UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jan > Jan 2

Re: Mac Tonnies' The Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 15:21:02 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:28:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Mac Tonnies' The Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis


>From: Paul Kimball <TheRobieShark.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:25:50 EST
>Subject: Re: Mac Tonnies' The Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:05:46 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Mac Tonnies' The Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

>>>From: Paul Kimball <TheRobieShark.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:22:06 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: Mac Tonnies' The Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

>>>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:18:59 -0400
>>>>Subject: Re: Mac Tonnies' The Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis

<snip>

>>Therefore what has been observed in those investigated cases
>>that survive careful examination are manifestations of alien
>>civilization or civilizations.

>Now that is the question. Your conclusion that aliens have >and continue
>to visit us. Everything you wrote before that, >however,doesn't make it
>so.

Not when you want to toss out the trace cases, the abductions,
the multiple witness radar visual observations.

>>>>We have, so far as I can judge from this discussion, not seen
>>>>any evidence of the existence of ultraterrestrial or
>>>>cryptoterrestrial beings. This doesn't mean we have established
>>>>that they don't exist. We do know of many observations of the
>>>>flight, landing, take off of highly maneuverable manufactured
>>>>craft that move up up and away and sometimes are seen in the
>>>>company of very very large airborne craft.

>>>None of which proves that any of these sightings are of an
>>>intelligently controlled, extraterrestrial spacecraft, which is
>>>what you assert as a fact.

I assert that the evidence is overwhelming that some of these
are indeed ET craft. They were built somewhere at great cost and
with a great deal of sophistication. If they had been built
here, the costs would have been borne by governments. The
purpose would have been for military utilization . There have
been a number of wars since WW 2. None have shown such craft in
use.

>>We deduce that if they are not from here, they are from
>>somewhere else.Therefore intelligently controlled ET spacecraft

>Stan, this is false reasoning.

Just because you say so doesn't makeit true.

>You're the one doing the deducing, but you can't show
>definitively that they're not from here. You say that we can't
>to the things that UFOs have been observed doing? How do you
>know? As you yourself say, the black budget is huge. Unless
>you're working for the government, a la Bill Moore, only much
>further up the food chain, I assume you don't know what they're
>working on - what they might have, and might not have. After
>all, technological progress comes from doing things differently
>- maybe there are other people working for the government in
>industry who were doing different things than you were "back in
>the day", and maybe those things were even more successful and
>more advanced than the nuclear rocket program?

Sorry, Paul, but you, of all people, neglecting history? I didn't
work on any black budget program and the nuclear rocket program
was funded by NASA and the Atomic Energy Commission and not for
military purposes, but for upper stage for outer space
applications.The GE Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion department for
which I had worked years earlier was funded by the USAF and AEC
and definitelyfor military purposes. But observations of
sophisticated high performance metallic vehicles occured before
we hadeven gone supersonic. Theywere observed during the korean
and Vietnam conflicts. Ifthey had originated onEarth can you
imagine any reason why they weren't used in Terran wars? The
Manhattan Engineering District program was funded by a
government and used for a military application.

<snip>

>Who knows how many cases like this were reported, or how many
>things we have up there, like the U-2, of which even our top fighter
>pilots have been and remain unaware?

The story is hardly relevant, though interesting, since if taken
at face value, as you do(though no proof beyond a reasonable
doubt is presented) it merely establishes that you were wrong
when you said no body can say what any UFOs are.In factmany are
IFOs. The CIA also tried to use such reports as evidence that
there were no UFOs that couldn't be explained. Of course U-2s,
and SR-71s (with much more spectacular speed and altitude
capabilities) cannot make right angle turns or hover or silently
land and take off from places not much larger than themselkves
out in the boondocks. They did not exist prior to 1950 and were
used for military purposes.

>Or, maybe it really is extradimensionals, or cryptoterrestrials, or
>ultraterrestrials, time travellers, or monkeys with super-
>large brains (okay, I'm just kidding about that last one)...
>The point is - what proof is there that it has to be aliens from
>another world?

><snip>

>>>>We further know that the development of our advanced flying
>>>>craft has been done for military purposes and at enormous
>>>>costs. We Earthlings have a long history of developing craft
>>>>and spying >on other countries to see what their capabilities are
>>>>along lines that we would either have to defend against or
>>>>copy.

>Er... thanks. See above.

><snip>

>>>They don't have to Stan. The burden of proof lies on the party
>>>making the assertion of fact, which in this case is you, as you
>>>assert that some UFOs are intelligently controlled alien
>>>spacecraft. I don't assert that they are not - I merely state
>>>that we can't say for sure what any UFOs are.

>>Of course we can say for sure what many UFOs are: some are
>>Venus, some are meteors, some are searchlights on clouds,
>>some are balloons,are high performance military craft, some
>>are a whole host of other relatively conventional phenomena
>>perhaps seen under unconventional circumstances.

>Indeed.

>>You are indeed asserting that no UFOs are alien spacecraft.

>Nope. Again, that's an old debater's trick, designed to distract
>people's attention from the real issue. It's also false, and
>unworthy of you - I never said any such thing. Ever.

>For the final time, I simply said that we can't prove they are
>ET spacecraft. Big, gigantic, huge, Yukon-UFO sized difference.

>>Something you not only have not established but which assertion
>>is clearly contradicted by the evidence that some are.

>A. I have never said it, so I don't have to establish it. The
>burden of proof is one you, because you're the one trying to
>establish a positive proposition, i.e. that some UFOs are >indeed
>intelligently controlled alien spacecraft.

>B. You have not presented any evidence to support that proposed
>fact.

The fact that flying saucers have not been used by any Terran
civilization in any of the many extensive, extensive military
activities that have happened on the this planet for 60 plus
years means that these sophisiticated high performance airborne
craft were built someplace else.

>>>Your stance reminds me a lot of the Billy Meier defenders - they
>>>tell everyone who calls the photos/films into question to prove
>>>that they are frauds. That's not required - the Meier-ites have
>>>to prove that they are real, not the other way around. Ditto you
>>>and the ETH as the ETF.

>>>Anything less is intellectually dishonest.

>>>>They were, therefore, produced by intelligent beings from
>>>>somewhere else. That, of course, doesn't answer with "clear
>>>>and convincing evidence" where they originate, why they are
>>>>here, or why they don't seem to do a host of things. I would say
>>>>that the Star Map work associated with the Hill case makes a
>>>>very strong case that the base planets (not necessarily the
>>>>homes of any of the crew) are near Zeta 1 or Zeta 2 Reticulum
>>>>for those particular craft crew-members.

>>>I notice throughout that you've latched onto that "clear and
>>>convincing evidence" line. Again you miss the point - your old
>>>buddy Carl Sagan was 100% correct when he said that
>>>extraordinary claims, which is certainly what the ETH as ETF
>>>is, require extraordinary proof. In other words, beyond any
>>>reasonable doubt.

>>There you go again back to the murder conviction.

>No, Stan, I never mentioned murder. I have news for you - the
>standard of proof in criminal cases is the same regardless of
>the crime. Murder, armed robbery, assault, theft under $5,000 -
>it's all beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? Because it is the
>ultimate type of case, one where, if the accused is found
>guilty, he may be deprived of his liberty, which is the harshest
>sentence that can be imposed (short of the death penalty, which,
>thankfully, my country doesn't have anymore). Therefore, it
>requires a higher standard of proof. That's the rationale for
>it.

>Ditto UFOs as ET spacecraft - it is the ultimate scientific
>proposition, life elsewhere in the universe that is coming here.

Ultimate scientific proposition? Hardly.Talk about
proclamations!! It is a very reasoned deduction from a very
large array of data.

>Such a proposition requires the ultimate standard of proof
>before it can be asserted as a fact.

>>I wasn't aware that Carl was ordained the judge of all claims.

>Another debating trick - no-one said he had, Stan. I was merely
>pointing out the standard of proof which he called for, and
>which is the correct one, not because Sagan said it, but
>because he was right.

