UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant

[Christopher O'Brien]

by Stanton Friedman/UFO Chronicles
Article HERE:
In early February, 2012, Andre Skondras, who distributes many interesting UFO articles on the internet, carried a 15 page 2008 article by Tim Printy entitled “The UFO Disclosure Myth”; I am a primary target of the last portion of the article. I also found his paper “My Skeptical Opinion about UFOs.” Clearly he is a debunker not a skeptic. He seems to know very little though he has strong opinions.

Printy starts the long piece with this comment: “Man is a credulous animal and must believe something: In the absence of good grounds for belief he will be satisfied with bad ones.” –Bertrand Russell. This is a fine description of the debunking of people like Printy; they have no good grounds to support their negativity, so bad ones will do. He claims even the most hardened Ufologist who believes that there is something behind these reports will admit that at least nine out of ten cases are misperceptions and hoaxes. The values usually turn out to be more like 3-10% of the reports remaining unexplained”. No source is given for this ridiculous proclamation.

​

​

In Blue Book Special Report 14 it was found that 21.5% of 3201 sightings investigated for the USAF by scientists at BMI could not be explained, this completely separate from the 9.3% listed as insufficient information; furthermore, the better the quality of the sighting—the more likely to be unexplained. In Richard Hall’s “The UFO Evidence”

it was found that 746 of the 4500 (16.6%) cases examined could not be explained. According to a special UFO subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 30% of the 117 cases investigated by the University of Colorado could not be explained. The one book of mine he lists has a 9 page bibliography which lists all these sources and many more.

I have quoted these numbers before. The point is that Printy has no leg to stand on. Better he should throw a dart at a dartboard with numbers on it.

Printy notes that he has been an amateur astronomer for 30 years and never seen a UFO. Of course he doesn’t explain why that means some aren’t real. He doesn’t mention that the great majority of amateur astronomers spend little time looking for flying saucers. They spend most of their time at night looking through a telescope with a very narrow field of view at interesting astronomical objects like the planets, the moon, comets and things they know will be present when they are out gazing. Would they say there have been no fatal automobile or airplane crashes because they haven’t seen one? Rest of Article HERE:

 

[Sentry]

That Stan- what a performer! You really have to admire his endurance and tenacity, whatever you think of his position. He's a skilled orator and debater, a verbal matador that's able to trip most skeptics over their own tongues. Surely one of the most dynamic forces ever to take on the UFO subject!

 

[Goggs Mackay]

by Stanton Friedman/UFO Chronicles
Article HERE:
In early February, 2012, Andre Skondras, who distributes many interesting UFO articles on the internet, carried a 15 page 2008 article by Tim Printy entitled “The UFO Disclosure Myth”; I am a primary target of the last portion of the article. I also found his paper “My Skeptical Opinion about UFOs.” Clearly he is a debunker not a skeptic. He seems to know very little though he has strong opinions.

Printy starts the long piece with this comment: “Man is a credulous animal and must believe something: In the absence of good grounds for belief he will be satisfied with bad ones.” –Bertrand Russell. This is a fine description of the debunking of people like Printy; they have no good grounds to support their negativity, so bad ones will do. He claims even the most hardened Ufologist who believes that there is something behind these reports will admit that at least nine out of ten cases are misperceptions and hoaxes. The values usually turn out to be more like 3-10% of the reports remaining unexplained”. No source is given for this ridiculous proclamation.

​

​

In Blue Book Special Report 14 it was found that 21.5% of 3201 sightings investigated for the USAF by scientists at BMI could not be explained, this completely separate from the 9.3% listed as insufficient information; furthermore, the better the quality of the sighting—the more likely to be unexplained. In Richard Hall’s “The UFO Evidence”

it was found that 746 of the 4500 (16.6%) cases examined could not be explained. According to a special UFO subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 30% of the 117 cases investigated by the University of Colorado could not be explained. The one book of mine he lists has a 9 page bibliography which lists all these sources and many more.

I have quoted these numbers before. The point is that Printy has no leg to stand on. Better he should throw a dart at a dartboard with numbers on it.

