I’m reaching out to the skeptical community to offer support to one of their own, Stuart Robbins, who seems to have gotten himself way over his head in some very deep “stuff” and is obviously crying out for help.

Stu posted a blog, a seemingly harmless enough venture for a professional astronomer in a field not usually known for creating ongoing public controversy. The problem is that the blog in question (which will doubtless be the lengthiest and most popular he’ll ever post) pertained to Billy Meier, the Swiss UFO contactee, especially in regards to what Meier called the Red Meteor, now officially known as asteroid Apophis. (The illustrated information can be seen here, in six languages; is it “coincidental” that the Russians and Chinese both became proactive about deflecting Apophis…after this was published?)

For those who are moved to come to the aid of a beleaguered and, frankly, overwhelmed colleague, I’ll just say that Stu’s troubles effectively started at the very beginning of the blog where he claimed that Meier had retrodicted his Red Meteor information to fit the discovery and description of Apophis.

In other words, Stu blatantly called him a liar…without producing even one tiny piece of substantiated evidence; only Stu’s conjecture and suspicions because Meier claims his information comes from extraterrestrial sources. This so violates Stu’s own unscientific beliefs and prejudices (that may be redundant since he proudly describes himself as a “skeptic”) that he finds it acceptable to hurl defamatory accusations without substantiating them, kinda like a real scientist would have to…should they engage in such behavior in the first place.

Regarding the accusation that Meier retrodicted the information, I pointed out more than once that taking credit for information that you disagree with – since Meier warns of an almost certain impact with the Earth and NASA completely disagrees – is illogical and absurd, as I’m sure you’ll all agree.

And this reinforces my concern for Stu, since no respectable Ph.D. would knowingly resort to offering such wild speculation, off-the-wall remarks and virtual non sequiturs in response to being challenged to present factual substantiation for their own serious claims. (In comparison with such irrefutable, ironclad specific examples of Meier’s prophetic accuracy as was recently posted, Stu’s vagaries reinforce our concern that his cry for help be heeded.)

It’s additionally troubling that Stu has gone so far off protocol for attacking the Meier case, especially considering how embarrassing it’s been to the professional skeptics that their efforts to “debunk” Meier have resulted in retractions from skeptical stars such as James Randi and Derek Bartholomaus (who’s now apparently so enamored with the Meier information that he’s even naming his own websites after Meier and my website!). And then there’s the thorough drubbing of IIG’s imported hit man, Ike42, as well as the foibles of the likeable Tom Quinn.

For those of you with even an ounce of compassion, can you understand now why I’m calling out for intervention? Do you see what additional harm Stu is doing not only to his own reputation but to those of his esteemed skeptical colleagues as well, if that’s possible, of course?

Obviously, things are getting much worse for Stu and his skeptical associates, who’ve inadvertently found themselves stuck to the proverbial diminutive distillate of coal that the Meier case represents for them. Now that a real scientist (who at first thought that the whole Meier case was utter nonsense) is endorsing Meier’s authenticity, in fact calling Meier’s specific, accurate prediction about the recent Russian troop movements “astonishing” (for numerous reasons), we may see a return to standard skeptical targets such as ghosts and toast (with images of the fantasy figure known as “Jesus”) since the skeptical attempts against the Meier case – over the past dozen years! – are now obviously also…toast.

17 comments on “A Skeptic Cries out…for Help

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *