This is a great listen. Again, i think stanton comes through with his credit still intacked. Shostak, however, seemed to know very little about the ufo subject, even the radar evidence. Tell me what yoh all think.

Its in three parts

http://www.ufocasebook.com/friedmanshostakdebate.html

Thanks!

Seth Shostak, needs to examine radar and other data evidence in detail and understand that UFOs are quite real. When the Air Force scramble jet interceptors and the pilots report back to base that they have come in visual contact with a huge saucer-shaped flying object, which then proceed to zoom off at hypersonic speeds in a climb, then it is safe to bring in the ETH.

That was a rather pointless debate.

I like Friedman's work, but I think he clings to data and conclusions that may not be as solid as he thinks. IE the Majorie Fish interpretation of the Betty Hill map.

Seth resorted to the typical ridiculing the UFO evidence "ooh an eyewitness account! salt on the ground!"

Also, if I was debating, and someone challanged me for my best evidence, I'd release a rapid fire of the top ufo cases with multiple witness/radar confirmation and physical effects, especially the lesser known ones so my opponent couldn't just quote a Phil Klass debunking job of the case and claim the matter is settled. Stanton seemed to keep dodging that question.

We just all have to remember that Seth Shostak has a reason to not believe in UFO's. His income depends on that. If life was found, he would be out of
a job right? Being the head of SETI, his funding would no longer be flowing in, if it was proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is extraterrestrial
life. So, keep in mind that all of the biggest skeptics have a money issue involved. You will never see Dr. Michael Shermer, Joe Nickel, or Seth Shostak
ever admit to it, if one landed on their heads! They are all in it for the money and the interview time to promote their respective cash "cow" organizations
that cater to the skeptics out there. I am convinced that if any of the above named people actually saw one, they would most assuredly deny it for that
reason.

Agreed.




I agree with that as well.

For one thing Friedman's idea of a "cosmic Watergate" confuses political history of UAP with the Science of UAP IMO.

Where I would love, as an interested party and armature Historian, to know what the Governments have known about UAP through recent history , I tend to think of that as a separate issue from the current and evolving Science that is dealing with the subject of UAP. Friedman, however even though he has a Scientific background, tends to focus on Government documents and historical events to put forth the idea of a "cosmic Watergate" that says the ETH is well established as fact and is covered up by the U.S. Government.

While that may or may not be true, UAP exist and I see this as a separate issue from political historic issues that surround it.





I don't agree with Seth Shostak either, as he clearly calls for "witnesses" to UAP events to bring forth and present to the Scientific Community "Seat cushions" from Alien craft as "Exhibit A". Where, having seen a UAP myself, I can clearly state that this request is absolutely unreasonable.

Where that type of request is no different than us asking Seth Shostak to provide us with physical CD's produced by "Aliens" to prove that "Aliens" are transmitting radio signals. Either "Aliens" are transmitting radio signals or they are not and having physical CD's produced by "Aliens" would be nice, but we don't need that to determine if they are broadcasting Radio signals or not. Just in the same way that the ETH might be correct even if we never have a UAP witness bring Seth Shostak a "Seat cushion" from an "Alien" craft.

I agree, from my observation, I suspect the truth is something closer to:
1. Governments don't really know much more about them than we do.
2. The government doesn't want to admit that there's things flying around in our airspace that we have no control of, so they downplay it with words like "of no defence significance"
3. At the same time, other parts of the government realize that UAP phenomenon makes a good cover for classified research (eg CIA), so they'll sometimes quietly fan the flames of UAP, while other parts of the govt are trying to downplay it. (eg Air force)
4. Crashes/retrievals/reverse eng- Although it's possible crashes and recoveries have happened, I have a problem with the idea for several reasons
A) reported crashes seem rather numerous for such advanced tech.
Roswell wreckage was sitting on the ranch for days, why wouldn't the aliens have grabbed it first?
C) Why would the aliens let the govt have the wreckage? If they have the capabilities that some cases suggest they do, they should be able to infiltrate the storage sites and retrieve the debris whenever they want to.
D) The 'secret govt/alien deal' theories make no sense. What do they supposedly get from us, the right to abduct people? Would they really need permission?
E) reverse engineering an alien craft that may be thousands of years ahead of us doesn't seem likely, it would be like Alexander Graham Bell trying to reverse engineer a cell phone, having never seen ICs, DACs, OSs, VMs and all the other layers of tech that have gone into them.
F) some of the more exotic UAP theories (multidimensional, psychic, spiritual, cosmic trickster, etc) would seem to make crashes unlikely, unless the crash itself is some kind of trick or illusion.




And how would we really know it's an alien seat cushion? I'm sure the scientific community would assume it was a fake. I mean right now we can come up with every conceivable type of evidence short of capturing a live one, but none of it is good enough. Other things have been accepted by science with much less. Ball Lightning for instance. We still don't know exactly what it is, or how to create it in the lab, and it's existance was debated for many years, but science accepts it as real.

Or they might say that the "seat cushion's signatures are terrestrial". Even though ETH is only one of many theories. It could be from here but still be extraordinary.

I think science really has a problem with the idea of non-human intelligence, they always look for a naturalistic or reductionist explanation, and if they find such an explanation that can account for only 70% of the facts, they'll go with because it's the best they got. True, the scientific method requires that such an intelligence be proven, but first step is hypothesis. Would science today ever accept a hypothesis as worthy of pursuit that had something to do with a non-human intelligence? I seriously doubt it.



Right, or even ridiculing eyewitnesses. When modern astronomy started, all they had was eyewitness type-data, they couldn't haul planets/stars in for observation, they coundn't send probes yet, not even radio telescopes. So I think that line of attack is disingenuous. Sure one person can be wrong, but is it likely that many people who see the same thing all be wrong?
Or the 'salt on the ground' attack. 10' diameter and 14 inches deep? That's an awful lot of salt.