|
|
|
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
On the balance of probabilities etc., January 14, 2003
Entertainment or statement of fact? How should anyone consider the "facts" when all you are presented with are witness testimonies and NO HARD EVIDENCE. I have seen Major Marcel's videotaped account of the debris site, and I personally found it compelling. I've also read (and re-read) Friedman's book and found it to be thoroughly enjoyable in the same sense one would find a detective story to be similarly intriguing. But one must be true to his or her own sense of the plausible and it is in this spirit that I feel we must look for the "approximate" solution. Friedman's book, in many parts, contains several comments which, in my opinion, require further elaboration and even correction. However my first objection is that any book purporting to be based on fact should not contain an introduction by a writer of ufo abduction lore. Especially in a book about ufo crashes. Second, Friedman is correct in his dismissal of most academic reports about interstellar travel since they use yesteryear's technology to extrapolate likely future developments. However on page 34 his statement that doubling the speed of a "moon rocket" coasting towards the moon will shorten the travel time by a factor of twenty, is just wrong. (Since travel time is proportional to distance and inversely so to speed, a doubling of speed only gets you there twice as fast). I'll give Friedman the benefit of the doubt (this is most likely a misquotation). However on page 20 Friedman admits that Jaime Shandera was to be the director of a movie about ufo's proposed circa 1980. A movie in which Friedman was to act as a technical consultant. By 1984 (when he allegedly received the MJ documents) Shandera clearly had four years in which to think up a script! I am certain that Mr. Shandera holds a crucial key to the MJ story, perhaps it's time for Mr. Friedman to press Mr. Shandera for a full disclosure. To his credit Mr. Friedman, on page 67, asks the question "...So couldn't we have just made up the documents ourselves?" I personally don't believe a scientist would make up such a story solely in order to benefit financially from it at the risk of being discredited by his peers. I think the truth lies with Shandera and Moore. At this point it is customary to quote William of Occam's "razor" so that the most likely conclusion could be reached. However Occam's razor is neither a physical nor a logical principle and so in all honesty cannot be used to decide an outcome with any certainty. I do have further comments but I will leave the readers to consider the evidence for themselves.From a sympathetic skeptic.
|
 Top Secret/majic 1569247412
Stanton T. Friedman
Marlowe & Company
Top Secret/majic
Books
On the balance of probabilities etc.
Entertainment or statement of fact? How should anyone consider the "facts" when all you are presented with are witness testimonies and NO HARD EVIDENCE. I have seen Major Marcel's videotaped account of the debris site, and I personally found it compelling. I've also read (and re-read) Friedman's book and found it to be thoroughly enjoyable in the same sense one would find a detective story to be similarly intriguing. But one must be true to his or her own sense of the plausible and it is in this spirit that I feel we must look for the "approximate" solution. Friedman's book, in many parts, contains several comments which, in my opinion, require further elaboration and even correction. However my first objection is that any book purporting to be based on fact should not contain an introduction by a writer of ufo abduction lore. Especially in a book about ufo crashes. Second, Friedman is correct in his dismissal of most academic reports about interstellar travel since they use yesteryear's technology to extrapolate likely future developments. However on page 34 his statement that doubling the speed of a "moon rocket" coasting towards the moon will shorten the travel time by a factor of twenty, is just wrong. (Since travel time is proportional to distance and inversely so to speed, a doubling of speed only gets you there twice as fast). I'll give Friedman the benefit of the doubt (this is most likely a misquotation). However on page 20 Friedman admits that Jaime Shandera was to be the director of a movie about ufo's proposed circa 1980. A movie in which Friedman was to act as a technical consultant. By 1984 (when he allegedly received the MJ documents) Shandera clearly had four years in which to think up a script! I am certain that Mr. Shandera holds a crucial key to the MJ story, perhaps it's time for Mr. Friedman to press Mr. Shandera for a full disclosure. To his credit Mr. Friedman, on page 67, asks the question "...So couldn't we have just made up the documents ourselves?" I personally don't believe a scientist would make up such a story solely in order to benefit financially from it at the risk of being discredited by his peers. I think the truth lies with Shandera and Moore. At this point it is customary to quote William of Occam's "razor" so that the most likely conclusion could be reached. However Occam's razor is neither a physical nor a logical principle and so in all honesty cannot be used to decide an outcome with any certainty. I do have further comments but I will leave the readers to consider the evidence for themselves.
From a sympathetic skeptic.
Frank La Tella
January 14, 2003
- Overall: 5
|
Location: Sydney, Australia ...
New Reviewer Rank: 3,883,324
Classic Reviewer Rank: 221,545
|
|
![[Add comment]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/reviews/comment._V47082259_.gif){kind=small}