Printy notes that he has been an amateur astronomer for 30 years and never seen a UFO. Of course he doesn’t explain why that means some aren’t real. He doesn’t mention that the great majority of amateur astronomers spend little time looking for flying saucers. They spend most of their time at night looking through a telescope with a very narrow field of view at interesting astronomical objects like the planets, the moon, comets and things they know will be present when they are out gazing. Would they say there have been no fatal automobile or airplane crashes because they haven’t seen one? Rest of Article HERE:

Chris, I have heard it said that if there are so many UFOs why have many more people not seen them?
Well I always say that firstly you have to be lucky enough to be looking at the time any are about (how many of the public actively look up at the sky all the time?) and more importantly, how many people have actually seen a nuclear submarine, or a stealth fighter? They exist but plenty people haven't seen them.
Check out my post 'Skeptical madness!!' - in which I try to highlight the logical fallacies uttered by one James McGahey about Rendlesham - even if I do say so myself, I shat on him.

 

[Sentry]

I checked out Mr. Friedman's site, and dang, if I didn't know better, I'd almost think Stanton himself was a skeptic!
On his website he goes after these UFO witnesses and authors and debunks their claims:
The Bob Lazar Fraud
Body Snatchers in the Desert
The Day After Roswell
Case MJ-12

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Sentry - I have always found something extra-weird about the Lazar case. If anything, he may have been unwittingly used in some kind of 'disclosure' or dis-info type deal. The fact that Los Alamos denied all knowledge of him and then his name was found in their own phone book. It's not like he has a common surname either. So who is this 'other' Bob Lazar if it's not the Area-51 Bob Lazar?
I tend to give George Knapp some credibility. To my knowledge he has never been caught in a lie and is a well respected and honoured journalist. I believe people who interview people for a living do indeed get a 'gut feeling' about the truthfulness or not of who they interview and Knapp maintains that Lazar is telling the truth - at least as he sees it, for whatever that is worth.

 

[bbridges]

Have you heard the term

'crepidarian" or "anticrepidarian?-- more obscure and therefore perhaps a fresher way of describing a debunker.

by Stanton Friedman/UFO Chronicles
Article HERE:
In early February, 2012, Andre Skondras, who distributes many interesting UFO articles on the internet, carried a 15 page 2008 article by Tim Printy entitled “The UFO Disclosure Myth”; I am a primary target of the last portion of the article. I also found his paper “My Skeptical Opinion about UFOs.” Clearly he is a debunker not a skeptic. He seems to know very little though he has strong opinions.

Printy starts the long piece with this comment: “Man is a credulous animal and must believe something: In the absence of good grounds for belief he will be satisfied with bad ones.” –Bertrand Russell. This is a fine description of the debunking of people like Printy; they have no good grounds to support their negativity, so bad ones will do. He claims even the most hardened Ufologist who believes that there is something behind these reports will admit that at least nine out of ten cases are misperceptions and hoaxes. The values usually turn out to be more like 3-10% of the reports remaining unexplained”. No source is given for this ridiculous proclamation.

​

​

In Blue Book Special Report 14 it was found that 21.5% of 3201 sightings investigated for the USAF by scientists at BMI could not be explained, this completely separate from the 9.3% listed as insufficient information; furthermore, the better the quality of the sighting—the more likely to be unexplained. In Richard Hall’s “The UFO Evidence”

it was found that 746 of the 4500 (16.6%) cases examined could not be explained. According to a special UFO subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 30% of the 117 cases investigated by the University of Colorado could not be explained. The one book of mine he lists has a 9 page bibliography which lists all these sources and many more.

by Stanton Friedman/UFO Chronicles
Article HERE:
In early February, 2012, Andre Skondras, who distributes many interesting UFO articles on the internet, carried a 15 page 2008 article by Tim Printy entitled “The UFO Disclosure Myth”; I am a primary target of the last portion of the article. I also found his paper “My Skeptical Opinion about UFOs.” Clearly he is a debunker not a skeptic. He seems to know very little though he has strong opinions.

