James Carrion
Skilled Investigator
Nic
Thanks Gene for posting Stan's reply.
Stan sees fit to post his criticisms from 2010 which I let slide back then but will address point by point soon in a blog article on Follow The Magic Thread. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that in Canada "baloney" is just what Canadians call research you have yet to read, I won't let Stan get off so easily with his prediction that my book is disinformation. So Stan, consider this a challenge to a public debate on the material in my book. You read it, digest it and argue your best to disprove it with whatever evidence you have from the 1945 - May 1947 timeframe that my book covers. Yes, you will notice that it excludes all of your favorite subjects. I take it you will argue Ghost Rockets as you seems to believe yourself an expert in this area. If you are going to stick your foot in your mouth and call someones else's research disinformation which implies a covert agenda other than to present facts and the truth, you best be willing to back that up with solid evidence.
I received the following response from Friedman:
"There is no incompatibility with my saying I didn't have enough information about Romanek and other topics and expecting that James' book would have baloney. I had after all previously read and heard James' comments about Roswell, disinformation, Soviets etc. I commented at length and in detail in my January 2010 MUFON Journal column all seemingly related to his views about deception counter intelligence etc.I have sent you the column."
The original MUFON column, as submitted by Friedman, is posted here with his permission (there are minor formatting glitches because of the transfer from a Word document):
Thanks Gene for posting Stan's reply.
Stan sees fit to post his criticisms from 2010 which I let slide back then but will address point by point soon in a blog article on Follow The Magic Thread. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that in Canada "baloney" is just what Canadians call research you have yet to read, I won't let Stan get off so easily with his prediction that my book is disinformation. So Stan, consider this a challenge to a public debate on the material in my book. You read it, digest it and argue your best to disprove it with whatever evidence you have from the 1945 - May 1947 timeframe that my book covers. Yes, you will notice that it excludes all of your favorite subjects. I take it you will argue Ghost Rockets as you seems to believe yourself an expert in this area. If you are going to stick your foot in your mouth and call someones else's research disinformation which implies a covert agenda other than to present facts and the truth, you best be willing to back that up with solid evidence.
Last edited: