Sunday, February 9, 2014

Stanton Friedman Discusses Stephen Hawking & SETI


SETI@home: Discover ET Using Your Home Computer

Spiral UFOs - Black Holes, Government Technology, or What?

Some of the clips in the second video clearly have mundane explanations, but others do not, especially the blue spiral events, which are certainly strange and leaving many possible theories are on the table.

UFO mainstream news coverage MASS SIGHTINGS WORLDWIDE what is going on?!

Norway Spiral (Black Hole)

Project Blue Beam: Government Plans Fake Alien Invasion To Usher in World Peace 

Reclaiming Our Freedom from a Lifetime of UFO Secrecy by Richard Dolan

Published on Dec 19, 2013
UFO historian Richard Dolan takes us through a journey through 6 decades looking at the relationship between the US national security establishment and the UFO phenomenon. Richard suggests that the unclassified and declassified documented interest by the U.S. military and government tracks intimately with the rise of of the national security state and suggests that the handling and response to the existence of these "others". Richard then highlights what he believes may be a solution to the people regaining the control of the state - making it once again answerable to its people.

Richard Dolan presented "Reclaiming Our Freedom from a Lifetime of UFO Secrecy" at the 5th British Exopolitics Expo held at the University of Huddersfield on September 28th 2013.

Friday, February 7, 2014

[UFO] Skeptics or Debunkers?

Tuesday, April 24, 2012
[UFO] Skeptics or Debunkers?

By Rich Reynolds
The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Philip Klass and Donald Menzel did more to cause the science/media/public dismissal of flying saucers and UFOs than any other persons or groups extant during the voluminous era of the phenomena.

And they did it with a patina of rectitude that is not only unjustified but hellishly erroneous.
They were debunkers, not skeptics, and they had an agenda that was based in purposeful or aberrant denial.

Menzel in his books -- UFOs: Flying Saucers-Myth-Truth-History (1953), The World of Flying Saucers (1963, co-authored with Lyle G Boyd), and The UFO Enigma (1977, co-authored with Ernest H. Taves -- went to excruciating lengths to fit UFO sightings into a framework of astronomical and meteorological explanations that stretched credulity and Ockham’s Razor to the breaking point.

Fixing a temperature inversion and the planet Venus as a confluent for sightings was a typical ploy. Wikipedia provides this about Menzel:
“All of Menzel's UFO books argued that UFOs are nothing more than misidentification of prosaic phenomena such as stars, clouds and airplanes; or the result of people seeing unusual atmospheric phenomena they were unfamiliar with. He often suggested that atmospheric hazes or temperature inversions could distort stars or planets, and make them appear to be larger than in reality, unusual in their shape, and in motion. In 1968, Menzel testified before the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics - Symposium on UFOs, stating that he considered all UFO sightings to have natural explanations.

He was perhaps the first prominent scientist to offer his opinion on the matter, and his stature doubtless influenced the mainstream and academic response to the subject. Perhaps Menzel's earliest public involvement in UFO matters was his appearance on a radio documentary directed and narrated by Edward R. Murrow in mid-1950.

Menzel had his own UFO experience when he observed a 'flying saucer' while returning on 3 March 1955 from the North Pole on the daily Air Force Weather "Ptarmigan" flight. His account is in both Menzel & Boyd and Menzel & Taves. He later identified it as a mirage of Sirius . . ..”

Klass was a brilliant, hard-working debunker. His knotty analyses of UFO events and sightings are almost legendary, but invariably wrong, because they are tainted by his inherent bias against UFOs as a viable phenomenon.

In the book, pictured left, Science and the Paranormal [Edited by George O. Abell and Barry Singer, Charles Scribner’s Sons, NY, 1983, Chapter 18, Page 310 ff.], Klass deconstructs the noteworthy Coyne helicopter confrontation with a UFO in October 1973 near Mansfield, Ohio.

Klass presents a detailed account of the Coyne encounter and its aftermath. The minutiae included in his “analysis” of the encounter provides a seeming overlay of forensic debate but when Klass’s approach is scrutinized, one realizes that his devaluation of the Coyne crew’s report rests on a usual Klass barb that Coyne and his crew misremembered what they did when they saw a UFO coming toward their helicopter.

Klass writes that they misperceived an Orionids fireball (or meteor) and miscalculated the timings of various aspects of the event: the fireball’s fly-by, the seconds during which the collective control was pressed to keep the helicopter from, firstly, hitting the ground and, secondly, from accelerating back into the sky.

The magnetic compass’s erratic behavior was an afterthought of Captain Coyne, inserted several years after the initial event and report(s) Klass suggests.

The inability to communicate with local air terminal towers was ascribed to the distances that intervened between them and the Bell helicopter Klass tried to document.

And the green glow the crew witnessed as the UFO allegedly flew over their helicopter came from the tinted glass at the fringe of the cockpit. The red glow of the UFO was that of the surmised fireball.

(J. Allen Hynek, an eminent astronomer himself said that the Orionid display didn’t produce fireballs.)

With a recent case of a pilot, waking from an in-seat nap, mistaking the planet Venus for an approaching airplane, putting his 747 into a dive that injured several passengers and attendants, one can accept the possibility that Captain Coyne and his crew were flummoxed by a stray Orionid meteor, except that Hynek said fireballs do not occur during the Orionid display.

Moreover, the crew’s actions indicated that the helicopter was influenced in some way by the approaching UFO, and the mistakes attributed to them by Klass as errant behavior is possible certainly but hard to accept as the mistakes that Klass piles up are too many and too egregious for a trained helicopter crew.

It’s far easier to accept that Coyne and his men actually had a near collision with a UFO – an Unidentified Flying Object (or thing).

Klass, like Menzel, presents a set of possibilities, all acceptable at a superficial level, but when weighed in the balance, require too many machinations to be reasonably feasible.

No, Klass and Menzel were not skeptics; they were debunkers….and not very skilled debunkers either, as their “explanations” always teetered on the edge of charlatanry; they were UFO atheists or something worse.

Debunkers at it Again

Friday, February 06, 2009
Debunkers at it Again

By Stan Friedman
Stan Friedman I hated wasting the money to buy the January/February 2009 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (Vol . 33, Issue 1) which has for years been trying to debunk all sorts of so called paranormal phenomena . But the cover said: Special Issue “The New UFO Interest: Scientific Appraisals . ” This is an excellent example of false advertising since the appraisals are anything but scientific . SI is published by what is now labeled “The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry”.(CSI Light??) . In actuality, the active writers and “investigators” aren’t skeptics . They are Debunkers doing their best to pull the wool over the eyes of a curious public . They know the answers, so don’t really need to investigate . Proclamation is more their style . Deception is the name of the game . For example, inside the front cover is a very impressive list of about 75 scientists, writers, philosophers, etc including three Nobel Prize winners .Bill Nye Also included on the list is Bill Nye, “The Science Guy”, whose purpose is to Deny . . judging by his Larry King appearances . Unfortunately, most of the highly credentialed people aren’t the ones who write the articles or “Investigate” The dirty work in the trenches is normally done by the debunkers in residence . The primary tools are those of the propagandists such as very selective choice of data, positive and negative name calling, misrepresentation .

Joe NickellListed under Investigative Files is an article “Return to Roswell ” by Dr . Joseph Nickell . Joe’s three degrees are in English and he spent a lot of time as a magician . Not much science there . Of course the stock in trade of magicians is intentional deception with another sterling example being the Amazing Randi . Joe’s been attacking Roswell for over a decade . At the 50th Anniversary celebration in Roswell , I was being interviewed there, and he was in California . We couldn’t see each other, but could hear . He explained Roswell by saying the press release was put out by the PR person from the base to attract attention to himself! Joe didn’t even know Walter Haut’s name . I pointed out that I had known Walter from almost 20 years and that the notion that the PR person for the most elite military organization in the world, the 509th Bomb Group, would put out such a press release without his boss’ blessing was completely absurd . . Of course in SI Joe never mentions the 509th or that it had dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 and set off 2 more at Operation Crossroads in the Pacific in 1946 . It is of some interest that Walter Haut was chosen to drop the instrument package during one of those tests, that he had flown over 20 bombing missions as a bombardier over Japan during WW 2 and was quite close to Colonel Blanchard, 509th Commander . Some inexperience!

Apparently Joe had learned nothing from our exchange and stated “On July 8, 1947 , an unauthorized press release from an eager but relatively inexperienced public information officer at New Mexico ’s Roswell Army Air Field propelled the Roswell Incident into history” . It has been known for 30 years that Blanchard ordered (authorized) Walter to put out the release . Walter after years in the far east during WW 2 was hardly just wet behind the ears . Joe even goes on to claim Kenneth Arnold’s sighting 2 weeks earlier may well have been nothing more than mirage effects caused by a temperature inversion . That is as sensible as saying the moon may be made of green cheese . This crazy notion was thoroughly destroyed by Dr . Bruce Maccabee , a physicist . But why let the facts get in the way?

Nickell goes on to say the young officer was reprimanded . He provides no evidence . I and others have asked both Walter and his wife and both denied there was any reprimand . Why would there have been, since Blanchard had ordered the release? Nickell then moves right over to the baseless Project Mogul explanation which has been thoroughly destroyed by Brad Sparks and Dr . David Rudiak and Dr . Jesse Marcel Jr . (Ref . 1) despite the assertions of Dr . Charles Moore who worked on the program .

MogulNickell describes in some detail tests run by Engineer Robert Galganski with the Discovery TV Channel crew and Nickell in attendance . They put up a half size Mogul Balloon Train carrying some radar reflectors and then shot down the balloons showing that the area covered by the debris was much smaller than described by Major Jesse Marcel . Joe was there and doesn’t really buy the test because he notes that Jesse’s estimate, ¾ of a mile long by hundreds of feet wide, was much greater than described by Rancher Mack Brazel in the July 9 Roswell Daily Record article . He quotes that article at length, but somehow never mentions that Brazel was sure what he had found wasn’t balloons . He also fails to mention that testimony from Brazel’s son Bill, neighbor Loretta Proctor, and others all saying that Brazel was brought back into town on July 9 and given a new story to tell the press . Also not noted is that if all there had been was the “bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick and the another rubber bundle 18-20” long and 8 inches thick with a total weight of maybe 5 pounds”, it would easily have fit in Brazel’s small truck and there would have been no reason for Marcel and Counter Intelligence Corps Captain Sheridan Cavitt to follow Brazel the long way back to the ranch on July 6 . as they did . Joe, of course, never mentions that the July 8 article, carried all over in Evening papers from Chicago West, said the wreckage was found “last week” . The phony July 9 explanation says found June 14,... hardly last week from July 8 .

Joe also notes that though the news story died almost immediately, but the event continued as the subject of folklore and fakelore.[much provided by Roswell Debunkers] . there emerged amateurishly forged government conspiracy documents” . He has a note saying “The MJ-12 Documents” fooled arch Roswell-conspiracy writer Stanton T . Friedman who has continued to tout the bogus documents (Friedman 1996)” . WRONG Joe. I have done far more detailed investigation (not Nickell style proclamations) to show that the great majority of the MJ-12 documents are indeed fakes.. but that the 4 major ones are solid . As I recall Joe claimed the “Eisenhower Briefing Document” was an obvious fraud because of the comma in the date “ 18 November,1952 ” . As it happens that was one of many date formats in use at the time . I found seven original documents which were used as a basis for phony emulations and was able to dispose of the other objections to the 4 good ones in Ref.. 2, 2005, and a number of papers.. none noted by Nickell of course . Ref . 3 by myself and Don Berliner is also not noted

Robert SheafferRobert Sheaffer also contributed a “historical” overview: “Ufology 2009: A Six Decade Perspective” . Sheaffer clearly shows his disdain for UFO abductions and the rest of the UFO scene . and for the facts as well . Speaking of Betty and Barney Hill: “Under hypnosis, they each told a UFO Abduction story that largely matched Betty’s nightmares (which Barney had heard her repeat many times)” . The comment is nonsense . Barney read Betty’s dreams once, and the notes were put in a drawer . There was no repetition and the comparative analysis of what they said under hypnosis and what was in the dreams is detailed by Betty’s niece Kathleen Marden, in our book “Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experiences” (Ref . 4 ) also not referenced . Sheaffer theorizes a “New Age” vs . “Science Fiction” Ufology . Both are junk science and consistently ignore Occam’s razor (all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best)” . By far the simplest solution to the UFO problem is that the best cases (Multiple witness radar visual, landings etc) involve alien spacecraft . Debunking ufology of the SI variety ignores science all together . He also claims “The FBI investigated the documents [MJ-12] and quickly concluded that the documents were “completely Bogus” .

Majestic Bogus DocNot so . The FBI on its website carries the USAF Colonel Weaver’s set with his hand written comment “BOGUS” . They accepted his word . Sheaffer also claims one document was typed on a typewriter that was not manufactured until “15 years after the date on the document . ” This, too, is nonsense as noted in Ref . 2 on page 227 which quotes Forensic Document Examiner James Black that the typeface preceded the document date by 7 years .

David MorrisonDr . David Morrison, a NASA senior scientist, chimes in in SI with “UFOS and Aliens in Space” . He says “If UFOs are alien spacecraft visiting Earth, then it seems reasonable that evidence of alien civilizations might be seen by astronomers or the radio signals from alien spacecraft might be picked up by the sensitive receivers we use to communicate with our own spacecraft” . Frankly this is absurd . Astronomers (some of whom have indeed seen UFOs) aren’t looking for signals from alien spacecraft which are very likely using techniques about which we are ignorant . Maybe secret NSA listening devices pick up alien signals, but then the NSA doesn’t release info about what signals it receives . They did release 156 pages of UFO related intercepts . All but one or two sentences per page are redacted (whited out) . Another astronomer, Andrew Fraknoi, has a brief piece bemoaning the lack of sightings by even amateur astronomers . There is no mention, of course, of Stanford Astrophysicist Dr . Peter Sturrock’s discussion of astronomer UFO sightings as noted in Ref . 5 .

James McGahaRetired air force major and pilot, James McGaha, also an avid astronomer, with his own observatory, lists 14 areas of astronomical knowledge needed to be a good UFO observer . He, too, has appeared on Larry King attacking ‘unqualified observers” . One hardly needs to be very astronomically knowledgeable to describe the silent slow flight at low altitude of the huge “ Phoenix lights” taking 4 minutes to fly right overhead blotting out the stars as it did so . I can enjoy and benefit from eating various foods without being an expert on the digestion process . He and I tangled in a spirited formal University Debate as can be seen in Ref . 6 .

Dave ThomasAnother SI anti-Roswell article is “Roswell Update: Fading Star?” by Dave Thomas a scientist in New Mexico and President of “New Mexicans for Science and Reason” . Dave has certainly demonstrated his lack of knowledge of both the Roswell and Aztec UFO crash retrieval cases . I am looking forward to a soon to be published book by Scott and Suzanne Ramsey about the Aztec case . Unlike Thomas, they did an enormous amount of serious research .

There are a few other articles as well . Suffice to say that the Skeptical Inquirer provides many examples of the intellectual bankruptcy of the pseudoscience of anti-ufology .

Stan Friedman:


1 . Marcel, Jesse Jr . and Marcel, Linda The Roswell Legacy: The Untold Story of the First Military Officer at the 1947 Crash Site. 2008, New Page Books Div . of Career Press, Franklin Lakes , NJ . Foreword by Stanton T . Friedman

2 . Friedman, Stanton T, TOP SECRET/MAJIC, Marlowe and Company, NY, 2nd Edition 2005, 282 pages . Foreword by Whitley Strieber

3 . Berliner, Don and Friedman, Stanton T . Crash at Corona: The Definitive Study of the Roswell Incident, 2nd Edition, Marlowe and Co . NY 1997

4 . Marden, Kathleen and Friedman, Stanton T . Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience New Page Books Division of Career Press, Franklin Lakes, NJ 2008, 320 pages, 2008 . Foreword by Dr . Bruce Maccabee

5 . Friedman, Stanton T . Flying Saucers and Science 2008, 320pages New Page Books . Div., Career Press, Franklin Lakes, NJ. Forewords by Dr . Edgar Mitchell and Dr . Bruce Maccabee

6. Are Flying Saucers Real? DVD 2hrs. Debate between James Magaha and Stanton T . Friedman, Middle Tennessee State University , Murfreesboro , TN , January 24, 2004

Items 1-6 all available at


UFO Debunkers – the new Spanish Inquisition

UFO Debunkers – the new Spanish Inquisition

Shut up, believe me alone and never speak of UFOs - or how the pseudo- scientific autocracy wants to ELIMINATE your freedom to OPEN DEBATE about Ufology with disrespect, abuse and scorn against others.  


So folks – how does this work?

OK – you witness something strange in the sky that cannot be explained by rational means. All known versions of scientific validation have failed to identify it so, do you:

A.) Tell others about your experience, including authorities and researchers in the hope of open-minded debate and further knowledge?
B.) Keep it to yourself, due to fear for ridicule from the small-minded critic?

UFO researchers choose ‘A’ - yet some (not all) scientific types demand ‘B’.
The dictatorial followers of ‘B’ scream – “Where is the evidence – give us proof”.
The scientific detractor who takes this narrow viewpoint misses the whole point, which is that witnesses are NOT claiming anything in the majority of cases – they are simply telling us what they have seen with their own eyes. 
Alternatively the critic is so self-doubting in his supposed scientific position that he is forced into psychological abuse against innocent witnesses who are merely advising of their sightings.
I know this to be the truth after a sighting I personally had that ended up being researched by experts from Manchester University and other educational facilities. Many others can honestly claim similar and that was why I wrote ‘UFO: The Search for Truth’.
Intimidation tactics against UFO witnesses used by bullies (who they conveniently tar as “Believers”) in the scientific materialistic arena are not always at first evident. However at times they are transparently obvious and in fact most comically revealing.
The Facebook thread marked below is quite amusing and serves as a prime example of the pseudo-scientific community’s side-splitting timidity when faced with the fascinating question of unidentified flying objects.
For the heinous crime of highlighting my work in the field of Ufology/paranormal I seem to have inadvertently attracted the fundamentalist attention of one self-appointed censor from the pseudo-scientific community’s version of the Spanish Inquisition.
Needless to say, the impolite person involved is comically hiding under the thin veil of anonymity, afraid to even show his real face. Perhaps his chatroom obscurity shall not last for much longer though, due to his imprudent comments against others.  
Genuine debate is something that all legitimate researchers in this field never shy away from.
However, I am assured that this individual is simply a typical internet troll/flamer that likes to create attention for himself, and this does sadly seem to be the case here.
Witnesses of UFO sighting are legion and they deserve respect not ridicule.
Of course there are hoaxes and of course many UFO sighting can indeed be explained away by rational means. It’s the small percentage that ‘cannot’ be explained away that are the question.
This latter point is the true focus and all sincere parties (excluding of course internet trolls seeking attention) interested in truly open debate.
Pat Regan 

UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant

Debunker's Handbook

By Stanton T. Friedman
© 3-9-12

     In early February, 2012, Andre Skondras, who distributes many interesting UFO articles on the internet, carried a 15 page 2008 article by Tim Printy entitled “The UFO Disclosure Myth”; I am a primary target of the last portion of the article. I also found his paper “My Skeptical Opinion about UFOs.” Clearly he is a debunker not a skeptic. He seems to know very little though he has strong opinions.

Printy starts the long piece with this comment: “Man is a credulous animal and must believe something: In the absence of good grounds for belief he will be satisfied with bad ones.” –Bertrand Russell. This is a fine description of the debunking of people like Printy; they have no good grounds to support their negativity, so bad ones will do. He claims even the most hardened Ufologist who believes that there is something behind these reports will admit that at least nine out of ten cases are misperceptions and hoaxes. The values usually turn out to be more like 3-10% of the reports remaining unexplained”. No source is given for this ridiculous proclamation.

In Blue Book Special Report 14 it was found that 21.5% of 3201 sightings investigated for the USAF by scientists at BMI could not be explained, this completely separate from the 9.3% listed as insufficient information; furthermore, the better the quality of the sighting—the more likely to be unexplained. In Richard Hall’s “The UFO Evidence” it was found that 746 of the 4500 (16.6%) cases examined could not be explained. According to a special UFO subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 30% of the 117 cases investigated by the University of Colorado could not be explained. The one book of mine he lists has a 9 page bibliography which lists all these sources and many more.

I have quoted these numbers before. The point is that Printy has no leg to stand on. Better he should throw a dart at a dartboard with numbers on it.

Printy notes that he has been an amateur astronomer for 30 years and never seen a UFO. Of course he doesn’t explain why that means some aren’t real. He doesn’t mention that the great majority of amateur astronomers spend little time looking for flying saucers. They spend most of their time at night looking through a telescope with a very narrow field of view at interesting astronomical objects like the planets, the moon, comets and things they know will be present when they are out gazing. Would they say there have been no fatal automobile or airplane crashes because they haven’t seen one?

Printy goes on to say the least likely explanation is that of little green men in spaceships—what a stupid comment about likelihood! Of course no evidence is provided. He finishes us believers off with this comment: “Despite over 50 years of “research”, UFO organizations have yet to provide us with any significant data that can back up the claim that UFOs are caused by aliens piloting space ships”. What he means is that he is unwilling to examine the data. The question isn’t whether all UFOs are spaceships, but whether any are. He obviously is unaware of thousands of physical trace cases, the many radar visual cases, the best abduction cases. It is perfectly logical to conclude that some UFOs are alien spacecraft when they are observed for many minutes and to be obviously manufactured objects able to literally fly circles around our aircraft as observed visually and by radar.

In his big article he talks about Major Donald Keyhoe and his books and conclusions about a government cover-up. He talks about Project Blue Book through never mentioning BB Special Report No. 14. He mentions Congressional hearings in 1968 but doesn’t name the presenters or give a reference for the report. It would appear that he hadn’t read it. He does give a quote from Hector Quintanilla who had been BB director: “The list of speakers reads like a who’s who of extraterrestrial proponents. I’ve never seen such a stacked deck in all of my life.” What a strange comment; two of the 12 presenters were Donald Menzel and Carl Sagan neither a public proponent for the ETH. Furthermore he didn’t mention such powerful presentations as Jim McDonald’s 71 page effort which covers more than 40 cases and demolishes the objections of people like Printy.

Even though he focuses on me after Keyhoe, he of course doesn’t mention my contribution to the proceedings though it has several data tables and many references. He notes I have “been around Ufology since the 1960s, likes to present himself as a scientist who studies UFOs. He does have a master’s degree in Nuclear physics never earned his PhD.” Tis true I immediately went to work as a nuclear physicist for such companies as General Electric, Westinghouse, General Motors, Aerojet General, McDonnell Douglas. Yes, after many cancelled programs I finally went full-time into Ufology after 14 years . . . I am certainly not ashamed. I wrote reports, presented scientific papers and am still a member of the American Physical Society, American Nuclear Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. “Despite his claims he has never really practiced science when it comes to UFOs.” What a remarkably idiotic claim. Obviously he hasn’t seen my articles in Physics Today or Aeronautics and Astronautics nor the aforementioned Congressional Symposium. He does list my book TOP SECRET MAJIC (1997) though obviously the 2005 version and my other books and papers have escaped his attention.

Printy provides a splendid example of taking a quote out of context by saying “Friedman says in one of his books ‘As I gave more lectures, I found that I enjoyed speaking and that people believed me NO MATTER WHAT I SAID’ (the emphasis was his). Apparently, Friedman realized that he could say anything within reason and the UFO faithful would accept it”. Wow! No mention of the fact that the great majority of my lectures were to colleges and universities and also to many sections of the AIAA, IEEE, ANS, management clubs of companies like McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, North American Rockwell. These hardly qualify as UFO faithful. These are all mentioned in the book along with the highly classified nuclear research and development projects on which I worked. I guess he feared that if he gave some facts, people might actually think I was a professional scientist rather than an amateur astronomer.

Naturally Printy misrepresents my views about the infamous MJ-12 documents: “Friedman endorsed the documents as authentic until proven otherwise, has hitched his name to the documents in several books.”

Funny for many years I have endorsed three MJ-12 Documents of the more than 100. But I provided detailed factual reasons for those three and have dealt with all the objections to those three and detailed reasons why a number of the phonies are not legitimate. I used the old fashioned scientific approach. I have visited 20 archives, some many times; I talked to family member of all but one of the 12.
Printy Says, “Even in 2008, over 20 years after the MJ-12 papers were released, Friedman and others declare them authentic.” Funny Printy apparently has the 1997 version of Top Secret/MAJIC. I was saying then that there were 3 genuine ones—and loads of phonies, but why bother the reader with the facts?

Here is the quote in context (p.9 TSM):
“As I gave more lectures I found that I enjoyed speaking and that people believed me no matter what I said. After all I was a nuclear physicist for Westinghouse, which in Pittsburgh, with its numerous nuclear divisions and research facilities, were gold plated credentials. The blind acceptance frightened me—now I knew how the demagogues of the twentieth century had such success. I wanted people to think, to explore, to look at the data and make up their own minds. I decided that I would try to reach more technical groups, who presumably wouldn’t accept everything I said as gospel.”
I also said that my lecture “Flying Saucers ARE Real” was designed to raise the objections of the skeptics and then demolish them with facts.”

This gives an entirely different take on my motivation and Printy’s willingness to deceive.

Printy claims, ”Because of his association with Roswell and MJ-12, Friedman was one of the principle investigators who was publicly proclaiming that there was a flying saucer cover-up and the Congress should investigate the matter,” more poppy cock! I showed that there was a cover-up by pointing to the blacked out Top Secret UMBRA CIA UFO documents and the whited out TSU NSA UFO documents. I quote from General Bolender’s statement, ”Reports of UFOs which could effect national security are not part of the Blue Book system.” I note many lies in a long paper “Government UFO Lies” on my website. I have not pushed for congressional hearings because I don’t think they would be useful. I have been to 20 document archives. Of course he doesn’t mention that Phil Klass paid me $1000.00 for proving him wrong about the Type face on the Cutler Twining memo;

of course Klass hadn’t been to any archives, but obtained 9 of 250,000 NSC documents by mail. When finally more or less released, one could read several words per page in the CIA stuff with the rest being blacked out and about one sentence per page on the 156 NSA UFO documents with the rest being whited out.

Then he tries to show by echoing Phil Klass’s false claims that I never tell people the reason the redactions appear is because they deal with classified sources and methods information. Here is another irrational lie. Could 98% of the CIA and NSA UFO documents actually deal with sources and methods? That is hardly likely since they were filed under UFO.

Printy has more nonsense about Roswell. Of course he does not refer to the paper on my website “UFOs: Earth’s Cosmic Watergate” (or any of my many papers about MJ-12, Roswell, etc). He says “Ufology is not about real scientific investigation of UFOs. It is about personalities who have found a niche in society that allows them to satisfy their egos and appear important to those who want to believe these stories.” Sounds like an excellent description of Klass, Shaeffer, Shermer and Printy and other UFO debunkers projected on to serious investigators such as myself, Dr. Bruce Maccabee, Dr. David Rudiak, Kathleen Marden, etc.

My purpose is to expose his noisy negativism as irrational uninformed and ignorant as is that of most debunkers. I would be delighted to debate him anywhere, but don’t think he has the courage to take me on.



Flying Saucers with Stanton Friedman

Stanton Friedman vs Phil Klass on Nightline

The X-Conference : Debunking the UFO Debunkers - Stanton Friedman LIVE

UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant 

Interview With Stanton Friedman - Debunking the Debunkers

Stanton Friedman vs. Dr. John Alexander - IUFOC 2011 UFO Debate

UFO Cover Up Revelations! MJ12 & ET Quarantine - Stanton Friedman & Dark Journalist

UFO Conference (2014, October) STANTON FRIEDMAN 

Stanton T. Friedman Presents Flying Saucers and Science 

Stanton Friedman Discusses Stephen Hawking & SETI


Dr. Roger Leir - Art Bell's Dark Matter - October 21 2013 - Dark Matter - 10-21-13

Turkey UFO incident case overview with videos and photos.

Interview With Author and Investigative Reporter Leslie Kean

Published on Jun 19, 2013 - Dr. Todd Curtis interviews Leslie Kean, New York Times best selling author of the 2010 book 'UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record.'

They discussed polices and traditions in the US government and the aviation community that keeps flying professionals from being fully informed about potential threats to aviation safety and security. For more information, visit Kean's site at

"Shutting up UFO Debunkers" REVISED 9-4-13

"Shutting up UFO Debunkers" REVISED 9-4-13
Post by Steve Zalewski » Wed May 01, 2013 10:30 pm

 May 1, 2013

In my forty years of researching the UFO phenomenon, I have had the opportunity to have lunch and dinner with Dr. J. Allen Hynek and conduct high level SCIENTIFIC UFO research and speak at Cornell University to the Cornell University UFO Awareness Group, which was part of Cornell University Space Science.

I titled this posting, "Shutting Up UFO Debunkers" and yes it can be done. How do you "shut up" UFO debunkers?

By doing research that is extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely, difficult for them to refute.

Scientific UFO data DOES exist, however it is NOT widely distributed like the crackpot/cultist materials are, and a great deal of the data is in obscure peer reviewed scholarly journals in the fields of aeronautics, astronautics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, folklore, geology, history, physics psychology, psychiatry, optics, meteorology, military science, sociology, theology etc.

Before you begin gathering data make sure that you ARE very well informed about UFOs and UFO history.

The data is out there in many academic libraries, but you must LOOK FOR IT, in order to find it.

If you were doing research say on the Apollo 11 moon landing mission would you rely on crackpots? Of course not, SO WHY RELY ON CRACKPOTS AND CULTISTS FOR YOUR UFO INFORMATION? Crackpots and cultists DO NOT provide reputable information on UFOs, the primary objective of crackpots and cultists is making money off the UFO phenomenon. By the way, I DO NOT profit in any way on my UFO research activities.

Your database should be composed up of books by scientists, books and articles from credible UFO researchers, and scholars, government documents that have been verified as being authentic, scientific field studies, peer reviewed papers from scholarly journals, and AV materials of a credible nature. A number of Masters degree and Ph.D degree UFO thesis papers have been written, you should consider them as a data source as well.

In the database that I set up by being extremely careful I was able to keep out nearly 98-99% of the crackpot/cultist junk.

Your database should also be reviewed by scientists and academics who have published serious UFO literature, and by credible UFO researchers. Try to get some highly prestigious scientists with Ph.D credentials as some of your reviewers.

We also asked the skeptics to contribute materials, the skeptics would NOT donate anything. Oberg and Sheaffer did NOT respond, Klass sent a letter stating that he would not contribute anything and that his materials are at the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, PA. Many "skeptics" explain UFOs away without even taking the time to interview witnesses, or do case investigations. Yet these are the same people who rant and rave about how science is SUPPOSED to operate. They don't practice what they preach. Many debunkers, pseudoskeptics, and skeptics have developed an attitude that they are NEVER wrong about ANYTHING.

"There seems to be a category of persons, including some attracted to science, who conclude that they know what is good for the rest of us. They adopt a somewhat authoritarian and somewhat paranoid "thought police" mode. They become convinced that certain irrational concepts do grievous harm to individuals and may even threaten the rational basis of modern western civilization". As mentioned, Irving Langmuir was an earlier version of this class of individuals. (Today we have a whole organization of them, the Committee For Skeptical Inquiry, formerly the Committee for Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal, CSICOP, proudly reveling in the COP status of their mental policing.)

Quoted from UFOs and Government, The Colorado Project, Chapter 14, page 321.

One of the reasons that the UFO subject is not taken seriously by most scientists is because of ignorance on the parts of the academic and scientific community.

Many scientists base their negative reactions on UFOs due to their lack of knowledge about the subject matter at hand.

Another reason is because new age kooks and cultists, and other crackpots have damaged this subject severely. In addition many members of the public shy away from this subject due the "bad press" associated with it.

The third reason is due to all the disinformation that is spread around by debunkers and pseudoskeptics, and by local Committee For Skeptical Inquiry debunking chapters which are "affiliated" with the national Committee For Skeptical Inquiry located in Amherst, NY, (a suburb of Buffalo, NY) or by other debunking/pseudoskeptical groups.

For those who don't know CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) is the new name for The Committee for the Scientific Investigations of Claims of the Paranormal, which was formerly known as CSICOP. By the way there is a CSI chapter in Syracuse.

Unfortunately, ignorance runs rampant in the UFO research field.

Of course the U.S. Government and various intelligence agencies have also spread around disinformation to the public, press, and scientific community, and to UFO researchers while studying the UFO phenomenon in highly classified projects away from the press, public, and prying eyes.

Even though Project Bluebook closed on December 17, 1969, due to the fact that the U.S. Government considers UFOs to be a MAJOR national security matter I can assure you that they are STILL doing research into the UFO phenomenon.

However all is not lost. Where do you get your UFO information from? Is it from Steven Greer's UFO cult, CSETI, or do you go to the J. Allen Hynek Center For UFO Studies website,

Do you get your information on UFOs from The Journal of UFO Studies, or the Journal of Scientific Exploration or from cultist sources like Billy Meier, George Adamski, or from other charlatans who have damaged this subject so badly.

Many people mix up scientific UFO data with cultist junk and reject scientific data and fail to "weed out" cultist junk from scientific data sources. If you go to the bibliography section, of Jacobs UFO book referenced below or look at the footnotes at the end of the chapters in Hynek's referenced book, you will find many credible journal sources that you can use in your data gathering.

Due to their lack of knowledge, many people fail to distinguish scientific data from the low quality junk produced by cultists and crackpots.
Many people also falsely assume that ALL UFO literature is junk, and they put scientific data in the same category as crackpot/cultist materials, and dismiss ALL of it.

You must have outstanding critical thinking skills to differentiate between scientific data, and cultist materials and disinformation produced by CSI debunkers, pseudoskeptics, and by CSI's local chapters, and by disinformation produced by government agencies.

(The UFO subject is one of the few subjects where many people consider themselves to be experts, but they have NOT done ANY research in this field. In addition, many people view cultists and crackpots to be "experts" in this field but they are NOT experts either.)

Many debunkers and "pseudoskeptics" have become "self appointed experts" in this field but their knowledge of UFOs is extremely poor to non existent at best. The debunkers and pseudoskeptics are NOT experts in this field either.

See "The Debunkers" by Dr. David Jacobs for a comprehensive analysis about how pseudoskeptics and CSI (Formerly CSICOP) operate. The paper is superb and a real eye opener.

I will recommend books that you can read which are not hard reading at all but are reputable.

1. The UFO Experience A Scientific Inquiry by Dr. J. Allen Hynek. For those who don't know Hynek was the official astronomer for the Air Force's UFO Projects Sign, Grudge, and Bluebook. Hynek also founded the Center For UFO Studies, and was a Professor of Astronomy at Northwestern University. Dr. Hynek passed away on April 27, 1986 in Scottsdale, Arizona. I knew Hynek personally.

Hynek's book above is superb and the book describes the various characteristics of UFO reports, the problems with The University of Colorado at Boulder UFO research project headed by Dr. Edward Condon, and the poor quality investigations and research done during the U.S. Air Force's UFO Projects, Sign, Grudge, and Bluebook.

2. The UFO Controversy In America by Dr. David Jacobs. Published by Indiana University Press. Dr. Jacobs retired from Temple University a few years ago, he is a UFO historian, and conducts research into the abduction phenomenon. The UFO Controversy In America, is an outstanding scholarly work in the form of a doctorate thesis in UFO history and I highly recommend this book. I know the author personally.

If you go the website for the J. Allen Hynek Center For UFO Studies and look on the site there are recommended books to read that are written by reputable UFO researchers and will give you worthwhile information. There also is a skeptics section on the Center's website.

Good Luck to you in your SCIENTIFIC data gathering efforts.

Steve Zalewski is an amateur astronomer, UFO researcher, and amateur photographer from Syracuse, NY. He received his Associates Degree in Electronic Media Studies, from Onondaga Community College in Syracuse, NY and his Bachelors Degree from the University of Denver, in Mass Communications.

Steve has been involved in the UFO research field since 1973, and knows some of the top people in this field in the world.

He is the founder of a UFO collection at Onondaga Community College in Syracuse, NY which was reviewed by Dr. W. Reid Thompson of Cornell University Space Science. Note, Steve is NOT employed by Onondaga Community College.

Dr. W. Reid Thompson wrote two letters on Cornell University Center For Radio Physics and Space Research letterhead to Onondaga Community College's library in 1993 stating that we are very impressed that the collection was "critically assembled". Dr. W. Reid Thompson was also Dr. Carl Sagan's assistant. Dr. Thompson's two letters on Cornell letterhead along with the envelopes, and his prestige make this project nearly 99.9% refute proof. Now, you can see why UFO research SHOULD be done like this.

Dr. W. Reid Thompson was also an astronomer at Cornell, his professional research work centered around studying the chemical makeup of Titan (a satellite of Saturn) and Reid was a member of the Galileo and Voyager 2 imaging teams, his professional research associations were with the American Astronomical Society, the American Geophysical Union Division for Planetary Sciences, International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, and Sigma Xi. Reid also worked in Cornell's Space Science Lab, and the Laboratory for Planetary Sciences, and the Center For Radio Physics and Space Research at Cornell. Sadly, Reid came down with lung cancer and passed away on April 22, 1996 in Ithaca, NY.

(The reference for Reid's scientific and professional accomplishments was Reid's obituary notice published in the Ithaca Journal, April 24, 1996 page A4.)

Reid also stated that there is abundant evidence that some real physical phenomenon is behind the significant fraction of investigated UFO sightings that remain unexplained, despite good documentation from reliable witnesses (on the order of 20% of non trivial cases.)

Reid asked Steve to speak to the Cornell University UFO Awareness Group which Steve did do on June 5, 1993.

Dr. W. Reid Thompson has Steve's greatest respect for having courage and guts to investigate the UFO phenomenon in a high level scientific manner.

Data from the collection was sent up by Reid, to Dr. Carl Sagan for his examination. I miss Reid greatly. Reid was a fantastic astronomer for his fearless courage to be deeply interested in the UFO phenomenon, despite the stigma associated with studying the UFO phenomenon.

Reid was very curious about UFOs and he was a true scientist for not backing down in studying UFOs despite the ridicule factor associated with UFO research. Serious UFO researchers owe Reid a great deal of respect for trying to study this subject scientifically.

This collection is the only IVY League endorsed UFO Collection in the world.

Note due to the ignorance of the some people in the scientific community, the college's library staff, and debunkers, some of the material in the collection may have been thrown out from the collection.

Due to chronic medical problems I have had to completely cut back on data gathering on this project but I hope that my comments have encouraged you to use critical thinking skills when you do your UFO research and to make sure that your research rises up to Ivy League Standards and yes, some of the debunkers were very, very, upset locally that I made this project extremely, extremely, difficult for them to refute.

This is the way that UFO research should be done.

I raised the UFO field up to Ivy League Standards, if I can do it you can do it. Having extremely, extremely, high standards raises the credibility of UFO research to the public and scientific community, and makes the debunkers job much, much, more difficult for them to do.

I would like to thank the serious UFO researchers, scientists, and the former members of Cornell University's UFO Awareness Group for being so courageous in studying the UFO phenomenon, and for their support and assistance in my research and for their support of the database that I created at Onondaga Community College, in Syracuse, NY. Thank You again.

If you are a serious UFO researcher, please give me your comments and suggestions and feedback to this posting. I really want to encourage the usage of critical thinking skills and try to get the UFO field cleaned up so more scientists will be more likely to conduct research in this area. Thanks again for your comments and I look forward to hearing from you. Please put any comments to me in the post a reply section, or if SCEPCOP has a way to communicate with members, via email privately feel free to drop me a line. Thank You.

Steve Zalewski
Syracuse, NY


Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers

Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers
August 27, 2008
Originally published at the UFO Magazine Blog

On August 11, 2008, I sat down with Albuquerque Journal reporter John Fleck to discuss my extensive research on nuclear weapons-related UFO activity and the publication of my 600-page book, UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites. Over the last 35 years, I have interviewed nearly 100 former or retired U.S. Air Force nuclear missile personnel, including launch officers, targeting officers, maintenance personnel and security guards. These individuals report ongoing UFO surveillance of our strategic weapons sites, as well as the occasional disruption of those weapons' functionality, just after UFOs were observed to be in their vicinity.

To verify these veterans' statements to me, I provided reporter Fleck with copies of verbatim testimony from a few of them, a copy of my book which contained the testimony of a great many more, and four pages of USAF/NORAD documents, declassified via the Freedom of Information Act, which describe multiple UFO incursions at Minuteman missile sites outside of Malmstrom AFB, Montana, in November 1975.
In spite of this well-documented presentation, Fleck subsequently wrote an exceedingly biased and dismissive article about my research, titled "Book Links UFOs to Nukes," in the August 25, 2008 issue of the Journal, which concluded that my contentions of a UFO-Nukes Connection were "wrong" based on the statements of "independent experts." More on those alleged experts in a moment.

During my interview with him, Fleck told me that he was especially interested in the so-called Big Sur UFO case. which I will now briefly summarize: Early one morning in September 1964, an Atlas D Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) was launched from Vandenberg AFB, California, carrying aloft an experimental enemy radar-defeating system and dummy nuclear warhead. Shortly after nosecone-separation, as the warhead raced toward a targeted splash-down at Eniwetok Lagoon, in the Pacific Ocean, it was approached by a disc-shaped UFO. As the saucer chased and then circled the warhead, four bright flashes of light emanated from the unknown craft whereupon the warhead began to tumble, eventually falling into the ocean hundreds of miles short of its intended target downrange.

Science fiction? Not according to the former USAF officer tasked with filming the Atlas launch through a high-powered telescope located at Big Sur, California. Then Lt. (now Dr.) Bob Jacobs—who was assigned to the 1369th Photographic Squadron at Vandenberg, and held the title Officer-in-Charge of Photo-instrumentation—states that the entire encounter was captured on motion picture film. According to Jacobs, while the UFO's maneuvers were readily discernable, other minute details—including the object's domed discshape— were only discovered during a in-depth optical analysis conducted at Vandenberg.