Printy starts the long piece with this comment: “Man is a credulous animal and must believe something: In the absence of good grounds for belief he will be satisfied with bad ones.” –Bertrand Russell. This is a fine description of the debunking of people like Printy; they have no good grounds to support their negativity, so bad ones will do. He claims even the most hardened Ufologist who believes that there is something behind these reports will admit that at least nine out of ten cases are misperceptions and hoaxes. The values usually turn out to be more like 3-10% of the reports remaining unexplained”. No source is given for this ridiculous proclamation.

​

​

In Blue Book Special Report 14 it was found that 21.5% of 3201 sightings investigated for the USAF by scientists at BMI could not be explained, this completely separate from the 9.3% listed as insufficient information; furthermore, the better the quality of the sighting—the more likely to be unexplained. In Richard Hall’s “The UFO Evidence”

it was found that 746 of the 4500 (16.6%) cases examined could not be explained. According to a special UFO subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 30% of the 117 cases investigated by the University of Colorado could not be explained. The one book of mine he lists has a 9 page bibliography which lists all these sources and many more.

I have quoted these numbers before. The point is that Printy has no leg to stand on. Better he should throw a dart at a dartboard with numbers on it.

Printy notes that he has been an amateur astronomer for 30 years and never seen a UFO. Of course he doesn’t explain why that means some aren’t real. He doesn’t mention that the great majority of amateur astronomers spend little time looking for flying saucers. They spend most of their time at night looking through a telescope with a very narrow field of view at interesting astronomical objects like the planets, the moon, comets and things they know will be present when they are out gazing. Would they say there have been no fatal automobile or airplane crashes because they haven’t seen one? Rest of Article HERE:

I have quoted these numbers before. The point is that Printy has no leg to stand on. Better he should throw a dart at a dartboard with numbers on it.

Printy notes that he has been an amateur astronomer for 30 years and never seen a UFO. Of course he doesn’t explain why that means some aren’t real. He doesn’t mention that the great majority of amateur astronomers spend little time looking for flying saucers. They spend most of their time at night looking through a telescope with a very narrow field of view at interesting astronomical objects like the planets, the moon, comets and things they know will be present when they are out gazing. Would they say there have been no fatal automobile or airplane crashes because they haven’t seen one? Rest of Article HERE:

 

[thetruthisoutthere99]

Bob Lazar is truthful, he did what he says he did, he saw what he says he saw, he is the real deal.
see
bob lazar video - Bing Videos
UFOs & Area 51: The Bob Lazar Video

see
Bob Lazar and Area 51 - 11 of 20 (Top Secret UFO Conspiracy) there are 20 of these

Area 51 Revisited Part 1 - Bob Lazar at C2C 15th nov 2009 there are 12 of these

And I believe Stanton Friedman is saying Bob is fake because he is jealous that he has not had any direct contact
with an alien spacecraft, and he knows that Bob is real and truthful and Stanton is not. So that is why he is trying to discredit him.

Bob is not lying, he is telling the truth.
His descriptions about how the space craft works, are amazing and definitely believeable.

 

[thetruthisoutthere99]

bob lazar video - Bing Videos

The Bob Lazar tape that he made initially after he gave the public and press conference at area 51,

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I'm sure Lazar would appreciate your support, but saying you believe something doesn't necessarily make it true.

 

[Decker]

As I have maintained over the years, Lazar has a corner in my "grey box". I met him right after he came out of the shadows, courtesy of George Knapp. Rich Sarradet and I have been to Lazar's house, I have interviewed him a number of times on my radio shows ... and I will say this. "In all the years I have known or spoken to Lazar, his story never changed. Nor did he ever really try to capitalize his situation."

Does this mean I buy his story? No, it does not. But it does mean I find his story very interesting. I have spoken to Knapp a number of times about Lazar. I respect Knapp and his abilities as a journalist. Knapp has never wavered in his support of Lazar, regardless of the business concerning advanced degrees.

Do I like Bob Lazar? Well, this much I will say. I never managed to "warm up" to Lazar on a personal level. However I try to keep my personal feelings out of it. Will we ever truly know the real story? I doubt it.

