Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Flibbertigibbet

Is Stanton Friedman reliable?

88 posts in this topic

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :rolleyes:

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. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :w00t:

I hear ya Mental ! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :tu: And I've only touched on a few of them here.

Good ol' reliable Stan. :P

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! :tu: And I've only touched on a few of them here.

Good ol' reliable Stan. :P

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :w00t:

The aliens made his brain, FRIEDMAN!! :devil::alien:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bade

Ahh but you have a way with words!!

Indeed that is the question!

Cheers.

Ah Mate,

Thank you for the kind words thumbsup.gif

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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?

underlined...maybe he does, maybe he doesn't...

I have Friedman on my radar as a possible disinformation 'agent'....someone who has got himself deeply embedded in the UFO/ET scene

and could be mixing some truth in with some misdirection. I was alerted to this when he took the trouble to attack Bob Lazar.

and he takes the trouble to 'set us straight' on Phillip Corso

http://www.realufos.net/2009/04/stanton-t-friedman-sets-us-straight-on.html

so he could be playing a clever game (I now think he probably is)...doing his bit for the fog of confusion

that permeates the whole UFO/ET subject.

Hi Fibber',

I couldn't help but notice, Bade, that you made a typo slip with Flibbertigibbet's name.... :w00t:

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

underlined...maybe he does, maybe he doesn't...

I have Friedman on my radar as a possible disinformation 'agent'....someone who has got himself deeply embedded in the UFO/ET scene

and could be mixing some truth in with some misdirection. I was alerted to this when he took the trouble to attack Bob Lazar.

and he takes the trouble to 'set us straight' on Phillip Corso

http://www.realufos.net/2009/04/stanton-t-friedman-sets-us-straight-on.html

so he could be playing a clever game (I now think he probably is)...doing his bit for the fog of confusion

that permeates the whole UFO/ET subject.

I couldn't help but notice, Bade, that you made a typo slip with Flibbertigibbet's name.... :w00t:

.

How do you know Lazar is not the disinformation agent? Can you reconcile the yearbook problem?

Here is Friedmans take on Lazar, which parts do you specifically indicate are disinformation and why?

THE BOB LAZAR FRAUD

Here is yet another, it seems many are on Stantons disinformation bandwagon as you like to muse.

And this portal, can you fault any of the allegations?

Bob Lazar

Why is it that so many people have such convincing evidence, and Bob Lazar has nothing more than verbal evidence? And why don't Lazar's physics work? And why is he definitely lying about Ununpentium? We have a sample now we have made one, and Bob;s claims are not even close. So we know he is lying in this case, and we know his record contains many lies. How do you reconcile that? Do you feel certain little snippets might be true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

underlined...maybe he does, maybe he doesn't...

I have Friedman on my radar as a possible disinformation 'agent'....someone who has got himself deeply embedded in the UFO/ET scene

and could be mixing some truth in with some misdirection. I was alerted to this when he took the trouble to attack Bob Lazar.

Why if I may ask? For once Mr. Friedman actually followed the evidence (or lack of same).

I couldn't help but notice, Bade, that you made a typo slip with Flibbertigibbet's name.... :w00t:

Oh boy - sorry Flibber' blush.gif

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we hit the head on the Nail ! Flibber, Gibbler, Mc Dee Bibbler ! Freeman, Freman,Fryed man ! Friedman ! Any way you package it its all the Same-eerman !

Now can we eat ? Ive been hungry since I last ate! :wacko:

ANd Badeskov`s we need a lot more to drink in here !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we hit the head on the Nail ! Flibber, Gibbler, Mc Dee Bibbler ! Freeman, Freman,Fryed man ! Friedman ! Any way you package it its all the Same-eerman !

Now can we eat ? Ive been hungry since I last ate! :wacko:

ANd Badeskov`s we need a lot more to drink in here !

:lol: You're toooo funny D!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know Lazar is not the disinformation agent?

I love this talk about "desinformation agents" in UFOlogy..... Like someone would actually need to muddy the water further. :lol:

I think that these Hoaglands/Friedmans/Lazars/Corsos are just the same as the rest. Charlatans and credulous believers letting their imagination run amok.

A charlatan calling another charlatan "desinformation agent" is just another pathetic way of trying to trip him/her up and still saving UFOlogy face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

underlined...maybe he does, maybe he doesn't...

I have Friedman on my radar as a possible disinformation 'agent'....someone who has got himself deeply embedded in the UFO/ET scene

and could be mixing some truth in with some misdirection. I was alerted to this when he took the trouble to attack Bob Lazar.

Personally, I think the various high-profile UFO 'experts/speakers' on the circuit attack each other for reasons very similar to why different religions denigrate each other.

All are wanting to push their own version of the 'truth' at the expense of others', and there is only so much adulation and worship (and profit) to go 'round.

I seriously doubt any of the Friedman's or Lazar's of this world are "disinformation agents".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know Lazar is not the disinformation agent?

I think he would have got more support if he was? (from others spreading disinformation)

Can you reconcile the yearbook problem?

no...but if he was someone who had parts of his personel info/records erased..I'm sure this wouldn't be beyond the

intelligence services to arrange...somehow. That's all I can say about it as that whole thing about the yearbook

has been going on for many years, without it being resolved.

Here is Friedmans take on Lazar, which parts do you specifically indicate are disinformation and why?

THE BOB LAZAR FRAUD

apologies...but I don't have the time/inclination to do as you ask...no doubt others have tried...others with

more information etc etc at their disposal...so I doubt that I could make any headway with that... :)

although this part from the link is a bit encouraging..there must be records remaining for that, so Friedman had to put it in?

I should add that Bob is a bright and talented guy who operated a jet powered car, put on fireworks displays, and apparently helped physics professors working at the Los Alamos Meson accelerator facility.

psyche...

Here is yet another, it seems many are on Stantons disinformation bandwagon as you like to muse.

And this portal, can you fault any of the allegations?

Bob Lazar

Why is it that so many people have such convincing evidence, and Bob Lazar has nothing more than verbal evidence? And why don't Lazar's physics work? And why is he definitely lying about Ununpentium? We have a sample now we have made one, and Bob;s claims are not even close. So we know he is lying in this case, and we know his record contains many lies. How do you reconcile that? Do you feel certain little snippets might be true?

You are right that my feelings about Friedman are more of a muse than anything else. Having taken an interest

in the UFO/ET phenomenon for a few years (although I had a broadish interest before that)...I feel that there

is a lot of misdirection...and what better way to misdirect than to become a big name in the field and then

steer the public interest....like slamming into Lazar and Corso? It's just my reverse-psychology method of trying

to suss out what's going on... :)

but I must admit I'm a little tired/bored of it all at the moment...and I might be wrong about Friedman, but then again

I might be right...dunno

On the subject of Ununpentium...I did a little search before replying to you and came across this...

Obviously highly controversial and unprovable....like everything else in this subject....

http://members.fortunecity.com/groom51/b2grav.html

Retired Air Force Colonel Donald Ware has claimed that a three star general revealed that "the new Lockheed-Martin space shuttle (National Space Plane) and the B-2 (stealth bomber) both have electro-gravitic systems on board" and that "this explains why our 21 Northrop B-2s cost about a billion dollars each."

I feel that it is also worthy to note that the Selected Aquisition Report (with which United States lawmakers track the cost of major U.S. weapons projects) valued the B-2 program at $45 billion. With 21 aircraft built, that works out at $2.14 billion each, twice the cost as stated above.

After taking off conventionally, the B-2 has the option of switching to anti-gravity mode. It has been said that using it's anti-gravitic technology, the B-2 can fly around the world without refuelling.

The F-117 stealth fighter also has hybrid propulsion and lift technologies which may be electro-gravitic systems. Utilizing conventional thrust for public take-offs and landings, switching to anti-gravity mode would allow an extended cruising range, lightning fast manouverability, and for shrouding the airframe in invisibility (by having its local counter-gravity field bend light around the airframe).

How are anti-gravity systems controlled?

It has been known for sometime now by "Black World" technologists that the key to controlling gravity is Element 115 on the Periodic Table - Ununpentium. The most important attribute of this heavier, stable element is that the gravity A wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the perimeter of the atom. These heavier, stable elements literally have their own gravity A field around them, in addition to the gravity B field that is native to all matter. By controlling the gravity A wave, you can control gravity. By fuelling an aircraft reactor with ununpentium, you have an aircraft capable of utilising anti-gravity propulsion.

could the existence of a stable Element 115...be true but highly classified?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this talk about "desinformation agents" in UFOlogy..... Like someone would actually need to muddy the water further. :lol:

such innocence..... ^_^

Personally, I think the various high-profile UFO 'experts/speakers' on the circuit attack each other for reasons very similar to why different religions denigrate each other.

All are wanting to push their own version of the 'truth' at the expense of others', and there is only so much adulation and worship (and profit) to go 'round.

I seriously doubt any of the Friedman's or Lazar's of this world are "disinformation agents".

ok... thanks for your take on the matter.... :)

From what I've seen of him..Lazar doesn't seem to want to garner much adulation, worship or profit from his story.

But Friedman? It could just be in-fighting....but who really knows for sure. Not me...lol.

.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.