Debunkers at it Again

Good Day Forumerions,

Stan Friedman stays on the offensive against "pseudoscience of anti-ufology" in his latest editorial:

I hated wasting the money to buy the January/February 2009 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (Vol . 33, Issue 1) which has for years been trying to debunk all sorts of so called paranormal phenomena . But the cover said: Special Issue “The New UFO Interest: Scientific Appraisals . ” This is an excellent example of false advertising since the appraisals are anything but scientific .

The rest of the story . . .

Cheers,
Frank

I don't find Friedman's constant insistence on UFOs being extraterrestrial spaceships all that soundly based either. I mean, if we're going to reduce the overall level of bunk in the UFO field, lets do it from both ends.

Thanks for the link OP the first sentence made me chuckle.

Originally posted by Nohup
I don't find Friedman's constant insistence on UFOs being extraterrestrial spaceships all that soundly based either. I mean, if we're going to reduce the overall level of bunk in the UFO field, lets do it from both ends.

I agree with the last part but to my knowledge Stanton Friedman says some UFOs are ET craft and most are not. That's not to far out judging by the claims some people make in this field. He also did more research then most people it would seem so maybe he could even have an informed opinion.

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
I agree with the last part but to my knowledge Stanton Friedman says some UFOs are ET craft and most are not. That's not to far out judging by the claims some people make in this field. He also did more research then most people it would seem so maybe he could even have an informed opinion.

I absolutely agree that most UFOs are not ET craft. The vast majority are misidentificaitons, secret military craft, weather effects, hoaxes, and just plain old insanity. Of the really real UFOs, however, he seems to think that the bulk of them are nuts and bolts ships or probes from extraterrestrial intelligences. I personally have never seen anything that would convince me of that.

As for his qualifications, they don't mean that much if all he does is try to prove his own point with them. Ask him about psychic effects, time dilation, or other kinds of high strangeness, and he would rather not even bring them into the discussion. It's a kind of odd blindness he has that in my opinion has limited his ability to objectively analyze the field.

And limited old-school views like his and other researchers like him have gotten us exactly nowhere in the last 40 years. He couldn't have done a better job muddying the waters had he been an actual MJ-12 (or whatever it's called these days) paid disinformationist.

those darn inqureing minds taking the lies and falsehoods from the debate!

debunking is good, it chases of the lies and cheats -if it wasn't for debunkers you'd still be worrying about the 4humors and rubbing snake oil on your gout! I want unlikely stories to face the test of logic, its how i tell what might be true and whats crazy lies,

bill nye makes me sick!
thanks for the article.

Afternoon Nohup

Originally posted by Nohup
I don't find Friedman's constant insistence on UFOs being extraterrestrial spaceships all that soundly based either. I mean, if we're going to reduce the overall level of bunk in the UFO field, lets do it from both ends.

What part of any of Stan's arguments, "specifically" do you find fault with?

Cheers,
Frank

Afternoon Fastwalker81,

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
Thanks for the link OP the first sentence made me chuckle.

Yer welcome!

Originally posted by Nohup
I don't find Friedman's constant insistence on UFOs being extraterrestrial spaceships all that soundly based either. I mean, if we're going to reduce the overall level of bunk in the UFO field, lets do it from both ends.

I agree with the last part but to my knowledge Stanton Friedman says some UFOs are ET craft and most are not. That's not to far out judging by the claims some people make in this field. He also did more research then most people it would seem so maybe he could even have an informed opinion.

Important to remember that Stan "came to that conclusion" based on his (decades of) research . . ..

Cheers,
Frank

Mornin' LT,

Originally posted by LordThumbs
bill nye makes me sick!
thanks for the article.

I actually felt sorry for Nye when he appeared on Larry King; I've never seen anyone so ill-prepared and ignorant to the subject matter he was called on to discuss . . .

Cheers,
Frank

reply to post by Frank Warren



Hello Frank and thanks for the post

first off i have to say that you can color me in as a believer because i have had a close encounter years ago, so there is no doubts in my mind about Aliens visiting this planet.

but i have to say...

how can Stanton just assume that some UFO's are E.T.'s if he is only basing his opinion on reports and documents and does not have any conclusive hard evidence such as alien body's or a crashed UFO to examine ?

