this is a copy of my response to Stanton Friedman's UFO "challenge". Read and
enjoy...

The UFO Challenge
December 1997
By Stanton Friedman

You call this a challenge? Ha!

As a nuclear physicist...

Hold on a moment here! Stanton *was* a nuclear physicist years and years ago,
but nowadays he is merely an author of New Age-like books. His former career has
absolutely nothing to do with his current career. In my opinion, I believe he
likes to hide behind the title "Nuclear Physicist", even though nuclear physics
has absolutely nothing to do with UFOs, maybe because it adds respectability to
an otherwise silly belief. I mean think about it: if a Rocket Scientist or
Nuclear Physicist says there is a "Cosmic Watergate", then by golly, there
certainly must be a "Cosmic Watergate" because Rocket Scientists or Nuclear
Physicists are so damn intelligent that it is physically impossible that they
could be wrong or could be suckered into a UFO cult!

...who has had a serious interest in flying saucers since 1958, I have reached 
four major conclusions:

The evidence is overwhelming that Planet Earth is being visited by intelligently
controlled extraterrestrial spacecraft. In other words, SOME UFOs are alien
spacecraft. Most are not.

The subject of flying saucers represents a kind of Cosmic Watergate, meaning 
that some few people in major governments have known since July, 1947, when two 
crashed saucers and several alien bodies were recovered in New Mexico, that 
indeed SOME UFOs are ET. As noted in 1950, it's the most classified U.S. topic.

None of the arguments made against conclusions One and Two by a small group of
debunkers such as Carl Sagan, my University of Chicago classmate for three
years, can stand up to careful scrutiny.

The Flying Saucer story is the biggest story of the millennium: visits to Planet 
Earth by aliens and the U.S. government's cover-up of the best data (the bodies 
and wreckage) for over fifty years.

Okay, Stanton throws out these four bold claims, now lets see if he follows
through on those bold claims with some of that good ol' fashioned "overwhelming
evidence" he alludes to...or not...

Since 1967 I have lectured on the subject "Flying Saucers ARE Real" at more than 
600 colleges and over 100 professional groups in all fifty US states, nine 
Canadian Provinces, twelve cities in England and nine in other countries, with 
only eleven hecklers. I have also appeared on hundreds of radio and TV shows. 
Overall, I have probably answered about 35,000 questions about UFOs and secrecy.

So what? None of this is relevant to or supports Stanton's very bold claims. It
seems as though Stanton is trying to impress us with credentials instead of
facts, ie -- please, for Stanton's sake, let's not question his claims because
he is a rocket scientist and a famous lecturer/author/movie star and no one in
their right mind should question the opinion of a rocket scientist or famous
lecturer/author/movie star.

It's clear that over 97% of the people have NOT read any of the five major 
scientific studies I discuss, and are unaware of the mountains of evidence that 
support my conclusions.

How come it would never cross Stanton's rocket scientist brain that one of the
reasons that people have not read (or have remembered reading) any of what only
he personally considers the "five major scientific studies of UFOs", is because
97% of the people don't believe what he personally considers the five major
scientific studies of UFOs, worth reading? Maybe 97% of the people know
something that Stanton does not, namely that no actual evidence has ever been
presented in any scientific study he discusses, just merely reports of evidence?
Again, this is irrelevant to Stanton's four bold claims. 

They are also unaware of the scientific data, as opposed to tabloid nonsense.

Well gee, one could say the same thing about 97% of all UFO researchers. But
again, what scientific data is there for your four bold claims, Stanton? 

However, it is also clear from the Opinion Polls and from my own experience that 
indeed most people accept the notion that SOME UFOs are alien spacecraft.

Uh oh, now we are getting to some of that "overwhelming evidence" that Stanton
alluded to earlier. Now Stanton is implying that if most people are of the
opinion that UFOs exist, then by golly UFOs must exist because most people
wouldn't believe in something that doesn't actually exist, right? Of course, we
will then have to blindly ignore all those many times throughout history when it
was everybody's opinion that the Earth was flat as a pancake and the Sun and the
planets and the stars all revolved around the Earth or that the humanoid monster
of Columbus' time are out to get us. Yes, so if we ignore all of history for the
last 5000 years, we might be able to make Stanton's assertion work...sorta.

The greater the education, the MORE likely an individual is to accept this 
proposition.

How interesting. 97% of the people have no clue what "overwhelming evidence"
exist in support of their's or Stanton's beliefs, yet they obviously choose to
*blindly* believe in it anyway. And many of those 97 percenters are "highly
educated" to boot, yet they too have no education when it comes to the
"mountains of evidence" in favor of their beliefs in UFOs? This sounds so
contradictory but it couldn't be contradictory because nuclear physicists don't
ever contradict themselves with their own arguments now, do they?

But this isn't really about science or facts anyway, is it? What this appears to
really be all about is that Stanton wants you to believe that only complete
idiots would NOT believe in the UFO fad/phenomenon. So please, don't be an idiot
and refuse Stanton's offer to believe, go out and get an education -- preferably
an education in nuclear physics or rocket science -- and then blindly start
believing in UFOs...or at least pretend you are as intelligent as a rocket
scientist by blindly believing in UFOs.

In an October 25, 1995, Oxford University Debate on the resolution "Planet Earth 
is being visited by intelligent extraterrestrial life", the affirmative side, of 
which I was a part, garnered 60% of Debate Union Member votes on the question. 
Ninety-two percent of 100,000 people calling during a TV Debate in London on 
June 27,1997, said Earth has been visited by aliens!

Wow! You mean that the kind of audience that would call in for a show with a
title like that would be composed of almost nothing but believers! That's
unbelievable! I would have never guessed! With irrefutable facts like that, no
wonder no one has ever taken Stanton up on his UFO challenge -- either that or
they think he isn't worth their time or effort.

The problem is NOT that there is not enough evidence to justify my conclusions; 
but that most people, especially the noisy negativists, are unaware of the real, 
non-tabloid evidence.

Debunkers seem to employ four major rules:

Oh, good strategy! Now that we've gone over all the "overwhelming evidence" of
the UFO fad/phenomenon, we are going to attack the debunkers of Stanton's pet
theory before they attack him first.

What the public doesn't know, we certainly won't tell them.

We? Who is this "we" Stanton alludes to? Now don't tell me that we is all
debunkers as Stanton asserts above because there are no debunkers Stanton can
list who have knowledge of the UFO phenomenon that the public doesn't know. That
is just sheer New Age conspiracy nonsense

The largest official USAF UFO study isn't even mentioned in twelve anti-UFO 
books, though every one of those books' authors was aware of it.

PROJECT BLUEBOOK was mentioned in at least twelve of the anti-UFO books I read.

Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

Stanton wouldn't know anything about that now, would he?

If one can't attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.

For example, like attacking the debunkers instead of attacking the debunker's
data?

Do one's research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, 
and nobody will know the difference anyway.

If only Stanton would take his own advice! Imagine what it would be like if all
nuclear physicists had his actual attitude: Do neutrinos exist? Why don't we all
get together and conduct an opinion survey and whatever the most people decide
they believe about the existence of neutrinos, we will accept as the truth of
the matter. Imagine the progress science would then make with such an attitude!

Many major media people will concede that if indeed aliens are visiting earth, 
that would be a major story. But because they take great pride in their 
KNOWLEDGE of major stories, if this were happening they would know about it. But 
they don't. Therefore, anybody who says visits are real must be a crackpot.

I have noted four major reasons why the big names in science and journalism 
haven't jumped on the pro-UFO bandwagon:

Ignorance of the data. Scratch a debunker and one usually finds somebody who is 
putting down what he is not up on.

Therefore if one debunker is bad, they are all bad? Sorry, that just doesn't cut
it. Imagine if Stanton were to be honest enough to admit that some debunkers are
very much up on what they are putting down, why wouldn't he quote those
debunkers and attack their data instead of bullying on the other alleged
debunkers who have no argument anyway? Fear of negative noise? Ignorance of
their data? What?

Fear of ridicule in sponsoring a thesis (only about ten have been submitted 
relating to UFOs) if a professor, or sponsoring a detailed reportorial 
investigation if an editor. I check all my audiences and find that, while in 
agreement with polls, 10% have had a sighting but only 5-10% of these witnesses 
have been willing to report what they saw. Biggest reason? Fear of ridicule.

Inquiring minds would like to know what kind of things do people ridicule? If,
as Stanton asserts, that, "most people accept the notion that SOME UFOs are
alien spacecraft", ie -- that most people believe in UFOs, why in the world
would they ridicule what they believe in? I mean who cares if a small minority
of people ridicule your thesis when, according to Stanton's Opinion Poll
"research", you would have most people (92-97%) on your side?

Ego. If aliens were visiting Earth, they would call a press conference or ask to 
talk to the National Academy of Sciences. They haven't, so aliens must not be 
visiting. Flying saucers finish the job Copernicus started in taking man out of 
the middle of the universe. Priests fought Copernicus's ideas. Today guys in lab 
coats, rather than priestly robes, fight alien visitations.

Now Stanton is comparing himself to other geniuses of past, geniuses like
Copernicus? And if certain people fought against geniuses like that way back
then, then by golly they always have and always will. So guess what? Stanton is
being "fought against". Might that imply that Stanton is a genius with all the
facts, hence the reason that some people are against him?

Failure to use our knowledge of technology to understand UFO behavior. They say 
"It is impossible," rather than "I don't know how." Despite the absurd claims of 
certain ancient academics and fossilized physicists, it is clear on the basis of 
solid engineering studies that trips to nearby stars are feasible with round 
trip times shorter than the average person's lifetime -- using, for example, 
staged fission and fusion propulsion systems. I have worked on both. It's clear 
that technological progress comes from doing things differently in an 
unpredictable way. The history of science is littered with challenges, leveled 
by people who know nothing about the job at hand, against traditionally 
"impossible" claims.

Who is this "they" Stanton alludes to? Someone, please tell us by all means who
still gives that outdated argument today?

The cult of S.E.T.I. (Silly Effort To Investigate) with its crazy notions that 
nobody would travel -- but that aliens, stuck at the level of radio, are trying 
to attract our attention -- mocks the notion of flying saucers, not by dealing 
with the evidence, but by proclamations about the ABSENCE of evidence. This 
ignores science.

Finally, something Stanton and I can agree on.

I prove at every lecture that the NSA and CIA are withholding UFO data.

And is that a proof by filibuster or proof by actual evidence we can hold in our
hands?

Having worked under security for fourteen years, visited seventeen document 
archives, and having become aware of the huge black budgets of the NSA, NRO, 
CIA, DIA, etc., I know how easy it is to keep secrets.

Stanton should also know that this doesn't prove he knows any actual secrets.
What Stanton also fails to realize here is that, as Ronald N Giere puts it in
his textbook, UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC REASONING, "...the basic data consist of
REPORTS of UFO sightings, not the EXISTENCE of what was reported. This
distinction is crucial because the fact that some people have reported such
things has been verified by many investigators. There can be no doubt that
people have made such reports. That the people in question actually saw or
experienced what they say they did, however, is open to question" (Ibid, pg
166). PROJECT BLUEBOOK is one such example of a collection of mere reports of
UFOs and not any actual study of some objects. I can think of numerous other
major, alleged scientific studies that follow under the same logical fallacy of
failing to verify a phenomenon by collecting reports instead of collecting
legitimate physical evidence.

My nineteen years of study about crashed saucers, and thirteen years on the 
Majestic-12 documents have convinced me these are real.

Well one has to wonder, considering how poorly thought out his arguments are or
his lack of actual facts, they are real what?

The challenge for us all, as we enter the new millennium, is to recognize that 
while our future is in space, we are not alone. I truly hope we qualify for 
admission to the Cosmic Kindergarten.

I just hope our first ambassador to ET isn't a typical goofy UFO "researcher".

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page      :           http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================