The Morning of the Magicians

                         

inclusion	treating something as part of a bigger whole.	pg. 413 “We only want to suggest as many not unreasonable hypothesis as possible. many of them, no doubt, will have been rejected. But some of them have opened doors to other research.”	He is basically saying that even though a lot of the hypotheses from the book don't really make sense, they lead you to question life and see life differently which is important
Appeal to Ignorance	something is true because there is no evidence for it.		There is no citations or evidence at the back of the book, only quotes from different people about the matter at hand.
Appeal to misleading authority	using an authority to affirm a conclusion when the authority is not expert enough, in the context, to assure the conclusion.		Throughout the book he uses various sources to affirm what he is trying to say,, like bring another person will make it any more true.
Loci	Quality	the rare and unique is better	This book thrives off of what is unique and what is unknown.
Hierarchies	Abstract	Hierarchy of abstract values.
	Heterogenous	An accepted order of non-quantitative items, ex. “true is superior to good”
Facts/truths	Supposed	Probable

Life After Death: The Challenge and the Evidence

Our Haunted Planet

1. and 2.

3.

4.

5.

Argument analysis of Psychical Phenomena and the Physical World by Charles McCreery

Argument analysis of Psychical Phenomena and the Physical World by Charles McCreery

Methodology of analysis: In analyzing this work I began by skimming the book in it’s entirety ,as it is a relatively short work, and marked down the pages that seemed to stand out as particularly far fetched or logically dubious. The first half of the book is where the bulk of my analysis rests because the second half is largely case studies intended to support the arguments made in the first half. The second half is still noteworthy, but it serves the purpose of supporting the author’s claims with “science” rather than making any major claims on their own, the exceptions to this being the chapter on birth order and the final chapter, though they are both predominantly “evidance” focused sections .   

Table of Fallacies

Fallacy	Definition	Dr. Vrooman’s Example	Example from the Text	Comments and Explanations
Appeal to Ignorance	Something is true because there is no evidence for it.	“If I were adopted, then I would know about it by now. I don't know that I'm adopted. Therefore, I wasn't adopted.”Fallacy Files	“How do you know that all the experiences you seem to remember having since waking up this morning have not all been part of a dream. You may find this impossible to believe, but can you prove to yourself it is not true?” (page 20) “So long as we all have mutually consistent hallucinatory perceptions, and they all correspond to the real world, we will never discover that what we are having is not the real thing. How then can we say that the subject of the out-of-the-body experience is having hallucinatory perceptions but we are not?” (page 41)	These are just two of the most glaring examples of this fallacy, though there are many more instances. It seems to be the author’s final conclusion for each one of his major points. These same arguments may also be considered begging the question as the conclusion is often part of the chapter’s central premise. I am afraid to say that some people may fall into this trap since much of the logic that precedes it is scientific sounding.
Begging the Question	A circular argument. The conclusion is part of a premise.	“Bill: "God must exist." Jill: "How do you know." Bill: "Because the Bible says so." Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?" Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God." Nizkor Project
Appeal to Misleading Authority (w/ Appeal to Celebrity & Appeal to Tradition)	Using an authority to affirm a conclusion when the authority is not expert enough, in the context, to assure the conclusion.	“The moon is covered with dust because the president of our neighborhood association said so.” IEP	The author mentions Freud (page viii), Descartes (page 13), and Kant (page 75) as well as various societies and institutes in both the acknowledgements and foreword.	Those mentioned that do have academic credibility like Kant, Descartes, and Freud are largely tangential to the author’s point, only offering very minor additions to his theories. He is essentially “name dropping” credible sources in hopes of gaining the reader’s attention and belief. The societies and universities mentioned are dubious “psychical research” societies.
Wishful Thinking	Something is true because I want it to be.	“There's got to be an error here in the history book. It says Thomas Jefferson had slaves. I don't believe it. He was our best president, and a good president would never do such a thing. That would be awful.” IEP	Most people want there to be something supernatural in the world. It is simply more interesting that way. The author preys on this desire, offering dubious research and fallacious arguments to give the reader “proof” that the world is indeed supernatural and amazing and “psychical phenomena” exist.
Anecdotal Fallacy/ Misleading Vividness	A Hasty Generalization that relies on the availability heuristic (we generalize from vivid stories more readily).	"There's abundant proof that God exists and is still performing miracles today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured." SecularWeb	The second half of the book is filled with this.  The experiences of the Marquis d’Hervey de Saint-Denys in chapter 7, the account of “Subject E” in chapter 8, the cases of out of body experiences in chapter 9 and the birth order experiments in chapter 6.	These are all very vivid accounts of “psychical phenomena” though they are mostly single cases. This could also be considered part of the unrepresentative sample fallacy as well as these few cases are not representative of the entire human race.
Redefinition/ No True Scotsman	A term’s meaning is purposefully and creatively changed.	“And this is apparent, if we consider that every head of a family must look upon himself as obliged to act in three capacities—as a prophet, to instruct: as a priest, to pray for and with; as a king, to govern, direct, and provide for them.” Under Much Grace; example from Whitfield	“But when we say that something is hallucinatory we also mean that we think it is ‘not really there’ in the outside world.… Now the typical out-of-the-body experience is not hallucinatory in this sense at all.” (page 30) “If you define seeing as something that you do with your eyes, then clearly the out-of-the-body subject is not seeing the world around him. And we can of course arbitrarily decide to call seeing with one’s eyes ‘seeing’ and anything else ‘not really seeing’; but this decision is purely verbal and does not advance our knowledge or understanding of the situation.” (page 32)	This is another common fallacy used in this book. It is extremely common for the author to redefine a term like “seeing” or “real” to suit his argument. Once again I fear this may be an effective tactic, as it is not blaringly obvious to most what the author is doing, at least initially.

