Scrutinizing Supercilious Steve, the Pseudo-scientific Skeptic

The noted pseudo-scientific skeptic, neurosurgeon Dr. Stephen Novella, recently tried his shaky hand at a snickering, sophomoric and defamatory attack on the Billy Meier case. His focus, if one can call anything about it focused, was primarily on the Wedding Cake UFO (WCUFO) and the Asket and Nera photo controversies.

In fact, Supercilious Steve failed to present any substantiation for his claims that: the Meier case is a “many-decade UFO hoax”, of “terrible quality”, “absurd on its face”, reveals a model supported by a tree and that “Meier has used this technique before.”  He simply repeated the already discredited critiques of others – and relied on his own, non-expert visual perception – further diminishing his own credibility, as if that was even possible.

Not content with displaying such ineptitude, he repeats the unsubstantiated arguments and stories about “garbage can lids” and “Christmas tree ornaments”, using the term “striking resemblance” to imply exact sameness. I wonder, would he similarly diagnose and treat a patient based on their bearing a “striking resemblance” to someone else…instead of taking a bit more of a “case history”?

His sarcastic observation, “Below is another ‘beam ship’ with an odd affection for foliage,” merely reveals his complete failure to have reviewed the scientific testing done on such photographs. Obviously, he wants us to know that he doesn’t even take the matter seriously enough to research it, so far above it is he.

Novella – again – indicts himself as a mere, lazy re-teller of someone else’s conjecture about a “piece of the model having fallen off” – failing to even say “alleged/allegedly” as one would expect a more cautious, intelligent person would; only the pseudo-scientist jumps to conclusions about things he never personally investigated himself. Does he also base his medical knowledge on hearsay from unreliable parties?

Having failed to cite even one source, Novella is self-rebutting in all of the above.

However, note the following (which he obviously didn’t):

  • Regarding the premise that the WCUFO is really a small model with a miniature tree, involving false or forced perspective, small objects only a few feet away from the camera would not only be CLEARER in the opening of the video than they are, after the full five-second zoom in (:18 to :23) the camera would be so close up on them that they’d appear much larger and every detail would be stunningly clear.
  • In fact, only a little more detail can be seen on the WCUFO, the branches and trunk. And they are still not crystal clear, indicating large objects far from the camera. This would be IMPOSSIBLE in the case of small models. Then when Meier zooms back out from :45 to the end of the video, both the tree and the WCUFO are even blurrier than in the opening of the  video, further indicating a great distance between them and the camera, probably hundreds of feet.

Didn’t the good doctor bother to check this out for himself? Well, no, he relied on the thoroughy discredited, Derek Barholomaus who had himself already retracted the claim that Meier used model UFOs and miniature trees. Kinda makes you wonder if Novella keeps himself this well up to date on things in what’s supposedly his main area of expertise, doesn’t it?

The Asket & Nera Controversy

The next case of sloppy imprecision – exactly the kind of thing you don’t want in a surgeon – is Novella’s use of some other skeptic’s inaccurate critique of the Asket and Nera photos. Referring to photographs of two obviously different people – he claims that they’re the same one. Again, is this the guy you’d want operating on you, “Well you look close enough to the woman whose gallbladder I removed, so I decided yours should be removed too.”?

  • How much trouble would it have been for the him to have actually read the freely available explanation of the entire matter…including the easily verified information that Meier was told about the two doubles in America – some 15 years before the controversy ever arose? Many people have a hard copy and/or ebook version of the copyrighted, dated published Contact Notes that contain that information. And, regarding the photos of the two different women, may we also recommend that he gets his eyes checked?

Novella then closes out his article with one of those, “…my 8 year old daughter tells more convincing ‘fibs’” clinchers, apparently letting us in on whose medical advice he relies on for second opinions as well. Then of course there are the predictable “yuck, yuck” comments from his minions; defamers used to be a dime a dozen but now you get a gross, and I do mean gross, for free.

Speaking of Case Histories

Why didn’t Novella read the Scientific Experts’ Comments and the Photo Analysis documents, along with all of the other scientific corroboration of the evidence and information in the Meier case? Why didn’t he comment on, and/or attempt to credibly refute, all of the work – by experts in fields in which he has no expertise – that has already authenticated Meier’s evidence?

The self-satisfied superficiality that such pseudo-scientific intellectual lightweights as Novella indulges in, is as shamelessly juvenile as his lack of embarrassment about his own ineptitude.

