tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post1384879036477882936..comments2023-08-15T01:24:39.187-03:00Comments on The Other Side of Truth: Dear Stan - ContinuedPaul Kimballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08804735930733797952noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-86057136772810725522007-09-24T13:13:00.000-03:002007-09-24T13:13:00.000-03:00Stan Friedman has claimed that Roswell is the one ...Stan Friedman has claimed that Roswell is the one case that proves ETH, at least to his satisfaction. Unfortunately he ruins his case by including the Plains of San Augustin 'crash' as part of Roswell, for which there is not one iota of contemporary documentation. <BR/><BR/>He further relies far too much on anecdotal testimony, and seems to think each additional 'witness' he (or others) can find adds credibility to the case. After some 400 to 500 so-called witnesses, what value has one more to the story, especially when all he or she relates is yet more anecdotes? He or she can never, repeat never, produce one iota of hard evidence. The official documentation is (and forever will be) missing, the hardware/wreckage is (and forever will be) missing, the bodies are (and forever will be) missing. Yet still Stan finds a way out of this. It is all, after 6 decades, still under wraps, i.e. above top secret. A preposterous notion and a very feeble excuse, but one that he can always use to further his dotty Roswell claims. <BR/><BR/>I notice lately that instead of the burnt out Roswell story he is now switching to the Hill case as the proof of ETH. Not a chance Stan, not a chance.CDAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02286117965667317691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-5806058839380595832006-12-28T02:47:00.000-04:002006-12-28T02:47:00.000-04:00>Thus we are returned back to McDonald's 1960's op...>Thus we are returned back to McDonald's 1960's opinion that ETH is merely the least unsatisfactory hypothesis, not the one with the greatest amount of direct evidence. But Stan cannot admit even that.<br />*************<br /><br />Of course he can't. His take on the ETH is part and parcel of his meal ticket. Heaven forbid he should offend the "true believers."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-2044731478705658192006-12-27T22:27:00.000-04:002006-12-27T22:27:00.000-04:00What Stan can't get through his head is that unexp...What Stan can't get through his head is that unexplainability is not identical to extraterrestrial origin. Additional evidence clearly pointing to an ET point of origin is needed beyond mere unexplainability, which alone could fit any number of competing hypotheses of origin. Yet the same fallacy is repeated over and over again. He thinks that if he can dismiss all competing hypotheses of origin leaving only ETH then he has "proven" ETH. But that argument is only as strong as his weakest argument dismissing any one of the alternatives to ETH. And his arguments against alternatives to ETH boil down to picking each one, one by one, in isolation from all others and demanding "proof," while ignoring for the moment making the same demand of all the rest including his precious ETH. <br /><br />Thus we are returned back to McDonald's 1960's opinion that ETH is merely the least unsatisfactory hypothesis, not the one with the greatest amount of direct evidence. But Stan cannot admit even that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-73784408064992763052006-12-27T00:29:00.000-04:002006-12-27T00:29:00.000-04:00Couple more points:
You raise the apt point:
Aga...Couple more points:<br /><br />You raise the apt point:<br /><br /><i>Again you miss the point - your old buddy Carl Sagan was 100% correct when he said that extraordinary claims, which is certainly what the ETH as ETF is, require extraordinary proof. In other words, beyond any reasonable doubt.</i><br /><br />It is well to take note of what "beyond any reasonable doubt" means in this context. It means "beyond any reasonable doubt of <i>any thinking person.</i> "Any thinking person" means Carl Sagan, Paul Kimball, Rod Brock, his neighbor, his neigbor's girlfriend, various high school math teachers, Stephen Hawking, Walter Cronkite, the old man who sits inside Starbucks and reads Civil War histories, etc...<br /><br />However, since Friedman's "evidence" really does <b>not</b> prove the ETH beyond any reasonable doubt, there will naturally be those who dissent. Those who adhere to Friedman's "party line" then do the dirty work of discrediting the dissenters, by labeling them with various pejorative terms, so that <i>anything</i> they say is suspect, by default (among the faithful). <br /><br />One thing leads to another... <br /><br />Meanwhile, serious work languishes. Why do further research? Why entertain any other hypothesis? Stan has given us the answer. UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles which, in the case of Betty and Barney Hill's abduction, herald from the Zeta Reticulum system, this based on the Fish map (never mind that the Fish map has been discredited).<br /><br />And Stan is on the job, bringing his curious brand of truth to unwashed masses, at con after con, and they bow down to him like the golden calf.<br /><br />Let's not forget that Stan is the one who said, in attempt to mimic the skeptical mindset: "don't confuse me with the facts..." <br /><br />*sound of applause*Rod Brockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12863323751667112177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-43422894858430024152006-12-26T23:46:00.000-04:002006-12-26T23:46:00.000-04:00"clear and convincing evidence"
The use of langua...<i>"clear and convincing evidence"</i><br /><br />The use of language like this is precisely why Friedman has always grated on me. In fact, when I listen to his arguments for the ETH, they are so weasel-worded as to qualify as sophistry, imho. <br /><br />I could go through and start picking apart some of the quotes from him you've included here, but you've done an able job yourself.<br /><br />However, I will address a comment Friedman made in a slightly more recent post at UpDates, because it's such an excellent opportunity to address his manner of argumentation:<br /><br />http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2006/dec/m26-007.shtml<br /><br /><i>I had friendly conversations with Hynek, Mack, and Vallee. It<br />was pretty clear that none were familiar with the advanced<br />technology that could get us to the stars. Probably the main<br />reason is that the work was done in industry and not in academia<br />and was done under security rather than out in the open.<br /><br />Each was obviously convinced that something very unusual was<br />going on, but that since star travel is "impossible" there must<br />be a non-high tech solution. As well educated people in other<br />areas, it is not too surprising that they were interested in far<br />out "paranormal" stuff.<br /><br />I once asked Hynek what he thought was the highest power level<br />at which a nuclear fission rocket had been tested. His response<br />was 4 megawatts. The right answer was 4000 megawatts<br /><br /><br />Stan Friedman</i><br /><br />The first paragraph is "guilt by implication. He has first of all taken three of the foremost "experts" in ufology and cast doubt upon their "expertise" in the area of nuclear rocketry, compared to his. He frequently uses this as a roundabout "defense" of the ETH.<br /><br /><i>Probably the main<br />reason is that the work was done in industry and not in academia<br />and was done under security rather than out in the open.</i><br /><br />Ergo, "I Stan, was there working on nuclear rockets." <br /><br /><i>Each was obviously convinced that something very unusual was<br />going on, but that since star travel is "impossible" there must<br />be a non-high tech solution. As well educated people in other<br />areas, it is not too surprising that they were interested in far<br />out "paranormal" stuff.</i><br /><br />Scare-quotes around "impossible" to<br />suggest that starflight is, in fact, possible. Throws in the comment about the paranormal to further distance himself, Stanton Friedman, nuclear physicist, from the witch-doctory of these others.<br /><br />His final statement is the most vulnerable:<br /><br /><i>I once asked Hynek what he thought was the highest power level<br />at which a nuclear fission rocket had been tested. His response<br />was 4 megawatts. The right answer was 4000 megawatts.</i><br /><br />Ergo, Hynek took note of the embarassment of riches, rejected the ETH, but LOOK! he was a dumb ass about nuclear fission rockets! So, Hynek is wrong, Stan is right.<br /><br />But all Stan's blathering about nuclear rockets is just that: blathering. Because when we consult a reliable source, we learn the following:<br /><br /><b>Just how limited are rockets for interstellar travel? Although rockets are reasonable for journeys into orbit or to the moon, they become unreasonable for interstellar travel. If you want to deliver a modest size payload, say a full Shuttle cargo (20,000 kg), and you are patient enough to wait 900 years for it to just fly by the nearest star, here's how much propellant you'll need: If you use a rocket like on the Shuttle (Isp~ 500s), there isn't enough mass in the universe to get you there. If you use a nuclear fission rocket (Isp~ 5,000s) you need about a billion super-tankers of propellant. If you use a nuclear fusion rocket (Isp~ 10,000s) you only need about a thousand super-tankers. And if you assume that you'll have a super-duper Ion or Antimatter rocket (Isp~ 50,000s), well now you only need about ten railway tankers. It gets even worse if you want to get there sooner.</b><br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/ipspaper.html<br /><br />Calculations based on 1.Mallove, E.F., and Matloff, G.L., The Starflight Handbook, Wiley Science Editions, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (1989).<br /><br />Other sources which say essentially the same thing exist, and could have been cited as well.<br /><br />Point: Your feeding us a line of bull Stan. The only reason people buy it is because you speak nonsense with animation and authority.<br /><br /><i>The right answer was 4000 megawatts.</i><br /><br />BFD, Stan. Nuclear fission rockets are a lousy starflight technology, and your research with them says nothing about the feasibility of starflight for us, or for an alien race.<br /><br />Best,<br />RDB<br /><br />P.S. - It really surprises me that Stan has all those "standing offers" for debate out there. In a moderated debate, in an academic setting, with someone like, say, Steven Weinberg, he would be eaten alive (and he knows it). His "debate" with Shostak was akin to the shill-stacked forums where Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) and Duane Gish defend "creationist science."Rod Brockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12863323751667112177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-5771928324291394372006-12-26T22:16:00.000-04:002006-12-26T22:16:00.000-04:00That was a very good response...no, that was an ex...That was a very good response...no, that was an excellent response to Stan, Paul! This kind of thinking that you have demonstrated gives me hope that you have some real potential.<br /><br />My impression of Stan is that he is an arrogant, pompous, smart-arse. It is one thing to pretend what you are doing is science -- it is quite another thing to do it, and Stan has never done it. He is great at insults and armchair proclamations, but when you scratch him on the surface, you will find somebody who is not up on what he claims to be. A real scientist makes discoveries or claims and then must communicate that those discoveries are correct. Any flaw in their logic, demonstrable experiment, reasoning, or justification will discredit their discovery or claim and that is what the scientific method really is all about in a nutshell...finding flaws. And because not all scientists actually practice science or they tend to make mistakes, any discovery or claim must also be put up for peer review, so that it can be subjected under scrutiny for any flaws. To simply believe in someone's discovery or claim without doubt or scrutiny, is called blind faith, stupidity, or just plain being gullible. If someone wants to practice or preach legitimate science, they had better be very familiar with any flaws that could be present in whatever claim they make, otherwise their "science" career may be very short lived or without credibility.<br /><br />Flying saucers and visiting ETs is a claim that has flaws with every test of logic, experiment, reasoning, or justification that has ever been presented. I know five year olds who can make up better and more believable UFO/ET stories than are out there. For an example of real science, take a look at this excerpt from a University science textbook on the topic of UFOs...<br /><br />"<b>Those who believe that at least some unidentified flying objects (UFOs) do contain intelligent aliens are able to cite lots of 'facts' to support this belief. Why is it that scientists do not pay more attention to this 'evidence'? What makes the belief in an expanding universe scientifically acceptable and the belief in extraterrestrial visitation unacceptable? At the end of Part Two we will examine several examples in which the 'facts' fail to provide genuine evidence for the hypothesis in question. You will thus learn what distinguishes REAL SCIENCE from mere SPECULATION or PSUEDOSCIENCE</b>" (UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC REASONING, Ronald N Giere, pg 6).<br /><br />Fast forwarding to part two...<br /><br />"<b>Even EU Condon, the physicist who headed the government-sponsored<br />study of UFOs in 1966-1968, said that he would believe ETV [ExtraTerrestrial Visitations] if a spaceship landed in front of his laboratory and its occupants came out to greet him. Lacking a well-formulated version of the ETV hypothesis that can be subjected to a good test, this seems the only kind of evidence that could justify this hypothesis. IN THE MEANTIME, IT REMAINS IN THE REALM OF SPECULATION -- FASCINATING PERHAPS, BUT STILL SPECULATION</b>" (Ibid, pgs 168-9).<br /><br />Most interestingly, Ronald makes a good point about UFOs, namely, "<b>I said that the basic data consist of REPORTS of UFO sightings, not the EXISTENCE of what was reported. This distinction is crucial because the fact that some people have reported such things has been verified by many investigators. There can be no doubt that people have made such reports. That the people in question actually saw or experienced what they say they did, however, is open to question</b>" (Ibid, pg 166).<br /><br />The comical elusiveness of ET and flying saucers, has made UFO believers the laughingstock of the world. If ET's goal was to lie low and not interfere, then ET blew it! If ET's goal was to become involved in human affairs, then ET blew that too! No, either ET is a juvenile delinquent who is wasting our time or ET has a teenage crush on us but is too shy to ever do anything openly about it. Or maybe as Bufo Calvin would say, "<b>The aliens must be idiots</b>". I too have heard all about the stories of broken-down spaceships, or of abductees being put back into bed with their clothes on backwards or in the wrong vehicles, or of aliens using a wheat field as a method of communication. I'm not willing to buy into the silly story that an intellectually superior race that could travel interstellar distances, would go through all the trouble to come to our planet just to put on a second-rate airshow for our viewing pleasure, especially when the highlight of this show is to create silly patterns in wheat fields and mutilate cattle. As we have seen so far, the only ones putting on a show for us here UFO believers, people who will stop at nothing to descend the deepest depths of gullibility in order to justify their make believe religion.<br /><br />So it should be no wonder that the UFO community is the laughingstock of the world, when the UFO media appears to report ANYTHING anyone tells them, without regard to reasonable questioning of the alleged facts of the matter. I look forward to seeing whether you will be able to alter the poor but deserved reputation of the UFO community, and either put UFOs on the science map, or banish them forever to the realm of poorly thought out fantasies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10903320.post-26436083441972839752006-12-26T22:13:00.000-04:002006-12-26T22:13:00.000-04:00That was a very good response...no, that was an ex...That was a very good response...no, that was an excellent response to Stan, Paul! This kind of honest thinking that you have demonstrated gives me hope that you have some real potential to change the UFO community for good.<br /><br />My impression of Stan is that he is an arrogant, pompous, smart-arse. It is one thing to pretend what you are doing is science -- it is quite another thing to do it, and Stan has never done it. He is great at insults and armchair proclamations, but when you scratch him on the surface, you will find somebody who is not up on what he claims to be. A real scientist makes discoveries or claims and then must communicate that those discoveries are correct. Any flaw in their logic, demonstrable experiment, reasoning, or justification will discredit their discovery or claim and that is what the scientific method really is all about in a nutshell...finding flaws. And because not all scientists actually practice science or they tend to make mistakes, any discovery or claim must also be put up for peer review, so that it can be subjected under scrutiny for any flaws. To simply believe in someone's discovery or claim without doubt or scrutiny, is called blind faith, stupidity, or just plain being gullible. If someone wants to practice or preach legitimate science, they had better be very familiar with any flaws that could be present in whatever claim they make, otherwise their "science" career may be very short lived or without credibility.<br /><br />Flying saucers and visiting ETs is a claim that has flaws with every<br />test of logic, experiment, reasoning, or justification that has ever been presented. I know five year olds who can make up better and more believable UFO/ET stories than are out there. For an example of real science, take a look at this excerpt from a University science textbook on the topic of UFOs...<br /><br />"<b>Those who believe that at least some unidentified flying objects<br />(UFOs) do contain intelligent aliens are able to cite lots of 'facts' to support this belief. Why is it that scientists do not pay more attention to this 'evidence'? What makes the belief in an expanding universe scientifically acceptable and the belief in extraterrestrial visitation unacceptable? At the end of Part Two we will examine several examples in which the 'facts' fail to provide genuine evidence for the hypothesis in question. You will thus learn what distinguishes REAL SCIENCE from mere SPECULATION or PSUEDOSCIENCE</b>" (UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC REASONING, Ronald N Giere, pg 6).<br /><br />Fast forwarding to part two...<br /><br />"<b>Even EU Condon, the physicist who headed the government-sponsored<br />study of UFOs in 1966-1968, said that he would believe ETV [ExtraTerrestrial Visitations] if a spaceship landed in front of his laboratory and its occupants came out to greet him. Lacking a well-formulated version of the ETV hypothesis that can be subjected to a good test, this seems the only kind of evidence that could justify this hypothesis. IN THE MEANTIME, IT REMAINS IN THE REALM OF SPECULATION -- FASCINATING PERHAPS, BUT STILL SPECULATION</b>" (Ibid, pgs 168-9).<br /><br />Most interestingly, Ronald makes a good point about UFOs, namely, "<b>I said that the basic data consist of REPORTS of UFO sightings, not the EXISTENCE of what was reported. This distinction is crucial because the fact that some people have reported such things has been verified by many investigators. There can be no doubt that people have made such reports. That the people in question actually saw or experienced what they say they did, however, is open to question</b>" (Ibid, pg 166).<br /><br />The comical elusiveness of ET and flying saucers, has made UFO believers the laughingstock of the world. If ET's goal was to lie low and not interfere, then ET blew it! If ET's goal was to become involved in human affairs, then ET blew that too! No, either ET is a juvenile delinquent who is wasting our time or ET has a teenage crush on us but is too shy to ever do anything openly about it. Or maybe as Bufo Calvin would say, "<b>The aliens must be idiots</b>". I too have heard all about the stories of broken-down spaceships, or of abductees being put back into bed with their clothes on backwards or in the wrong vehicles, or of aliens using a wheat field as a method of communication. I'm not willing to buy into the silly story that an intellectually superior race that could travel interstellar distances, would go through all the trouble to come to our planet just to put on a second-rate airshow for our viewing pleasure, especially when the highlight of this show is to create silly patterns in wheat fields and mutilate cattle. As we have seen so far, the only ones putting on a show for us here are UFO believers -- people who will stop at nothing to descend the deepest depths of gullibility in order to justify their make believe religion.<br /><br />So it should be no wonder that the UFO community is the laughingstock of the world, when the UFO media appears to report ANYTHING anyone tells them, without regard to reasonable questioning of the alleged facts of the matter. I look forward to seeing whether you will be able to alter the poor but deserved reputation of the UFO community, and either put UFOs on the science map, or banish them forever to the realm of poorly thought out fantasies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com