Following the dramatic incident, says Jacobs, a 16-mm version of the amazing film was shown to a small, select group at Vandenberg. At the conclusion of this meeting, which he attended, he was told to "forget" the filmed events and to never mention them again. Years later, Jacobs learned that after he left the room, the crucial frames were cut out and quickly confiscated by two "government agents"—possibly working for the CIA—who had been among those in attendance.

Importantly, Jacobs' account—relating to both the UFO incident itself and the subsequent cover-up—has been entirely endorsed by another officer, retired Major (later Dr.) Florenze J. Mansmann, Jr. At the time, Mansmann had been assigned to Vandenberg AFB's Office of the Chief Scientist, 1st Strategic Aerospace Division. It was Mansmann who had carefully analyzed the amazing film which, he said, showed a "classic disc" shaped object circling the dummy warhead, shooting four beams of light at the warhead as it did so. It was also Mansmann who had ordered Lt. Jacobs to attend the restricted screening of the film in his office at the division's headquarters building.

Because reporter Fleck expressed interest in this case, I provided him with copies of private correspondence between Jacobs and Mansmann, from the early 1980s. In those letters, Jacobs and Mansmann were obviously still stunned by, and marveling over, the Big Sur UFO incident—some 20 years later. It is important to note that this correspondence was never intended for publication, to support the validity of the case. Rather, it represents the private musings of two former USAF officers—involved and knowledgeable insiders—who had experienced what was obviously a life-changing event for each of them.
At the conclusion of my interview with Fleck, he told me that he would be contacting Kendrick Frazier, the longtime editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine—which has for decades featured articles debunking UFOs and the notion of a U.S. government UFO cover-up—to get Frazier's point-of-view on the Big Sur case. Skeptical Inquirer is the publication of the self-styled Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) which recently renamed itself the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).
One of the articles published by the debunking magazine, written by Kingston George, an engineer who worked with Bob Jacobs on the telescope project at Vandenberg AFB, claimed that Jacobs' statements about having filmed a UFO shooting down a dummy nuclear warhead were just " weird claims" having no basis in reality.

However, when I researched the Big Sur case myself, I discovered that George had badly misrepresented Jacobs' remarks, repeatedly, and had made other crucial factual errors. Indeed, if one compares his article with Jacobs' and Mansmann's published and private statements on the Big Sur incident, it becomes glaringly obvious how erroneous and misleading George's article really is. Nevertheless, Skeptical Inquirer editor Frazier published the badlyflawed piece, apparently without comparing George's claims about what Jacobs' supposedly had said with what he actually had said. Curiously, George's debunking article contains not a single word about Major Mansmann's unequivocal endorsement of Jacobs' account.

Frazier subsequently included Kingston George's badly-flawed article in one of his own books devoted to debunking UFOs, thereby further disseminating George's misstatements and factual errors to an unsuspecting public. Incompetence all around, at the very least, on the part of the debunkers—if not something more suspicious. As I write in my book,
"I consider it noteworthy that George's article was published in CSICOP's in-house magazine, Skeptical Inquirer. At first glance, this is hardly surprising, given CSICOP's tireless crusade to discredit UFOs. However, because the Big Sur incident reportedly involved a UFO disabling—shooting down—one of the U.S. military's experimental nuclear warhead systems, Skeptical Inquirer's strong endorsement of George's attempted debunking of the incident is particularly interesting.
Why? Many years ago, I discovered that Kendrick Frazier was in fact employed—beginning in the early 1980s—as a Public Relations Specialist at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Yes, the same Sandia Labs that has been instrumental to the success of America's nuclear weapons program since the late 1940s, through its "ordinance engineering" of components for bomb and missile warhead systems.
Interestingly, Skeptical Inquirer's publisher's statement, or "masthead", which appears at the beginning of each issue, never once mentioned Frazier's employment at the highlysecretive, government-funded laboratory. Instead, the magazine merely listed, and continues to list, his profession as "science writer"—a reference to his having written several books and articles on various scientific subjects. Also curious is the fact that various online biographies on Frazier—including one written by himself—also fail to mention his two-decade tenure at Sandia Labs. An odd omission indeed.
Consequently, here is the situation: In what is arguably the most dramatic nuclear weapons-related UFO incident ever revealed, two former U.S. Air Force officers insist that one of our experimental nuclear warheads was actually shot down by a flying saucer. And who is responsible for publishing the first debunking article about the Big Sur incident, in which it is claimed that the UFO encounter never happened? Why, a PR guy working for the U.S. government's nuclear weapons program!
… Ironically, over the years, a great many UFO skeptics have used the supposedly accurate "facts" presented in George's article to dismiss the UFO link with nuclear weapons in general, and the Big Sur UFO Incident in particular. Needless to say, very few of those same skeptics will ever buy a book called, UFOs and Nukes, so they will mistakenly continue to believe that Kingston George's article is the last word on the Big Sur case.
Furthermore, the CSICOP-Nukes Connection does not end with Kendrick Frazier. James Oberg, one of CSICOP's leading UFO debunkers, once did classified work relating to nuclear weapons at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, located at Kirtland AFB, just down the road from Sandia Labs.
From 1970–72, Oberg was an Air Force officer whose assignments with the Battle Environments Branch at the weapons lab involved the development and utilization of computer codes related to the modeling of laser and nuclear weapons. Oberg also served as a "Security Officer" while at the weapons lab and was, therefore, responsible for monitoring the security procedures used to safeguard the classified documents generated by his group.
After Bob Jacobs went public with the UFO shoot-down story, Oberg wrote to him, chastising Jacobs for revealing "top secret" information. In his MUFON UFO Journal article, Jacobs wrote that after he broke his silence, "I was contacted by a variety of investigators, buffs, cranks, proponents and detractors alike. James Oberg, a frequent 'mouthpiece' for certain NASA projects and self-styled UFO Debunker wrote to disparage my story and to ask provocatively, 'Since you obviously feel free to discuss top secret UFO data, what would you be willing to say about other top secret aspects of the Atlas warhead which you alluded to briefly …?' I told Mr. Oberg where to put his misplaced cynicism."\
Despite Oberg's charge, Jacobs has correctly pointed out that because Major Mansmann had told him that the UFO encounter "never happened", he had no personal knowledge of the classification level attached to the incident.
In any event, it is almost certain that Oberg would not have criticized Jacobs for exposing "top secret UFO data", had he known that Jacobs would subsequently publish his remark. So, here we have one of CSICOP's leading UFO debunkers—whose public stance is that UFOs don't even exist—angrily asking Jacobs in a private letter whether he would also openly discuss "other" top secret aspects of the missile test …
For his part, CSICOP's chief UFO-debunker, the late Philip J. Klass, aggressively hounded Dr. Jacobs after he published the warhead shoot-down story, going so far as to write a derisive letter to Jacobs' department chairman—Dr. R. Steven Craig, Department of Journalism and Broadcasting, University of Maine—in which Klass accusingly questioned professor Jacobs' fitness as a representative of the academic community.
Jacobs' understandably indignant response to Klass, titled, Low Klass: A Rejoinder, is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand the behind-the-scenes battle that ensued after Jacobs went public with the UFO incident.
Among other subjects, the rejoinder touches on acrimonious correspondence between Jacobs and Klass. At one point, after Dr. Jacobs ignored Klass' repeated demands that he respond to the debunker's charges, Klass offered character references, citing Admiral Bobby R. Inman (USN Ret.)—the former Director of the National Security Agency, who also held Deputy Director positions at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency—and Lt. General Daniel O. Graham (USA Ret.), the former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Klass not only provided Jacobs with their names, but home addresses as well, and told him, "Both men have worked with me and gotten to know me in my efforts for Aviation Week."
The character references provided by Klass are certainly interesting, given his stock response over the years to those who questioned his motives. Whenever he was confronted with the charge that he was not really a UFO skeptic, but a disinformation agent for the U.S. government, Klass would always recoil indignantly and ridicule the notion. So who does he choose to present as character references in his letter to Jacobs? Two of the top intelligence officers in the U.S. government."
Major Florenze Mansmann's last written remarks on the Big Sur UFO incident are to be found in a letter to Curt Collier, a producer for the television series, Sightings. Dated November 15, 1995, the letter began, "Dear Mr. Collier, Responding to your Fed Ex letter of November 14, 1995 regarding the validity of the January 1989 MUFON [UFO] Journal story by Dr. Robert Jacobs, it is all true as presented. And yes, I have also responded to other researchers in the past, but only after Dr. Jacobs released the details of these sightings [sic] negating my secrecy bond."

Mansmann continued, "The Image Orthicon camera system we used in capturing the Unidentified Flying Object on film had the capacity to photograph the 'nuts and bolts' of the missile launch and its super sonic flight …In retrospect, I now regret not being able to evaluate the film for more than 3 showings. The only people in attendance of the viewing were: The Director of the Office of the Chief Scientist and his assistant, two Government Agents, Lieutenant Jacobs and myself. [i.e. Kingston George was NOT present! –RH] The two Government Agents confiscated the film and placed it in a briefcase and departed after I had checked their authorization to leave with the film. I was instructed later by the Office of the Chief Scientist, the Judge Advocate General's office and my Commanding Officer to consider the incident top secret." Mansmann concluded his letter to Collier, "I am writing to confirm Dr. Jacobs' account …"

In other words, more than 30 years after the top secret incident and more than six years after Jacobs' article appeared in the MUFON UFO Journal, Dr. Mansmann was once again unreservedly verifying Bob Jacobs' report of a UFO shooting down a dummy nuclear warhead over the Pacific Ocean, in September 1964.
Florenz J. Mansmann, Jr. died on July 4, 2000, but he remained adamant to the end that the extraordinary encounter—involving an extraterrestrial spacecraft—had occurred and was classified Top Secret.

My own definitive, extremely well-documented article on the Big Sur incident is available at my website, Had reporter John Fleck read it, or the Jacobs-Mansmann letters I provided him, before he wrote his inept and biased article on my research, he would have saved himself a lot of criticism and embarrassment.

Although Fleck knows almost nothing about UFOs, he seems unwilling to learn about the subject, even when provided with credible and documented information derived from declassified government files and the testimony of former military personnel. Instead, he readily swallows the unfounded and suspiciously spun claims of Frazier, Oberg and their ilk—hook, line and sinker. In short, Fleck is the perfect mark—uninformed and vulnerable to misinformation—just the way UFO debunkers prefer their journalists to be.


XCon 2004 - Stanton Friedman - UFO Cover-Up - Debunking the Debunkers

Published on Jul 6, 2012

UFO COVER-UP: DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS, with Stanton Friedman. At the center of the truth embargo is a core of propaganda promulgated over 50 years in the guise of scientific skepticism. This false "skepticism" came to be known as "debunking." Having given more than 700 lectures about flying saucers in 15 countries; answered more than 35,000 questions; published more than 80 papers, 2 books, a CD-ROM and videos about UFOs and visited 20 document archives; Stanton Friedman has heard all the objections the human mind can conjure in opposition to the extraterrestrial hypothesis. In the workshop, all objections will be discussed such as the notions that interstellar travel is impossible, there is no good evidence for flying saucer reality, secrets can't be kept, aliens engaging the earth would land on the White House lawn, SETI (Silly Effort to Investigate) is sensible science, the Drake Equation predicts extraterrestrial contact is unlikely and other false arguments. For those who want to test their skeptical mettle against this research legend, here is your chance.

Stanton Friedman vs. Dr. John Alexander - IUFOC 2011 UFO Debate

Uploaded on Aug 30, 2011

Dr. John Alexander, a retired U.S. Army Colonel and a leading advocate for the development of non-lethal weapons faces Stanton Friedman, the original civilian investigator of the Roswell incident in this heated debate. Moderated by Danny Sheehan, this deliberation quickly became a hot ticket during the 2011 International UFO Congress.


Flying Saucers with Stanton Friedman

Stanton Friedman vs Phil Klass on Nightline

The X-Conference : Debunking the UFO Debunkers - Stanton Friedman LIVE

UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant 

Interview With Stanton Friedman - Debunking the Debunkers

Stanton Friedman vs. Dr. John Alexander - IUFOC 2011 UFO Debate

UFO Cover Up Revelations! MJ12 & ET Quarantine - Stanton Friedman & Dark Journalist

UFO Conference (2014, October) STANTON FRIEDMAN 

Stanton T. Friedman Presents Flying Saucers and Science 

Stanton Friedman Discusses Stephen Hawking & SETI

Larry King Live:UFO Debate - 4 Video Playlist

Larry King Live: UFO Debate Between The Ufo Skeptic Bill Nye "The Science Guy" And UFO Investigator Bill Hastings, Former USAF Captain Bob Salas, Former Air Force Official Bill Jameson, And Dr.Bob Jenkins Former 1st Lieutant USAF.

Interview With Stanton Friedman - Debunking the Debunkers

Uploaded on Mar 6, 2011

Our next interview from the 2011 UFO Conference in Arizona features a fascinating conversation with Stanton Friedman, on the subject of "UFO Debunkers." Mr. Friedman is a nuclear physicist and one of the original civilian investigators of the Roswell incident. He is often credited for bringing the events in Roswell to popular awareness due to his research and and diligent fact-finding. There are few people in UFOology with longer resume than Stanton's nearly five decades of involvement. During that time, he's become frustrated with what he feels are errant arguments of habitual debunkers. He shares some of his thoughts on that subject and more.

NOTE: The first few minutes of this interview lack on-the scene video of Mr. Friedman. As our frustrations with the organization of the vent continued, our only opportunity to get a few moments of his time was at his table in the exhibit area. Our cameraman was jostled and bumped during the crowded first few minutes (as a lecture let out) making that portion of the video unwatchable. Also, lighting was not optimal. We apologize for the less-than ideal video quality, however, the content of the interview is excellent.


Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO

Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO
Postby Indigo Child

I had composed the following article for the Above Top Secret UFO forum. I am reposting it here because it is very relevant to this forum.

I think there is a very severe problem of pseudoskepticism in the UFO community that impairs progressive research. I think the UFO community can benefit from clear thinking, and thus I am writing this brief primer on logic focussed particularly on the subject matter of Aliens and UFO’s. I will discuss the common fallacies used by pseudoskeptics and offer a rebuttal.

I first want to clarify what I am not attempting to do.

I am not attempting to prove anything. Simply because I am going to debunk common pseudoskeptical arguments, does not mean that the believers arguments have been proven. Rather, all I am going to do is use the principle of non-contradiction in logic and show that the arguments used by pseudoskeptics are logically contradictory.

I am not vilifying skepticism. It is not possible for me to vilify skepticism without contradicting my own skepticism. We are all believers and skeptics, only that what we believe and what we are sceptical about varies from person to person.

That said, there is an ideal skeptic. That is somebody who withholds judgement until they have explored all available evidence in a case. A skeptic is thus an investigator and their job is to investigate. Then, after the investigation is complete, the skeptic is able to offer a hypothesis which can account for all of the available data. Somebody who does not investigate a case is not a skeptic, they are merely doubters. Somebody who attempts to investigate, but makes suppositions and does not take into account all available evidence, but distorts evidence to fit their hypothesis is a pseudoskeptic.

From hereon we will look at the common fallacious arguments used by pseudoskeptics in the context of Aliens and UFO’s. I do not claim to be exhaustive, I can only look at a limited set of arguments. If there are arguments not covered that that you think are fallacious and want me to debunk them, just request it and I will attempt to do so in another post.

Now let us look at the common fallacies one by one.

Argument: There is no proof or evidence that ET exists. Yes, it is true that the SETI equation shows that the probability of ET is very likely, but this is not proof in and of itself, only a mathematical possibility. Therefore ETH is not a valid explanation.

Rebuttal: This is an invalid and logically contradictory argument. For the following reasons

1) There is significant evidence and proof that ET exists. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate this evidence and 'proof' and come to a judgement on it.
2) The probability of life on planets is 100%. This is not a mathematical possibility, but an empirical fact. Planet Earth is a planet and it is teeming with very diverse life, and it is commonly accepted by science that life appeared on this planet quickly after the Earth was born. It is an empirical fact that the phenomenon of life on planets is a part of our observable universe. Therefore there is no reason to speculate that life cannot be possible elsewhere.

My opponent may argue that it is possible that life only formed on planet Earth and nowhere else. They may even point out that sample size I have of life in the universe is only one instance and this is not enough to make a generalization.

Rebuttal: This is an argument from possibility fallacy. It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life. Mere possibility is not enough to make a case.

The opponents argument is also self-contradictory. It is possible that there are no other minds in the world, I am the only one that has mind and everybody else is either a machine or imaginary. There is only one instance of mind, my own mind, so can I generalise from such a sample? The chances are the opponent takes this generalization for granted in his everyday life. In which case I can take ET for granted as well.

In conclusion: ETH is a valid hypothesis and forms a part of our observable universe.

