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

Posted (edited)

So? What exactly does this mean?

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).

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

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

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 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.

Haha, you are joking, right?

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

The following is an extract from, 'Is Stanton Friedman For Real?' By Alfred Lehmberg, and the entire article can be read here: http://rense.com/general63/stanton.htm

Note: The first paragraph refers to the flying saucer/alien debunkers. I think you should take some time out from posting negativism onto this forum and to read the entire article which will only take up a few minutes of your time.

"In comparison with Stanton Friedman, though, they fall way short -- their meager shell won't even clear the gun tube. This is ~despite~ the huge amounts of powder provided by the hijacked mainstream to get that round down range.

"This is further illustrated by the ease with which Friedman will dispatch the occasional brave (if haplessly clueless) soul who gathers up the sack required to join the long list of "noisy negativists" crushed, decisively, in debate with him. There are numerous examples of same on Kimball's films. Dispute Stanton Friedman on the issues, bunky, and scamper from a righteous fray with your tail tucked between your legs making whipped-puppy-Ned-Beatty noises... I digress.

"Flatly, the arguments of Friedman's opposition make assumptions based on contrived ignorance, intellectual infidelity, obstinate illogic, wishful thinking, denied fear, and rank complacency. They are arguments larded with confident sounding if baseless assertions based on varying tinctures of the preceding six performance indicators, and they only serve to provide for what, in the final analysis, can only be sack-less cowardice -- intellectual and otherwise. Such is, and has been, the ongoing prosecution of the arguments from the opposition.

"Friedman's pompously ignorant and conflicted detractors ascribes humanistic psychological motives to aliens, facilitating a fallacious relegation of them to dismissible myth. It waxes knowledgably on the physical impossibilities of alien propulsion systems then references their superiority later to preclude us from a possibility of accidentally bringing one of them down... then it blithely leaps back to foregone conclusions on the unlikelihood of alien technologies with which to start. Astonishing! They seem unaware of this strange dichotomy, themselves..."

Edited by MrSerendipity

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

I put a line through Stanton Friedman a long time ago for the following two reasons:

1) His favourite phrase is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Absolute twaddle, try that one on in a court of law.

2)The "Majestic 12". Documents without provenance peddled as truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe it was a weather baloon, or army air craft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, my freakin' gawd! Look at all the FTBs come out of the woodwork to defend Their Hero, Friedman. And, of course, they quote another FTB for reinforcement. Never once do they do any real research into his woo woo claims but rather gobble up his BS like it were manna from heaven. Those debunking his claims have been "swept aside"? Only by the FTBs, not by anyone who has actually dug into the claims and discovered the reality behind them.

Moving from job to job as he did is not the sign of a top researcher/scientist but rather of one who's not good enough to keep after a project's complete. That's how engineers who're brought in to fill ranks during a project then are let go because they're not needed anymore are treated. These are the scut workers, the drones needed to handle the tasks the really good people are too busy to handle. There's a whole army of such engineers, draftsmen and other transient workers out there who move from job to job to assist in completing projects & contracts, often toward the end when things get a bit hectic. Do they get to work on Really Cool Projects? Of course but not at a level that really counts. But then, a janitor who worked in the same facilities can say with some legitimacy that he worked on those same super duper gee whiz projects ... the first two of which (nuke-powered aircraft & nuke rockets) were canceled because they weren't practical and the third being no real secret at all. (What do you think is powering the Voyagers?)

Roswell's an excellent example. Friedman & someone else (Moore?) basically created that story out of whole cloth in 1980 or so, over 30 years after is was supposed to have happened. No one had heard of Roswell before then even though other sightings around the same time were reported. It was a non-event. Again, the FTBs can be bothered with facts, Their Hero claims it happened as he said it did and that's good enough for them. Never mind that there is absolutely no internal consistency to the story or that Friedman's "facts" have been proven false time after time or that his "credible witnesses" can't keep their stories straight. Those minor details can be brushed aside like anything else that contradicts Their Hero's version. Reality fades as a minor irritation in comparison to Friedman's Words from On High.