Decker

 

[Voyager]

As I have maintained over the years, Lazar has a corner in my "grey box". I met him right after he came out of the shadows, courtesy of George Knapp. Rich Sarradet and I have been to Lazar's house, I have interviewed him a number of times on my radio shows ... and I will say this. "In all the years I have known or spoken to Lazar, his story never changed. Nor did he ever really try to capitalize his situation."

Does this mean I buy his story? No, it does not. But it does mean I find his story very interesting. I have spoken to Knapp a number of times about Lazar. I respect Knapp and his abilities as a journalist. Knapp has never wavered in his support of Lazar, regardless of the business concerning advanced degrees.

Do I like Bob Lazar? Well, this much I will say. I never managed to "warm up" to Lazar on a personal level. However I try to keep my personal feelings out of it. Will we ever truly know the real story? I doubt it.

Decker

Is Lazar still at it? I'm not going to get into the details regarding his background.. Sport model? I have never seen anything that looks like that here in Montana.

 

[Randall]

Compared to most of the so-called skeptics on the JREF, Tim Printy does a very good job. That isn't to say that I agree with everything he says, but he puts much more effort into coming up with mundane explanations than the typical offhanded dismissals and ridicule from that camp. Ufology can benefit from better quality skeptics and debunkers and my experience with Printy is that he is a cut above the rest of that crowd.

 

[thetruthisoutthere99]

I believe what Bob Lazar is saying because I have listened to him talking for about 6 hours, on you tube,
and I have a degree in psychology, and also have studied sociology at degree level, and so I don't just believe anything, I analyse, and also pay attention to what, and how people speak, and their body language, he is stating the facts that he knows, what he saw, what he read, who he spoke to, where he went, etc, he is not making it up,
one of the things I notice- that is why when you listen to him, you see that he is careful to only say for definite certain things that he knows to be accurate, (I do that too- because when you study scientific you want to be clear what is accurate), because that is differentiating between stating facts- ie he went on the space craft etc,
and stating things that he does not know personally to be accurate- ie whether the photo of the alien autopsy was an actual alien autopsy, because he only saw a photo and not the actual thing in front of him,
liars don't bother differentiating like this, they just say whatever- as if it is all true,
also - the reason why he has not had a film made, is because, he won't let the film makers make a film that is not accurate, usually when they take true events they sensationalise it all, and he won't have it done with his name on it,
one of the reasons for this, in my opinion, is because, he decided to speak out where others have not, and because he took that decision, he wants what he says to people, to be the truth, to tell the truth to people, that's just a couple of reasons, there are more,
he is genuine

one of the ways in which to make a name for himself, like stanton, is to debunk other people, it is a way to continue a career for himself, not because what he says is right,

and I don't think Bob Lazar will give a toss about me saying all this, because he doesn't even go on these sites,

 

[Randall]

Lazar? Believe? One thing I've learned about this subject, that you don't need any academic credentials to figure out, is that about all you can really believe is what you have personally experienced, and even then you have to be careful how you interpret that experience because even our own conclusions about our own experiences can be wrong. When I use the word "believe" it is almost always for convenience sake and it is meant to replace saying something much more clumsy like, "Given all the information at hand combined with my personal feelings there seems to be at this point in time a very high probability that this or that ( pick your issue) is true ." Very few things do I feel so certain about that denying them feels like I'm being dishonest to myself. UFOs themselves are one. Lazar himself is not. Does that mean I have enough information to brand him a hoaxer? No. I simply don't have enough information period ( or in this case a semicolon ); and reading his books and watching him on YouTube does not provide sufficient evidence, nor is it convincing ( to me ) or a number of other ufologists. But is he wrong? I tend to believe that the basic premise of his story ( the military knows more than we do and is in possession of technology much more advanced than we are aware of ) is true. Do they have actual functioning UFO technology? Perhaps. If it's not something ET then it's probably based on an emerging and similar technology.

 

[Sentry]

I believe what Bob Lazar is saying because I have listened to him talking for about 6 hours, on you tube, and I have a degree in psychology...