This is your proclamation supported by what?

>>Since he was often wrong, as I have noted in TOP SECRET/MAJIC, in
>>response to his "Demon Haunted World",I have no reason to accept this
>>dogmatic claim from him and many reasons not to as I noted in a
>>fairly recent MUFON Journal Column.

>Okay, Stan - you've been wrong. Glenn Dennis, Gerald >Anderson, MJ-12 (I
>think the majority would agree with me >on that last one). Similarly, I
>have no reason to accept your >dogmatic claim about aliens being here.

A deduction from evaluation of a huge amount of information and
knowledge of government activities (use of new superior
technology in war) is hardlya dogmatic claim.

On the one hand you want ultimate proof on the other you will
accept your estimate of the results of a large scale
scientifically conducted poll - which doesn't exist -  on MJ-12.
Have those few people you polled read the 5000 word addition in
the 2nd edition of TOP SECRET/MAJIC. Talk about double standards
and tricks of the debater.

>But that's not the point, and you know it. The point is about
>what level of proof is required. That's what Sagan was talking
>about. It has nothing to do with whether he was right or wrong about
>other things, just as it has nothing to do with whether or not
>you were right or wrong about other things.

>>As noted above I see no reason to say that worldwide claims of
>>observations of manufactured craft behaving in ways beyond the
>>scope of Earthling craft are extraordinary.

>As noted above, how do we know they behaved in ways that are
>beyond our capabilities, as, with that giant black budget, we
>can't really be sure what our capabilities are? Further, there
>is the question of the quality of witness testimony, i.e. the
>ability of people to observe what they saw - not form, but
>performance - accurately. I'll leave that for another day
>(although I would suggest you re-read Lieut. Col. Bailey's
>story above).

>>Happens all the time all over the planet. So these are
>>ordinary not extraordinary. It his claim that is
>>extraordinary.

>Nice try, but false reasoning. Sagan never said these things
>didn't happen - he said there was no definitive evidence that
>they were ET spacecraft. Again, big difference.

He also admitted that he hadn't had time to study the cases that
Hynek asked him about. He certainly has provided no indication
in any of his writings or in his conversations with me that he
knew anything about the major cases. So any statement he made
about absence of definitive evidence is totally worthless and
would only have been meaningful if he had studied the evidence
that does exist.

>And again, his "claim" was simply to establish the burden of
>proof required of your claim that some UFOs are alien
>spacecraft. And he was absolutely right when he said it

So there is no burden of proof on him to establish his totally
false claim that there is an absence of definitive evidence?

>>Clever words oft repeated, but signifying nothing.

>The flip response for me here would be to say, "you should know".

>;-)

>>Often they are used by well educated people to avoid dealing
>>with surprising claims... The doubters think that, if the claim
>>were true, they would have known about it. They didn't, so it
>>must not be true... the evidence be damned. The world of science
>>is loaded with such resistance in a host of different areas. It
>>may take years to create acceptance of new ideas because of the
>>demanding of extraordinary evidence... not obtainable without
>>huge funding, more sophisticated equipment,etc. Many ideas
>>currently accepted are accepted on the basis of less than
>>extraordinary evidence... continental drift, destruction of
>>dinosaurs by an asteroid, causation of ulcers by bacteria, etc.

>None of which is relevant, except in this ironic way - you are
>guilty of exactly what you are decrying with science. You look at
>something like parallel universes (and other earths), or time
>travel, or cryptoterrestrials, or... well, fill in the blank.
>Then you say, "nope, it's gotta be the ETH." Even when you
>grudgingly admit that these other things can't be ruled out,
>it's always with the caveat that "but they're just theories,
>with no evidence, but the ETFact has all sorts of evidence."

There you go again with the debater trick of putting words in my
mouth. I have asked for evidence for the crypto, parallel etc.
None has been put forth by you or Mac etc., I have never said
none are true and I have never said all UFOs are ET. I say some
are

>>>Now, I understand why you don't like that, because you
>>>know that you can't do it. But that's what thinking people
>>>require in order to assert that something like alien
>>>visitation to Earth is a fact, and not just a good working
>>>theory.

