Informing Consent

Informing Consent 

by Alfred Lehmberg

Flying Saucers And Science—A Scientist Investigates The Mysteries Of UFOs by Stanton Friedman -- A Commentary

For the whole of my ufological life, actually, I've appreciated Stanton T. Friedman. A decided high point in it was an occasion for Stanton to introduce me to "Aztec 1948" expert Scott Ramsey in Charleston, West Virginia, years ago, as "one of the good guys."  I suspect I have a valid justification to feel so honored.

See, from the beginning, with regard to UFOs and expert method, Friedman has unstintingly prosecuted only top drawer professional behavior and best practice. This is even during the rare and obligatory ufological "turf war" deemed necessary—if unfortunate—in times past.  Remains: he's played by the agreed upon "Queensbury Rules" where others have not. ...And it's him making justified bank for the effort, reader, contenders in smoking ruin. I say true.

Found in arrears? All my recall signifies he will mea culpa and clearly indicate "no contest." This means that caught in rare error he backs the "fup" off, reader! That won't be happening; however, when a reasoned and reasoning science is ever on his side or believes he holds the higher ethical ground.  Prepare, then, to have your loins successfully ungirded.  That's got to hurt, eh?

On reflection, I'm hard pressed to recall even that single instance of Friedman being caught "wrong" and provoking the remembrance alluded to above. Maybe he could give me an example... he would, you see.

An unapologetic world trekking lecturer's lecturer, it remains that there is a lot vituperation extended from his conflicted critics and other "noisy negativists."  Frankly, these are "persons who don't do their homework," who are "apologist ufologists," assorted skeptical ideologues (to be kind!), liars, cheats, intellectual thieves, and obligatory betrayers... calling a spade a spade, eh? 

Still, this aforementioned vituperation is handily dismissed with citation and then calmly endured. Dogs and spots, you know. Another metaphor: a gentleman's gentleman, a sober butler of the ufological; Mr. Wayne's Alfred, if you will, but we're stretching.

The vituperations directed at him, on reflection, are explained by the fact that he has managed to stay "cutting edge" and "relevantly contributing" with regards to UFOs... for decades! These aforementioned vituperating others find they are decidedly "out" of "contribution" of late, themselves, never had a relevant "leg" to stand on at the start, or are crass intellectual cowards on fire with what must be base envy of the greenest and most gravid of jealousies, jealousies provoked by covetousness and the outrage of scurvy snakes with their stones abruptly overturned!  They were so comfortable.

The preceding precisely explains, I suspect, a lot of vituperative angst on the issues extant. Remains, Friedman makes a regular substantive contribution.

See, when one takes on an "Alienview" as Stanton Friedman frankly has, contrives to avoid having a canted dog in the investigative hunt, and then weighs the evidence or rebuttal of same?  Well, one makes short work of even serious criticism and is ever the only one left standing on the debating field scratching themselves, distractedly. Friedman has crushed his detractors and seen them driven before him; he has heard, thews rippling and debate dripping gore, the lamentations of their fanboys.  There's some portraiture!

Friedman looks marvelously unruffled standing there, too, shrugging as if to say, "Next," but noisome and uninformed nay-sayers lay crushed and broken at his feet like shattered little dolls moaning pitifully and gnashing their tiny brittle teeth. Such is so.

When antagonists lack the rationality and good sense to avoid engaging him on national radio and television, has he ever lost a debate? I don't believe so. I recall aftermaths of hair, teeth, and eyeballs not Friedman's.

See, Friedman is a scientist, a real scientist, so... "back off," eh?

Though seriously, he is the type of scientist to follow data even when ax-grinding "others" pretend not to know that the real process of science actually precludes them from throwing out the data ticking them off!  Yes, these discard Data not fitting their preconceived world view. True, they discount Data not conforming to their outdated "conventional wisdom." It's what "reductionists" do.

Further on, they deride Data not currying favor with their psychopathically reptilian "corpocracies."  Finally, they dismiss Data not pandering uselessly to their corrupted mainstream.  Stanton Friedman gives consistent notice to this corrupted, duplicitous, and niggardly mal-science, decisively!

Consider.  The latter "science" just described is the science of uninformed and moneyed mountebanks like a smirking Dr. Shirmer. It is the inappropriately mal-Occamed science of vapid company popinjays like Dr. Nickell, Dr. McGaha, and Dr. Shostak.  It is the misleading and so falsely conceived science of bubble-gumming sneerer Bill Nye* the ironic "Science Guy"... or anyone else Larry King trotted out on his periodic Friday night UFO show for "Balance." 

The blissfully ignorant Ben Bova, too, a late Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, and Carl Sagan, it would appear... ...demonstrably uninformed!  Don't bother them with facts, boys and girls!  These are "minds" made up!

No, the preceding does not promote real science, reader.  They arrogantly mope a ready travesty of same, at best, or at worst, work against it in spirit and practice.  What hope of real progression, there?

Stanton Friedman, on the other hand, is a scientist practicing science as science is meant to be practiced: out of the wholly reductionist box, with due diligence, and with facts at the spring-loaded ready, pursuant to following the data wherever it goes!  The smart, brave, and progressive Friedman won't have it any other way!

To wit: Friedman has written an illuminating book describing these iterated suspicious failures of "mainstream" science, its scientists, and its assorted commentators or spokes-puppies.  It is called Flying Saucers And Science—A Scientist Investigates The Mysteries Of UFOs (Career Press Inc, 2008).  Friedman's is a key read, folks!

See, in this extremely cogent, organised, objective, constructive, comprehensive, flexible, acceptable, specific, and thoughtful economic masterwork, all the "noisy negativists," "apologist ufologists," obstinate skeptics, errant critics, uninformed commentators, boastful "experts," conflicted dis-info specialists, government shills, and pompous character assassinators bumping fractious gums for years... are decidedly put paid, in spades, for their scrofulously sullen inflexibility—invalidated themselves as they would pretend to invalidate—with intelligence, appropriate humility, and decided flair. 

Gloves no longer remotely justified should come off with all of the preceding persons, reader, and do.

See, people can get too comfortable with predictability and investiture and let that desire for security bleed over, inappropriately, into their professional lives and their personal practice.  They cheat intellectually, fudge a peer review, publish falsehoods, sometimes, as noted above. They don't consider who has to play so they can play, to a degree.

I'm going out of my way to be civil, here, reader.

Too, the badly played rank and file, vulnerable to fear and made fearful by those just described "criticized"... not because a fear is valid or not (those knowing—suspiciously—won't let us know) but because they like it right where they are, catbirds in their well-appointed seats, thank you, and so ignoring potentials in the aggregate intellectual profit to disclosure... only perceiving their personal loss of power, prestige, and control—valid or no!

Your garden variety rank and file human "bean" on the abused left half of the Bell curve and employed in their service, deserves more consideration than that, actually, than to be mere cannon fodder in unjust wars, assets to be liquefied when the man on the hill comes up a little short, retirements and pensions to be gutted and devalued, or individuals to be sold out and disrespected like they were expendable fools and dishonored dolts.  I perceive that Stanton Friedman believes such is so. UFOs, allowed, are enlightenment.

...Which is something else Friedman makes clear in this volume, reader!  Individuals need complete information, of needs, to make informed decisions regarding their informed consent.  Do individuals have access to appropriate information regarding UFOs so as to be able to give an informed consent in their regard?

Well, if the "mainstream" attitude to information as it pertains to UFOs is remotely similar to similar informations gained by the individual regarding Government, Institution, Church, Medical community, Foundation, or Agency... the answer must be a booming NO!

Does Friedman believe that aggregate humanity is rewarded—in the aggregate—with more forthcoming "official" info about UFOs?  I perceive he does.

Does Friedman believe that aggregate humanity "can handle the truth" about this decided "other," perhaps visiting us in ships not of our manufacture?  I perceive he does.

Does Friedman have a cogent plan for how that "truth" about UFOs and their occupant accouterments might be "disclosed" so as to provoke the minimum amount of social kafuffle?  Consulted, yes he does, reader. 

That solution, simply stated, is drawn from the experiences of our own human history!  These proffered solutions pertain to "mainstream" adjustments which become required, reader, as once new—now old—ideas involving race, gender, sexual preference, and creed are conceptualized and implemented.  Friedman points out that human beings are ever their own solution and that "ET (?)" is just a previously undiscovered people, across a presently impassable river, on the ultimate and final frontier!    

In closing his final chapter regarding why our attention to UFOs matters, Friedman asks:  "Can we not step back and see ourselves as our visitors see us?"  No equivocation there!

The very essence of the individual taking the Alien View, Friedman points out same in the one book anyone really needs to read about UFOs.  Friedman reports that the conjectured ephemeral occupants of UFOs have abundant and effuse reason to be exceptionally careful in their approach to us.  We might have the sense and humility to feel the same way... and in not a little shame. Shame, reader!

Charming "monkeys making mouth noises" able individually, perhaps, to make beautiful things or to have an intrinsic beauty, in groups they are, or can be, egregiously monstrous and coldly reptilian... insentient, generally.  If Friedman can understand that, then the presumably "advanced" ET —EP, CT, ED, or TT et al, don't quibble— may have similar "understanding."

Let me tell you something else I got between the lines of Friedman's state of the art look at a bona fide Science and its genuine investigation of UFOs.  There is, he hints at throughout the compelling read, another substantive reason to get this ufological "dentist's office visit" behind us.  See, we can do anything if we do it together.  That sounds trite, I know. Remains; however, true.

Consider, its reality is excitingly and astonishingly powerful!  Advantaging ourselves with the fact that sorrow is lessened in company while joy is increased in same, we push ourselves into an expanded reality—jumping to one whole new energy level of consciousness that is by definition expanded!  We need to do this!  We have to do this.  The future is this.

Stanton Friedman believes perhaps, I would not presume, but that we'd be well served to gird our own cognitive loins and perceptual cockles—make appropriate disclosure our "task at hand."  ...Be at last what we were born to be: a reflective humanity achieving the stars.

Friedman's book, reader, gives salient hints to a path accomplishing exactly that.

That's enough.  Read on.

*Apart from his tediously unconstructive attitude regarding UFOs, Nye can be spot on regarding other subjects like climate science and energy production. I am loath to add him here, but he will atone for his ufological treachery. [g].

"No Free Degrees... thank you."