Stan Friedman in Alien Worlds

Interview with Stanton Friedman in Stuart Miller's Alien Worlds. Here's an little bit from Miller's blog; for the full interview, order the magazine, details on Miller's blog.

In talking about Bill Nye, "the science guy" here's what Friedman had to say:

(Miller) Isn’t he a children’s TV scientist?

(Friedman)Yes. He did a lot of that. I was looking on Amazon and I couldn’t find any books by him on UFOs, of course, because that would take some work, just as Shostak hasn’t written one, nor has Shermer. It takes work and you’ve got to look at some evidence and these guys don’t want to bother with that. Whenever I meet them, I always look forward to a nasty, noisy, negative bashing going on. I’ve lost my patience with these guys a long time ago to tell you the truth. I did an interview yesterday with a guy I’ve known for forty years and he was a little surprised about how strong I came on in the new book about the SETI guys and astronomers in general and mostly in particular.

But I’m at an age in my life when I feel no need to be kind. I’m not looking for jobs from any of these people and I’ve got to tell it as it is. This shocks some people and that’s too bad. But I give specifics when I blast these guys.

I love it!

Good point: that none of these guys have written a book on UFOs, not Nye, not Shermer, not Shostak. Yet they come on and talk about UFOs as if they know what they're talking about, which they don't.

We need researchers like Stanton for so many reasons, one being, we need to be reminded of how very simple it all is, really, on some levels. There is evidence --mountains of it. There is an active disinfo machine out there; witness the antics of SETI, Shostak, Shermer, Ny, McGaha, and so on. Their persistent, stubborn and often dishonest blatherings about UFOs goes beyond simple skepticism. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with honest inquiry. A true scientist mind set looks at these things in an open, curious, honest way. They don't perform the convoluted tricks we're witness to on programs like Larry King to deny and debunk something that's been going on right in front of us for thousands of years.

The Daily Grail has a piece on the odd pairing (not so odd, actually) of CSI (formerly CSICOP) and SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence): SETI and CSICOP - Strange Bedfellows

I say it's not so odd because SETI is a skeptibunny organization, as the article on The Daily Grail points out. For example, Phil Plait, the "Bad Astronomy" guy and new emperor of JREF is a "regular" on SETI radio. And so on.

Now you know I love this question:

Why does James Randi not offer a million dollar prize for SETI to prove that there is truly an alien intelligence out there, with criticism of the funding that has been provided to them? Simply because he thinks it likely that there is 'someone' out there. Parapsychology research has provided far more positive results than SETI (see the Dean Radin interview in this issue), with as huge implications for our paradigm, but he regularly savages anyone who dares to ask the question of whether psi effects exist, and finds the idea of funding such studies outrageous.

But read the article for yourself. While you're over there, look at all the other goodies they have there, maybe buy a book or something, or make a donation. After all, what would we do without places like The Daily Grail?

"Wisemanism"

"Wisemanism."

You know all those programs on UFOs, or Bigfoot, etc? And the witness, often a pilot with years of experience, or someone who's hunted and trekked in the great outdoors all their lives, talks about their sighting. They saw a weird light or craft, they saw what could only be called "Bigfoot" because it sure was no bear.

The next shot is of a skeptic, who offers his or her explanation for what happened. 99% of the time, the skeptic hasn't been to the location, doesn't know beans about the topic, but offers an opinion anyway. Being an uber skeptic trotted out from Storage Skeptics R Us, their opinion is considered valid. The blog Cabinet of Wonders gives us a very good and detailed definition, a little bit I've posted here:
:

The Anatomy of a Wisemanism

Wisemanism is a fallacy, and it happens thus:

You state p, which is a particular event.

I assert q, which is a generalisation, in such a way as to suggest that p is an instance of, or is governed by, q. However, it isn't, and I know it, else I haven't bothered to look.

For example, in the Alderney programme, we are shown the eye witness accounts of the event (p), and then Wiseman pops up and states that such momentary glimpses of things pose a cognitive problem, thereby implying that the Alderney sighting falls under this category (q).

I like the following; the writer wonders if this is important? Answering himself, he gives two reasons why it is, here's the second:

Second, it highlights the irony entailed by CSICOP-style pundits who profess to be champions of reason, and yet regularly violate the canons of logic and sound argument. Either they are oblivious to the rules (and so pretentious) or they disregard them when it suits them to do so (in which case they are acting in bad faith). Either way, questions need to be asked regarding what qualifies this media-savvy element of the secular-humanist and sceptical movements, which seems to have persuaded programme makers and editors that theirs is a voice worth hearing.