Sorry, but Friedman is in the same category as Hoagland & Lazar, a charlatan out to fleece the gullible.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2)The "Majestic 12". Documents without provenance peddled as truth.

Drat, I forgot about that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is an extract from, 'Is Stanton Friedman For Real?' By Alfred Lehmberg, and the entire article can be read here: http://rense.com/general63/stanton.htm

Note: The first paragraph refers to the flying saucer/alien debunkers. I think you should take some time out from posting negativism onto this forum and to read the entire article which will only take up a few minutes of your time.

<snip utter nonsense>

What a load of male bovine manure. Take your "Crash at Corona" and compare his representation of the Twining/Schulgen memos and compare them to the originals. And that is only the beginning.

But you are not going to do that, are you? You don't even own a copy of said toilet literature, do you? You just follow the ET proponents online and without critique play to their tune. Frankly, you seriously need to up your critical thinking skills a bit and look at what he is actually writing - trust me, it is not pretty when you look at it behind the facade.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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

Probably, but I can't be sure about everybody

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.

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?

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?

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.

No doubt Mr. Friedman is smart, I just wish he would use his brain in an honest way and not prey on people with his tale spinning.

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kludge,

you say it was a " non-event", but do you know this for sure? dont make me ask for proof now,... ; )

i tend to think it was a military project crash fail and the ufo story being a "we have alien technology" facade to intimidate the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kludge,

Old buddy, just wanted to insert a small comment on two points in your post:

...

Moving from job to job as he did is not the sign of a top researcher/scientist but rather of one who's not good enough to keep after a project's complete. That's how engineers who're brought in to fill ranks during a project then are let go because they're not needed anymore are treated. These are the scut workers, the drones needed to handle the tasks the really good people are too busy to handle. There's a whole army of such engineers, draftsmen and other transient workers out there who move from job to job to assist in completing projects & contracts, often toward the end when things get a bit hectic. Do they get to work on Really Cool Projects? Of course but not at a level that really counts. But then, a janitor who worked in the same facilities can say with some legitimacy that he worked on those same super duper gee whiz projects ... the first two of which (nuke-powered aircraft & nuke rockets) were canceled because they weren't practical and the third being no real secret at all. (What do you think is powering the Voyagers?)

Precisely, and especially in the 1950s a research/development position for someone good was a lifetime position. Somebody shuttling between 6 jobs in 14 years is rather disturbing.

<snip>

Sorry, but Friedman is in the same category as Hoagland & Lazar, a charlatan out to fleece the gullible.

Frankly, I would actually put him in a class worse. He is a charlatan, but he is one clever charlatan and neither Hoagland nor Lazar is as clever as him in my honest opinion. Sadly, he uses his cleverness in a dishonest way.

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its called the All mighty $$$$$$$$ Badeskov`s ! THis is why Friedman is still on the sorta best or kinda sorta best seller list in all the Roswell Book stores !

As for the Charlatans in the UFO field there too many to even name,but can be caught sometimes out in the Fields at night walking in circles !,and spirials,and squiggley directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kludge,

Whoa, the Sheep Person called my name in her ever so lovely voice. :-)

you say it was a " non-event", but do you know this for sure? dont make me ask for proof now,... ; )

i tend to think it was a military project crash fail and the ufo story being a "we have alien technology" facade to intimidate the world.

It was a military fail - a balloon, to be exact, one of several projects used to detect soviet nuke tests. The initial news story was that they did, in fact, have a crashed flying saucer but it was changed to "weather balloon" the next day. It wasn't until 1994(?) that the AF admitted what it really was but by that time the UFO crowd had latched onto it starting circa 1980 and created all kinds of (conflicting) stories & conspiracy theories. Until then, though, it was a non-event in the UFO world.

