Comments

Bad Astronomy: Stanton Friedman Offers a Rebuttal — 7 Comments

  1. Stanton calls questioning UFOs pseudo-science?
    And proposes that the study of something for which evidence is circumstantial at best and anecdotal at worst is actual science?
    And calls himself a scientist?

    • >”Stanton calls questioning UFOs pseudo-science?”

      No, I think he calls questioning UFOs with such a scant knowledge on the subject pseudo-skeptcism.

  2. Henry P

    You’ve completely missed Stans point. He is not saying questioning Ufos is pseudo science but rather the lame & superficial treatment by guys such as Plait who completely ignore the strongest data/cases & focus on the mundane weaker cases observed by the public constitutes a sort of pseudo skepticism. Why doesn’t Plait deal with the best military/civil pilot encounters, the radar track cases, physical trace cases? The true test of any explanation is its ability to deal with the best cases not the weakest.

  3. Now, Micah, for balance, you should excoriate Friedman’s denialism.

    The HIPPARCHOS star data undid the Fish Map (Bret Holman,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>