You are putting words into Stan’s mouth that he never said, as Paul Kimball just pointed out.

I have classified clearance and you know why? Because the NSA and FBI are convinced that my JOB POSITION requires that I have a need to know. I had to officially apply for that very expensive (if you have to pay for it yourself) clearance and, per standard operating procedure, it expires every few years, so requires continual renewal (which is expensive if you have to pay for it yourself). More importantly, you cannot get classified clearance without a sponsor, like with a government contractor or for certain military occupations. So guess what? Stan has no obvious sponsor because Stan retired as a nuclear physicist years and years ago. Stan’s only current job, that I can find reference to, is as a speaker/author of New Age books on UFOs. I do not for one second believe that Stan currently has clearance or has ever had any clearance since he retired back in the 60’s or 70’s or whenever — has anyone ever called Stan’s bluff on his alleged security clearances?

Stan claims to have worked on some interesting projects before he retired as a nuclear physicist, one of those projects being a nuclear powered rocket. Well I have read the official report on that project and Stan’s name isn’t mentioned anywhere in it. What exactly was Stan’s function for that project? Was it sweeping the floors after everybody else went home, or what? Do you want to see some or all of that official report? Point your browser to http://www.dunnspace.com/dumbo.htm. By the way, the nuclear powered rocket was the stupidest idea I ever saw, seeing as the reactor weighed a lot more than a chemical rocket ever would and the exhaust would be highly radioactive — so why did it take all those geniuses SO long to figure that out? So has anyone ever called Stan’s bluff on his alleged part in the development of that failed nuclear rocket project?

Stan complains that his opponents resort to unfair tactics like attacking the person when you can’t attack their data, and he does this by calling all of them “noisey negativists” instead of attacking their data. Why can’t a nuclear physicist understand that calling people names is attacking the person? Stan seems to resort to the same tactics as those he condemns.

The whole point of this post is that Stan often says things that can be misleading or misconstrued, and I believe he does this on purpose. Stan has or has had security clearances or was or is a nuclear physicist or that he worked on a nuclear powered rocket BUT SO WHAT? What is he trying to say or imply by all of that IN REGARDS TO THE UFO PHENOMENON? Since all of those things are completely unrelated to UFOs, what he is doing is what it looks like he is doing: trying to impress you with his credentials instead of with his facts. The implication is that, “I am a rocket scientist and rocket scientists don’t ever mislead people or get their facts all wrong, so trust me”. Well I don’t trust him and I can see through the used car salesman facade. I don’t mind what Stan does and it is entertaining at times, but when he starts coming across as an arrogant smart a, calling people names, and taunting others, then I have an issue with that; then that is not entertaining.

Stan’s newest book is about science — or so he says. Stan seems to naively believe that TALKING about something that is allegedly scientific is the same thing as PRACTICING scientific. Wrong! How can we tell if something is real or not? How can we objectively observe and properly investigate a UFO sighting? That is what science tries to answer, but have you ever seen any book by Stan that had anything about what science is and what it does and how it does it? Have you ever seen ANY book in UFOs that had anything to do about what science is and what it does and how it does it? The answer is no.

The simplest, most accurate, and clear explanation of what science does is and how it does, as UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC REASONING put it, is when scientists make discoveries or claims, then must communicate that those discoveries are real and not imaginary. Any flaw in their logic, demonstratable experiment, reasoning, or justification will discredit their discovery because ANY flaw will do to discredit a discovery or claim and that is what science or the scientific method really is all about in a nutshell…finding flaws.

No UFO author has ever tried to find fault with their own theory, but they have tried to find fault with everybody else’s theories. It is the logical fallacy of the Last Man Standing — if everybody else’s theory is wrong then it must be because my theory is the only one left standing and therefore it must be the only correct one. Why can’t Stan find any fault with the ludicrous MJ-12 hypothesis? Does Stan really believe that an entire science can be based on what someone supposedly found in someone else’s mailbox? If only all of us could be as perfect as Stan imagines himself to be.

Your reply to me was that Stan lacks real understanding of form. That may be true, but it doesn’t rebut what I wrote. All I was doing was clarifying the nature of Stan’s claim, not endorsing it.

Yes, that’s what Stan is implying, but it’s nothign more than a transparent debater’s trick to distract people from the meat of an issue. The fact that Stan worked on classified projects for many years is meaningless when it comes to the discussion of UFO secrecy, because good - and even some bad - historians can easily tell you how government secrecy works. You don’t have to have done something to understand it, or comment on it, although Stan would like people to think that you do. What’s important is your ability to place information in context, overcome your own pre-conceived notions, and interpret it properly. That’s where Stan falls short, and he uses the “I was there” dodge to distract people.

What’s worse for Stan is the flip side - if you accept his argument that he’s more knowledgeable because of his years of working under security, then you must also start to question his role in the MJ-12 saga, because, by his own “reasoning” he knows how the inside stuff works, and would have been perfectly positioned to help create the documents and make them look authentic, at least to we rubes with no experience working under security.

Goose and gander.

PK

Sage wrote:
“Classified information is based on a “need to know” basis so having access to any classified material does not prove you actually know anything. If you think you can scientifically prove the existence of the saucer reality via the logical fallacy of a filibuster, you are mistaken.”

What Stan was implying was that he was familiar with the culture and mechanics of secrecy from this inside, not that he had any particular inside dope as a result of having access to classified material.

The worst thing about the book is that whole sections of it are taken, lock, stock and barrel, from previous books, papers, and media appearances, re-arranged only slightly, and presented as a “new book”. Shameful.

I like Stan as a person. Always have. Always will. But he should be embarrassed by “Flying Saucers and Science”, a book that boldly goes… exactly where Stan has gone before.

Paul

I think it’s telling that Asimov and Clarke are “old school” scientists — not just because they’re no longer living. I think Stan, if anything, is trying to subconsciously ride the new Nuke promo (brought to you by both the Dems and the Repubs).

The article was sent to me by Stan’s current publisher, not by Stan himself.
Even though permission was given by the publisher to reproduce the article as part of the promotion for Stan’s new book, he may not personally know that it’s posted here, in which case he won’t read the questions you addressed to him.

How much of that study and investigation been of sufficient quality to have been accepted for publication in a respectable peer reviewed science journal(s)?

“My approach to these claims is based on working on classified research and development programs for 14 years, visits to 20 document archives…”

Classified information is based on a “need to know” basis so having access to any classified material does not prove you actually know anything. If you think you can scientifically prove the existence of the saucer reality via the logical fallacy of a filibuster, you are mistaken.

“In Flying Saucers and Science, I have tried to deal with all the important evidence for saucer reality and the official cover-ups, and all the phony arguments made against those realities”

Did you also try to deal with all the phony arguments made for those realities? Afterall, phony arguments are made by both sides and it would be intellectually dishonest to give your audience the impression that the only kinds of arguments made against the saucer reality are phony while the only kinds of arguments made for the saucer reality are not.

“Just 39.2 light years from us are two sun-like stars that are not only 35 times closer to each other than the sun is to the next star over, but are a startling billion years older than the sun”

Just 4 light years from us are two sun-like stars that are not only 22,996 times closer to each other than the our sun is to them, but they also are a startling billion years older than the sun.

That too is awesome, but so what?

“It has been fairly easy, after answering more than 40,000 questions after lectures, in classrooms and during media appearances, to show that the supposedly anti-UFO case against some flying saucers as alien spacecraft, as made by the anti-UFO scientists, is bare of reason”

Is all that anyone have in regards to proof of the existence of extraterrestrial spacecraft are the mere words of an argument or of reason based on ethereal claims, or is there some actual physical facts you can hold in your hands?

I also ordered your book and it should arrive on Monday!

I am also looking forward to Dreamland this Saturday with you and Jim Marrs.