From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 16:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Archived: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:36:37 -0400 Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 18:38:57 -0400 >Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 13:52:31 -0700 (PDT) >>Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >>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. >[Blue book SR14 cited as backing evidence ...] >>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. ... 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. ><snip> >>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? >Hi Mr. Friedman, > >I think I've included enough of your reply to cover your two >most salient points. I'll restate them here: >1) _UNLIKE_ with UFOs, there is no evidence of alien radio or laser >signals from distant stars. You then cited Blue Book SR14 as backing >evidence for the existence of UFO phenomena. >2) Witness testimony is often used as data in collection for science. >Included was then a list of intermittent phenomena under scientific >study such as "eclipses or solar storms or earthquakes." >Based upon this you concluded that SETI was a "pathetic" waste >of resources: >>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. [...] >First of all, >I'll start with your second point as I don't think your >comparison between the highly intermittent nature of UFO >phenomena to "eclipses or solar storms or earthquakes" follows. >Eclipses are well understood and predictable; they have been for >centuries. Solar storms are now watched by satellites to give we >on Earth some time to prepare before they hit. Earthquakes are >also detected by seismometers, which generate seismographs for >data interpretation. In each of these cases, what's under study >is well defined and the data easily normalized statistically. I >don't think it's fair to compare data collection and analysis in >these fields with the data collected by various UFO studies. One >objection is that in fields like seismology various participants >in the field have long since agreed on data collection >standards, which makes analysis much easier across institutions. >UFO data analysis is still held back by the varying collection >standards in use across the years. However, in counterpoint I do >admit that there's quite a lot of public data that's been >collected across the last sixty five years or so. >Second, >going to the first point - as I think it gets to the heart of >our disagreement - I agree that there exists more than enough >evidence on record to conclude that _some percentage_ of >"credible reports of incredible things" in the air most >certainly does exist. SR14 was an excellent example to cite, and >I do not take issue with the analysis or your claims of its >relevance here. But I do ask you to note the difference between >the conclusions of SR14, which assert that a certain percentage >of "unknowns" were of high quality. But I don't think this >report concluded that alien space craft were the cause of those >unknowns. They were classified as "unknown" for the reason that >they were reported by highly credible individuals, they were >highly strange, and no prosaic answers were found by >investigators. >It is quite the leap to jump from "unknown" to "alien space >craft". And an even greater leap to jump from "alien space >craft" to "specific alien types observed". One could view this >as three sets of thresholds of acceptance: That some UFO >phenomena exist and are not understood; that some UFO phenomena >represents alien life; that some UFO phenomena are alien space >ships flown by Gray / Reptilian / Nordic / etc bipedal life >forms. I've come to accept the first threshold, but I've got >serious problems with #2 and especially #3. >You cited Leslie Kean and her recent book _UFOs: Generals, >Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record_ to make your >point about the validity of alien spacecraft and visitors >buzzing Earth. However, I've read that book. That is _not_ what >Ms. Kean said in her book. She certainly discussed the ETH as a >potential explanation for UFO phenomena, but she did _NOT_ >assert that the ETH was more than just a hypothesis. You do. You >say it is a _fact_. Aliens are buzzing the earth. There's a huge >difference. From my perspective, there is "plentiful" evidence >of something physical in our skies that we do not understand. >But I do not see that "plentiful" evidence of alien bipedal >creatures flying alien space ships around our skies. Thus, I >don't think your argument invalidates the viability of SETI at >all. And I can think of several arguments to continue SETI >research regardless of whether UFOs do - in fact - turn out to >be due to biological aliens flying space ships to earth. >Confusing this demarcation between accepting UFO phenomena as >something real and worthy of study, to next representative of >some kind of intelligence from outside earth, to finally >biological bipedal aliens flying space ships is where I find the >most difficulty. I'll give my perspective as to why. Back when >Donald Keyhoe wrote his classics, like _Flying Saucers are >Real,_ _The Flying Saucer Conspiracy,_ and _Aliens from Space: >The Real Story of Unidentified Flying Objects_ he may well have >been right but his abuse of anonymous sourcing was just >terrible. I'm sure there are plenty on this list who will defend >him, saying that 'he had no choice as the subject matter was top >secret and no military officers were willing to violate that >oath on the record.' Which is right. But it didn't help his >credibility. One could reasonably compare Judy Miller's abuse of >anonymous sources in her Iraq War coverage at the NY Times for a >modern day example of why. >Keyhoe set a bad precedent. Combine that with intelligence >operatives who clearly intended to confuse open source >researchers and damage their public credibility by having them >publish ridiculous claims and the UFO community has the >foundations for a massive disinformation set up. Richard Doty? >William Cooper? John Lear? Bob Lazar? Do these names ring a >bell? By entertaining and accepting known forgeries, like the >so-called initial batch of MJ-12 documents you, Linda Howe, and >later Timothy Good (who now calls them forgeries) handled, the >community only set itself up. The argument is that while these >documents may have been forgeries, they may well contain _some_ >correct information. The problem is untangling lies from truth >with no secondary sources. >But think about the issue from the perspective of an outsider. >If _you_ can't generate valid and on the record sources to >untangle and verify aspects of forged documents, how the hell am >I - the outsider - supposed to judge the veracity of those >claims? And that is how every professional journalist and print >news source has responded. Of course, with the help of >intelligence sources who also debunk the subject per the >Robertson Panel. Ms. Kean is following the only rational choice >under these circumstances, she's taken the whole kit and >caboodle learned since the 1970s and thrown it away. >She did not report that Grey aliens have underground bases, >formed an agreement with the United States, and are conducting a >cross-breeding experiment between aliens and humans. She did not >report that a "shooting war" took place in a secure facility >between aliens and US soldiers in 1979, leading to the >dissolution of that agreement. Nor did she report that aliens >have 'vats full of human body parts' which they use for feeding >purposes. I would guess she doesn't think much of John Lear's >anonymously sourced claims. Or Bob Lazar's, for that matter. >As it turns out, I have read two of your books: Crash At >Corona and Top Secret/Majic (I also bought and paid for >them). I know that you spent a great deal of time finding and >interviewing witnesses both on the record and off the record to >piece together your work. I bought it, I read it, and I thought >about it. But I'm not - yet - convinced. And much of that has to >do with the tremendous confusion surrounding post 1980s >conclusions. Hell, even Richard Dolan (whose work I like) cites >some 'facts' obtained by Remote Viewing. Where did this >evidentiary standard come from? Why even pay attention? I mean, >I've - unfortunately - read Courtney Brown's _Cosmac Voyage_ and >felt as though in the process I had actually degraded my >learning capacity. Frankly, I'd have been better off drinking >too much. (Though, strangely, I'm in the pro RV camp as far as >it's utility when claims can be easily verified. But, like >Schroedinger's cat, if you can't perform the measurement the >outcome will remain neither dead nor alive). >So, where am I going with this? Well, based on what I saw, one >could lead me to the second threshold explanation of "this must >represent some kind of extraterrestrial intelligence." What I >saw looked intelligently controlled. But that does not mean a >collection of bipedal aliens is the ultimate cause. It _could_ >be. But I want physical evidence before I accept that >conclusion. But right now, in public sources, there is none. >Whereas the evidence for a physical cause to some anomalous UFO >reports is pretty good. Anyway, that's my perspective. Thanks for your time .-M I am glad you bought my books Crash At Corona (1997) and hope your copy of the Top Secret/MAJIC was the 2nd Edition (2005). However, much more to the point about my views is my 2008 "Flying Saucers and Science":and Kathleen Marden's and my "Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience (2007). There is a major difference between observing eclipses, earthquakes, and solar storms.Mother nature produces them out side the influence of any intelligence. Flying Saucers a small subset of the UFO phenomena are controlled by intelligence. Secondly the best tools for observing UFOs(whose behavior is not under our control) are those operated by the military which provide data that is born classified specifically Aerospace Defense Command and aircraft and ship mounted radar and the eyes of those witnesses .as well as analysis of recovered wreckage. I don't talk about bi-pedal aliens. I do refer to observations of clearly manufactured craft behaving in ways we can't duplicate with the many flying vehicles produced by earthlings.If they weren't manufactured on Earth, they are ET in origin. Doesn't tell us where, when, why, how.. only not manufactured here. As it happens the many reports of beings associated with physical trace cases and abductions seem to indicate bi-pedal. That tells us nothing about "creatures" out there. It doesn't tell us if they are cyborgs, partly artificial. I have no idea why you bring up remote viewing , William Cooper or Bob Lazar, Courtney Brown etc ad nauseum. I have done more than anybody else to expose Lazar as a fraud having talked to 5 offices at MIT, his high school, LANL,Cal Tech, Bill Duxler his supposed prof at Cal Tech who actually worked at Pierce JC and did have Bob in his class. I noted problems with his espousal of Element 115. I have also written about fraudulent Cooper. Why in the world do you claim"Known forgeries for initial batches of MJ-12?". Where are your arguments and refutation of my dismember- ment of the claims of forgeries about the CT, EBD, and TF memos? or my review of "Case MJ-12"? I have made quite clear that there are phony documents just as most isotopes aren't fissionable, and most chemicals won't cure any disease, and most people aren't over 7' tall. The real ones matter, not the phonies.The question isn't what are UFOs, but are any of ET origin. The answer is yes.. There are plenty of studies where the up front conclusions aren't derived from the data included.I had to dig in BBSR 14 for the relevant data. The authors obscured it.Yes, the Blue Book Report conclusions did not say ETH. The evidence does. Perhaps that is why debunkers ignore it. I believe I have also done more than anybody else to show that numerous so called MJ-12 documents are frauds. I espouse 3 and possibly SOM 1.01 . I can find no good reason for you or any body else to talk of initial ones as frauds. Can you? I also don't have a piece of a neutron star, or black hole or the surface of Venus or Jupiter or Gliese 581g. I accept that they may be real as well. Stan 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