Much more in the article with other examples and more specifics.

(credit goes to The Anomalist for the link to Damn Data!/Cabinet of Wonders.)

Randi on Mitchell

Go on any “skeptic” forum and you’ll soon be accused of using ad homs but ah, the skepti-bunkie sees nothing wrong in using insults and sneering slams. Here’s the title of Randi’s bit on Edgar Mitchell: Lunar Astronaut Still Deluded and Spaced-Out, in which Randi calls Mitchell’s recent comments about UFOs and aliens “the latest nonsense.”

Randi’s aversion to Mitchell makes sense, given Randi’s pathological obsession with Uri Geller, as we find in reading this piece. According to Randi, it’s all because of Edgar Mitchell that Uri Geller is so famous and such a thorn in the side of skepticism. (the Phil he refers to is uber skeptic Phil Plait):

Agreed, Mitchell is an all-time American hero, but as I reminded Phil, he’s also been one of the major purveyors and supporters of top-level woo-woo. It was Mitchell who “discovered” spoon-bender Uri Geller when Geller was only a cabaret performer doing his run-of-the-mill “psychic” tricks for teeny-boppers in Israel, assisted by Hannah Shtrang – who later became his wife – and Shipi Shtrang, her brother, who still works as his assistant. Mitchell actually travelled to Israel and arranged for Geller to come to the USA and be studied at the Stanford Research Institute – later to be re-named SRI International. Two physicists there, apparently awed by meeting a genuine Lunar Astronaut, chose to believe that such a hero couldn’t be wrong, that Geller was therefore the real thing, and Geller’s career took off. It’s safe to say that without Edgar Mitchell’s naivety, we’d have been spared the advent of the Geller Delusion.

Who knew?

Whatever one thinks of Geller and all that spoon bending stuff, the fact that Mitchell’s “latest nonsense” concerns UFOs has nothing to do with Geller. Or vice versa.

Whether Mitchell is telling the truth about aliens and UFOs (for the millionth time) we can’t say. Er, that’s just it, Mr. Skepti Pants, we can’t say, since we don’t know. Unless Randi, Phil Plait, and all the other debunkers and pathological skeptics know for a fact, are privy to some information the rest of us don’t have, they don’t know a thing.

Given the context, it seems pretty damn obvious Mitchell saw and possibly experienced some heavy UFO/alien action in his time. And, given the context, it’s clear many in the military and related realms also experienced UFOs and/or aliens. Knowing they couldn’t share their stories with the media or world at large, they did so with Mitchell.

No, it’s not proof of anything. Proof and evidence are not the same thing. We don’t know if Mitchell is telling the truth, or, if the people telling him these stories were telling the truth. But we don’t know they were lying either. Why not be a mensch
and just open up a little -- knowing the overwhelming evidence concerning the reality of UFOs -- and say that overall, Mitchell and those he’s spoken with are telling the truth.

It’s possible Mitchell, because he may be gullible in some ways and too trusting, that he’s been fed some psy op disinfo junk about UFOs and aliens. Of course, that’s my opinion on everything: we’ve all been fed psy op disinfo junk about UFOs and aliens. It’s mixed in there with the truth, the realities, the experiences you and I have had concerning UFOs, aliens, and other high strangeness. Such a tangled web indeed.

Yes, Mitchell’s said all this before in various ways; so what? That makes me wonder: what is he really working towards? It’s as if he’s trying hard to get it all out; there’s more behind the story. He just can’t get there from here to there yet.

Well, it’s not surprising Randi and fellow skeptoids think this way -- der. It’s just always both amusing as well as irritating to see the same knee jerk reactions when it comes to UFOs.

"Disingenuous Infiltration"

I wrote this in October, 2007 and UFO Digest very kindly published it. Disingenuous Infiltration discusses the unethical actions of some "skeptics" who set up, spy, or otherwise go undercover in some way, ostensibly to "expose" UFO researchers.


Disingenuous Infiltration


There are the pranksters and jokers of the world, who play tricks on others for the fun of it. They like to goof around, maybe get some publicity and attention, in the name of a good time. Usually no harm done. There are many reasons why someone would perpetuate a paranormal or UFO hoax: attentions, laughs, the “thrill,” to make money, keep a tourist attraction going, dissuade others from entering a property, etc.

There’s another level of “hoaxing” that goes on, and that’s the person who fools around with UFO or paranormal witnesses, or the researchers who are sincerely trying to study such things. Frequently these types of “hoaxers” have a sense of entitlement based on their personal anti-woo crusade.

