 |
| Kathleen Marden & Stanton Friedman |
His lecture today is about Exposing Debunkers. I think his main argument is that the debunkers don't even bother taking the time to look at the evidence. They quickly give some reason why it's not real, call the believers crazy and that's it. SF says that it does exist and if they only took the time to look at the evidence they might be convinced as well. Powerful stuff.
There's a difference between a skeptic and a debunker. A skeptic says there's evidence to look at somewhere. A debunker says there is no evidence and there's no point in looking at it.
The Presentation----
SF says this is the biggest story of our lifetimes and hopefully one day somebody like the NY Times will break this story.
Debunkers ignore evidence. be flexible by coming up explanations of why it doesn't exist.
SF says there has been a long history of "debunkdom". They appear to be doing this out of the goodness of their hearts to protect the world from the non-sense of UFOs. "Don't bother me with the facts, My minds made up" "If you can't attack the facts, attack the people". It's easy to be a debunker. Ie; Bill Nye the Science Guy. His wife is known to have said that Bill spends approx. 5 minutes before a debate of that type.
The claim is "No aliens are visiting Earth". A good case against this claim is the Betty & Barney Hill case. It's a very serious case of visitation with lots of evidence, physical evidence.
Dr. Susan Clancy wrote a book about alien visitations and unfortunately this book had a lot of false claims. Dr. Clancy says she's read everything and saw it on TV. For example, she talks about the Alligash Abductions and gets many of the points wrong like even number of abductees and such. Very basic things. This is an example of how people/media/what-have-you just take the word of someone because they have a Doctorate and they (the media) doesn't do any good background checks, etc of the information on their own.
SF shows us the famous drawing Betty Hill did of where her abductors were from. She drew this series of dots which were connected with dotted lines and straight lines. LAter, it was discovered these dots were stars in/near the Zeta Reticuli star system.
Enrico Fermi came up with a concept called "The Fermi Paradox". Fermi and his coleagues were talking about how it would be to colonize the galaxy. The paradox comes about when they ask the question if it's so easy, where are all the other beings? SF's answer is we don't know but the government knows something and they're not telling us. Some people say this paradox says nobody was coming here.
There's a book called "The Zeta Reticuli Incident". SF says this is no longer available but you can get it on the internet. Ebook torrent possibly? When I have time, I will come back to this post and add a link to the book when I find it out in the ether.
Another claim is Secrets cannot be kept. Seth Shostak of SETI says this. SF says this is ridiculous because EVERYONE keeps secrets. He gave specific examples of this. One example was how our govt has built all of these incredibly expensive spy planes and satellites are created without anyone knowing about it. Have gave another funny example of a document that took him 5 years to get form the Air Force that was almost completely redacted with the exception of 8 words.
Third Claim is that there is "No need to look at so called scientific studies". This points to what I mentioned at the top of this post. Again, Seth Shostak says this and does not check any of the facts that exist. Stan showed us a copy of a book called "The UFO Evidence" and another from Project Blue Book that at least shows there there were sightings and the end result was inconclusive. So at least there was SOMETHING they could look at and say ... "What is this and let's investigate more of it".
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, a cosmologist employed bt the Air Force in the 50s was put in charge of PRoject Blue Book. During that time he, purportedly, was pressured to write that many of the sightings he investigated on behalf of the US Air Force were nothign more than swamp gas or other inexplicable naturally-occurring anomalies. Later in his life , Dr. Hynek did recant his claims and said that he did truly believe that UFOs were indeed real.
Another example SF gave was regarding the Condon Report. It was commissioned by the US Govt and did have a small percentage of sightings that were inconclusive but they did nothing about it or even attempted to explain it in some way.
Fourth Claim is "There is no physical evidence". SF says there is a lot of physical evidence. He showed an exampel of a ring left where there was believed to be a landed craft. They did an sample of the dirt, along with dirt taken from other places in the area that showed significant differences from each other. I know that this is a very common thing that even MUFON does is take samples and analyze them.
Fifth Claim is an "Interstellar Vehicle could not crash here". I've heard a cosmologist say this before. They think that if a UFO could get all the way from some far away place that there's no way they would actually crash. SF showed an example of an aircraft carrier that had planes on it and how the planes are GREAT in the air but crappy in WATER . And then how the carrier is great on the water but bad in the air.
Another claim is "Why don't they land on the White House lawn"? First off, the White House is a No-Fly Zone! I've always believed that the UFOs don't WANT to land on the WH lawn. SF just said the same thing.
Claim "No pictures can withstand examination". SF says "says who?" There are some good ones out there. Just because there are some bad pictures doesn't mean there aren't any good ones. He gives many examples of some pictures and even one that the the Govt of Brazil released.
SF says that he's sent debunkers data , after them having said that they needed data. Then the debukers still wouldn't even accept information from even the AirForce.
He gave examples from Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov where they just said stupid things where they made pronouncements without doing their homework.
Dr. Lawrence Krauss who speaks out very often against UFOs is a very smart guy but doesn't know anything about this topic. "Don't bother me wit hthe facts."
Rule: "If I can't attack the data, attack the people". It is common that these guys just simply attack the people who believe in this topic instead of keeping their responses to the data.
Robert Sheaffer is another debunker. Another smart guy but completely just ignored any evidence at all.
Rule: "There is no national security aspect to UFOs." SF showed another example of instead of BLACKED OUt data, whited out data that he again obtained from the document. Yet another example of where the govt is keeping a secret. Debunkers say this isn't a secret. !!
Dr. Doanld Menzel said "All non-explained sightings are from poor observers." What a maroon to say something like this. SF said all of his observations can be taken apart by a sophomore-level college student. SF came to respect Menzel after finding out some facts about him.
Carl Sagan was known to have even said some just very closed off statements that were obviously not backed by look at any of the evidence that exists. He also made some false statements regarding the Betty and Barney Hill case. Again, people took his word because he was a famous Scientist but he did not know the facts.
Seth Shostak is another person who absolutely refuses to read the facts and admits it. SF went into a thing about how silly the SETI program is because of the fact that the chances of an alien civilization probably isn't using radio any longer.
Paul Davies is a great astronomer and has written some interesting books that I've read(I read one) that talk about what life would be like after we make contact. However, he's completely oblivious to any of the information out there about this topic and regress to look at it. I knwo that in his book, Are We Alone? he states that he firmly does not believe that we are or have ever been visited.
Frank Drake came up with the Drake equation and SF very comically showed that we don't have any actual data for the equation because we don't actually know how long it takes for a civilization to grow.
So all-in-all I enjoyed his presentation. I get this sense of security actually by listening to him because I know that he is incredibly intelligent and knows his stuff. It's good to know that we have someone like him on our side and hope that he continues to fight and help this cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment