many here have read this?' Typically, it is only one or two percent". He said that a talk he gave to Canadian journalists in Saint John, New Brunswick, caused the attitudes of the journalists to change, because "... attendees had had no idea there was so much solid information, as opposed to the tabloid nonsense they thought was the primary source of UFO data". (p. 202) Friedman argued that the majority of people believe UFOs exist and at least some groups of scientists do as well. Friedman (2008) referred to the following data in support of his position: Gallup Polls between 1966 and 1987 asked respondents the question: "Are UFOs something real, or just people's imagination?" Of those who took a position one way or the other, 61%, 64%, 68%, and 60% took the position they are real in 1966, 1977, 1978, and 1987, respectively. With respect to scientists, a poll was taken by Industrial Research and Development in 1971 and 1979. Of the respondents who took a position, 64% and 69% stated they believed UFOs either probably or definitely exist. Of this subgroup, 32% and 44% considered their origin to be Outer Space in 1971 and 1979, respectively. Of the rest of this subgroup, approximately half believed them to be natural phenomena and half were "undecided". Peter Sturrock also polled the membership of the American Astronomical Society and found that "the greater the amount of time one spent on reading UFO-related material, the more likely one is to accept their reality" (p. 210). Criticisms and controversies Friedman was outspoken in his articulation of positions and in his criticism of UFO debunkers, often stating he was not an "apologist ufologist". His positions are regarded as controversial in mainstream science and media, but Friedman claimed to have received little opposition at his many lectures, most of which were at colleges and universities, many to engineering societies and other groups of physicists (p. 24). He had a number of debates in the mainstream media, including one with UFO skeptic Michael Shermer on CNN. Friedman was criticized both by skeptics and other Roswell researchers for taking the position that there are no substantive grounds for dismissing the authenticity of some Majestic 12 documents although Friedman was the first to provide evidence that some of the documents are clearly hoaxes. For example, he showed that a supposed memo from Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter to President