From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 13:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Archived: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:04:09 -0400 Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 21:08:57 -0400 >Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:58:48 -0700 (PDT) >>Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >Mr. Friedman, >I would like to offer a response and defense of the scientific >establishment here. For while some of your criticisms are >accurate, they are also infused with sarcasm belies a similar >confirmation bias in your response. This is Kuhn playing itself >out from both angles, without any reasonable common ground >between the two sides. Yet neither you nor Dr. Shostak know the >underlying reality here. Nor do I. >>Obviously the SETI community is unwilling to spend any time >>reviewing the enormous amount of evidence that aliens have >>been visiting Earth for at least many decades if not millennia. >>Super sentients: YES! Aliens: NO! is the motto here. >Yes. Let's be clear, Dr Shostak and the scientific majority do >not view a "preponderance of the evidence" in the form of >witness testimony and unverified documents to be _science._ Real >scientists limit their factual statements highly specific claims >based on repeat observations of controlled phenomena. UFOs are >most certainly not under controls, and repetitions are >intermittent and rarely recorded by instruments. Professional >scientists _should_ be highly skeptical. Further, since the >phenomena doesn't fit within the scientific method for study, >professional scientists are limited in what and how to perform >quantifiable research. >That the majority have concluded - wrongly - that because they >can't controllably test the phenomena therefore it must not >exist is regrettable. Much time has been wasted. But it is not >_unreasonable_. The difference between your claims about >Roswell and the statements by >Dr. Shostak are very simple: he >is speculating; nothing more. >>It is clear from their books (which I have read) and their >>articles and lectures which I have reviewed, that they >>essentially never review the UFO evidence such as the 5 large >>scale scientific studies, the many multiple witness radar visual >>cases, the physical trace cases involving reports not only of >>flying saucers on the ground, but the 15% of those cases >>involving reports of humanoids.They know nothing about national >>security. >Where are these humanoids? I've never seen one. I saw a flying >saucer once; I definitely believe my own eyes. But I've never >seen a humanoid alien. And I've got to say, the speculative >arguments made by evolutionary biologists _against_ the notion >of so many reports of different bilateral bipedal aliens make a >lot of sense. The Pre-Cambrian explosion is just one example of >how weird the morphology of biological forms can take. Life >found in and around hydrothermal vents are another example of >life taking form and sustenance in ways that belie the notion of >repeating bilateral bipedalism throughout the nearby galaxy. >There is simply no reason to assume that life repeats form >across environments in that manner. From my perspective, those >scientists have a strong point. The UFO community offers nothing >to refute these arguments but testimony from alleged witnesses. >So, the division here is: informed speculation vs. unverified >testimony. Who wins? >>They also are unwilling to review the evidence of abductions. >>I can find no reason to accept proclamations from radio >>astronomers about the behavior of aliens, no less earthlings. >>Of course the reason is obvious. >>There is no need for listening for primitive signals from out >>there using technology compatible with ours.If aliens are >>visiting, as they surely are, SETI which is looking for signals >>not looking for aliens, is out of business. They are truly >>getting desperate. The collective rule is "Don't bother us with >>the facts,our minds are made up." >>How pathetic and irrational. >I could not disagree more. The SETI scientists have used what >technology was available to conduct a search you almost >certainly _should_ approve of. Don't you want to find >intelligent life outside Earth? He's trying! He has more money >and resources than you, many smart scientists working very hard >to determine new methods for search, and decades of negative >findings behind him. I'm going to take a longshot guess that >he's never seen a disc in broad daylight. Why should he take >your word for it? Or anyone else's for that matter? And as for >digging through FIOA documents and reading journalistic (Good) >or historical (Nolan) accounts of the subject matter is simply >not what that guy does for a living. >>From my perspective, his words are neither irrational nor >pathetic. Further, his insight on the potential for machine >cognition as a means for life in space fits the known UFO facts >just as well as those claims about biological entities. That is, >if one takes the conservative perspective of Kean - that one >should focus only on those cases with multiple simultaneous >witnesses, radar records, and other physical evidence, then >evidence for biological bipeds flying these things becomes >somewhat scant. >I don't write this to personally