Proclamation is more their style

isn't this statement by him somewhat hypocritical ?

i am just guessing but i think that would be Nohup's argument about what Stanton is claiming. he is proclaiming some UFO's are from an E.T. intelligence.

but they are only proclamations from him based on circumstantial and controversial evidence.

i am assuming this is the case with Stanton,but heck for all i know he might have an Alien body somewhere...lol

my point here is...

if i had not experienced the close encounter that i did, i would be a skeptic also.

so where does a provable proclamation come from on either side, if it is not hard evidence based ?

are you confused yet ? i know i am

how can Stanton just assume that some UFO's are E.T.'s if he is only basing his opinion on reports and documents and does not have any conclusive hard evidence such as alien body's or a crashed UFO to examine

This is a bit like asking how we can assume the Earth is globe-shaped, just because we've never personally seen it from space... It's a conclusion based on available evidence. When all of the terrestrial possibilities are weighed in, and then eliminated, it makes it 'possible' (though by no means definite) that a given case may involve a craft not of this Earth.

reply to post by easynow


I can think of several cases where I would come to the same conclusion of Mr Friedman, that some UFOs are extraterrestrial craft.

1. Ronnie Zamora: He saw an actual craft land, with a couple of occupants walk around outside of the craft. He took pictures of the landing area, along with the footprints. This was not a natural phenomenon, but an actual landing of some type of craft not known to us.

2. The late Colonel Gordon Cooper saw a group of metallic disks flying in formation during the 1950s. He saw they were manufactured craft, and unlike anything we or the Soviets had in our arsenals at the time. (From his book, "Leap of Faith".) He was not the type of person to make something like that up.

3. The Betty and Barney Hill case, with its physical evidence and radar confirmation of an unknown object in the area and time frame of the sighting by Pease AFB.

There are many other top notch cases where the conclusion of Occam's Razor must be extraterrestrial craft.

reply to post by kidflash2008


good post kidflash2008 and i completely understand why many people can come to that conclusion ...i do also

but i find this statement by Stanton to be controversial ....

Proclamation is more their style

even if the evidence for us points to a conclusion we are still making a proclamation and the opposing side is going to do the same thing based on what their conclusions are.

so how is it fair play to accuse someone of an unjustified proclamation when the evidence can be interpreted differently ?

wouldn't it be safe to say that each side is making a proclamation ?

i do completely understand why Stanton said this and i do agree with him because i am a believer but from a skeptic point of view it would be seen as unfair because the skeptical mind doesn't agree with the conclusion that based on the evidence Aliens are visiting this planet.

i am not saying he is wrong for making this statement, i am saying that i can understand why someone skeptical would disagree with it.

it's sometimes difficult for me to get in the middle of this discussion because i have some sympathy or empathy for skeptics even though i am a true believer. if that makes any sense...lol


reply to post by Gazrok



good post and and i think this is the key point..

(though by no means definite)

the evidence can be interpreted differently because there is no clear cut picture of a certified Alien for us to examine but there is a clear cut picture of the Earth from Space. so that might be comparing apples to oranges until a picture of the real Alien shows up or we have a live one to see


reply to post by Frank Warren


Frank, i just want you to know that i do agree with Mr. Friedman and i am merely trying to explore some of the skeptical conversation to learn from it and in no way was i trying to say his statements are not justified.

not easy being in the middle and i hope this thread has much more discussion from other members because i would love to hear some more opinions. thanks again

Originally posted by kidflash2008
There are many other top notch cases where the conclusion of Occam's Razor must be extraterrestrial craft.

Why couldn't they be time machines? Or something else, like a physical manifestation of a thought form or a stray chunk of and alternate reality? Because these things can't exist, and aliens might? Says who?

reply to post by Nohup

Why couldn't they be time machines? Or something else, like a physical manifestation of a thought form or a stray chunk of and alternate reality? Because these things can't exist, and aliens might? Says who?

says me

time machine ? possible

manifestation ? not for me it wasn't

alternate reality ? not for me it wasn't

it's more likely to be some type of E.T. intelligence because of the mere fact that other habitable planets in our Galaxy most likely exist.

The current research estimates that there are at least 361 intelligent civilisations in our Galaxy and possibly as many as 38,000.

news.bbc.co.uk...

of course the flying spaghetti monster could also be the explanation right ?

