Hendry, p. 27:
I can answer the alleged anonymous airport
official's misleading question: ZERO. Yes, that's right, the
story is a complete and total fiction. The planet Venus cannot radio for clearance to land -- I mean to even have
to explain this is ridiculous, Venus is an inanimate object incapable of
intelligent thought and communication, radio or otherwise.
An aircraft that tries to land at a busy
airport in a restricted airway without obtaining radio clearance first is either an emergency due to radio failure or disability of
the pilot, or it is a potential hijacking or
terrorist aircraft or some hostile attack activity. It is an extremely
serious matter, not to be laughed off as just "lights in the sky playing
tricks." The airport radar will have been checked by controllers
to verify that an aircraft is coming in on a standard approach path and/or is a
hazard to other flights. Repeated efforts will have been made to establish
radio contact. When there is no response, swift emergency action will be taken.
It would be in all the newspapers and the
subject of official FAA or NTSB investigation and by similar agencies in other
countries if it ever occurred there. The AF would be alerted to scramble
fighters to intercept unless it was clearly just a pilot in trouble and not
suspicious or hostile action. Having something like this happen at night is an
especially dangerous situation. We would know all about it. Hendry would have
been able to provide names, dates, places, the whole works -- if anything like
it had actually ever happened.
And why only Detroit airport anyway?
Doesn't Venus radio other airports for clearance to land??? What about Jupiter
and Sirius, don't they radio too???
The more I thought about it the more I was struck
by the absurdity of the story insinuating that Detroit Airport controllers had
many times "cleared" the planet Venus to "land" at the airport. This seems to
be something of a debunker article of faith, a prooftext for the stupidity of
even trained air traffic controllers. Yet it is not even claimed to be a UFO
sighting.
We are supposed to believe that Venus just shines
brightly in the sky one evening and that busy air traffic controllers then
become mesmerized by the sight and actually go through their procedures to
"clear" the planet for landing -- the specifics of those "clearance procedures"
being conveniently hazy in this debunker thought-balloon. It is a grossly
embarrassing act of folly -- if it ever happened. Therefore, this cautionary
tale supposedly tells us that UFO cases at airports can just be similar
stupidity and it instructs us on how stupid people can be if even air traffic
controllers can make such mammoth mistakes of "misperception" (whatever that
loaded term really means, which I contend is a nonsense term anyway, but that's
another story for another day).
But in reality it is an example of a debunker hoax. Yes, debunkers, can and do
perpetrate hoaxes, just like the Adamskis of the world. But it is a category of
event or fabricated non-event that is not recognized or studied or debated.
There seems to be the attitude that debunkers are just skeptics trying to
defend "truth," so by very definition they don't engage in untruthful or
fraudulent hoaxes, right?
The genre of debunker hoaxes -- not mistakes or
confused slipups, but perpetrated frauds -- include the following and I'm sure
the list can be extended with further thought and research:
- The
faked "Roswell" map and balloon data (with bad math like 100/12 = 350 instead of
8.5, etc.) to support the nonexistent, cancelled Project Mogul Flight 4, the
600+ feet of rigging for which was evidently recycled for Flight 5, all part of
a debunking scam to dispose of the Roswell case (whatever the actual event may
have been).
- In
the Mantell case, someone in an official agency made up a bogus Skyhook balloon
launch from Clinton County airport in Ohio, a launch that never happened (no
such launches till 1951), and passed on the false claim to Ruppelt at BB.
- Debunker
astronomer Patrick Moore apparently faked the 1954 "Cedric Allingham" contactee
photo/book hoax.
- Over half a
century of UFO, contactee and crashed-saucer stories were invented and/or
disseminated by official agencies as discrediting disinformation that debunks
the UFO subject and UFO researchers.
When I read what Hendry wrote, though, I was
bothered by a number of things besides the patent absurdity of the story, such
as the fact it is not even an assertion of fact but a question, an unanswered question at that. Was
Hendry's source simply playing a rhetorical game? Was it a joke inspired by the
similarity of the words "plane" and "planet"? No UFO report is attached to the
story, as I said, nor any IFO report. No date, no names of alleged witnesses,
whether FAA controllers or not. No "sighting details."
It is clear to me that the story was calculated to
produce shame, and the shame was intended to shut down all thought and critical
faculties. The shame has the effect of allowing misconceptions, stereotypes and
prejudices to fill in the vacuum left by shutting down thought -- in this case
to forget everything we ought to know about airport procedures, even from
watching the movies or television. Debunkers
apparently expect that it will be too embarrassing for critics to ask questions
because it only draws more attention to the uncomfortable (alleged) "fact" that
air controllers cleared a planet, Venus, for landing many times. Embarrassment
and shame obviate the need to
supply any documentation -- no one dares bring up the subject to ask. We are
supposed to accept the story without question and let it have its intended
effect, in this case a very deceitful one.
The Venus-cleared-to-land story is patently so
false, so fraudulent, so outrageous, that it is amazing to me that it hasn't
been exposed sooner. The shaming effect evidently shuts down all thinking,
stops all questioning.
This raises
many disturbing questions: Who in the FAA at Detroit made up this obviously
false story? Why did Hendry not question the story or attempt to get
documentation for at least one purported instance? Why hasn't anyone questioned
this fraudulent and outrageous debunker hoax before? Here we are 34 years after
Hendry's book was published so why hasn't anyone blown the whistle? Hendry's
book has been the darling of skeptics and debunkers, who supposedly epitomize
"critical thinking" yet seem to have trouble critically thinking about their own
"side" (a point that Jerry Clark has been making for years). Maybe there is
some obscure review somewhere that has called attention to this bogus story and
maybe the many other huge errors of astronomy, statistics, math, logic, etc., in
the same book.
And by the way, the falsity of
this story does not mean the opposite is true, that controllers never make
mistakes, never mistake IFO's for UFO's, just that they never foolishly radio
clearances to land to unidentified aircraft or objects in the sky. And my
position on ETH needs to be reiterated here lest I be misunderstood: The
falsity of this story does not prove that UFO's are alien
spacecraft. I do not
accept or "believe in" ET or alien visitation, never have, but others are
welcome to draw their own conclusions as to what the unexplained UFO phenomenon
may represent. I agree with most of Jacques Vallée’s 5 numbered arguments in
his “Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying
Objects,” JSE, 1990, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 105-117, with corrections and
modifications, and additional reasons of my own, again a discussion for another
time.
END