Attack of an American Hero

On July 28, an ABC online news contributor, Emily Friedman (pictured left), wrote an article in response to Dr. Edgar Mitchell's recent interview on Kerrang Radio where he disclosed that ETs were real and that governments have covered this fact up for some 60 years. The article, Out of Space or Out of Mind?, needlessly begins by trying to taint the reader's objectivity of the former astronaut with its mere title, not to mention it totally disrespects one of America's true heroes who was a pioneer in the space race probably long before Ms. Friedman was such a "prominent" contributor to the news media.

In the first place, I'm not sure exactly what qualifies a health care person to publicly write anything regarding alien life when it's obvious they don't know beans about the subject, nor about the mental stability of a doctor who actually walked on the moon. Let me see...oh yes, astronauts must be approved by health care professionals before being launched into space. Uh huh. Hardly. I believe even in the 1970s astronauts had to pass a much more rigorous battery of mental and physical evaluations.

Here's a snippet from Ms. Friedman's professional biography:

Emily Friedman is an independent writer, lecturer, and health policy and ethics analyst based in Chicago. She is contributing editor of Hospitals & Health Networks and contributing writer for the Journal of the American Medical Association, Health Progress, and other periodicals. Ms. Friedman also writes a regular column for Hospitals & Health Networks Online. She was contributing editor and ethics columnist for the Health Forum Journal from 1986 until July 2003, when the journal terminated publication. She is most noted for her work in health policy, health care trends, health insurance and managed care, the social ethics of health care, health care for the underserved, health care history, population demographics, and the relationship of the public with the health care system.

For one so versed in ethics as is apparent by her biography, she exercises far less ethics than I'm accustomed to seeing on such well-known news sites. And now I'm even starting to wonder about her skills as an analyst.

I won't sit here and say that all of her concerns are totally off-the-wall regarding Dr. Mitchell. Flying in space does seem to cause some changes in one's perception of life on this planet, according to various astronauts, including Dr. Mitchell himself. I must say that if his character and credibility were on trial in court, it wouldn't look the best that Dr. Mitchell founded The Institute of Noetic Sciences in 1973 which focuses, I believe, on the consciousness of man and how it relates to the universe. I'll let you read for yourself without offering personal opinions.

However, I'm totally baffled by the fact that someone of Dr. Mitchell's standing as an American astronaut was attacked and seemingly ridiculed when there are so many others who make much more bizarre claims regarding aliens and UFOs. Was it really necessary? What if, say, Dr. Mitchell was suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's disease (my personal opinion is that he is not)? Wouldn't it be a little unnecessary as well as overkill to hammer on his credibility in an article such as Ms. Friedman's? What would be the purpose? Why do any debunkers spend so much energy debunking the subject of UFOs and aliens if they were such utter nonsense that anyone with half a brain wouldn't give them a moment's thought or notice? I'm sure there are any number of psychological reasons, but I think it boils down to fear and outright denial in this case, unless she's been contracted by a dark goverment agency to spread disinformation (which I seriously doubt!).

Edgar Mitchell didn't make any announcements that scores of others before him haven't made in the past. I believe it's his standing as someone "in the know" as well as the fact that he's well-known that has caused such an "extraterrestrial stir", and the fact that he has been "in the know" makes the statements from his interview that much more credible to me.

On an oddly positive note, it seems Ms. Friedman's article wasn't very well-received by its readers. It appears the overwhelming majority of those who commented on the article stood up for Dr. Mitchell and expressed their distaste for Emily's irreverent spin. Maybe she'll think twice before she ventures out of the health care and ethics fields again, and maybe ABC news will screen the articles submitted to them more closely before they publish them.

By the way, doesn't Ms. Friedman's smug and sadistic grin in her picture call to mind Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix? :)

*****************

Cheers, Dr. Mitchell. You'll always be a hero to me, and I appreciate your willingness to come forward with such information when so many others have declined.