87 replies to this topic

[Flibbertigibbet]

Just been reading his book on MJ-12 and I must say it's so full of special pleading as to make it unbelievable. Someone was out of the country, but his assistant might have sent a memo in his name. Someone else might have lifted a signature from somewhere else, etc. He's obviously a very clever guy, so why does he believe it?

[itsnotoutthere]

He was a 'nuclear physicist' back in the 70's (40 years ago) & since then has pounded the UFO circuit. Guess there's more money doing the circuit.

[Hazzard]

Stanton Friedman is a charlatan, period.

http://www.roswellfi...OnFriedman1.htm

http://www.roswellfi...OnFriedman3.htm

Edited by Hazzard, 21 April 2012 - 01:18 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

Well one must ask  ? How much has he made in sales,and talks ? Then one should require Is there ever been any proof in the Findings?

[Mentalcase]

DONTEATUS, on 21 April 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Well one must ask  ? How much has he made in sales,and talks ? Then one should require Is there ever been any proof in the Findings?

and the downside to becoming famous via Ufology, requires one to be fringe-full. The skeptics hardly make a name for themselves. I guess since there is no smoking gun, one can only make book sales if they spread disinformation or outright lies. Even if it starts as a mere opinion, such as Friedman, fringies take these opinions as fact or at the very least, hold it higher because of someone's supposed credentials. Since when does being a nuclear physicist = UFO expert?

UFO expert is the biggest oxymoron ever. The true "experts" are people like me and the rest of the level-headed researchers (saving their opinion till there is actual proof). Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer on some level, but I still need the one measly morsel of proof to state it as a fact. An expert is one who can look at a case for what it is, not for what it isn't. My point is, if fraudulent, even once, you should just kill yourself. Save the world of your corrupt motives.

[DONTEATUS]

Mentalcase, on 21 April 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

and the downside to becoming famous via Ufology, requires one to be fringe-full. The skeptics hardly make a name for themselves. I guess since there is no smoking gun, one can only make book sales if they spread disinformation or outright lies. Even if it starts as a mere opinion, such as Friedman, fringies take these opinions as fact or at the very least, hold it higher because of someone's supposed credentials. Since when does being a nuclear physicist = UFO expert?

UFO expert is the biggest oxymoron ever. The true "experts" are people like me and the rest of the level-headed researchers (saving their opinion till there is actual proof). Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer on some level, but I still need the one measly morsel of proof to state it as a fact. An expert is one who can look at a case for what it is, not for what it isn't. My point is, if fraudulent, even once, you should just kill yourself. Save the world of your corrupt motives.

I hear ya  Mental !

[Paul Rubino]

Hazzard, on 21 April 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Stanton Friedman is a charlatan, period.

http://www.roswellfi...OnFriedman1.htm

http://www.roswellfi...OnFriedman3.htm

Who is Brad Sparks? I love what he wrote, i want to link to his pages, but i never heard of him.

[Paul Rubino]

Hazzard, on 21 April 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Stanton Friedman is a charlatan, period.

http://www.roswellfi...OnFriedman1.htm

http://www.roswellfi...OnFriedman3.htm

Is this the same Brad Sparks at THIS LINK?

[booNyzarC]

Is Stanton Friedman reliable?!?!?  OF COURSE HE IS!!!

You can rely on him to keep on pushing his UFOlogy stance regardless of any counter evidence.  You can rely on him to avoid answering direct questions when they are posed to him, and instead suggesting that you should read one or another of his books.  You can rely on him making the same lame jokes when he is at the podium speaking at conferences in the UFO circuit.  You can rely on him padding his faux credibility with the same decade's old credentials that didn't really amount to much even decades ago.  You can rely on him for a great many things! And I've only touched on a few of them here.

Good ol' reliable Stan.

And if you aren't careful, he just might write a book about you...

[Flibbertigibbet]

booNyzarC, on 22 April 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

Is Stanton Friedman reliable?!?!?  OF COURSE HE IS!!!

You can rely on him to keep on pushing his UFOlogy stance regardless of any counter evidence.  You can rely on him to avoid answering direct questions when they are posed to him, and instead suggesting that you should read one or another of his books.  You can rely on him making the same lame jokes when he is at the podium speaking at conferences in the UFO circuit.  You can rely on him padding his faux credibility with the same decade's old credentials that didn't really amount to much even decades ago.  You can rely on him for a great many things! And I've only touched on a few of them here.

Good ol' reliable Stan.

And if you aren't careful, he just might write a book about you...

I've also heard that he can be quite litigious, too.

[DONTEATUS]

Thats true Flibbertgibbet ! and they have med`s for that Good ole` Stanton Fry-d-Man ! he`s got a soft spot right in his soft spot !
WHere`s my HElmut Sweetpumper?

[Mentalcase]

DONTEATUS, on 22 April 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

Thats true Flibbertgibbet ! and they have med`s for that Good ole` Stanton Fry-d-Man ! he`s got a soft spot right in his soft spot !
WHere`s my HElmut Sweetpumper?

The aliens made his brain, FRIEDMAN!!

[badeskov]

Flibbertigibbet, on 21 April 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Just been reading his book on MJ-12 and I must say it's so full of special pleading as to make it unbelievable. Someone was out of the country, but his assistant might have sent a memo in his name. Someone else might have lifted a signature from somewhere else, etc. He's obviously a very clever guy, so why does he believe it?

Hi Fibber',

As BooNy correctly mentions, Mr. Friedman is indeed very reliable, albeit not in the sense that would benefit the field of UFOlogy (or any other field of research, for that matter). I think a better question would be "Is Stanton Friedman credible?" and the answer would be a big, resounding no. He has long ago sacrificed all scientific credibility on the altar of fame and fortune. The links Hazz provided are pretty telling and unfortunately they paint a very good picture of Mr. Friedman's modus operandi.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[psyche101]

I think it depends on what Mr Friedman finds interesting, Like all of us, he is human, and has interests, some which appeal more than others. MJ-12 is something he firmly believes in, and I have to admit he has made extensive research efforts, yet still, not enough to call the documents genuine. Stanton Friedman did manage to catch out the notorious Philip J Klass on MJ-12 with concerns to a certain typeface used by Government departments at the time. Klass claimed lexicographic inconsistencies based on the use of Pica typeface in the Cutler/Twining memo and offered $100 in a challenge to Stanton Friedman, for each legitimate example of the use of the same style and size Pica type as used in the memo. Friedman provided 14 examples and was paid $1,000 by Klass. - LINK - Letter outlining the bet (and others that Mr Friedman refused to accept) This did not cost Uncle Phil a cent as Mr Friedman had accepted the $10,000.00 Klass challenge which remains uncollected today. The money Mr Fridman had been paying that bet of with was won back with this bet.
Which would indicated thoroughness, yet on his latest work co authored with Kathleen Marden (Science was wrong), he makes all kinds of errors and refuses to touch Tesla saying "he is too"complicated". He twists the situation regarding the Wright Brothers around something shocking when he says that science was trying to stop them, when what he should have said was that Lord Kelvin driven by the media made some foolish comments, Science gave the Wright brothers everything they needed to take flight but silly tales like this bury the important role science played. There are quite some more sloppy inconsistencies, but this is not a thread about hat book. Suffice to say I think Mr Fridman can investigate with the best of them, but I do not feel that is what he does too often. One gets the strongt impression that he rests on his laurels a little too much. And he cannot be forgiven for inventing Roswell Aliens.
So we can see one thorough example, and one very sloppy example. Personally, I feel he is quite arrogant and dismissive his interview in the bent spoon was not very polite, by his own admission he woud go to engagements and start out with "I am a nuclear physicist" and people would just listen to him because of that. He loved that, but personally I find it rather distasteful.
Each to their own, for me, Stanton is one that canot be taken seriously. He knows that he does not have to work hard because of his title, and he plays on that. Not straight up enough for me. I do not respect him at all for being the nuclear physicist who messes with UFOlogy, I would have been much more impressed with a UFOlogist that we happened to find out is a nuclear physicist. But in the end, it is hard to get over how he messed up Roswell. It will be a long time before anyone should forgive him for that.


The question you ask in your OP, I often wonder of Tom Cruise and his merry band of scientologists. Lets face it, we all know the Universe is not the age they say it is, and Xenu in what was it again? Jet powered DC9's? It is so incredibly easy to see this plot is something Hubbard created from his mind, yet these cretins push it to people like you and I fully knowing what they push is an outright lie. Tom Cruise cannot possibly be stupid enough to believe the Xenu story and be where he is today. People that stupid do not make that sort of money, they get fools to believe crap like this and collect their money to make them rich. So how can people look Tom Cruise on the face, and not punch him right in the mouth?

Edited by psyche101, 23 April 2012 - 04:25 AM.

[psyche101]

badeskov, on 23 April 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

Hi Fibber',

As BooNy correctly mentions, Mr. Friedman is indeed very reliable, albeit not in the sense that would benefit the field of UFOlogy (or any other field of research, for that matter). I think a better question would be "Is Stanton Friedman credible?" and the answer would be a big, resounding no. He has long ago sacrificed all scientific credibility on the altar of fame and fortune. The links Hazz provided are pretty telling and unfortunately they paint a very good picture of Mr. Friedman's modus operandi.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hi Bade

Ahh but you have a way with words!!

Indeed that is the question!

Cheers.