Originally posted by easynow
says me

time machine ? possible

manifestation ? not for me it wasn't

alternate reality ? not for me it wasn't

If it was a manifestation of a thought, or an "overlap" from an alternate reality, it would still be a physical presence to an observer (such as yourself), so how would you know? Unless they told you?

it's more likely to be some type of E.T. intelligence because of the mere fact that other habitable planets in our Galaxy most likely exist.

Although I agree with your basic premise here, and believe that there is most likely other intelligent life, if not in our galaxy, then in other "near by" galaxies (as near by as another galaxy can be ), there is still every possibility that they could be from another dimension/universe/reality. I don't think we have enough data to assume either way.

of course the flying spaghetti monster could also be the explanation right ?

I'm down with that! May you be touched by his noodly appendage!

reply to post by subject x

If it was a manifestation of a thought, or an "overlap" from an alternate reality, it would still be a physical presence to an observer (such as yourself), so how would you know? Unless they told you?

how do you know there would still be a physical presence in a manifistation or overlap of an alternate reality ?

this is uncharted waters isn't it ?

even if something from another planet or an alternate reality told me something i would not believe it to be the truth since they or it could be lying

there is still every possibility that they could be from another dimension/universe/reality.

i have to agree with you on that but who's to say whatever it is, is not from another planet and at the same time a dimensional entity ?

i think a " light being " would be able to travel the speed of light and get here no problem.

I'm down with that! May you be touched by his noodly appendage!

no thanks !

[edit on 6-2-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
how do you know there would still be a physical presence in a manifistation or overlap of an alternate reality ?

Well, I don't, really. But if it was perceived as a physical object, I don't see why it couldn't be.

this is uncharted waters isn't it ?

Absolutely.

even if something from another planet or an alternate reality told me something i would not believe it to be the truth since they or it could be lying

Seems like a good, sound position to have on that. I'd doubt anything they were to tell me, too.

i have to agree with you on that but who's to say whatever it is, is not from another planet and at the same time a dimensional entity ?

That's a distinct possibility.

i think a " light being " would be able to travel the speed of light and get here no problem.

Probably, though I have to admit I have a little trouble wrapping my head around the concept of a "light being".

no thanks !

I don't blame you! =)

Originally posted by Nohup
Why couldn't they be time machines? Or something else, like a physical manifestation of a thought form or a stray chunk of and alternate reality? Because these things can't exist, and aliens might? Says who?

I find it interesting that people will dismiss claims of alien visitation on the basis of "no evidence", and yet, you suggest "physical manifestations of a thought form" as an equally probable answer?

We know that intelligent life in the Universe is possible, while time travel we don't. So with what we know, the probabilities are higher for aliens than time travel, or any of your other suggestions.

Does this equate to proof of alien visitation? No, absolutely not! But don't dismiss the ETH because of "lack of science" so to speak, and then act as if time travel and "physical manifestations of a thought form" are science facts and equally probable.

Ah, good ol' Stanton "don't confuse me with the facts" Friedman. Of course, everyone has their defenders and detractors. Except in this case the defenders are just as "fact-blind" as Friedman will always be. I started to read his article but when you're saturated by b.s. as one must be when reading anything he spouts, I had to call it short.

Here is the truth about Friedman. First, he is in it for the money since if he wasn't he would be a poor, unrecognized man. Since the majority of humans are a gullible bunch, he will always have an audience.

Second, Friedman cannot rely on evidence 'cause that would cause him to come up short with facts. His specialty is keeping Roswell alive as well as the Phoenix flares. Both do not stand up to scrutiny but he doesn't care because most humans will ignore the evidence in favor fantasy which sells more than truth.

Third, he is mainly responsible for the Roswell b.s. that permeates the UFO industry. Friedman cannot support anything he says about Roswell and whatever he produces to support his b.s. can be shot down with logic, common sense and reason, and the actual record, of course.

Fourth, he carries on in the same manner with the Phoenix flares which have been shown to be military flares. Documentaries have proven this and additionally I posted at U-M my findings regarding seeing human aircraft strobe lights in the video that is used to prove they're alien craft.

Fifth, oh why bother.

Anyone worth his sanity can do proper research and come to the only conclusion about Stanton Friedman, Nuklear Physicist, he's an anal cavity.