If you’re a potential patient of Dr. N’s, are you perhaps thinking now of getting…a second opinion?

NOTE: I stand corrected, one of the (anonymous) skeptics has pointed out that Steve isn’t a neurosurgeon, he’s a neurologist.  And while that doesn’t seem to have any direct bearing on his abilities to do honest research, perhaps there are some who are breathing a sigh of relief nonetheless.

16 Replies to “Scrutinizing Supercilious Steve, the Pseudo-scientific Skeptic”

  1. Now that my slight error was promptly corrected, once I became aware of it, let’s see if our anonymous skeptic can get Struggling Stu to show some character – and courage – and deal with the evidence that’s staring him in the face and screaming at him to wake up.

    After all, we also have Jennifer (another skeptic) to thank for admitting that she read Meier’s book that contains the prophetically accurate information regarding the existence, and discovery, of the two planetoids beyond Pluto.

    Can it get any BETTER than a skeptic on a skeptic blog admitting that they saw evidence SUPPORTING Meier’s authenticity? Well, yes it can. When the author/owner of the blog grows a pair and decides to be a real SCIENTIST instead of cowering and hiding from the truth…but that’s what skeptics do.

    How silly of me to expect anything else.

  2. “Now that my slight error was promptly corrected, once I became aware of it, let’s see if our anonymous skeptic can get Struggling Stu to show some character – and courage – and deal with the evidence that’s staring him in the face and screaming at him to wake up.”

    You ask for character while you insult those who don’t believe you. Classy.

    “prophetically accurate information regarding the existence, and discovery, of the two planetoids beyond Pluto.”

    Except he called them “planets”, not “planetoids” and there are 3, not 2.

  3. When we deconstruct skeptics we do so…surgically, if I may use that there here. The real insult is on the part of Stu, who asked for evidence and then refuses to deal with it.

    And considering that he set a derisive tone from the very beginning of any discussion of Billy Meier, he now gets to either, how shall I put it, MAN UP or be shown up for failing to do so. Considering that he now has an ANONYMOUS lackey trying to defend him instead of being COURAGEOUS enough to do it himself, doesn’t bode well for anyone who thought they would simply bask in uncritical limelight.

    Of course the anonymous “Chew” MAY be Robbins, for all I know.

    But whoever the person/group may be, one thing is for sure: they are as inept at research and investigation as Astro-Stu is unwilling to do it. Case in point? The skeptic OBVIOUSLY didn’t bother to look at more of the ample documentation that FORESAW and SPECIFICALLY dealt with such inaccurate nit-picking as was EXPECTED of him/her/it. A search for the word “planetoid” will confirm our prescient preparation here:

    It just may be that Chew is a rather…toothless tiger.

  4. It is obvious you do not want to have an honest discussion; you would rather hurl insults at people. Apologize to me and I will continue the discussion.

  5. Consider yourself lucky that you still have your anonymous online head on your virtual shoulders, if only slightly.

    You have amply demonstrated your lack of honesty and ability to hold any kind of discussion. You are free to take your marbles and go home if you wish, which makes me think, more and more, that you may actually be Astro-Stu. Do what you want but you can’t argue with the facts.

    Actually, I’d suggest that you stop complaining. After all, you came here to get your nonsense trashed and i obliged.

  6. The argument about “back dating” is silly. If they are real scientists they should know to always look at the date when an article was published….

    Somehow, only because it is “Mr. Meier”, and an obvious stubborn/persistent “opinion”, or a very “unscientific” rumour was put out since the 60’s or 80’s and “believed” among many, that Mr. Meier is a fraud, only the possibility that at least some things might be true, is rejected since the beginning….

    Because lucky of being able to read German, I could see things come true after they had been published….

    The problem is also the language….. Even they speak english among themselves, the sender A, speaks about something that she/he actually does not want to say, and the receiver B can understand something completely different from what the Sender A actually wanted to say…. this happens in daily life through the spoken language and through scientific papers…… That is why this stubborn “opinion” will never be eradicated, because it will be formed always differently going from mouth to mouth, and one will always find someone that “believes”…. Mr. Meier is still living… of course he cannot repeat “the experiments” anymore, but what the heck it never hurted me to go and talk to a scientist to know his opinion and a ticket to switzerland is “still” in a range of the affordable from the states 🙂

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.