That's very interesting to me. I don't have any psychology degrees, just some street smarts regarding the subject of hustling & B.S., and my impression is that Lazar is just a skilled liar. My understanding is that he produced his tale only after being introduced to John Lear, who was interested in both UFOs and Area 51. Shortly thereafter, Lazar happened to be employed (briefly) at Area 51 and worked with UFOs. Lazar then betrayed his security oath to share what he'd seen with Lear.

Lazar also seems to have been an attention seeker. His jet-powered car, is an example of that, and also his name-dropping of Dr. Edward Teller in order to boost his reputation. My estimate of the situation is that Lazar mixed some legend with a spoonful of genuine information about the base, and fed Lear's own stories back to him.

I admit I could be wrong about all this. Lazar could be smart enough to have done all the things he said, but also dumb enough to blow his security clearance, go bankrupt, and be charged for pandering.

 

[stonehart]

I'm sure Lazar would appreciate your support, but saying you believe something doesn't necessarily make it true.

Nail hit square on the head there Gene, and like Don I to keep Lazar's claims in a grey box. I think there is much more to his tale than meets the eye but is it true?
I am not sure we will ever know but it is an intriguing case none the less.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

For a number of reasons I think the Lazar story may be true, but only if he was recruited as a deliberate patsy for drip-fed disclosure.

I find it utterly fascinating that Los Alamos denied knowledge of him but he was found in their phone book. His name is not common so it is not like it was probably another 'R. Lazar'?
The fact that Dr Teller has never denied meeting him - never really confirmed it either but it's almost like Teller does not want to get caught out in a lie in the future so he covered his ass by using lawyer-speak.

The issue with Lazar's education is weird too - I get the impression that Lazar was definitely educated in physics at degree level, a hard thing to bluff. In the years Lazar claims to have been in higher education - where was he if not in education? If he was not at the institutions he claims, it should not be too hard to find anywhere he may actually have been. To my knowledge, no-one has ever said they found proof of Lazar having been educated elsewhere, which would show he could not have been where he said he was?

Everyone leaves a trail of evidence of their life behind them, unless they live under a fake identity or come from a country that is far from developed. In the USA, to not have evidence of employment or education is extremely strange!
People have said that it would be impossible for the military/government to erase his educational records but I disagree totally. If I think back to when I studied physics in the early 1990's - remember this was the computer age but far less information was held on computer than is now. I would imagine very few written records exist of my first degree and it would be quite easy to either have them stolen by a professional or pay someone to look them out and destroy them. Intelligence agencies routinely find dirt on people to use as leverage and most people will have an aspect of their lives they would rather not have made public. Money and sex or ideology are the big 3 when it comes to tools used to extort a target.
Pre-internet days are relatively simple to erase - this issue is a non-starter for me.

If the Lazar story has any truth to it at all, there is one aspect that would make me think that Lazar was deliberately used for some kind of 'accidental disclosure'. That aspect is the fact that whilst working under the tightest security, Lazar claims that he only was working on the power source of a saucer. By his own admission, he said he only glimpsed sightings of 8 out of the 9 craft at S4 and he did not even get to see the upper level of the 'model' he was assigned to. All well and good, this fits with the 'need to know' structure of classified projects.
So why on earth would he be shown to a room at random intervals and allowed to read files on widely-ranging alien-related topics, none of which had a bearing on his power source work?
This goes completely against the need to know principle. If Lazar was not permitted to see the upper third of the craft he worked on, and was not allowed to examine the other craft for reference regarding the power, that makes sense with a strict interpretation of the need-to-know principle. Being allowed to read material related to where the craft supposedly came from is utterly against the security principle!

So for me, either the whole thing is complete fantasy or it was a deliberate ploy to use someone to leak information on the ET/UFO topic.
I would happily go with the former if there were not so many strange aspects to the whole case. One thing is for sure - this is no straight-forward hoax, whatever the truth of it is, I am convinced it was no hoax dreamed up by Lear and Lazar. Also, I give credit to George Knapp in his ability as a respected journalist to check on certain facts and also to give his 'gut feeling' on Lazar. Twenty years later and Knapp is still convinced Lazar is telling the truth, at least as he sees it himself.

