Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant By Stanton Friedman

Greetings Forumerions,

The latest from Stan in where he not only offers up an assertive, pithy rebuttal to debunker, Tim Printy, but calls him out at the same time! (For a debate anywhere).

In early February, 2012, Andre Skondras, who distributes many interesting UFO articles on the internet, carried a 15 page 2008 article by Tim Printy entitled “The UFO Disclosure Myth”; I am a primary target of the last portion of the article. I also found his paper “My Skeptical Opinion about UFOs.” Clearly he is a debunker not a skeptic. He seems to know very little though he has strong opinions.

Printy starts the long piece with this comment: “Man is a credulous animal and must believe something: In the absence of good grounds for belief he will be satisfied with bad ones.” –Bertrand Russell. This is a fine description of the debunking of people like Printy; they have no good grounds to support their negativity, so bad ones will do. He claims even the most hardened Ufologist who believes that there is something behind these reports will admit that at least nine out of ten cases are misperceptions and hoaxes. The values usually turn out to be more like 3-10% of the reports remaining unexplained”. No source is given for this ridiculous proclamation.
. . .

The rest of the story . . .

Cheers,
Frank

Plenty of debunkers are not worth their salt. But I'm willing to bet that the dough eyed believers that have saddled folks like Friedman with an uphill battle have done FAR more harm to this subject than Stan's little crybaby rant about debunkers. And yeah, read the article. Read it a hundred times over the years, given by dozens of different people.

Those darn debunkers, ruining Ufology. Never mind the 400lb gorilla in the corner no one wants to acknowledge because they will loose their audience (made up of baby 400 pound gorillas).

Last time I stalked with Stand he refused to even discuss the folks that make us look like idiots, and wanted to blame the serious lack of legitimate scientific research into this subject by all major universities due to debunkers and not the fact that the dough eyed believers have made this into a laughable joke.

Stan and his type need to come back to reality.

Good for Mr. Friedman. I met him last July in Roswell, where he gave a talk on "Debunking the Debunkers". It was highly entertaining, and ol' Stan knows his business. He's such a nice guy, too.

The thing that irritates me about debunkers is not that they are providing an alternative explanation to strange phenomena, but that they have an attitude of superiority and smugness which belies their lack of knowledge about the subject.

The one debunker that really chaps my hide and makes me want to punch him, is the infamous Michael Shermer. The only thing that he has ever convinced me of is that I am certain that I do not care for him as a scientist, a debunker, or a human being. Look up "smug S.O.B." in the dictionary, and his picture is there as an illustration.

His excuse for everything is that people are desperate to believe in "something" so they make things up like UFOs and ghosts. One could just as easily say that he is so desperate to carve a niche out for himself in the world of science, so he makes a living as a naysayer. It's not science, it's self-promotion, the only thing he does well. I would provide a link to his website, but I refuse to promote him in any way, shape, or form.

Very true, but as said by a poster above, debunkers are not the only group hurting ufology.

I believe that people who hoax videos and evidence are more responsible for the lack of serious scientific investigation.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


That's awesome, I've always thought he'd be a cool guy to talk to.

The problems are numerous and lie in both camps on the debunker and ufologist sides

There are debunkers that give credible and interested skeptics a bad name.
There are ufologists/researchers/investigators, and/or other interested and associated parties within the community which also give the whole phenomenon a stink.

In my opinion, regardless of how nice, or how much anyone in the community has done for the community, ufology, and most everything associated with it is broken.

MUFON runs around chasing craft, and documenting everything, wasting money on time and resources piling up the mountain of over 50 years of data already, and will 50 years from now have done nothing more than acquired another 50 years of similar mostly worthless data to the tune of however much time and money was spent in collecting, investigating, and really all amounting to nothing.

People like Friedman, though probably nice, they get paid to lecture, to perform, so they can eat, so they can perform more 'research', so they can lecture/perform, so they can eat more, so they can do more research, so they can lecture/perform, so they can get paid so they can eat, and it's just a circus of circular nothing going nowhere.

Disclosure Project and similar: These all rely on affirmation, recognition, forthcoming, cooperation from 'The Government', and/or any other associated entities. This isn't going to happen. To get disclosure, people need quit begging, petitioning, and bothering big Gov about something they're never going to give on.

For anything to happen in this arena, a concentrated, organized, funded group needs go out and get data on their own, and work on developing methodolgies for reliable, repeatable irrefutable video evidence, as well as physical evidence.
I've explained many times how claimed abductees could be leveraged in research as a focal point for data collection and developing methodologies. If aliens are real, and they are abducting people, investigators have a semi-predictable WHERE, a physical location to stake out by monitoring abduction claimants (with their consent).
Many levels of involvement can be had depending on funding, all the way up to financing a secure controlled-access video monitored long-term live-in facility designed specifically for baiting and monitoring abduction events for whatever it is that may be causing them.

One quick and easy cure for debunkers: Present something of value that is positive proof of your claims.

If you're claiming UFOs are ET craft, offer something that specifically takes the "U" out of "UFO," and actually, positively identifies that people are seeing an alien craft. Not a lot of sweaty blacked-out pages that might be proof of alien flying saucers (or might not). Hard, verifiable, SCIENTIFIC proof.

Do that just once! Once!

reply to post by Blue Shift


Wow, you may as well ask for a cure for Cancer while you are at it.

The subject is mysterious and that's why it is of interest to so many, but to ask for hard evidence of something that is a mystery is kind of hard to do don't you think?

I agree most evidence presented can and very well is contested but besides Radar hits + Visual sightings...I mean what else is there?

Its not going to get handed to us on a silver platter no matter how much we stomp our feet on the ground screaming that we want it.

I thought ATS wasn't allowing threads about the "evils of skeptics" (because, let's face it, we know what Stanton really means; "debunker" is the four-letter word used as a label so that he can dismiss critics and skeptics without thought) any longer.

Mr. Friedman, why so worried about skeptics (oh, I'm sorry, debunkers)? They are not what is holding UFO research back. Of course, it is easier to blame skeptics than it is to prove your beliefs.

reply to post by WingedBull

Of course, it is easier to blame skeptics than it is to prove your beliefs.

Please don't paint someone is such a negative light until you are sure you are being accurate in your representation.

In this instance you have ended up looking foolish to those who know about the research Stanton Friedman has done. In his books, Stan writes one chapter concerning the debunkers, and thoroughly demolishes their arguments. The whole rest of the book is dedicated to evidence.

Maybe you should read his books and actually look at the evidence he presents before claiming that he presents none.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
Maybe you should read his books and actually look at the evidence he presents before claiming that he presents none.

Could you please show us where I said claimed he presents none? Funny you should say...

Originally posted by thesearchfortruthPlease don't paint someone is such a negative light until you are sure you are being accurate in your representation.

...when you yourself are not accurate in your representation of me.

I should expect an apology, or at least an acknowledgement of your hypocrisy. But I realize that one won't be forthcoming. No, you'll just continue to misrepresent what I said, as is standard procedure among UFO believers.

And you should actually listen to what Mr. Friedman has to say. Specifically, I would point you to this episode of the Binnall of America podcast, wherein the good Mr. Friedman says the worst problem UFO research faces is the "nasty, noisey negativists."

Isn't it interesting that you don't find the various sciences blaming critics for the problems in their field? Only among the woo proponents do you find such sentiment. It is very telling.

reply to post by Frank Warren

I'd rather be Printy than Friedman. Religion is one of the worst concepts created by man. Friedman is one of the worst creations in UFOlogy. He is responsible for more than anyone's share of UFO bs. He has no shame and as far as a UFO investigator he is one of the worst. He spreads a lot of crap never supplying any evidence for anything he says and he is a believer's darling. He is still billing himself as a nuklear physicist even though he's been out of the business for decades. Would you still bill yourself as a used car salesman if you stopped selling used cars decades ago? He sells used UFO bs. He is the pits.

BTW, I met him twice and took his photo twice, I know who he is and I never liked him or what he stands for. Man, I can't stand bs!

Why are debunkers likened to skeptics? I don't think all skeptics seek to debunk those sightings that are authentic as actual UFO events. I thought that what skeptics require is proof of ET visitation is more evidence than a personal accounting. Otherwise, everything is theory. Conjecture. Fascinating though. Evidence doesn't necessarily equate to truth either you know. There has to be a preponderance of evidence to advance a theory to factual. Consider our scientists and their theories. Some work their whole life and don't amass enough evidence to move their theory into fact. Particularly evidence of this nature as we might not even know how to identify what is evidence in this phenomenon yet. Have we even reached the scientific level to perceive what this might be?

I champion the Disclosure Project. I think it is one of the more positive movements in the UFO community right now. It was one of the first video's I watched that really got me wondering if there is something to all this. Still waiting, still wondering.

Originally posted by Frank Warren.

He claims even the most hardened Ufologist who believes that there is something behind these reports will admit that at least nine out of ten cases are misperceptions and hoaxes. The values usually turn out to be more like 3-10% of the reports remaining unexplained”. No source is given for this ridiculous proclamation.
. . .

Except, you know...UFO researchers themselves...

"If you don't solve at least nine out of ten cases you are doing something wrong" -- Jenny Randles

"95% of all UFO sightings can be explained and completely discredited..." -- from the documentary, "UFOs on the Record," based on Leslie Kean's book.

It is interesting that to attack Printy, Friedman ignores what he fellow UFO researchers say and instead relies on decades old reports, from the very government he claims he covering up an alien presence on Earth.

“Despite over 50 years of “research”, UFO organizations have yet to provide us with any significant data that can back up the claim that UFOs are caused by aliens piloting space ships”. What he means is that he is unwilling to examine the data.

No, what he means is “Despite over 50 years of “research”, UFO organizations have yet to provide us with any significant data that can back up the claim that UFOs are caused by aliens piloting space ships”. Now, certainly, Mr. Friedman can make a really start case that they have shown cases to be unexplained. However, what Mr. Friedman fails to understand is that unexplained does not equate to alien. You cannot explain something by virtue of it being unexplained.

The rest of the article seems to be Friedman nitpicking and semantic arguments, then belying the fact he thinks of all skeptics as debunkers.

reply to post by WingedBull

Could you please show me where I claimed he presents none?

Maybe this confused me.

A poster:

"The 'belief' in UFO's/ Aliens is not a religion...there are no rituals..."

You:

"Among the faithful, hyperbole, over-reaction, the suspension of logic, a marriage to logical fallacies and the purposeful misreading/misinterpretation of evidence; among the high-priests, hyperbole and lies."

from this thread

I guess claiming that the only UFO evidence is purposeful misreading/misinterpretation did the trick.

Mr. Friedman says the worst problem UFO research faces is the 'nasty, noisey negativists.

What does this have to do with anything? If you can't explain the evidence he presents, what does it matter what he thinks the worst problem to UFO research is?

Isn't it interesting that you don't find the various sciences blaming critics for the problems in their field?

The critics are only attacked because of their near pseudo-scientific arguments, that, when shown to a blissfully ignorant public, seem convincing.

In a later post you pointed out that just because a sighting is classified as "UNKNOWN", that doesn't mean that the object was an alien spacecraft. You are right, but when a disc-shaped craft displaying extraordinary maneuvering and acceleration (far beyond anything WE have), flying in formation, circling other aircraft, and otherwise showing intelligent control, the most likely of the very few explanations for that disc is the ETH.

There is evidence that the government has your proof (bodies and a saucer) and has been covering it up for 65 years.

What do you say about the Roswell Incident?

I have read both Tim Printy and Stanton Friedman.

IMHO, Tim Printy has contributed more tangible facts to further UFOlogy through his research and analysis over the last few years than Friedman has in thirty.

Remember, access to all of Printy's work, which is often meticulous, is offered to the UFO community free of charge.

Friedman, whose methodology is often substandard to Printy's, cannot say the same.

I checked out Stanton Friedman's site, and dang, if I didn't know better, I'd almost think Stanton himself was a skeptic!
He he goes after several UFO witnesses and authors and debunks their claims.

In discussing the differences between those who believe that aliens are visiting us, and those who are, shall we say, skeptical of the whole thing, it would behoove us to do a bit less painting with a broad brush, and bit more critical thinking.

Not everything in the sky is a little gray guy from where ever... By the same token, not every light is a chinese lantern, either.

Friedman, quite obviously, has an issue with this gentleman. This issue has colored his opinion of him.

Skeptics and believers are both necessary to the community of investigators of the UFO phenomena.

The believer brings the "What's that?" question to the table. The skeptic brings the "Maybe it's this." statement to the same table.

The community can not stand without either one. Some of you need to really take a step back. No one is an enemy here, whether skeptic or believer.

The truth, remember?

Both these guys make money off the UFO issue. And they are both wrong in that they are trying to pigeon hole EVERYONE into one camp or the other. I look at each and every UFO independently and do not make up my mind until I have examined it closely. I will not claim to be a believer, a debunker, or a skeptic. Although I probably have been all three at one time or another.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
I guess claiming that the only UFO evidence is purposeful misreading/misinterpretation did the trick.

Not only are you quoting my context, but nowhere did I say what you are claiming. The thread you pulled the quote from was about Disclosure, not above UFO evidence, as you claimed. You have further misrepresented me, actually proving the point I was making.

I would say I expect an apology and a retraction, but as I said, I know one will not be forthcoming. You will simply continue to misrepresent my position. As is common in the UFO field, you are nothing but a liar.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
What does this have to do with anything? If you can't explain the evidence he presents, what does it matter what he thinks the worst problem to UFO research is?

You are confused, aren't you?

You said I was misrepresenting Mr. Friedman's position; I was backing up my position, with evidence. The only person who is doing any misrepresenting is you.

The fact that Friedman thinks skeptics are the worst problem facing UFO research demonstrates his insecurity in his own beliefs.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
The critics are only attacked because of their near pseudo-scientific arguments, that, when shown to a blissfully ignorant public, seem convincing.

Critics are attacked as a major threat because of the weakness of the UFO researchers position. It shows profound and willful ignorance, along with an completely obtuse lack of self-awareness on the part of Friedman to say in a field full of charlatans, liars, misrepresentation that critics are the worst problem it faces.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruththe most likely of the very few explanations for that disc is the ETH.

As we don't even know for sure that extraterrestrials exist, you cannot say with any certainty that is the "the most likely" explanation for an unexplained event.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
What do you say about the Roswell Incident?

edit on 29-3-2012 by thesearchfortruth because: added comma in third to last paragraph

I am not going to play into the "spaghetti-against-the-wall" tactic often employed in these threads. If you want to have yet another dead-horse discussion about Roswell, by all means, create a thread about it.