Table of Rhetorical Devices

Parts of the Argument	Specific Rhetorical Device Used	Definition	Example and Comments
Premises	Observed facts/truths	Concrete data.	The case studies in chapters 6 through 10 are the only observable truth or supporting data that is presented. While these cases are vivid they are far from reliable or representative of the entire population. Overall, these may be effective means of convincing some readers though the bulk of the author’s points are based on philosophical reasonings and the redefinition of words to suit his main arguments.
	Quality Loci	The rare and unique is better.	The author makes the argument that, because these “psychical phenomena” are rare they are more valuable than normal experiences, often seeing to belittle reality as “familiar” and claims that these phenomena are not accepted because they are not as common. (page 74)
Premise Modifiers	Presence in time	Making it feel urgent.	The foreword creates the sense that this is the cutting edge of science in using word like “significant contribution”, “great importance”, and “valuable” among others. This creates a sense of urgency and importance and also adds to the seemingly “scientific”-ness of the book. It is easy to tell that this book is intended for armchair psychologists and philosophers with a desire to believe in strange psychical phenomena
	Specific Choices of Interpretation	Choose between alternatives.	The author seems to outline a choice between believing and not believing, as well as a choice between the “common” view that asserts that psychical phenomena are not real and the “scientific” view that asserts that psychical phenomena are real. According to the author, if you believe in science then you should believe this book.
Quasi-logical arguments	Normative definition	Prescriptive: what it should mean.	The author constantly redefines words to suit his argument (see the no true scotsman fallacy above). The majority of the author’s arguments rest on such redefinitions and if one buys into his definitions then they will certainly believe most of this book. This is largely the crux of the entire book.

Aliens Exist! (A Rhetorical Fallacy Check and Critical Review of Fowler's UFO novel)

EDITORIAL NOTE: The following was copied from my Microsoft Word Document (via Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V), because I had no idea how to upload files. Silly me. I also would not have any time on Friday to edit or upload any files, as I have work. I put 6+ hours into this document and slaved over about 35-50 pages of a 350 page book to deliver this selection of text to you, slowly losing sanity and patience with this articles as I went. I will also admit that I began to criticize the content as well as hunt for fallacies, as my patience wore thin. 

So, COMM 274 Rhetoric Classmates (and, of course, the infamous legend, Doctor Steven Vrooman), I hereby present to you the fruits of my labor and hope you enjoy the analysis and Fallacy Finds. In my madness, I type this very section of text aware of my faults and invite you to share both my misery and my relief of accomplishment. Please, feel free to give me feedback, criticize my criticism, and to send me your sympathies. It is much appreciated. 

Without further ado, I leave you to my work. Enjoy! 

Name: Joshua Oliver

Class: Rhetoric – COMM 274

Overseer: Dr. Steven Vrooman

Subject: Aliens Exist!

Material in Question: UFOs: Interplanetary Visitors (Raymond E. Fowler), circa 1974

<Begin Critical Analysis of Argument>

Aliens exist! Why? Because “expert” Raymond E. Fowler has “eyewitness accounts”, “overwhelming evidence of visits to Earth”, and has permission by NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) to quote “reliable” NICAP material. Also, Fowler claims to have “70 startling case histories from firsthand reports.” And all of that information is provided from the cover and the acknowledgements; that is, before the book even begins on Chapter 1.

First page in, and we already have a vivid, extreme story of a man catching fire after a “UFO” beamed down upon him. The audience hook is set. A few pages later, the dedication is to Fowler’s father, whom is described as inspiration to Fowler with “lifelong interest and experience with extraordinary phenomena…they come by facing the problem squarely through investigation, acknowledgement and study.” I can agree to investigating strange things and study of phenomena. Care to give me examples of your father’s work, Mr. Fowler, or do I have to continue reading this 350+ page (and roughly $10) book, just to get an idea of your father’s impact?

Maybe I am being too harsh on Raymond’s work. I am skeptical, after all. Perhaps the first chapter (“It Started with a Hamburger”) can shed some light on the prospects of encounters with little grey beings and their circular saucers of shock and terror…

The Foreward

Oh, wait! A Foreword by J. Allen Hynek, from Northwestern University! Surely a college professor could give merit to a shake-y subject and establish Fowler as an expert rather than a fraud! I must ask what Professor Hynek’s profession is. Unfortunately, we may never know if he was a Theologian, a Political Scientist, or Communication Studies Professor…

It appears that Fowler is dedicated to his cause and is a collaborative person. He gets points there, but there are no reliable sources of intel established yet. Also, it is stated that “The UFOs he writes about are New England UFOs, not those in faraway places, for which documentation is difficult, if not almost impossible.” (page xii) This raises some warning bells. First, would it be better to get samples from around the nation and globe rather than a pocket of the planet for credible areas of visit? Second, could such a vast amount (“70 startling case histories from firsthand reports” – title) of eyewitness accounts come from one geographical location? Lastly, how do we know that these are not rumors or half-baked perceptions of actual events? What if a pothead saw a “UFO” that was really a military jet rocketing through the air? I learned in a High School Senior-level class of “forensic science” that eyewitness accounts can be very unreliable.

Also, an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy occurs on page xiii. “And thirdly, it also became apparent that…there remain events that truly ‘stump the experts’ and defy conventional explanations. Only these latter phenomena can properly be termed unidentified flying objects.” While I can see that Professor Hynek may be merely trying to define what criteria a UFO sighting is labelled, it has fallacious applications.

Let us say that I am walking to class one day, and discover a dead naked female student in front of the Chapel of the Abiding Presence, in a pool of blood. I call the police. The police arrive and some detectives do an investigation. No clues or suspects are to be found on campus and the case goes cold. Therefore, the conclusion, based on Hynek’s explanation, is that aliens abducted a Jane Doe, removed her clothing, and experimented on her, before ejecting her body out of the aircraft to fall to Earth and splat in a pool of blood in front of the church. Aliens, man! Or maybe, just maybe, she was murdered elsewhere by an assailant (whom took the utmost precautions) and dumped her body in front of the church intentionally (to send a message) before fleeing without being seen. No witnesses, no trace evidence, and no ties to the victim.

Consider the “burning man” example at the beginning of the book. Gregory Wells claimed he saw a bright red light, from a UFO, while walking home and it set his jacket on fire. Perhaps, this is how it happened, or is there an alternate explanation? Maybe Gregory Wells was smoking a cigarette on his way home, and was going through a pedestrian crossing. Maybe he looked up to see the red stoplight for traffic while waiting for the “walking signal” to display. Maybe, at the same time, ash from his cigarette fell onto his flammable jacket and caught fire. Surprised, Gregory panicked. Afterwards, maybe he got embarrassed and told a tall tale to his wife, to be picked up onto by Fowler… The beginning story was brief and vague, so details are few. Since I cannot refute my interpretation of what could have happened, I cannot confirm the UFO story either. Without concrete facts and eyewitness accounts/documentation, there can be no true answer. (Do I sense Slippery Slope/Accident Fallacy creeping up?)

Professor Hynek also commits the Poisoning the Well Fallacy by attacking scientists based on a generalization and before a rebuttal. There is no chance given to the scientist to counteract this attack on page xii, nor is there any consideration by Hynek to the other side’s beliefs. Instead, Hynek ends the Foreword by attempting to sell the reader the idea that Fowler is trustworthy and we readers should trust everything he says. (Anything else is government lies or scientists “quacking” about nonsense.)

I am also skipping the Introduction, as it is also an attempt to persuade the audience that Fowler is a trustworthy person. The Foreword has convinced me enough*, and I, as a reader, want to get to the tasty, juicy UFO stories right now!

 

*NOT! (♫It’s Wayne’s World! Wayne’s World!♫) 

The Cases

It should be obvious that I, from the get-go, would not be able to cover all 350+ pages. Instead, I decided to take a look at the most vivid sections in the Table of Contents to see if anything would spark interest. In addition, I was hopeful that they would provide evidence to UFOs being real, and would debunk my skepticism regarding E.T.s once and for all. I procure my findings as follows.

It Started with a Hamburger (A Tasty Tale with No Trans-Fat! Or any food…)

On June 26, 1963, Enrico Gilberti and his wife, Janet, were sleeping in bed, when they suddenly awoke to a loud noise. Outside their window, a UFO was spotted. Fowler then proceeds in text to describe the interview and throw in a few bits of personal nonsense. The Gilberti Sighting was simple: Enrico, a former B-17 Pilot, describes the sound unlike any known aircraft, and Janet is promised a call-back from the Southwest Weymouth Naval Air Station to no avail, but got confirmation that no aircrafts were deployed in the area.

Does this sound like a mouth-watering experience to you? No? Well, guess what? There is no food in this article. A complete lead-on! It should have been called “the Gilberti Sighting,” unless there was an attempt to tie in more food. (Not even a mention of sipping coffee…)

Actually, Enrico’s description of the UFO fits as a simile. “It was like two hamburger buns, one on top of the other, with a sandwich piece of meat sticking out all around.” That is all the food analogies in the story. Enrico also explains orange lights were emitted from Fez-shaped lamps on the center-piece, but that is a minute detail compare to the thick, juicy burger analogy!

Fowler also uses a truly corny quote, saying this case (one of his firsts)…well, I will quote directly: “That hamburger whetted my appetite!” Oh, yes he did! He then states that this case led him on to continue investigating sightings in the New England Area and that he would become a flying saucer investigator.

Other than the lack of a large sample basis (try the continental United States at least, Fowler!) and the horrible burger analogy/pun, the text is sin-free. However, it is boring and acts as a stale start (OH, GREAT! NOW I’M DOING FOOD PUNS!) to the rest of the book. If you are not yet sold to UFO conspiracies or alien visitation, then this book will likely be on your bad side now, if not turn you off completely!

Skeptics have likely dismissed this book as cash-in trash by now, but I will try another case. After all, setting the beginning hook is the toughest part, and it is the make or break point. Perhaps a case later in the text will provide better evidence and a fair story.

The Sharon Saucer (It Ain’t Sharing Nothin’)

This appears to be a continuation of previous stories before it. No year is given, so I will assume that the date is either the late 1960s or early 1970s. In April <year unknown>, two police officers respond to a UFO sighting on Holly Lane, around 12:10 am. They witness some bright red, white, and green lights along with the May Family, before a plane crosses by and the UFO disappears minutes later.

From this, witness reports occur in other areas and an investigation ensures. Witnesses describe the object as oval and the size of an automobile. Also, a cover-up occurs, but a loop-hole allows an officer to report his findings. Days later, on April 22, the officer reporting in the book tells of a UFO landing in Beverly, a nearby area. However, to read that incident, you will have to read the next article.

This article is free of fallacies, as far as I can tell. At face value, it seems decent. Unfortunately, this section likely requires you to read the full story (aka, the beginning of the chapter, all the way through). I thought the title told me that this was “70 Startling Case Histories From Firsthand Reports.” What is Fowler doing? Is he cutting up large cases into parts and selling the parts as individual cases? If that is what is happening, then Fowler is a shady businessman!

I would also like to point out that it is 12 am, in the morning, when the story occurs. Maybe the cops are tired? Maybe they are drunk? Maybe it was just a plane and they are seeing things? I cannot fault the cops from partaking in drug-related activities, but the civilian population of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s are not immune.

I do not have much to throw at this article. It is a genuine police man reporting his report, and he has several eyewitnesses to back it up. All I have to refute it is the state of tiredness, drunkenness, or under the effects of dope. If there was a timeline and no prior forced reading, this chapter would definitely help skeptics. Why not put this at the beginning of the book instead? Why not use the officer (who is nameless in the text) as your figurehead in the foreword rather than mysterious Professor Hynek?

Next case…

A UFO Attacks (Destroy All Humans!)

Before I give the next synopsis and criticism, I would like to state that I looked at the beginning of the chapter for possible dates. If this case follows its story pattern, then this case and those before and after it in the chapter fall in during 1967. Also, Fowler appears to be working with several teams on UFO sightings. It is confirmed that he works with other people cooperatively.

It is also possible that the previous entry, the Sharon Saucer, was reported by Fowler and not a police officer. Maybe, then, I can say that Fowler is a weirdo, UFO investigator freak on dope! But, I digress…to the attack!

The early hours of March 8, 1967 (assumed 1967) were a chilling 28 degrees Fahrenheit in Boston. Mr. and Mrs. William Wallace decided to go on a scenic drive, despite snowy road conditions. They saw something very strange at St. Leo’s Cemetery in Leominster. A UFO was creating a glow and a cloud of mist. Mr. Wallace pointed at it, and strange things occurred. The 1955 Cadillac sedan died suddenly (lights and radio turned off as a result), an electric shock hit poor Mr. Wallace, and he was dragged by his pointing hand to the car. The UFO left soon and the paralysis faded. Mr. Wallace felt “sluggish” and “heavy all over” while driving home. We even hit the garage door by failing to brake in time. Mrs. Wallace called her mother and the police. Both stated they were not under the influence of liquor during the incident, and that the fog and mist disappeared after the UFO left on their way home from the cemetery.

A good story, despite my doubt of alcohol consumption. (This is why we have breathalyzers and toxicology tests!) Yet, there is a dent and indentation of the “dragging” in the snow. Hmm…

Fowler commits the Slippery Slope and Appeal to Ignorance Fallacies (much like Hynek) in the Effects section on page 143. Parts 1, 2 and 3 must be correct because there is no evidence debunking them and are related because of cause and effect! Coincidence? Fowler thinks not, but I think drink and drive!

Fowler ends the case not with sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Wallace’s experience and sentiments, but relief that his girls on his team were not tempted to do the same and get hurt. Good thing they did not get hurt; however, what about Mr. Wallace, who was paralyzed during the incident? All you care about, Mr. Fowler, is selling trashy books and the safety of your conspiracy team (but not other citizens!). I am doubting your good-nature and genuine character, Raymond E. Fowler!

Let us read the next case. Perhaps Fowler can redeem himself.

Mystery Over Cape Ann (Mad and Flaring!)

I will be brief in this case. August 2, 1967, a UFO was sighted near Cape Ann and Fowler begins to investigate. He ponders several thoughts, but concludes that, from reports from the Air Force, that flares were fired in the area. The Navy had no idea of the operation and information was inconsistent, with Dr. LeVine demanding that Fowler admit to who “tipped you off to the flares”. Perhaps the Air Force is covering up the incident, or maybe white flares were dropped by the Air Force and the public is mistaken (although they report Orange lights).

It is obvious from many other alien-related materials that the government would attempt an alien cover-up as to calm any panic and avoid mayhem. The discretions in the Navy’s reports compared to the Air Force’s report reflects that. If they know that there are aliens visiting earth, with technology that could overpower us, it would be wise to dismiss it to the public to avoid fear on a national, if not global, scale.

Wishful Thinking is the fallacy that the public may be committing. Without documentation, eye-witness reports cannot be confirmed. If they want to believe that white Air Force flares are orange UFO lights, so be it. They, however, should avoid reporting false information to the media and NICAP. That is all I have for this case. 

The Priest and the Saucer (God-Fearing Man vs. Man-Fearing Grey Guys)

Fowler has met Professor Hynek (that occurred in June 1969). 

The year is likely 1971 at the time of this story. Paul, a graduating college student looking to become a priest in Kentucky, and his brother, Joseph, were out in a swampland when they saw a UFO. It left quickly and was reported the size of an automobile. A friend of a friend of a friend grape-vine led Fowler to the brothers. Memorial Day, the date of the incident, was stormy at the time of the event, and all Air Force and Weather Reports indicated that there were no aircraft or hot air balloons in the area at the time. Fowler almost got something from the Radar Operations Center and Mr. Waldo Aldrich, but the “two possibilities” of “unusual activity” in the log was stated as nothing by Aldrich. All other attempts by Fowler procured no progress, but led to a sighting case back in 1966. Fowler also contacted Paul’s college and was told by Father Barry McCabe that “if Paul said he saw it, he saw it.”

The vivid title is a disappointment, as Paul is not yet a priest. (Is that misleading?)

The Aldrich report was mysterious, I will give it that, but there is no proof of aliens or UFOs. There is eye-witness testimony, but only of the brothers and it is not credible enough.

Fowler told us that the stories would be reliable and credible, but it is increasingly starting to seem like New England superstition. I have yet to hear one case involve picture or video documentation, or at least one case being reported by someone of professional merit (say a doctor, lawyer, psychologist, etc.). I have covered 5 cases thus far, and they are all the same – New England Area common-folk on farms or in suburbs, each with one vivid detail that Fowler can exploit for a catchy title. I sense a pattern, and I am intentionally going out of order and jumping to different cases. The next one, I have no doubt will regard either a Farm in New Hampshire or a Boston suburban area.

The Chicken Coop Caper (A Clucking Awesome Tale!)

I called it! Canterbury, New Hampshire. May 13, 1972, at 9:30 pm, a Mr. James Lilley, his two sons, and their two friends were going to camp out in a partially constructed chicken coop for the night. Mr. Lilley left for ten minutes before the sons and friends ran back into the house, telling him of something horrible. Mr. Lilley dismissed their stories as a helicopter, but when he separated them and asked them to draw a sketch of the object, he was surprised at a UFO! Mr. Lilley reports the UFO to the Air Force Tracking Station.

Raymond Fowler does his usual gimmicks here – confirm the trustworthiness of the witnesses with friends and neighbors of the family, requests information for air traffic groups and the Air Force, and interviews all sorts of “other witnesses”.

Nothing too exciting here. Raymond also states that the “falling leaf” pattern of landing is common in UFO sightings. No physical proof that UFO can do this? Then it must be true!

That is 6 cases, all without Fowler apparently seeing any or even recording video/photographing evidence of aliens! Well, time for the last case!

Silver-Suited Somethings (Alliteration A lot, Aliens?)

This is it – the final case. 6 previous cases failed to bring to light any substantial evidence of the existence of Extra-Terrestrial life and flying saucers. 6 previous cases used vivid titles and did not, in my opinion, deliver the anticipated results. 6 previous cases are left unsolved and have yet to convince the critical mind to the so-called “truth”.

If there is any hope left for the skeptical, critical, and sarcastic nay-sayer (like me) to become aware of alien life, it rests in this case. This is also one of the last cases. If Fowler wants to make me believe, then now is the best time and the last time.

Silver-Suited Somethings, please, give me anything and everything you have up your shiny sleeves…

October 17, 1973. In Falkville, Alabama (finally, a sighting outside New England!), 23-year-old police officer (a one-man police force) Jeff Greenhaw responds to a call from a woman that a spaceship had landed in her backyard. When Jeff arrived on the scene, there were no signs of any spacecraft, but he decided to investigate further. Then, Jeff spotted a figure in a silver suit. Jeff assumed the figure was a prankster, and he said ‘Howdy, Stranger!’ The figure said nothing, and began to approach Jeff. Jeff took Polaroid pictures and soon realized that this was no gag. When the figure was about 10 feet away, Jeff got into his cruiser and shined his lights. The figure began to take off running with Jeff in pursuit. Jeff, in his excitement, went off the road. When he recovered his vehicle and when the dust settled, the figure was gone.

Now, why not put this in at the beginning?!? This is the kinds of stories that would be great to put in the first chapter: they are vague, but would intrigue the skeptics to KEEP READING THE BOOK! I jumped around and found very little credibility and entertainment out of this 350 page “alien almanac” and, only at the very end, received even a taste of something worthwhile. There is no Fowler investigation follow-up, which is a good thing (as it was becoming monotonous and predictable), but it is probably because the case is not in Massachusetts or New Hampshire!

Most skeptics would have read maybe to the third portion of the first chapter before giving up. I jumped around to sample all the “goodness” in this book, and I only got a TASTE at the end. A taste – just when it gets good, the story is over.

No fallacies here, but it is a major letdown and a disappointment.

Conclusion

In summary, Fowler’s work is basically “word-bait”. I say word bait, as it is the book equivalent of YouTube video’s click-bait. Give a book an interesting title, draw attention to it, command the audience to put it up and buy it with a promise of “70 Startling Case Histories From Firsthand Reports”, only to dump them at the deep end and leave the audience feeling conned out of their money.

I cannot say that Fowler’s entire work is completely garbage (as I have not read everything in it), but he commits many fallacies in his work over all the cases. Appeals to Ignorance, Begging the Question, Slippery Slope, an Appeal to Misleading Authority (thank you, Professor Hynek), Wishful Thinking (I want to believe!), Unrepresentative Sample (New England people only!), Hasty Generalizations, Misleading Vividness (have you seen the catchy titles?), and so many more fallacies that I cannot hope to list.

It is clear that if you have not yet jumped onto the Bandwagon of believers in E.T.s and UFOs, then you likely will not enjoy this book, much less read it cover-to-cover. It is a shame, as it had potential. It, obviously, had a team of investigators and the resources to conduct meaningful research and document their finds. Instead, Fowler sold this book as a sell-out and a con artist. Take the analogy – we thought we were buying gold coins, but what we really got were chocolate coins.

Disappointing - that sums up my feelings. How could Fowler f*** up with such good titles as “The Chicken Coop Caper” and “It Started with A Hamburger”? I do not know. What I do know is that I was not convinced by archaic novel that UFOs were visiting Earth then (in the 1970s) and certainly not now. I am still doubting the stories of our planet being visited. I will admit that, personally, I love UFO and alien stories and myths! However, I decided to enter this book with a critical mind and arm myself with a list of common rhetorical fallacies. I decided to consider Doctor Vrooman’s critical analysis of superstitious topics, such as this one. (I can also confirm Dr. Vrooman’s profession, but not Professor Hynek’s field.)

In the end, UFOs: Interplanetary Visitors had my attention at the beginning, but the content fell flat and the stories went from interesting to bland to pure elaboration of Fowler’s investigations. Fowler committed many rhetorical fallacies and his content became repetitive and predictable. I dare say that a restructuring of the book chapter could have improved readership, but by the time anyone would get to the final chapter, all hope from skeptics would be lost (if they are even still reading). Vivid case names did not deliver their promises, and the small sample size of the case reports lead to more skepticism by me from the start (the sample size is established in the Foreword, for God’s sake!). I am not convinced by Fowler, and all other non-believers would not be persuaded by him either. Waste of potential; waste of time and money. It only holds worth now as a token of history and superstition of yesteryears, and nothing more than that.

Before I close the book for good, allow me to state something:

Notice that I did 7 cases. What is special about the number 7? The holy number, the number of God! And God is commonly seen as an entity in the sky. But what is in the sky? UFOs! What are in UFOs? Aliens! They MUST BE TRUE! I believe! I believe!

7 = God = Sky = UFOs = Aliens. (This is the logic of Fowler!) 

Thank you for reading my analysis, Fallacy-buster, and rant. I hope you enjoyed me losing my mind and debunking Fowler's Fanatical False Funfair into Faraway Flying Things and their Abnormal Occupants. May it bring you knowledge and forge in you a sense of skepticism, which will allow you to look pass face value of something and examine its credibility as its core. My name is (or, maybe, was) Josh Oliver. I will see you next time, unless I am abducted by small Gray/Green men in a UFO in the next five and a half seconds...I hope they do not have a probe ready!