BTW, Friedman is the sort of person who'd try to sell a bridge with which you're no doubt familiar. :-)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kludge,

Old buddy, just wanted to insert a small comment on two points in your post:

Not a worry. We tend to agree on a lot of things anyway. :-)

Precisely, and especially in the 1950s a research/development position for someone good was a lifetime position. Somebody shuttling between 6 jobs in 14 years is rather disturbing.

Given some folks make their livings at being transient engineers etc, I don't see it as a problem. (I did so as a draftsman for a while. It was income and I needed that so didn't mind the transient nature of the work.) Doing so and claiming that it shows how great he was I find not only disturbing but deceitful. All it shows is that he was mediocre at best.

<snip>

Ummm ... watch where you point those things! :P

Frankly, I would actually put him in a class worse. He is a charlatan, but he is one clever charlatan and neither Hoagland nor Lazar is as clever as him in my honest opinion. Sadly, he uses his cleverness in a dishonest way.

As Bison(?) said before, follow the money. His income increased rather a lot going on the UFO circuit and he admitted in his book that he could say anything and people would believe him. But, you're right. Hoagland & Lazar don't measure up - er, down - to his lack of conscious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its called the All mighty $$$$$$$$ Badeskov`s ! THis is why Friedman is still on the sorta best or kinda sorta best seller list in all the Roswell Book stores !

As for the Charlatans in the UFO field there too many to even name,but can be caught sometimes out in the Fields at night walking in circles !,and spirials,and squiggley directions.

In that case Hawass is the best seller in Egyptocrapology.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and thanks for replying kludge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's just a stupid pilot. He didn't see crap. As for the rest of the crew, mass hallucination covers that.

lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and thanks for replying kludge.

My pleasure. It was a good question, I should add. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case Hawass is the best seller in Egyptocrapology.

Its Hittin the top of the List I bet ? Somewhere ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The following is an extract from, 'Is Stanton Friedman For Real?' By Alfred Lehmberg, and the entire article can be read here: http://rense.com/general63/stanton.htm

Note: The first paragraph refers to the flying saucer/alien debunkers. I think you should take some time out from posting negativism onto this forum and to read the entire article which will only take up a few minutes of your time.

"In comparison with Stanton Friedman, though, they fall way short -- their meager shell won't even clear the gun tube. This is ~despite~ the huge amounts of powder provided by the hijacked mainstream to get that round down range.

"This is further illustrated by the ease with which Friedman will dispatch the occasional brave (if haplessly clueless) soul who gathers up the sack required to join the long list of "noisy negativists" crushed, decisively, in debate with him. There are numerous examples of same on Kimball's films. Dispute Stanton Friedman on the issues, bunky, and scamper from a righteous fray with your tail tucked between your legs making whipped-puppy-Ned-Beatty noises... I digress.

"Flatly, the arguments of Friedman's opposition make assumptions based on contrived ignorance, intellectual infidelity, obstinate illogic, wishful thinking, denied fear, and rank complacency. They are arguments larded with confident sounding if baseless assertions based on varying tinctures of the preceding six performance indicators, and they only serve to provide for what, in the final analysis, can only be sack-less cowardice -- intellectual and otherwise. Such is, and has been, the ongoing prosecution of the arguments from the opposition.

"Friedman's pompously ignorant and conflicted detractors ascribes humanistic psychological motives to aliens, facilitating a fallacious relegation of them to dismissible myth. It waxes knowledgably on the physical impossibilities of alien propulsion systems then references their superiority later to preclude us from a possibility of accidentally bringing one of them down... then it blithely leaps back to foregone conclusions on the unlikelihood of alien technologies with which to start. Astonishing! They seem unaware of this strange dichotomy, themselves..."

LOL, Good advice is it? You know who wrote that by fan tosh? Alfred Lehmberg. He failed public school teaching. Must be quite the researcher huh? LOL. Gosh, all you have done here is validate the skeptics!

Here is another one of Stanton's nuggets of wisdom for you:

“Absence of Evidence is Evidence for Absence.”

LINK

Worst%252Btroll%252BI%252Bve%252Bseen%252Bin%252Ba%252Bwhile%252B_75b433786b334ae67bc15fc0d2a60009.gif

Edited by psyche101
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case Hawass is the best seller in Egyptocrapology.

I am not so sure, he has toys like this

Robot-no-shaft-1.jpg

Which I reckon provides the data that trumps the people who use their intuition to come to the conclusions that pyramids are giant alien power plants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tin Foil hats are the thing tonight ! A bit of a yank that dosnt see that Even Great Pilots can see things that are wacky !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tin Foil hats are the thing tonight ! A bit of a yank that dosnt see that Even Great Pilots can see things that are wacky !

This one was a fizzer though mate, the pilot himself reckons it was probably a glider.

Wait till I get on a plane later this year. Pilots are going to see something whacky then.

3000-austin-powers.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure, he has toys like this

Robot-no-shaft-1.jpg

Which I reckon provides the data that trumps the people who use their intuition to come to the conclusions that pyramids are giant alien power plants.

No, no, no! It's clear from the shape linguistics of that device that its intent is to restart the crystalline powerplant hence the green cabling. (Green = "go".) Further, the treads top and bottom say that the powerplant also has a tractor beam associated with it while the chain thingie in back obviously points to the fact that all the pyramids are linked together. There's more but I'm sure you can see it without my interpretation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no! It's clear from the shape linguistics of that device that its intent is to restart the crystalline powerplant hence the green cabling. (Green = "go".) Further, the treads top and bottom say that the powerplant also has a tractor beam associated with it while the chain thingie in back obviously points to the fact that all the pyramids are linked together. There's more but I'm sure you can see it without my interpretation.

It's all in the logistics. Vitrification gives everything away here.

:D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is an extract from, 'Is Stanton Friedman For Real?' By Alfred Lehmberg, and the entire article can be read here: http://rense.com/general63/stanton.htm

"In comparison with Stanton Friedman, though, they fall way short -- their meager shell won't even clear the gun tube. This is ~despite~ the huge amounts of powder provided by the hijacked mainstream to get that round down range.

"This is further illustrated by the ease with which Friedman will dispatch the occasional brave (if haplessly clueless) soul who gathers up the sack required to join the long list of "noisy negativists" crushed, decisively, in debate with him. There are numerous examples of same on Kimball's films. Dispute Stanton Friedman on the issues, bunky, and scamper from a righteous fray with your tail tucked between your legs making whipped-puppy-Ned-Beatty noises... I digress.

"Flatly, the arguments of Friedman's opposition make assumptions based on contrived ignorance, intellectual infidelity, obstinate illogic, wishful thinking, denied fear, and rank complacency. They are arguments larded with confident sounding if baseless assertions based on varying tinctures of the preceding six performance indicators, and they only serve to provide for what, in the final analysis, can only be sack-less cowardice -- intellectual and otherwise. Such is, and has been, the ongoing prosecution of the arguments from the opposition.

"Friedman's pompously ignorant and conflicted detractors ascribes humanistic psychological motives to aliens, facilitating a fallacious relegation of them to dismissible myth. It waxes knowledgably on the physical impossibilities of alien propulsion systems then references their superiority later to preclude us from a possibility of accidentally bringing one of them down... then it blithely leaps back to foregone conclusions on the unlikelihood of alien technologies with which to start. Astonishing! They seem unaware of this strange dichotomy, themselves..."

great Scott, One Direction fans are more rational and less fawning than that. I bet Mr. Lemburg has posters of the great man all over his walls, and I bet he's also painted a likeness of his face on his bathroom mirror, so that when he looks at it, he can pretend that he is the Great man.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great Scott, One Direction fans are more rational and less fawning than that. I bet Mr. Lemburg has posters of the great man all over his walls, and I bet he's also painted a likeness of his face on his bathroom mirror, so that when he looks at it, he can pretend that he is the Great man.

It does reek of hero worship doesn't it?

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.