posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 12:06 PM
I really respect people who back up what they say. If such a person then goes the extra distance to say they believe, in absence of incontrovertible
proof, then that is even better. The criteria, for me at least, is how conservative one's conclusions are based on the evidence that they present,
and the data that they have been privy to. Richard Dolan strikes me as such a person, so does Jacques Vallee, and most certainly the same can be said
of Stanton Friedman, in my opinion. No one is perfect, and based on the investigative methods chosen, any researcher will develop a bias that will
affect the outcome of the research. That's just part of the nature of independent study. A researcher will only be able to communicate his or her
point of view based on the evidence gathered through the investigative method decided upon. It's a major reason why science upholds the essential
process of peer review. If Stanton Friedman's method is so rigorous that after 20 years all he can do is "hold up the same piece of paper", well
just let him keep waving that sheet of paper then. At least we know that what he says based on that bit of information can be vetted to the
There are other folks, such as John Lear, who tell fantastic stories that even the most credulous have a hard time believing, and I am glued to the
radio every time they make an appearance on Coast to Coast AM. I do so because even if I don't believe everything that they say, I do suspect that
there is some truth to the stories that they tell. Generally, not much evidence to support those stories are given, but I do appreciate as much that
is given. You see, I don't have secret sources of information, all I have is that person's word that they are telling me what they truly believe.
These person's hardly ever say whether they think what they are saying is true or not. And I know they are competent enough to know the difference
between believing and knowing for an observable fact the truth of something. Still that doesn't bother me too much because in the end I'm my own
authority and I make the final determination of whether I take something to heart or not.
I guess what I'm leading to is the sort of infighting that I've witnessed in the field regarding UFOs and extraterrestrials. My perception is that
there is enough room to fit all of the believers, skeptics, and the seemingly crazy without there ever having to be nasty and disrespectful asides
creating fissures between all concerned. Every single person is restricted to their own perspective, and to see the world through another's eyes is,
perhaps, a wish we all deeply hold. It's not Stanton's Friedman fault that some folks believe Bob Lazar and some folks, including himself, do not.
He's just like any other person in regard to him having his own threshold of when to take something seriously or not to the point of being believed
or not. His perspective should be respected by all of those concerned, and any attempt to dismiss that is erroneous on the part of the attacker.
It's one thing to say that Friedman doesn't believe everything, it's another to say that he's less credible because of it. In other words, it's
not necessary to pigeonhole another to a role that one finds favorable to all other roles that that person may also be known to represent. That, in
my opinion, is spiteful and jealous. It would be good if one's opinion offered or withheld, sympathetic or dissonant, were respected and shown in
A storyteller trying to debunk someone employing the scientific method of discovery in his or her investigations doesn't make any sense. Nor does it
make any sense for a scientific researcher to attempt debunking a storyteller. From what I can tell all sides seem dedicated to the discovery and
disclosing of truth. If that is indeed the case, then there shouldn't be any person trying to limit the influence of another if all parties are
committed to truth. And so maybe this is ideal and too much of a fantasy to consider. Maybe folks more involved than I am know certain things and
feel compelled to diminish another's stature because that's an inherent part of their mission. So be it. Be evangelical if you have to, but
understand that your own credibility diminishes when the only evidence you have to present are devices that are designed to cause division. It's not
enough to shout "Propaganda!" or compare one set of circumstances to another set of completely unrelated circumstances, basically making an attempt
to persuade through the use of fallacious argumentation. True, lies have been told, but one doesn't have the market cornered on truth.