Argument: It impossible for ET to travel here. The distances in space are astronomical, it would take thousands, if not millions of years to reach planet Earth even at the speed of light. But it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.

Rebuttal: This is an argument from incredulity. The opponent does not believe a ET would make a trip from their home planet to Earth because the time it would take to get here is perceived to be too long and so it is unbelievable that ET would try. Just because something seems unbelievable it does not mean it cannot happen. It is unbelievable that somebody would survive a fall from a very high building, but it does happen. It is assumed that that the ET would be using FTL. Not necessarily. There are space craft planned on Earth that can reach a high percentage of the speed of light and they use as propulsion sources of energy available in the universe(hydrogen, sunlight) Thus an ET craft could do the same. Finally, the limitation of the speed of light does not apply to ET. This is because the speed limit of the speed light is one based on the predicates of General Relativity theory which states that if a mass is accelerated towards the speed of light its mass would become infinite and thus it would need an infinite amount of energy. Therefore FTL is impossible This is only a theory, there is no scientific theory which is conclusive or proven. A theory is only based on observations made in an observable universe and when new observations are made theories have to be adjusted, sometimes even rejected. As ET’s are a part of an unobservable universe, we cannot generalise any of our scientific theories to them. So none of the predicates of GR actually apply to them.

All observations made in science are effects only, not causes. Mass itself is an effect, not a cause. Therefore finding a way to manipulate causes will manipulate effects. Take for example electricity, an electric current produced by a generator is an effect. When one learns the antecedent causes for the generation of electricity, one can manipulate the electric current generated with a transformer. There is no reason to believe that an ET race cannot learn to manipulate the mass-effects caused by the speed of light travel or overcome the speed of light barrier.

In conclusion: The argument that ET cannot get to Earth is invalid.

Argument: It is completely absurd that that an advanced ET race would come here and fly around in our skies like drunk pilots, abduct humans, make crop circles and mutilate cows.

Rebuttal: This is again the fallacy of incredulity. If something seems unbelievable to us, it does not mean it does not happen. The behaviour of an alien race may seem strange to us, but then again behaviours of other cultures on our planet seem strange. Some cultures have rituals where the offspring kills their parents when they reach old age. That’s even stranger to me than some alien race doing any of the aforementioned.

Abduction for the purposes of scientific investigation is not really strange at all. We humans are constantly abducting animals for the purpose of scientific investigation. So we have no valid objection to the abduction phenomena, other than perhaps an ethical objection.

Argument: If ET exists and are visiting us, why don’t they just reveal themselves? Why would they hide? Its illogical.

Rebuttal: But who says they are hiding? They maybe hiding from some, but it does not mean they are hiding from everyone. There are many people who claim they have encountered ET directly and many high-level witnesses in the government that have claimed contact has taken place. If their claims are true, ET is only hiding from some and not everyone.

Why would ET not reveal themselves? I am tempted to give the usual speculative explanation of an intergalactic prime directive, but I will desist. Instead the objection of the opponent can be dismissed like the previous argument. It is another argument from incredulity fallacy.

Argument: There is no scientific physical evidence of UFO‘s. No UFO samples. No ET DNA samples etc

Rebuttal: This is an impossible demand. If any of this evidence even existed, what are the chances that this evidence would be mailed to the opponents home address for their personal inspection? Highly unlikely. Most people will have to rely on the authority of scientific experts who have handled the evidence. As they cannot handle the evidence themselves, they will have to simply trust the scientists.

There is a big problem with evidence from testimony. It is subject to whether you believe the authority or disbelieve them. There are many authority figures who have actually claimed to have handled UFO’s, ET’s and ET metal samples. Marcel Vogel, the award winning scientist from IBM, publicly stated that the metal sample Billy Meier(the ET contactee) gave him could not have been manufactured on this Earth. The officials in the Roswell case who claim to have handled the UFO metal debris claim the metal has alien properties(it sounds very similar to modern shape memory alloys) Some scientists have testified that transistors are actually reverse engineered ET technology.

So it is not the case that there are not authorities figures who have not handled ET physical evidence. If the opponent is genuinely sincere about their argument, now that it has been demonstrated such evidence allegedly exists and some scientists have handled it, they should accept it as proof. If not, the opponent must withdraw their argument as invalid because of their duplicity.

I anticipate an objection. The objection is that there are no peer reviewed scientific physical evidence of UFO’s, therefore any scientific evidence that is not peer reviewed must be dismissed. This argument is invalid, because it commit’s the fallacy of appealing to an authority of some entity(a peer group) If some authority dismisses a scientists evidence, it does not mean that the scientists evidence is false, it simply means the authority doesn't like it.

Argument: If we accept ET UFO’s exist and is visiting us, then we may also have to accept goblins, big foot, loch ness monster and whatever to exists.

Rebuttal: This is a slippery slope fallacy. There is absolutely no premise that entails that if you accept ET’s existence you have to accept other paranormal claims. All different paranormal claims, just like any claim, is to be treated individually.

The opponent may counter by saying that it is difficult to distinguish a UFO from other claimed paranormal phenomena(spirits, plasma balls, orbs). This maybe true in some cases, but not all. In cases which describe actual physical crafts, sometimes in rather vivid details, except these physical craft are displaying alien behaviour and look alien, one can eliminate all of the other paranormal possibilities

Argument: The UFO and ET reports by individuals are not necessarily true. They may claim a physical aircraft, but their data could be wrong. They could be lying, they could have misidentified something else for the UFO such as planet Venus, car headlights, swamp gas.

Rebuttal: Merely argument from possibility is not enough. Yes, all the above counter-hypothesis may be true, but they may be false as well. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate all the available data, eliminate all hypothesis that do not fit the data, and then come up with a hypothesis that explains the available data.

If the skeptic does not do that and instead makes suppositions, distorts the data, dismisses available data ,then it is invalid. Here is a simple hypothetical example of a distortion of data:
UFO witness: I saw it as clear as I can see you right now. It was metallic, it was emitting a bright orange glow and it hovered right above me on the road. You know like that film Independence day, the mother ship just hovers above. It was just like that. It wasn't only me who saw it, but my girlfriend as well. I am not lying I swear. I never believed in this stuff before, but I guess seeing is believing.

Skeptic: You said it was on the road, how do you know that it was not just the headlight of a car or truck?

UFO witness: Dude, I know what the headlight of a car or truck looks like. I've been driving on the road for 20 years. This was not a headlight.

Skeptic: How can you be sure? If you were the on road and a very bright headline shines in your face, it is hard to see anything clearly and then its easy to imagine that there is something large in front of you. Are you telling me it is impossible that you are not mistaken?

UFO witness: No, I am not saying that. Its always possible that one can be mistaken, but is it possible that both me and my girlfriend are mistaken.?

Skeptic: Yes, loads of people may all agree they see a ghost, only to later find out it was a lighthouse. Shared delusions are possible.

UFO witness: Look, I see what you are saying, but I believe 100% that I saw a UFO. I have never had an experience like this ever in my entire life.

Skeptic: Then you agree it is just a belief you saw the UFO. Then my job is done. Case dismissed.
The dialogue above is inspired slightly by the movie contact, when Jodie Foster in the end has to admit to the skeptics that as a scientist it is possible that she did not experience her journey. The tactics employed by the skeptic above are similar to tactics lawyers use in court rooms. It is not scientific at all and nor is it ethical. It is a bastardization of scientific research.

Let us look at the problems in the skeptics dialogue with the UFO witness:

1. The skeptic is overtly influencing the UFO witness and asking him leading questions
2. The skeptic is using arguments from possibility to negate the UFO witness experience - "It is possible you saw a car headlight" it is also possible that he did not see a headlight, but a UFO. Therefore it is an invalid argument.
3. The skeptic is not listening to the UFO witness, everything the witness says is explained away using the argument from possibility fallacy - "My girlfriend also saw it" - "But it is possible it was a shared delusion"

The skeptic fails to account for the available evidence in this witness testimony. He claims that it was a headlight of some car, but the witness tells him he knows what a headlight looks like. The skeptic should be rejecting his hypothesis now, but instead he ends up debating it with the UFO witness. Then the UFO witness reveals that more than one witness say it, making it unlikely that two people would be seeing a hovering metallic, orange light emitting mothership in a headlight. Nor does the skeptic explain how a car headlight could look like the described UFO.

These tactics are all fallacies and rhetoric, but regularly used by pseudoskeptics to dismiss everything they don't like. Pilot testimonies - "It is possible that the pilot was dreaming" Radar reports - "It is possible the radar equipment malfunctioned" In all these cases the skeptic is debating a counter-claim and thus has a burden of proof themselves, but they behave as if they are immune from it.