Crop circle hoaxers fit into this group. They trespass on private property in order to create their circles. I’ve always been surprised by the lack of responsibility on the skeptic camp side when it comes to this fact. There’s plenty of outrage and scoffing going on about the so-called “believers,” but little if any about the fact there are people tromping around fields without permission just to create their circles. (Not all who fake crop circles are “anti” crop circle, in fact, they’ve had some interesting experiences with genuine crop circles and UFOs while making their fake ones.) Some “fake” crop circle makers do so in order to understand the mystery, and they don’t fit in with those who do it under cover without permission. And do we even have to mention Doug and Dave from years back?

There’s another type of “hoaxing” that goes on: those that pretend to be a witness, experiencer or abductee, or in sympathy with the groups beliefs, who misrepresent themselves to researchers or investigators.

Filmmaker Abdullah Hashem is one such person. Hashem infiltrated the UFO group the Raelians in order to “expose” them. I’m not a fan of the Raelians for a lot of reasons, including their politics involving Israel. But I’m not “against” them either. Leave them be is my philosophy. But Hashem’s justification for going into the Raelians organization under false pretenses is as dangerous as any “cult.” Hashem is offended by their idea/belief of god, God, G-d, etc.:

I'm not a religious nut, but according to my beliefs, when people wear shirts that say there is no God, I have to do something," ~ Hashem told the Mooresville-Decatur Times.

Hashem believes that his beliefs about God are right, and others who don’t believe the same way should be “exposed.” This is extremely dangerous thinking, and yet, no one that I know of in the UFO community has commented on this. The few that have see no problem with Hashem’s “infiltration” because for one thing, the Raelians are an embarrassment to many within the UFO community. Well, they are a bit, but so what? That’s always been the case with the UFO crowd, and it always will be. Trickster having some fun. Can’t have one without the other.

Another example is the writer Donna Bassett, who pretended she was an abductee and became a “patient” of the late Dr. John Mack. Presumably she did this to expose him as a charlatan. By doing so Bassett intentionally sabotaged his research. And this is the point of people like this who do these things: to put a big glitch in the work of UFO and paranormal researchers.

It is astounding, though not surprising, that at a CSICOP (now CSI) conference in 1994 no one objected to Bassett’s deception. In fact, in the CSI article about the conference, Bassett’s presence at the presentation was referred to as bringing “balance” to the proceedings. At the conference, Mack accused the (now deceased) debunker Philip Klass of having a hand in this, which caused Klass to take the stage:

A

t this time, Klass had heard enough and angrily approached the stage. Taking the microphone, he chastised Mack for making what he labeled "false innuendos." "Before you made accusations . . . why didn't you check with me? I could have told you that the first time I talked to Donna and her husband about you and your work was when they called me on January 9."

What does this mean, that Klass was indeed, a party to this?

Bassett posed as a UFO abductee. She came to Mack with a lie, for she wasn’t a witness, not an abductee.Her actions were not only irresponsible but immoral. For her to do such a thing means she doesn’t think the work of a Pulitzer Prize winning academic and scientist is valuable, since the subject he took on was taboo by most of mainstream science. Therefore, her actions were justifiable. Or at least that’s how the thinking goes.

But it goes further than that. When things like this happen in the arena of honest research -- and it doesn’t matter if it’s within academia and science, or the lay UFO or paranormal researcher -- it puts a large wall up in the journey of understanding. Everyone has to stop and deal with the problems caused by these people, who believe that their self appointed roles as undercover provocateurs is answering a higher calling, and therefore justified.

Hashem had God on his side, Bassett had scienticism.

It’s a dangerous thing when one thinks that their religion, their personal indulgences (as in creating crop circles) or their attitudes towards research of things they don’t approve of, gives them the right to lie and misrepresent themselves.

Each time this happens, time and energy are taken up by discussing and defending one’s work. Meanwhile, the research, the real work that’s been going on takes a rest while everyone’s attention is spent on the latest hoax.

No matter how self righteous these latter types of “hoaxers” are, no matter how disingenuous, they do more harm than good.

It’s a given that there are scam artists around. Those of us involved in UFO and esoteric studies accept that. And even if some of us are fooled by one, or two, or even a few, so what? We learn from that. Those who should know better, the ones from academia, science and journalism who “infiltrate” are worse than the prankster out to get some laughs.

Notes:
'UFO cult' infiltrated
Exploring Mind, Memory, and the Psychology of Belief