale and emit the oxygen we inhale. Empirical science claims that color is created by molecules absorbing all frequencies by the frequency of color we see. Thus, plants are green because a molecule called chlorophyll absorbs all frequencies but green. Now that empirical science has named the molecule that makes plants green, it claims that all the frequencies that molecule has absorbed from the sun facilitates photosynthesis, the conversion of carbon dioxide into oxygen. Photosynthesis is described as sunlight turning rainwater absorbed by the plant and the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plant into sugar and oxygen. Unfortunately, with a multitude of plants to use as research material, a mechanism that does this eludes empiricists. In fact, the Biosphere, an attempt for humans to live from the oxygen emitted by plants, was such a failure, the photosynthetic gardens died, forcing the inhabitants to sneak out for oxygen and food. It's now a tourist attraction. Where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that plants produce the oxygen we breath (as opposed to, say, the continuous lightning found to be occurring in the upper atmosphere, lightning those who created the plant myth were unaware of and denied for years after its discovery).
Empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that the Coriolis effect is actually a force that produces winds. The Coriolis effect is simple to describe. Shoot a rocket off from the equator north pointed at Chicago and it will land to the east of Chicago because the surface of the Earth moves slower the further towards the pole it is and the rocket is traveling at the speed of the Earth at the equator. Empirical science translated this effect into a force simply by applying it to the movement of air from high pressure to low pressure areas. By definition, high-pressure air forcing out low-pressure air means the high-pressure air is above the low-pressure air. Thus, the high-pressure air is forcing the low-pressure air against the Earth's surface. As the Earth is turning under the low pressure air, moving from west to east, as the low pressure air spreads out beneath the high pressure air, the bottom of the low pressure system will be forced to move faster than the top simply because it is closer to the equator, and the closer the Earth is to the equator, the faster it is moving. In fact, the childish experiment empirical science uses to demonstrate the Coriolis effect demonstrates that the Earth is in fact responsible for the movement of the air. It takes a flat merry-go-round, places a camera above it, and lets people on the platform push a ball back and forth. The friction of the ball on the rotating platform deflects it. However, empirical science cannot admit it is the friction between the surface of the Earth and the air that causes the air to move simply because it claims the motion of the Earth was imparted to it five billion years ago, and remains undiminished. Under this fiction, friction with the atmosphere would have long since stopped the Earth's rotation. Where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that air moves as a result of the Coriolis effect rather than from its friction with the surface of the Earth.
This is so much fun, I'm going to stretch it into another column, but let me get one more in. Empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that the sun works on empirical science's model for what is happening in a nuclear fusion explosion. When hydrogen and helium atoms are placed under intense pressure, they fuse, releasing energy in the process. Fusion is an outgrowth of the Manhattan Project development of the atomic bomb, which uses nuclear fission. The model of the atom upon which both are based is scarcely a century old and it is already undergoing change as it is found to be lacking in many areas of explanation. There is nothing to suggest that the current explanation for fusion is accurate, or even correct. However, less than a decade after the successful demonstration of fusion, empiricists looked heavenward and exclaimed, "We've discovered why the sun burns!" Where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that sun burns as a result of nuclear fusion?
Peter Bros is the author of the 9 volume Copernican Series and is President of The Far Museum of Dallas, an actual history museum, which will house its collection of 50,000 rare Eastern Mediterranean manuscripts and artifacts together with actual history displays and tours in a full-sized replica of the Egyptian Temple at Dendera to be built in the Dallas Ft. Worth area. Email:peterbros@therealskeptic.com