insult you. I greatly admire >the hard work you put in collecting testimony and FOIA >documents. But I think your statements here show a belligerence >toward traditional space science that works at odds to your >stated purpose: to get to the bottom of this weird UFO mystery. >Shostack probably isn't interested in UFOs, but he does want to >find alien intelligence. In that regard, you both seek the same >ends. I find the above missive quite fascinating and unreal. Let us face the simple fact that the SETI movement has provided no evidence whatsoever of any kind that there are ETs out there sending radio or laser signals here. _None, _zero_, Zzilch. I certainly derive my conclusions from a great deal of evidence which they refuse to examine. For example, Project Blue Book Special Report 14 is an official USAF document (Not an unverified document) with information on 3201 sightings, more than 200 tables, charts, graphs and maps of data. It has categorizations of all the reports, quality evaluations, cross comparisons between UNKNOWNS and KNOWNS. No sightings could be listed as UNKNOWN unless all 4 of the final report evaluators agreed it was. SETI has put no signals out for review. A statistical cross comparison between KNOWNS and UNKNOWNS showed that the probability, based on 6 different characteristics, that the UNKNOWNS were just missed KNOWNS was less than 1%. The Better the quality of the sighting the more likely to be an UNKNOWN. The duration of observation for the UNKNOWNS was greater than for the KNOWNS. Admittedly the Secretary of the Air Force lied about the report big time claiming that only 3% of the cases could not be explained and that was because there wasn't enough data. In fact 21.5% could not be explained completely separate from the 9.3% listed as insufficient Information. This is all discussed in "Flying Saucers and Science". Seth has a copy. Of course the SETI people refuse to examine the data. Perhaps JMG needs a refresher course. Since when are witness statements not part of science?. Astronomers have made many observations of meteors in the air and use them to find them on the ground. They can't control or repeat observations of eclipses or solar storms or earthquakes.. They can and do record observations when the opportunity presents itself. Science is a method of approach to determine the truth. It can be used to evaluate data from automobile accidents, murders, airplane crashes even though they cannot be controlled or reproduced. One can determine lengths of skid marks, thickness of brake linings, alcohol levels in driver blood, weather conditions.Again where are the scientific observations and verified documents from the SETI people? We have multiple witness radar visual cases, photographs, physical trace cases with soil analysis, abductions with marks on the abductees. JMG you really need to do some homework or help them out.I will take the testimony of retired military officers with high level security clearances about simultaneous UFO observations over nuclear tipped missiles as the missiles go to a no-go situations.Leslie Kean's"UFOs" provides multiple witness/instrument confirmations. SETI has provided none. I am highly skeptical and maintain a large gray basket. SETI specialists are skeptical about data they refuse to examine,but have no skepticism about the notion that ETs are sending radio signals using technology appropriate to our state of the art with less than 100 years of sophisticated radio technology.Apparently they think there will be no changes. I suppose they are still using slide rules for calculations and the pony express rather than computers and the internet for information transfer..Skepticism surely doesn't mean one refuses to look at the evidence. The Bolender memo is not an unverified document. The numerous whited out formerly TS code word NSA UFO documents are not unverified nor are the many heavily blacked out CIA UFO documents. The USAF admitted it ordered military pilots to shoot down UFOs if they refused to land when instructed to do so. If there was no evidence that aliens were visiting, I suppose I could say why not look for radio signals?. But that evidence is plentiful. 30% of the cases investigated by the Condon crew could not be identified though they were certainly anxious to do so. I can't imagine that any serious scientist looking at the 41 cases reported by Dr. James E. McDonald in his congressional testimony could say there was nothing there, but that signals which haven't yet been observed after 5 decades of listening must be there and from aliens. The astronomers won't even reference astronomer Dr. J. Allan Hynek's UFO book though he was the USAF scientific consultant on UFOs for 20 years. What are they afraid of? To data SETI has put out much noise but no signals. Ufology has provided plenty of signal winnowed from the noise. Of course I have never seen a neutron or a gamma ray or Tokyo or South Africa or held a nuclear bomb, nor a piece of a black hole or of a neutron star. Nor an alien. How scientific is it to say if I haven't seen something, it doesn't exist? But if I want to receive a radio signal from ET it must exist? SETI is the epitome of wishful thinking. It must feel terrible to be so desperate. Stan Friedman Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp