Whitehouse claims responded by Stanton Friedman

[Goldstone]

Recently the White House claimed there is no evidence to suggest that aliens exist, in 2011 of this month

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...vidence-aliens

Well the formidable and legendary Stanton Friedman PhD in Nuclear Physics (just shows credible intelligent people are aware of this phenomenon) had a little something to say about it.

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2011...-and-lies.html

Stanton is notable in this realm of investigation.

''Friedman has been criticized both by skeptics and other Roswell researchers for taking the position that there are no substantive grounds for dismissing the authenticity of some Majestic 12 documents. Friedman himself was the first to provide evidence that some of the documents are clearly hoaxes. For example, he showed that a supposed memo from Admiral Hillenkoetter to President Truman, dated February 17, 1948, was actually the emulation of a letter from Marshall to Roosevelt that featured in the book The American MAGIC. Friedman has researched the MJ-12 documents since first becoming aware of them from Wiliam Moore and Jaime Shandera in 1984.[2][14] He addressed criticisms of the original documents in both sources.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_T._Friedman

[Strange]

Just confirms that highly intelligent people can be just as dumb as anyone else

But why is it that pseudo-science and conspiracy theorist web sites are nearly always so damn ugly - it took my eyes about 5 minutes to recover from looking at that mess!

[Goldstone]

Just confirms that highly intelligent people can be just as dumb as anyone else

But why is it that pseudo-science and conspiracy theorist web sites are nearly always so damn ugly - it took my eyes about 5 minutes to recover from looking at that mess!

Maybe because the sites we post this stuff on naturally falls to pseudoscience because of... well lets not go there, would warrant a warning or worse.

Friedman is not dumb. Nor am I. Nor are many scientists nowadays who see something more than what is being revealed. It doesn't make us dumb, makes us inquisitive, and in the end this will serve us better than all those who never expanded their beliefs to a less ''boxed in'' approach. Serve yourself well... why don't you, forget this Occams Razor principle of least imagination rubbish.

[Goldstone]

I am willing to put my knowledge of the physical universe to the test. I believe that some of the UFO's we see in the sky are not a product of the imagination, nor are many of them able to be washed away with conventional explanations. In a kind of test, I applied this to this site as well. In a revelation of my own account here at the site, the usual conventional explanations actually dilluted the event to such a ridiculous extreem that the explanations being presented where in fact laughable.

This is the real danger of skeptics like yourself. A simple handbook washing explanations away with the most simplest examples of explanations can be damaging to the reputation of the person(s) in question who actually observed the phenomenon. In fact, skeptics will depend mostly on their own evaluation of someones accounts then modify it next to the conventional explanations without any original credit to the information provided by the witness.

That is just blatent denial and ignorance of all the important details which once described the phenomenon.

[Halcyon Dayz]

I believe that some of the UFO's we see in the sky are not a product of the imagination, nor are many of them able to be washed away with conventional explanations.

Which leaves you with UFOs.

Emphasis on the U.

[Strange]

I am willing to put my knowledge of the physical universe to the test. I believe that some of the UFO's we see in the sky are not a product of the imagination, nor are many of them able to be washed away with conventional explanations.

There is a big difference between not being able to explain something (because there is insufficient information) and making up an explanation (despite the lack of information). That is like saying, "I don't know where my socks have gone therefore they must be on Titan."

A simple handbook washing explanations away with the most simplest examples of explanations can be damaging to the reputation of the person(s) in question who actually observed the phenomenon

I don't see how saying "we don't know what that was" (and maybe offering some possibilities for consideration) is damaging to anyone's reputation. I don't even see that pointing out that the observer is human and therefore their memory and perceptual systems are prone to errors (like all other humans) is damaging to their reputation.

In fact, skeptics will depend mostly on their own evaluation of someones accounts then modify it next to the conventional explanations without any original credit to the information provided by the witness.

Really? Evidence?

That is just blatent denial and ignorance of all the important details which once described the phenomenon.

What "important details" are being ignored?

We seem to have wandered away from Stanton Fiedman...

[Goldstone]

No stanton argued the whitehouse had not taken time into all UFO cases.

Did you take time to read the link properly?

[Goldstone]

Really? Evidence?



What "important details" are being ignored?

Oh you leave yourself open so badly, in all cases analogous to skeptics. Read my own account of my UFO phenomenon and you will see examples you desperately seek.

[Goldstone]

There is a big difference between not being able to explain something (because there is insufficient information) and making up an explanation (despite the lack of information). That is like saying, "I don't know where my socks have gone therefore they must be on Titan."

Oh please!!!!! Who leaves open to interpretation of someones account, other than the skeptic?

Please, seriously. Get your roles right.

[Goldstone]

Which leaves you with UFOs.

Emphasis on the U.

Then ask why.

This is the problem with skeptics. They blame others of having a formed opinion of the subject before the subject is discussed. Talk about not expanding your mental horizons.

[Abaddon]

That is like saying, "I don't know where my socks have gone therefore they must be on Titan."

I was wondering whose those were.

[Abaddon]

Oh please!!!!! Who leaves open to interpretation of someones account, other than the skeptic?

Please, seriously. Get your roles right.

Roles? What roles?

All I see is a front loaded petition question/proposition.

It doesn't ask if "aliens" exist, or if the gubbmint has evidence that "aliens" exist, but rather demands that the gubbmint release the evidence it already has.

That is a pretty huge assumption right there, built unashamedly into the petition.

[Goldstone]

Roles? What roles?

All I see is a front loaded petition question/proposition.

It doesn't ask if "aliens" exist, or if the gubbmint has evidence that "aliens" exist, but rather demands that the gubbmint release the evidence it already has.

That is a pretty huge assumption right there, built unashamedly into the petition.

Your posts don't even warrant a proper response.

[captain swoop]

Gosh this went off topic very quickly.

IF you want to talk about MrFriedmans response to the White House Claims then do so.
Do not drag this back to your vague claims about your own 'UFO sighting

[Jason Thompson]

Then ask why.

Why is there still a portion of UFOs that are very much U? Why shouldn't there be? Reality sometimes just doesn't give enough information to make a firm identification of something. Not knowing what something is is a world apart from knowing what it was not.

[Goldstone]

Gosh this went off topic very quickly.

IF you want to talk about MrFriedmans response to the White House Claims then do so.
Do not drag this back to your vague claims about your own 'UFO sighting

Then please direct this back on topic rather than me.

[Goldstone]

Why is there still a portion of UFOs that are very much U? Why shouldn't there be? Reality sometimes just doesn't give enough information to make a firm identification of something. Not knowing what something is is a world apart from knowing what it was not.

Not knowing is what drives speculation. When there exists speculation, there exists reason and doubt.

[Halcyon Dayz]

This is the problem with skeptics. They blame others of having a formed opinion of the subject before the subject is discussed. Talk about not expanding your mental horizons.

Opinions are a dime a dozen.

Knowing what people believe something is doesn't get me closer to knowing what something is.

Only good data can do that.
"I don't know" is the standard position if there isn't enough data.
It's the only rational position.

[Jason Thompson]

Not knowing is what drives speculation.

Speculation still needs rational guidelines. According to most UFO groups, not knowing for sure what something is suddenly renders all possibilities equally valid. Sorry, but it just doesn't.

[Goldstone]

Speculation still needs rational guidelines. According to most UFO groups, not knowing for sure what something is suddenly renders all possibilities equally valid. Sorry, but it just doesn't.

And what scientific education have you had?

Please, also, regulate for the viewers what specific guidelines you are operating from.... I'd love to hear it.

[Goldstone]

Opinions are a dime a dozen.

Knowing what people believe something is doesn't get me closer to knowing what something is.

Only good data can do that.
"I don't know" is the standard position if there isn't enough data.
It's the only rational position.

Agreed, but not even the skeptics seem to realize what the evidence is at hand, or how to operate a proper investigation.

[Noclevername]

Agreed, but not even the skeptics seem to realize what the evidence is at hand, or how to operate a proper investigation.

Then please tell us what you consider a proper investigation, and point out what evidence is available, and what it is evidence of.

[Jason Thompson]

And what scientific education have you had?

I'm a biochemist by qualification and profession. That means I not only know how to apply scientific and rational deduction to evidence-based research but am paid to do so, and the fact I still have my job suggests I'm at least a little bit good at it.

Please, also, regulate for the viewers what specific guidelines you are operating from.... I'd love to hear it.

I will not jump through your hoops here. We have ample evidence of your beliefs on the subject. I maintain my point that just because we don't know what something is does not make any and all possible explanations equally valid.

[Goldstone]

Then please tell us what you consider a proper investigation, and point out what evidence is available, and what it is evidence of.

Not by you anyway. Not by me either. A proper investigation cannot be conducted on an internet forum. I have explained this before.

[Goldstone]

I'm a biochemist by qualification and profession. That means I not only know how to apply scientific and rational deduction to evidence-based research but am paid to do so, and the fact I still have my job suggests I'm at least a little bit good at it.



I will not jump through your hoops here. We have ample evidence of your beliefs on the subject. I maintain my point that just because we don't know what something is does not make any and all possible explanations equally valid.

Well that is enough for me. No biochemist has the education to know such facts or speculate accordingly on them.

As a physicist in training, I know the facts already, inlcluding intersteller space travel, propulsion systems and the probability of life.





This is the reason why notable physicists nowadays understand how probable it really is for other intelligent life to communicate with us. Why do you think Stephen Hawking speculated such facts not long ago?

[Rhaedas]

Demanding the gov't release the info they have on alien involvement is a bit like asking someone when they stopped beating their wife.

The OP is a big argument from authority fallacy. Every conspiracy probably has someone well known who believes in it, but that doesn't validate the conspiracy.

[Swift]

Gosh this went off topic very quickly.

IF you want to talk about MrFriedmans response to the White House Claims then do so.
Do not drag this back to your vague claims about your own 'UFO sighting

Then please direct this back on topic rather than me.

Goldstone,

That constitutes arguing moderation in thread, which is a rule violation. I'll let it go for now.

Everyone - This thread is to be ONLY about the topic of the first post, the White House claim and Mr. Friedman's response to it. It is Goldstone's responsibility to defend Mr. Friedman's response or any similar claims opposing the White House claim. No more sidetracks to other UFO topics

[Jason Thompson]

Well that is enough for me. No biochemist has the education to know such facts or speculate accordingly on them.

So only you know what you're talking about? How amazingly arrogant of you.

As a physicist in training, I know the facts already, inlcluding intersteller space travel, propulsion systems and the probability of life.

You say this a lot, but you have yet to present any such knowledge. Claiming you have it is not the same as demonstrating it. Or are we all too uneducated to understand it?

Why do you think Stephen Hawking speculated such facts not long ago?

And using terms like 'speculating facts' doesn't help your case any, either.

[Jason Thompson]

Noted, Swift. Please note your comment was posted while I was composing the above response to Goldstone.

[Swift]

Oh please!!!!! Who leaves open to interpretation of someones account, other than the skeptic?

Please, seriously. Get your roles right.

Your posts don't even warrant a proper response.

Goldstone,

You are required to answer all direct questions that are related to the initial OP (the White House report and the Friedman response). If you do not do this, you will be infracted. And you need to loose the attitude immediately.

Everyone else - If your question relates to the OP and it has not been answered, I would ask that your repeat it so we are clear as to what are the outstanding questions related to the OP. Thanks,