Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

The Flying Saucers are…Not Welcome in Florida!

A storm in a teacup saucer last week after high-profile ufologist Stanton Friedman gave a talk at The Brogan Museum in Florida to accompany their exhibit about Roswell. Dr Paul Cottle of Florida State University got himself in a tizzy and wrote a letter of complaint about the museum’s invitation to a “well-known charlatan” (really, his description of Friedman) discussing “UFO pseudoscience”.

Billy Cox of the always interesting newspaper column DeVoid explains how it all unfolded. Perhaps most notably, he quotes a wonderfully common sense reply to Cottle from Museum executive director Chucha Barber: “UFOs and dinosaurs attract people of all ages to, we hope, seek truth, learn more and perhaps be entertained while inspired.” However, that only served to stoke the fires, with Dr. Gregory Boebinger, director of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee joining the fray:

Is the Brogan planning to host future exhibits on palm reading and astrology? Surely when a science museum hosts often-debunked pseudoscience, it is not only using ‘a variety of entertaining experiences to attract audiences to science,’ as Ms. Barber contends, but also insidiously endorsing pseudoscience and attracting our children and the public away from science.

Mmmm, the skeptics and their “insidious pseudoscience” – such paranoia! Anyhow, the rest of Billy Cox’s opinion piece is well worth a read, so check it out. Further reading on the matter can be found at Frank Warren’s blog and also at A Different Perspective (Kevin Randle’s blog). Like Randle, I don’t necessarily agree with everything Stanton Friedman claims, but “I do have something against those who express uninformed opinions”.

Editor
  1. Stan Friedman
    While there is a tendency to accept the moniker “nuclear physicist” that attaches to Friedman, it is very interesting to look at his 1960s vintage resume. He had two entry level research jobs in four years, and then left the building. His insights on the subject of UFOs have become fossilized around this claim of presumed “scientific authority” which, at least in my view, lacks much substance. I have no doubts at all about the existence of UFOs as an important phenomenon, but retain some skepticism about Friedman.

    Alternoid
    There has to be a better alternative to the human mind

    1. Agreed
      There’s a difference between having done Scientific research and published in peer-reviewed journals, and having had a Scientific training in college.

      I’ve nothing against Friedman, other than the fact that his understanding of the UFO phenomenon is barely less narrow than the skeptoids’.

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. Friedman-bashing
        [quote=red pill junkie]
        I’ve nothing against Friedman, other than the fact that his understanding of the UFO phenomenon is barely less narrow than the skeptoids’.[/quote]

        Just because Friedman only writes and lectures about nuts-and-bolts theories does not mean he has a narrow understanding. He’s actually fairly open-minded.

        Friedman has stated over and over that he is only interested in cases that suggest nuts-and-bolts. Why is this so hard to understand for some people? He respects Kevin Randles, Jacques Vallee, etc. He admits UFOs are many things — hoaxes, natural phenomena, supernatural, extradimensional. He just chooses to focus on one particular aspect, and he’s ridiculed and villified for it. I’ve had enough of the way he’s treated by people who should know better (those in the UFO field, both amateur and professional), discarding him with a cynical sneer as an old fossil of redundant 1950s thinking in favour of their much more superior modern Jungian psychical analyses. Friedman is everyone’s favourite whipping boy.

        In his books and lectures, Friedman is honest enough to say, “I don’t know, that’s not my area of expertise.” How many other UFO researchers are this honest? I certainly don’t know any pseudoskeptic capable of speaking those words!! They would choke to death before spitting out “I don’t know”.

        Jacques Vallee can be construed as narrow-minded. Vallee states in his conclusion to Dimensions that all UFOs not of natural or man-made origins are entirely a psychical phenomena and are not physical in any way. Now THAT is narrowing the phenomenon, but no one calls him out on this.

        As for Alternoid’s cynicism of Friedman’s qualifications, Friedman is a qualified nuclear physicist. Full stop. He has the degree, he’s done the work. Whether he was an active NP for four decades or just four years is besides the point. Friedman flaunts his qualifications for one simple reason — pseudoskeptics’s favourite tactic is to attack people for not being university or peer qualified. Attack the person and you demolish their work, ad nauseam. So I don’t blame Friedman one iota for flaunting his ‘nuclear physics’ qualifications. I’m sure part of it is ego. But after seeing so many people in the UFO field ridiculed and abused for not having a degree, Friedman has every right to rub skeptics’s noses in it.

        He freely admits when something is beyond his expertise (such as supernatural theories), and is honest enough to say “I don’t know”. He has studied UFOs for four decades with the big names (MUFON, Hynek, etc), he respects other researchers with differing theories such as Jacque Vallee, and he continues to this day, aged 70-something, despite decades of torrid abuse from pseudoskeptics that would make most people give up, to question and seek.

        Personally, I don’t agree with everything Friedman says, I find him overbearing at times, and he can say things that make me cringe (such as his “SETI cultists” diatribe). More judgemental people think he’s a looney (and worse), and ridicule him for his eccentric professor mannerisms.

        But his passion for UFOs and serious scientific study of the phenomenon, and his commitment to not letting the pseudoskeptics have their way, is exemplary and has my utmost respect.

        I’m on break at work, so I can’t reference or write more. I’m disappointed no one has commented on the pseudoskeptics’s slander (“well-known charlatan”). The irony for Dr Cottle is that Stanton is big on proper science and the scientific method, and would have lectured everyone at the exhibition about how real science can be used to explore UFOs. Perhaps this is what the pseudoskeptics are afraid of — science being used to explore woo-woo, and actually finding something worthy of more study.

        Stanton Friedman is not THE answer to UFOs, but he does have A answer — and considering the UFO phenomenon is many things, it’s vitally important to have all the parts to make the whole.

        1. Not really
          Like I said, I’m not against Friedman per se. But giving the nuts-and-bolts more emphasis than other possibilities has taken the field nowhere in last 40 years or so.

          [quote]Friedman has stated over and over that he is only interested in cases that suggest nuts-and-bolts.[/quote]

          Why? Why would the n&b UFOs be more important than the other ones? It would be equally valid for a skeptic to say he’s only interested in the ‘hallucinatory’ UFOs from a psychiatric point of view; would that help us to come closer to solving the phenomenon? To come to a problem with a fixed mind set —”UFOs are prove of extraterrestrial visitation and faster-than-light space travel”—is hardly a scientific approach. You should study as many cases as you could and be unafraid of where they take you, even if your pre-conceived ideas are proven wrong.

          [quote]So I don’t blame Friedman one iota for flaunting his ‘nuclear physics’ qualifications. I’m sure part of it is ego. But after seeing so many people in the UFO field ridiculed and abused for not having a degree, Friedman has every right to rub skeptics’s noses in it.[/quote]

          I’m sure a BIG part of it is ego. But I understand it too, because UFOlogy is a field where ANYONE can claim to be an expert.

          [quote]But his passion for UFOs and serious scientific study of the phenomenon, and his commitment to not letting the pseudoskeptics have their way, is exemplary and has my utmost respect.[/quote]

          I’m almost amazed I’m going to write this, but in this world passion doesn’t matter one bit when it comes to being closer to the truth or not. I’m sure the cruzaders were very passionate people too, and were convinced they were doing the right thing.

          Like I said, I’m not against Friedman. He has made important contributions to the field. if anything, he has proven we should be ready to explore the possibility that what’s behind the UFO may be weirder and more incomprehensible than what we as humans can possibly come to understand.

          He put Roswell on the map, and for that he surely earned a place in UFOlogy’s Honor wall… if it ever gets one! But for me Roswell is a dead horse, and it steals the thunder of more pressing cases. It’s like one of the gags of the upcoming “Aliens vs Monsters” animation movie: when the anchor man says “It seems a UFO has crashed in America, apparently the ONLY country they ever crash in!”. While the Americans are still fighting over whether it was a balloon or a saucer what crashed in NM 60 years ago, in Europe there is more openness and collaboration between UFOlogy groups and the Military —In Spain for example, the Air Force has declassified many UFO encounter cases thanks to the work of investigators like J.J. Benítez.

          But yes, let this serve as an advise for any young would-be UFOlogist out there: If you want to study weird lights in the sky, you’d better get your nose behind a book for at least 6 years, if not more; and be prepared to face the scorn of your peers with a cool head.

          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

          1. Really
            [quote=red pill junkie]
            Why? Why would the n&b UFOs be more important than the other ones?[/quote]

            SF has never claimed the nuts-and-bolts UFOs are more important. He just finds them more interesting.

            [quote]I’m almost amazed I’m going to write this, but in this world passion doesn’t matter one bit when it comes to being closer to the truth or not. I’m sure the cruzaders were very passionate people too, and were convinced they were doing the right thing.[/quote]

            You’re comparing a UFO researcher to Christian Crusaders? You’ve lost me here, Red.

            [quote]But [u]for me[/u] Roswell is a dead horse, and it steals the thunder of more pressing cases.[/quote]

            That’s your personal opinion, Red. Some agree, some disagree. Roswell isn’t the only case SF lectures about — Aztec, Corona, Socorro, Kecksburg, and many other cases including contemporary ones such as Needles. Personally, I think we’ve reached the limit of what we can learn about Roswell without some major document or witness being found, but I don’t blame SF for continuing to cover Roswell. The case is so full of lies and cover-ups and obfuscation and compelling evidence, why wouldn’t you? Scientists don’t give up on a subject just because people are bored of hearing about it.

            As I said, SF is just one part that helps make up the whole. UFO research needs the Friedmans as much as it needs the Vallees.

          2. Passion
            [quote]You’re comparing a UFO researcher to Christian Crusaders? You’ve lost me here, Red.[/quote]

            I was referring to passion. You can show a lot of passion defending or investigating a particular point; but you don’t get extra-points for passion alone. You get the points for the evidence presented. Creationists are very passionate people too, but you should look at the evidence they present to back up their claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old and men walked with dinosaurs.

            Let’s return to Roswell. What’s the evidence presented? Documents that could or could not be genuine; personal testimonies (at this time, mostly second-hand) and that’s about it. For me what still holds together the Roswell case is: the testimony of the late Jesse Marcel and his son (who’s probably the only person alive who actually saw the debris picked up by his father), the constant switch of versions from the USAF, and the unwillingness of some American investigators to let Roswell die. You’re right, there’s talk about other crash sites in the US southwest; but for most people the only one that counts is Roswell, so if Roswell can’t be proven or it turns out to be a hoax, the others get eliminated as well.

            UFO research needs the Friedmans and the Vallees. I only wish we could see the Vallees more often on Larry King.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          3. Vallee
            [quote=red pill junkie]

            UFO research needs the Friedmans and the Vallees. I only wish we could see the Vallees more often on Larry King. [/quote]

            I doubt it. As Vallee told Greg,

            It seems that people – including some highly educated folks – are ready to believe almost anything they see on the Internet or on Larry King.

            😉

        2. Documentation Speaks
          My review of Friedman’s resume is motivated by a regard for facts. There is some patina authority applied with the term “nuclear physicist,” a description that in Friedman’s case is not supported by an extremely brief, abruptly truncated venture into a couple of corporate research facilities in the early 1960s. After that, nothing in the field; no teaching, no publications, no employment in the zone. And forty five years later to be pushing that as a credential is more than a bit intellectually thin. It is Friedman who trades on the “nuclear physicist” label, always placed directly beneath his name on any television show where he appears. I am only looking to find a factual basis for the presentation of that “credential.” That’s not cynicism, but investigation. When someone is speaking to me about something that requires more, not less credibility, I need the ducks to line up.

          Alternoid
          There has to be a better alternative to the human mind

          1. Facts
            Well you might want to check your “facts”, because Friedman worked for FOURTEEN YEARS as a nuclear physicist, not four as you stated. He left in 1970 to pursue UFO research full-time but continued as a consultant physicist into the 1980s. He remains a member of the major American nuclear and physics societies. SF has all the documentation to prove this if you want to ask him yourself.

            If you ask Stan or listen to his lectures, he states that he is a scientific ufologist and was a nuclear physicist. The times I’ve heard him speak, he milks the nuclear physicist tag to get the fickle and pseudoskeptical attention of mainstream media and audiences — nothing wrong with that at all.

            SF’s investigations are solid, he helped implement a more scientific method of inquiry at MUFON (they’re pretty strict on that), and the cases he promotes (Roswell, Socorro, Kecksburg, etc) are compelling enough that it doesn’t matter what SF calls himself. So please, focus on the message and not the messenger.

            Investigating the UFO phenomenon is a full-time job, and he considered it important enough in 1970 to give it his full attention. He worked with J Allen Hynek afterall (a good friend), so why wouldn’t you. Today, Stan is 74 years young, he’s allowed to pursue “retirement hobbies”. 😉

            I agree Alternoid that there’s more to UFOs than just nuts-and-bolts ETVs — but discarding Stanton Friedman is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  2. Not Discarded, Just Questioned
    First, Stan Friedman is not being discarded by my review of his credentials; I will pull out the copy of his resume that I have and review the dates. It might be interesting to compare the old document (1970) that I have with whatever is being circulated these days to see if they are consistent.

    Personally, if my opinion counts for much, it is a hard path that Stan Friedman took and whatever he has accomplished toward the better deserves to be lauded. I was once deep within that world of high strangeness (mostly the people, occasionally an event), and am ever glad that I perceived the safety of an exit.

    I have zero antipathy toward Friedman.

    Alternoid
    There has to be a better alternative to the human mind

    1. Good to question
      Fair enough, I completely understand the need to question. I hate giving the pseudoskeptics ammunition on a silver platter.

      Me, I question Steven Greer (who is now claiming to have called the Phoenix Lights with his ‘vectoring’ meditation method). Whether he’s eccentric or just plain bananas, the witnesses he has lined up for the Disclosure Project, their testimonies, are legit. Unfortunately, skeptics will use Greer’s odd claims of levitating as a youth and vectoring UFOs to tar everyone near him with the same brush. Those who testified for the Disclosure Project deserve better in my opinion, and many won’t come forward in such a way again because of Greer’s personal claims. But that doesn’t lessen the impact of the Disclosure witnesses and Greer’s call for the truth. So it is for me with Stanton and the UFO cases he promotes.

      Friedman’s been a tireless promoter, but I actually do agree — UFOs need a promoter the general public and media won’t think is completely bonkers. The way we’re ridiculed in the media, we may as well have Robin Williams’s Mork as spokesperson. You get that vibe when SF is interviewed on mainstream radio — the hosts like him but they think he’s a piccolo short of an orchestra. And the UFO message is lost, because no one wants to be seen with the odd guy. We need Mindy.

      So despite my defense of SF, I actually do agree with you in a way. Personally, I’ve never had both feet in the UFO pool — I’ve dipped a toe, and pushed other people in, and I wholeheartedly support those who swim in the deep end, but I always stay near land when I take a dip. I watch Star Trek but don’t go to conventions. Or to borrow your analogy, I know where the exit is in case of fire, but I’m going to stay until the credits roll. You ran for the exit the moment you smelled smoke, but if you kept your ticket stub, you can come back in anytime Alternoid. 😉

      And I can’t help but wonder how SF feels on nights when he’s aware of his mortality, wolves howling at the door, wondering if dedicating half your life to UFOs, the ridicule and abuse, was all worth it. If you’re reading this Stan, it was worth it. Still is.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal