Originally posted by GreyEagle
Um, Some of the posts seem like they’re vastly misunderstanding Mr. Friedman. Sure, He mentions his CDs & books, but he hardly drones on about them
nor was he promoting them pretentiously. He mentioned them briefly but the vast majority of his video was about the differences between extremist
debunking & rational skepticism.
IF he was pretentiously promoting his personal work in this subject via this video, I doubt he’d spend as much time as he did on this topics actual
Overall, Taking into account this is my first ever exposure to Mr. Friedmans’s opinions, It was still easy to understand his distinction between
skepticism & debunking. What seems obvious to me at least, Is that he was describing how debunkers want to act like they’re the definitive authority
on these matters & many debunkers want to utterly smash believers, Even when believers aren’t being pushy in their belief.
While I believe in extraterrestrial life, My belief is balanced with a healthy dose of skepticism. Just because a source automatically is a believer
doesn’t automatically give their claims credence.
I agree. This is how I see it. What I don't like is whne they make a career out of
debunking like Skeptic magazine. How anyone can see that as reasonable is beyond me for sure. If you have a case that does not have a definitive
explanation, to say that there is a natural explanation and that you think you have it, is not concluding the case. To act like it's is profoundly
dishonest and in fact, hints that the person or persons is not looking to spread truth but rather to exploit the circumstances for financial gain.
Conspiracy magazines, skeptic magazines, they all do this. You could even argue that Stanton does this. It's hard to separate the honesty and
genuineness from the greed.
Anybody in the public consciousness that comes out and makes themselves a target automatically sacrifices much of what they earned in their life. This
almost always gains me respect for them. It's worlds easier to say what everybody expects or what everybody thinks is reasonable. This does not,
however, make what hte person does or says true. It only makes me respect their boldness.
We must keep ourselves firmly attached to the need for science and peer review. But if a case cannot be explained, given the evidence, then we must
determine for ourselves how much testimony means. In many of these cases testimony is all you got. Some of it's darn good and if you assume that the
witness is honest and accurate, is mind blowing! But testimony is not proof and one would be making a mistake to assume it's or should be. Many people
have been wrongly convicted based on the words of a single person and the associated circumstantial evidence. It's easy for people to remember
incorrectly. Have to keep all of this in mind when someone recounts a ufo sighting.
One could definitely make a case that ufos are ET in a court. But prove it? Not yet.
Testimony is shakey. A moving target, literally! By the time the scientists arrive, the ufo is gone.
Have a look at this:
Ufo Case Report 425
That's a good example of what's out there in hte archives. It's like so many i've seen. There're untold numbers of cases exactly like that where all
you have is testimony. I couldn't even list the stupid numbers of cases like this. There's not enough paper. I don't think my hands are cut out for
the task. But trying to eliminate the good ones from the bad ones, would really be an immense task. I can't imagine. And I forgive anyone that
discards this kind of evidence. But if you discard it there's pretty much nothing else left. Sadly, that's what ufology is. A lot of testimony!
You can go at a case and from the start assume it's some kind of natural phenomena or misidentifcation and from there you can probably come up with
your own brand of explanation. But in the end it's not proof of anything since the case itself is indefinite. There's no difference between saying
there's a natural explanation and saying it was ET giving welcome to humanity. People want to draw a clean line between the two and act like it's more
rationale to take sides, but ultimately, if you have made your mind up in anyway you're committing a fallacy and that's nothing good.
People who 'make their minds up' are the kind of people who make money publishing their books and articles on this topic. Since I don't think a
rationale person can come to any conclusion, the fact that people do and make money doing it tells me there're a lot of dishonest people. I think if
you can sit down calmly and admit you don't know then you're being honest and reasonable. If you can do that without asking for money, even better.
But if you can't then I have to question your character.
I have met people myself that have told me about their close encounters. Perhaps that's how my mind is a bit more open to this ET possibility. I
imagine it's harder for someone who hasn't met someone that has seen something or for those who work in the field of science. For them something is
not evidence until they can handle it and examine it under a microscope. I admire that approach but with ufology it doesn't work because the evidence
is all circumstantial and figuring out what it means is more open to interpretation. Being a ufologist is like being born with a club foot. It's like
going to work uphill in both directions. It's easy to think none of it means anything simply because there's no hard proof. Unfotunately, the reality
of ufology just doesn't help matters at all.
But because I think there's an ET possibility does not mean I have made my mind up. I also an open to the possibility of natural explanations and
misidentifications. I felt I should clarify this. My intent with the last paragraph was to explain how I might have been driven to open myself to all
possibilities. Not to say that ET is here. I definitely am not trying to take sides on the matter.
I wish that the BS could be separated from the good stuff, but it never will be. It's too immense.
edit on 11-3-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no