Sometimes I wish for disclosure - not to find out if there really are Spacecraft or interdimensional beings etc, no, I want disclosure so we can quickly find out which famous cases and sightings ever had any truth to them?
Rendlesham - fact or fiction?
Roswell - fact or fiction?
Socoro
Japan airlines
Phoenix Lights
'Suck-Suck' case in Brazil
Pascagoula
Flatwoods monster
Area-51/S4
Washington D.C 1952
Belgium flap 1990
Any and all abductions?

If offered real answers to the above questions and all the details included, but no more whatsoever on the whole UFO/ALIEN question - I would jump at the chance to have my curiosity satisfied!

 

[Ron Collins]

As I have maintained over the years, Lazar has a corner in my "grey box". I met him right after he came out of the shadows, courtesy of George Knapp. Rich Sarradet and I have been to Lazar's house, I have interviewed him a number of times on my radio shows ... and I will say this. "In all the years I have known or spoken to Lazar, his story never changed. Nor did he ever really try to capitalize his situation."

Does this mean I buy his story? No, it does not. But it does mean I find his story very interesting. I have spoken to Knapp a number of times about Lazar. I respect Knapp and his abilities as a journalist. Knapp has never wavered in his support of Lazar, regardless of the business concerning advanced degrees.

Do I like Bob Lazar? Well, this much I will say. I never managed to "warm up" to Lazar on a personal level. However I try to keep my personal feelings out of it. Will we ever truly know the real story? I doubt it.

Decker

His story has more holes than a mountain range of swiss cheese. He has an 8th graders understanding of physics and has never had above a C average in any confirmed schooling. He was a technician at LANL. Thats all. A guy that had some mechanical ability and helped setup experiments. Working at LANL he held a small security clearance. In later years, he moved to Vegas and ran a photo processing repair business. It is my personal belief that A51 needed some photo processing repair or maintenance. So they looked in the phone book. Lazar already had a history and expired security clearance so it was the least path of resistance.

A few key facts.

1 - He has only ever produced 1 pay stub. Nothing more. It was crap money for a physicist of his supposed caliber. He has never supplied tax returns. I believe Friedman found tax info on him and it was consistent with a dude who ran a small and ultimately unsuccessful photo processing repair and service company.

2 - Nobody remembers the guy. Not a single Physicists, Professors, nor any of his LANL "colleagues".

3 - He is on record saying he took classes at CalTech that did not exist from a professor that taught at a community college that does have records of Lazars attendance.

4 - Why would a guy that can get into CalTech and MIT register at a small California community college at the SAME TIME as he is supposed to be in Massachusetts attending the most prestigious technical university in the friggin' world?

Frankly, he only wanted the admiration. This is a guy that was a NOBODY that desperately wanted to be SOMEBODY. Thats it. It wasn't about the money it was about the psychological high of pretending to be smart and having others believe in him. He was addicted to the admiration and interest in his fantasy. When it started getting heavy and he started getting real questions and his story started to unravel, he went all reclusive. But, like any addicted individual he pined for that high again and every so often he reemerges. Soon he will get slapped back down and we will have another 4 or 5 years of dormancy. Its sad really.

BUT, there is no way he should be in a grey basket. This is black and white. He is a liar. Plain and simple. Sure, he has been out to A51. I don't doubt that for a minute. He probably ate at the cafeteria and was taken to different locations around the base and whatnot. All in his capacity as the copier/photo processing repair guy.

That innocuous stuff gave him just enough detailed knowledge to help tell the lie and have some parts verifiable. Thats it. For me it is real simple. The man is a self aggrandizing buffoon.

 

[boomerang]

When I put what Lazar has said in the context of what researchers seem to know about his personal history and character, he just doesn't make the cut for me.

Perhaps he played some minor role in black research and inflated his importance from there. But personally recommended by Edward Teller for cutting edge research? Gimme a break.

 

[trainedobserver]

Edgar Fouche is a much more credible Area 51 witness than Bob L. in my opinion. He has made a great deal of documentation available that proves he is who he says he is. I think he would make a great guest since he seems to be a lot more active recently. Here is his youTube Channel.