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 2
Still Waters

Pilot reports 'UFO' as he lands at UK airport

228 posts in this topic

either thats a flying carpet psyche or something far more perplexing than a ufo. again atleast a ufo is an explanation.

That's one big carpet :D

Atmospheric disturbances are often very beautiful consider the Aurora, a meteor shower, or an earth light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt the drunk part really. An A320 isn't the sort of a/c anyone under the influence could readily handle. Also, weather balloons generally aren't released anywhere near a glide path or whee the wind might take it into one.

Gidday Mate

Yeah, I agree, was just giving a bit of cheek.

3500' is a bit high for an ultralight but it's not out of range either. Usually they operate a bit closer to the ground but you know these Scots* ... ;-) The colors would be right however according to the BBC story one would be "radar significant" (which is a new phrase for me) as would any of a number of other possibilities. There was another witness on board - a dead-heading pilot, I think - so the A320's pilot did have a second set of eyes on it.

Could a large home made RC be an answer? It's been bugging me all along. With people making them up to this big, it seems to me it could be a possibility and might be too small for RADAR? Long way up is a problem I guess, but now we have the opportunity to show some gratuitous semi nudity.

superconnielg.jpg

That would be my take although precisely what I'm not sure. Again, referring back to the article, pretty much all the possibilities would have been spotted on radar. OTOH, radar can be fooled in any of a number of ways. I'm not talking about stealth but other means that are known and understood ... although things may have changed a lot since I was a scope dope.

I don't think we have enough info to speculate why the RADAR did not pick it up, unless someone does admit to being the culprit?

Good grief, doesn't UFO ==> ET? Come now, old buddy, we both know the woo woo crowd will make that association automatically. :alien:

* I'm part Scot so I'm kind of poking fun at myself as well. :-)

I'm a bit slow yesterday, hey wait...... dam TGIF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, we got goats, remember? :-)

LOL, we do need them to stare at :D

You just had to mention that word, didn't you. Da Big Z will pop in any moment now, you know, with tales of Dunn & Foerster and the rest.

Not me :innocent: sheep smart. She has yet to meet big Z, and fro what I have so far, it could be quite amusing.

Ahhh, but I'm single ... and, of course, quite interesting. ;-)

But are you regular?

Not sure that came out the way it was intended............................. :unsure:

Gotta agree with this. There are "interesting" people and there are interesting people. We both know both types.

LOL, yes we do

lionelhutzalien.jpg

*ahem* :-) Skyeagle is one too although he talks more about his experience with the hardware than flying. There were a few others but who they are slips my mind. I think MID (RIP) was one as well but I'm not 100% certain.

Yep, we are all in it together, but that's the best part about this place. Can't believe Sky and I are on the same side these days over at CT, he is quite the ET FTB.

Hmmm ... now would that be a healthy skepticism (as defined by Andromeda Starseed a while back) or an unhealthy one? :-)

I really reckon Kean has a hidden agenda, something about her and her work just always leaves me feeling unclean and uncomfortable, sort of like eating KFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. I didn't realise he was being sarcastic! :passifier:

He pretty much always is 99.9% of the time it is side splitting though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your information Stanton Friedman is a BSc. and a MSc. in physics. He worked for numerous companies for 14 years as a nuclear physicist. He has been researching the UFO subject for 39 years. In that time he has lectured at more than 600 colleges and 100 professional groups in 50 US states, 10 Canadian provinces and 18 other countries in addition to various nuclear consulting efforts. He has published more than 90 UFO papers and has appeared on hundreds of radio and TV programs including Larry King in 2007 and twice in 2008, and many documentaries. He has interviewed many reliable witnesses to the Roswell incident and has studied countless government documents as well. He has yet to be talked down by anybody about the subject of flying saucers. You, on the other hand, haven't done anything that remotely compares to what Mr. Friedman has done and achieved - have you?? :P

But I bet Big D can sleep at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Friedman myself. Im not sure as to what exactly he 'sells'. Ive yet to hear him distort claims or over exagerate upon his investigations.

I think this says it all:

In his book, TOP SECRET/MAJIC, Friedman discusses his early UFO lectures:

"As I gave more lectures, I found that I enjoyed speaking, and that people believed me no matter what I said. After all, I was a nuclear physicist for Westinghouse…"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For your information Stanton Friedman is a BSc. and a MSc. in physics.

So? What exactly does this mean?

He worked for numerous companies for 14 years as a nuclear physicist.

He worked for 6 companies over the course of 14 years. Frankly, that is not exactly impressive accolades for someone calling himself a scientist, especially as I have personally not been able to find a single, scientific article attributed to him (something scientists do, publish).

He has been researching the UFO subject for 39 years.

If his research skills are reflective of his working skills, I am not surprised he did not last longer at either place.

In that time he has lectured at more than 600 colleges and 100 professional groups in 50 US states, 10 Canadian provinces and 18 other countries in addition to various nuclear consulting efforts. He has published more than 90 UFO papers and has appeared on hundreds of radio and TV programs including Larry King in 2007 and twice in 2008, and many documentaries.

Again, so? So have many other snake oil sales men (*cough*hoagland*cough*).

He has interviewed many reliable witnesses to the Roswell incident

How do you define reliable? People that continuously change their stories over the years? Seems like Mr. Friedman relied on people that made their tale more and more "interesting", whereas the importance of the witnesses that did not change their stories were grossly understated. One would think it would be the other way around.

and has studied countless government documents as well.

And yet managed to grossly misrepresent them in his books, because if he had quoted honestly and not out of context, there was no way to reach the conclusions that he did. What do you think that means?

I suggest you take your version of "Crash at Corona" and compare his representation of the Twining/Schulgen memos with the actual originals. But you don't really wanna do that, do you? Takes the dream away, I guess.

He has yet to be talked down by anybody about the subject of flying saucers.

Haha, you are joking, right?

You, on the other hand, haven't done anything that remotely compares to what Mr. Friedman has done and achieved - have you??

:P

I would hope not, as that is certainly not a path I would personally take. I would prefer a path of integrity and honesty.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Go Badeskov`s I hear you on this ! We know from whince Stanton`s Bread was buttered ! IT will all come out in the Wash,THat is If he ever quits producing such B.S. One of the harder things to get out of ones trowsers !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a YouTube video entitled "Stanton Friedman is Out There". I highly recommend it to all the Friedman devotees to shed some light on their "mentor". Amongst the self-revealed revelations is that Friedman got into the UFO business by ordering a book on the topic to get a bulk discount on other books. Upon reading it, decided to give the lecture circuit a whirl, and found that he could make more than 3 times his normal working wage just giving one lecture on the topic. Again, watch the documentary (I believe it is on the UFO Studios Channel) to see for yourself. The amount of money involved in this business is deceiving. I would estimate that someone like Friedman makes a minimum of $300K per year and that is probably a conservative number given his lectures, book sales, and interview fees he earns. Is it millions? No. But it still pays better than Wal-mart and he gets to be a 'celebrity' of sorts, though I am not sure I would want to be a UFO heavy weight.

I believe that he and Bill Moore personally concocted the modern Roswell narrative in the early 1970's by parsing together various mythological fragments extant in the local area and finding some folks with questionable integrity from the time period when the event purportedly happened (Glen Dennis) to corroborate their tale. He and Mr. Moore are tied into the dubious MJ-12 documents which, given Friedman's lifelong investment in the Roswell tale, explains the papers true origins. Roswell is and will always be Friedman's bread and butter which is why he is nearly the lone believer (on the "professional" circuit that is) in this event.

There are a lot of people like Friedman in the UFO community, in fact, I find it inundated with former Army and other service members who are dissatisfied with their pensions or their life's accomplishments. If they happened to serve in these different government arenas during the mid 20th century (e.g. Mr. Corso), Viola! I was a former UFO crash recovery dude!! Never mind that I live in a hovel in rural New Mexico which refutes the age old axiom of knowledge, power, and money.

It is truly a story of follow the money in the instance of Mr. Friedman, and for that matter, Mr. Hoagland, and Mr. Dolan's cases as well (that is knowing proponents of fallacious stories). Real science is really interesting. For all of you hopelessly chasing flying saucers and spending many hours dissecting fake YouTube videos, give real science a go! NASA (who really landed a man on the moon and is not hiding the terrible truth about Ancient Aliens) could use your support.

Peace.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a YouTube video entitled "Stanton Friedman is Out There". I highly recommend it to all the Friedman devotees to shed some light on their "mentor".

I deleted the rest for brevity however that was an exceptional post. :nw: :nw: :nw::tsu: :tsu: :tsu:

There is only one major downside to it. The FTBs will see this as heresy and subject you to such horrors as drive-by shunnings and other Really Terrible Things. Friedman, Hoagland, Moore and others are milking the alien cow for all it's worth, and the believers eat it all up as factual fact. It's like others who follow Foerster & Dunn with their ancient astronaut nonsense. You're right, though. There's money to be had for those who have the scruples of ... well, actually I can't think of anyone or anything else with that low a scruple count (except maybe politicians) ... and can sleep with a seriously flawed conscious.

You're a welcome voice of reason and it's good to see you come on board with things like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For your information Stanton Friedman is a BSc. and a MSc. in physics.

[remaining "glowing god-worship" deleted]

For your information, none of that means squat. *snip* Like Hoagland and others, he has no credibility outside the woo woo clan in the FTB community.

As to Roswell, the definition of "reliable witness" goes well past questionable to just downright ridiculous. Bade already gave you one lace to look but there's an incredible amount of total garbage that can be discounted if you do a little reading.

]He has yet to be talked down by anybody about the subject of flying saucers.[/b]

That's just too funny for words.

]You, on the other hand, haven't done anything that remotely compares to what Mr. Friedman has done and achieved - have you?? :P[/b]

Nope, thankfully. And I hope I never sink that low.

Edited by Saru
Removed personal remark
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

what are the laws in the uk? i mean if it isn't something that flies with due regard and *cough* isn't natural, surely they should scramble it? have they given up? are aliens too good for us or are we finally settling with down to earth realities?

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkHt6br1Q4[/media]

eta... ignore the commentary around the 13 sec mark // 'craft'

Edited by mcrom901
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these things a part of some deception of a spiritual nature.

tumblr_mm3tu7VEEy1qbewfeo1_400.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Stanton Friedman has not hesitated to describe, in general terms, his work history on nuclear powered aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and compact nuclear power plants for space applications, although the details were often classified. The fact that he was working on cutting-edge projects obviously had something to do with the fact that he had to change jobs several times, when these projects were canceled, or about to be canceled. This was the case with his employment at General Electric, McDonnell Douglas, and Westinghouse.

His employment in some instances amounted to consulting work for specific projects, intended to be completed in a relatively short term. If his work had been unsatisfactory, it seems remarkable that he was able to continue to find employment in this field for fourteen years. Even after he took up writing and public speaking, he continued to do consulting work in nuclear physics.

Stanton Friedman was not an academic scientist. He worked in industrial settings, on classified projects, and those where proprietary information was involved. I would not find it too surprising if he did not publish papers on his work.

Edited by bison
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Stanton Friedman has not hesitated to describe, in general terms, his work history on nuclear powered aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and compact nuclear power plants for space applications, although the details were often classified. The fact that he was working on cutting-edge projects obviously had something to do with the fact that he had to change jobs several times, when these projects were canceled, or about to be canceled. This was the case with his employment at General Electric, McDonnell Douglas, and Westinghouse.

His employment in some instances amounted to consulting work for specific projects, intended to be completed in a relatively short term. If his work had been unsatisfactory, it seems remarkable that he was able to continue to find employment in this field for fourteen years. Even after he took up writing and public speaking, he continued to do consulting work in nuclear physics.

Stanton Friedman was not an academic scientist. He worked in industrial settings, on classified projects, and those where proprietary information was involved. I would not find it too surprising if he did not publish papers on his work.

I find Friedman a very interesting character.

You either believe he is on to something or you don't ,it's a personal choice .

The debunkers will debunk , the believers will believe and the open minded will fall somewhere in the middle ,the more things change the more they remain the same.

Edited by Caledonianwarrior
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what are the laws in the uk? i mean if it isn't something that flies with due regard and *cough* isn't natural, surely they should scramble it? have they given up? are aliens too good for us or are we finally settling with down to earth realities?

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkHt6br1Q4[/media]

eta... ignore the commentary around the 13 sec mark // 'craft'

Great post! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find Friedman a very interesting character.

Interesting is one way of putting it, I honestly wouldn't agree with that label to be honest.

You either believe he is on to something or you don't ,it's a personal choice .

Not really, it is a question of facts. I personally have a very hard time with people that needs to twist facts and misconstrue to argue a case. And undeniably that is what Mr. Friedman seems to require to argue his case. That in itself speaks volumes.

The debunkers will debunk , the believers will believe and the open minded will fall somewhere in the middle ,the more things change the more they remain the same.

Indeed.

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stanton Friedman has not hesitated to describe, in general terms, his work history on nuclear powered aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and compact nuclear power plants for space applications, although the details were often classified.

That part immediately hurts the eyes. First of all, I could tell you all kinds of stories on what I worked on without any of them being true. How would you know? Secondly, when you are working on classified projects you don't talk about what you did, even in very general terms. If you start talking about that you make yourself a target for other entities that would like to acquire said technologies.

The fact that he was working on cutting-edge projects obviously had something to do with the fact that he had to change jobs several times, when these projects were canceled, or about to be canceled.

Oh really? That is typically not how it works. If you are really good in a field you will typically stay with the entity you are with already. Especially back then research positions were typically of long time duration.

This was the case with his employment at General Electric, McDonnell Douglas, and Westinghouse.

And you know this how?

His employment in some instances amounted to consulting work for specific projects, intended to be completed in a relatively short term. If his work had been unsatisfactory, it seems remarkable that he was able to continue to find employment in this field for fourteen years.

Not really. Working as a consultant is vastly different in that respect. But since we have no idea of the veracity of his claims, the point is moot.

Even after he took up writing and public speaking, he continued to do consulting work in nuclear physics.

Doing RADON detectors and the like, you mean?

Stanton Friedman was not an academic scientist. He worked in industrial settings, on classified projects, and those where proprietary information was involved. I would not find it too surprising if he did not publish papers on his work.

When you call yourself a scientist, you publish. That is part of being a scientist, you disseminate your results for peer review. If you on the other hand work in a closed environment you work towards a specific goal to make something and you do not utilize peer review. Then you are not a scientist. That is why scientists working in classified projects also publish. They publish what they can, which is typically related areas omitting specifics to what they are doing as classified work.

For instance, that ties in what was stated above. If you were working in the field of nuclear propulsion on a classified project, you would not publish any specifics of that. You could publish something in that field, say how a specific particle behaves in a given electrical field, yet you would not have to make any ties to nuclear propulsion or the like.

Frankly, the whole thing reeks like...well...

Cheers,

Badeskov

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a YouTube video entitled "Stanton Friedman is Out There". I highly recommend it to all the Friedman devotees to shed some light on their "mentor". Amongst the self-revealed revelations is that Friedman got into the UFO business by ordering a book on the topic to get a bulk discount on other books. Upon reading it, decided to give the lecture circuit a whirl, and found that he could make more than 3 times his normal working wage just giving one lecture on the topic. Again, watch the documentary (I believe it is on the UFO Studios Channel) to see for yourself. The amount of money involved in this business is deceiving. I would estimate that someone like Friedman makes a minimum of $300K per year and that is probably a conservative number given his lectures, book sales, and interview fees he earns. Is it millions? No. But it still pays better than Wal-mart and he gets to be a 'celebrity' of sorts, though I am not sure I would want to be a UFO heavy weight.

Precisely.

I believe that he and Bill Moore personally concocted the modern Roswell narrative in the early 1970's by parsing together various mythological fragments extant in the local area and finding some folks with questionable integrity from the time period when the event purportedly happened (Glen Dennis) to corroborate their tale. He and Mr. Moore are tied into the dubious MJ-12 documents which, given Friedman's lifelong investment in the Roswell tale, explains the papers true origins. Roswell is and will always be Friedman's bread and butter which is why he is nearly the lone believer (on the "professional" circuit that is) in this event.

That Mr. Friedman and Mr. Moore concocted the modern Roswell tale is a known fact. There is little to argue in that respect.

There are a lot of people like Friedman in the UFO community, in fact, I find it inundated with former Army and other service members who are dissatisfied with their pensions or their life's accomplishments. If they happened to serve in these different government arenas during the mid 20th century (e.g. Mr. Corso), Viola! I was a former UFO crash recovery dude!! Never mind that I live in a hovel in rural New Mexico which refutes the age old axiom of knowledge, power, and money.

Indeed.

It is truly a story of follow the money in the instance of Mr. Friedman, and for that matter, Mr. Hoagland, and Mr. Dolan's cases as well (that is knowing proponents of fallacious stories).

The thing about this is that it is blatantly obvious and so it the motive - now. I say now because I am still undecided as to whether Mr. Friedman truly believed he had stumbled onto something incredible to begin with and he got caught up in it and could not leave as he put his reputation on the stake, or if he spotted a cash cow to begin with.

Real science is really interesting.

Real science is really interesting indeed. I wish more people would enjoy it.

For all of you hopelessly chasing flying saucers and spending many hours dissecting fake YouTube videos, give real science a go! NASA (who really landed a man on the moon and is not hiding the terrible truth about Ancient Aliens) could use your support.

They indeed could, but on the other hand I find a lot of support around for that.

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That part immediately hurts the eyes. First of all, I could tell you all kinds of stories on what I worked on without any of them being true. How would you know? Secondly, when you are working on classified projects you don't talk about what you did, even in very general terms. If you start talking about that you make yourself a target for other entities that would like to acquire said technologies.

Oh really? That is typically not how it works. If you are really good in a field you will typically stay with the entity you are with already. Especially back then research positions were typically of long time duration.

And you know this how?

Not really. Working as a consultant is vastly different in that respect. But since we have no idea of the veracity of his claims, the point is moot.

Doing RADON detectors and the like, you mean?

When you call yourself a scientist, you publish. That is part of being a scientist, you disseminate your results for peer review. If you on the other hand work in a closed environment you work towards a specific goal to make something and you do not utilize peer review. Then you are not a scientist. That is why scientists working in classified projects also publish. They publish what they can, which is typically related areas omitting specifics to what they are doing as classified work.

For instance, that ties in what was stated above. If you were working in the field of nuclear propulsion on a classified project, you would not publish any specifics of that. You could publish something in that field, say how a specific particle behaves in a given electrical field, yet you would not have to make any ties to nuclear propulsion or the like.

Frankly, the whole thing reeks like...well...

Cheers,

Badeskov

I disagreed with this pov. So only people that published are scientist, what do we call people with PhD that don't publish(beside their dissertation)? People that publish are usually researchers that work for university. A lot of these people love the recognition. Obviously, they also want to advance in their career. But do not discount the recognition part. That's why they always want to be the first to publish their finding. Private sector scientists rarely publish their research. Do you think a chemist working for a drug company, where patent for a new drug is the end all and be all, would announce to the world on their progress? Do you think scientist working for a military would publish what they're working on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagreed with this pov.

I appreciate that.

So only people that published are scientist,

Yes.

what do we call people with PhD that don't publish(beside their dissertation)?

To get to your dissertation you have to publish, it is part of a Ph.D. But Mr. Friedman is not a Ph.D., so I am not sure why this is relevant.

People that publish are usually researchers that work for university.

No, a lot of researchers working for private entities publish.

A lot of these people love the recognition.

Some do, some don't. Publishing is just part of the business. And believe it or not, it is actually incredibly helpful.

Obviously, they also want to advance in their career.

Everybody does.

But do not discount the recognition part.

You don't know many scientists, do you?

That's why they always want to be the first to publish their finding.

Because it secures funding. Very simple really.

Private sector scientists rarely publish their research.

I beg to differ. A lot actually do.

Do you think a chemist working for a drug company, where patent for a new drug is the end all and be all, would announce to the world on their progress? Do you think scientist working for a military would publish what they're working on?

Of course they do. As per my previous example they don't tie it into what they are doing, they publish a fragment.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on the Cool art work on the paper,book,document . THe more Flying Saucers,and Little Green men at the pilots seat the more money one can make after its published !

LoL ! :alien::innocent::whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that.

To get to your dissertation you have to publish, it is part of a Ph.D. But Mr. Friedman is not a Ph.D., so I am not sure why this is relevant.

No, he's not. If you says he's not a scientist, I am not going to disagree with that. He's a smart man, though. I am sure he can be if he put his mind to it.

No, a lot of researchers working for private entities publish.

Percentage? I guess it would be 100%, right? Since people that don't publish can't be called "scientist".

Some do, some don't. Publishing is just part of the business. And believe it or not, it is actually incredibly helpful.

I did said "a lot" which does not meant all.

Everybody does.

Probably, but I can't be sure about everybody

You don't know many scientists, do you?

Not sure if this is sarcasm. Hard to read sometime. you don't think scientists can be quite egotistical? They're all in it for the greater good, I guess.

Because it secures funding. Very simple really.

Yes, competition is stiff. That's why in the rush to be the "first" some even lie, cheat and steal.

"In the latest study, scientists find that drinking wine can lowered your chance of heart disease (what they forgot to tell you is that you have to drink a barrel a day)."

Again, tell me why private sector scientists would want to secure funding from third party?

I beg to differ. A lot actually do.

Some reasons they do. secure funding? Helping a rival company or gov't with their finding? making good money working for a company, but just wanted some recognition?

Of course they do. As per my previous example they don't tie it into what they are doing, they publish a fragment.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Publish a fragment? Wouldn't they get ridiculed when they don't provide a clear picture? You know, kind of like those idiots that only provide a grainy pic/video of UFOs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting is one way of putting it, I honestly wouldn't agree with that label to be honest.

Not really, it is a question of facts. I personally have a very hard time with people that needs to twist facts and misconstrue to argue a case. And undeniably that is what Mr. Friedman seems to require to argue his case. That in itself speaks volumes.

Indeed.

Cheers,

Badeskov

I rest my case.

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.