>>I should say some thinking people.. certainly not all.

>I think it would be pretty safe to say that the vast majority
>think that way, but this isn't about opinion polls. It's about
>objective standards of proof, whether legal, or scientific. And
>with the ETH as ETFact claim, I have no doubt that the correct
>standard of proof, which you haven't met, and can't meet, is
>beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't doubt you think so. That doesn't make it so.

>Still, as noted below, for the purpose of argument, I'm willing
>to work with a slightly lower standard.

>>>But I'll play along with the lower standard, just for fun. Clear
>>>and convincing evidence it is.

>>>Accordingly, I'll ask my original question, which you didn't
>>>answer (you didn't answer it when you were asked it by
>>>Seth Shostak a >>>couple of years ago during your "debate"
>>>on C2C).

>>>Here it is again, with the lower standard of proof
>>>substituted for >"beyond a reasonable doubt":

>>>Name the one case that proves clear and convincing
>>>evidence that the ETH is the ETFact, and not something
>>>else.One case, Stan. That shouldn't be so hard.

>>>Don't cite stats like "hundreds of physical trace cases", or
>>>"thousands of witnesses". That's ducking the question. It's
>>>>>>non-responsive, and it proves nothing, other than that we have a
>>>mystery, which is what I and others are saying here.

>>No, it means we have evidence of ordinary events involving
>>observations of alien spacecraft.

>No, it doesn't. No matter how many times you repeat it, it
>doesn't make it so, although I understand that you're not
>going to change your mind.

>>>Just one case. That's all I need - the one case that shows >>>clear and
>>>convincing evidence that aliens have >>>visited .Earth, which is the
>>>standard that you have adopted, >>>and which sits higher than the
>>>preponderance of evidence >>>standard (i.e. the balance of
>>>probabilities).

>>I can think of several, some of which you have covered in your
>>soon to be broadcast documentary. One, that isn't, is my
>>favorite: The Betty and Barney Hill case.
>>But what if you aren't satisfied? Will that prove no UFO is >>of ET
>>origin? Obviously not.

>But, as noted above, I don't have to prove that they aren't -
>it's up to you to prove that they are ET spacecraft. The Hill
>case, which even amongst ufologists remains controversial,
>hardly constitutes clear and convincing evidence to that effect.
>It certainly doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to you. But have you looked at that evidence?

>Even if one accepts that something genuinely weird did
>indeed happen to the Hills (and remember, not everyone
>does),

Oh, now the test is whether everybody believes something weird
happened to them??

>that doesn't prove it was aliens. It doesn't rule out the
>other paranormal hypotheses, even as, under those circumstances
>I would agree that the ET explanation would be the most
>likely one. But that's a long way from proof.

>At the end of the day, Stan, you and I are looking for
>different things, in different ways. You're looking to convince
>people of a conclusion you came to decades ago, whereas I
>am looking to explore what I still consider a mystery.

I am looking to present an enormous amount of evidence that has
led me to my conclusions about a subject which I consider to be
very important.My goal, unlike yours, is not to win debates.I
also wish to stand up for all those who have had ET encounters
and are not in a position to speak out along with those military
guys who can't speak out.

>I think your conclusion outran the available evidence, then
>and now, and is more of a belief than a proven fact, whereas
>you no doubt look at me as some kind of Hynek-esque wishy-
>washy apologist ufologist.

>Fair enough. I can live with that. People can judge for
>themselves which is the right approach.


It is comforting, I suppose, to you, that you think you know me
so well that you know my evaluation of you.

To summaize the Hill case as something genuinely weird happened
is frankly absurd, since it neglects almost all the important
aspects of the experience leading to the ET conclusion.

I realise that you hadn't talked to the Hills, or to John
Fuller or to Ben Simon or Ben Swett or Marjorie Fish.

Guess you better read the new book.


Happy New Year to one and all

Stan Friedman
http://www.stantonfriedman.com





[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com