Stanton Friedman, Bob Lazar, David Icke the Best and the worst

I'm voting for Stanton Friedman.

I think the Reptilian theory is preposterous, and Icke is from a long line of imaginative hucksters who makes a living off the gullible. Indigo or whoever, don't bother responding, as I don't intend to revisit this thread.

I would like to suggest an analogy, because it fits the topic perfectly. When you are assembling a puzzle, you do not debate whether a particular piece fits or not, you try and find out. The same is with UFO proponents like David Icke, Phill Schneider, Billy Meier, Bob Lazar, Stanton Friedman. They are all pieces of a puzzle, that we have to piece together and form a big picture. All we have to do is try each and find out if they fit. In fact, in the case of the aforementioned, they all fit.

What would be the bigger picture possibly be? Well, what do they all have in common?

1. Shadow government
2. Aliens and UFO's
3. Cover-up
4. NWO

So we can ascertain that the bigger picture definitely has elements of shadow government, aliens and UFOs, cover ups and NWO. So we have formed a bigger picture based on what they share, irrespective of their differing claims on each individually, and come one step closer to the truth.

This is why I, and my good friend, cade, are constantly underlining that we should not be creating divisions between them, because that defeats the very purpose of why we are really discussing them, to find the truth about what is happening in our world viz-a-viz aliens and UFO's.

An old saying is appropriate here: Do not lose sight of the forest for the trees. Which means this:

It really does not matter if the aliens are Greys, Pleadians, Reptillians or the ancient gods, all we need to know is that there are aliens.

It really does not matter if the shadow government is run by aliens or by humans, all we need to know is that there is a shadow government.

It really does not matter if the cover-up is to oppress us or defend us, all we need to know that there is a cover up.

It really does not matter if black world technology is anti gravity, wormholes, star gates or time travel, all we need to know is that there is black world technology.

It does not matter if the NWO is run by men, reptillians or by interdimensional or extradimensional beings, all we need to know is that there is an NWO.

We will make great strides if we accept the above.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]

While knowing the above and recognizing it IS important... Knowing WHO and WHY is likewise important. We need to know WHAT we are up against, and also what their motivations are....as well as the desired end result.....

Originally posted by Gazrok
While knowing the above and recognizing it IS important... Knowing WHO and WHY is likewise important. We need to know WHAT we are up against, and also what their motivations are....as well as the desired end result.....

I couldn't agree more.

There is a HUGE difference between our leaders hiding aliens or alien tech for power or profit and being raised for lizard food. One is tolerable and to be expected, all leaders have there secrets. The other is intolerable and a very good reason for a armed rebellion against the Lizards. One is merely a reason to dig a little deeper and pressure them a bit more the other is a call to genocide against a predatory race.

It does make a difference which one is the truth. Unless of course you dont mind your children used as sex slaves and food to an alien race. The truth does matter and it is not a matter of opinion. It is what it is and no amount of make believe will change it. Instead of chasing around in circles trying to cash in on the latest fad we need to use the tools at hand to try to sort the BS from the truth. Unless of course you are afraid for your ideas to be tested and found wanting then it is better to not ask to many questions.



[edit on 28-11-2004 by Amuk]

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by Cade
Perhaps you read my earlier post on this, but how can different people, with different angles, who all say that UFO's are here and real, be dividing us?

The question never was which one and only one was real but which do you lend the most credibility to. 99% of what some think of as proof is nothing even close. A tale told by someone or a smudgy picture is not proof,but ALL the stories don't have to be true. JUST ONE, and that changes the world. Just as, mathematically speaking it would be almost impossible for there to be no other life in the universe, with so many stories on UFOs surly ALL are not false.

But just like by judging a planets mass, atmosphere, gravity, temperature we can narrow the search by quite a bit, we can test the stories to see which can be proved and which can be discounted.

That was the intent of this thread to find out which ones yall believed in and which ones you dont and which ones fall somewhere in the middle

Well I understand this, thank you. I was not argueing the opposite, but simply responding to the comment about the UFO "spoke persons" dividing us.

So I can see you write the same that I do about only one story has to be true. This is proof, but can easily be argued against as with any other subject.


We are not alone, it's time for realization, we're not in a courtroom, we don't need exibit A or B to convince a jury. We're our own jury, forget the masses, just work on the realization, on an individual basis, they will show themselves when they can see that we are ready...

It's the biggest discovery of recent human history, and we're right in the middle of it! These are important times that we live in, we're very very lucky, so all of you don't get stuck looking for footprints in the dirt and miss that they are hovering right above you...they will show themselves.


Sincerly

Cade

Excellent point Indigo, and well spoken.

There is confusion here now. Some say the WHO and the WHY matter and they are right. Others say that it doesn't matter because they are all in agreement and none is desputing aliens and they are also right, how can this be? Because it's really the same thing!

In order to find out the who and the why we must first assert what we do know for certain, hence comparing what they all agree on. So in that respect it the details doesn't matter, we now know that they are here and real.

Next, we go into the details, but perhaps the clear answers will have to wait untill they show themselves. Ofcause this is not a reason not to investigate it further, but a reminder that the basis is now in place: WE ARE NOT ALONE, THEY ARE HERE!

Maybe it's like going to Mars, we know it's there, but many questions had to wait for an answer untill WE were THERE.

I hope this makes as much sense to you as it does to me, I can see it, but it's hard to explain in words.


Sincerly

Cade

Jumping in here and forgive me I'm no expert on UFOlogy but just wanted to say a talk radio station here in the UK was advertising an appearence by David Icke and I tuned in with the express intention of having a laugh at this insane lunatic frothing at the mouth. Stone me but the bloke was articulate, intelligent and amusing, not a hint of a froth anywhere, he spoke about different dimensions, holographic theory, different states of consciousness/being and some fringe science ideas that have gained some currency and gave two hours of bloody good quality radio. Take away the lizard issue and this man could have been one of the best spokesmen for the paranormal going. I'm seriously thinking about reading some of his books now.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by ubermunche]

Originally posted by Amuk
Icke I think is just a con artist that has found his niche.

What dopes everybody else think? Did I leave your favorite or worst out?

[edit on 26-11-2004 by Amuk]

I agree on icke - but as another guy here has said - when he starts about the lizards - thats when any credibility falls flat on its face. Ive read ickes biggest secret - or rather bits of it - 500 odd pages is a large read , infact more a referrence book (it really is a thorough investigation into nwo`s alien influences etc etc - a very good book, you can see hes taken alot of time and trouble collating this evidence?? ).

One thing i have noticed - people require evidence - lazar has plenty to speak - but no evidence!

friedman - well again - he hasnt seen a ufo - hasnt seen aliens - hes just another downtoearth investigator like icke (only difference here is both are the same , but preach different fasets).

Now - icke has made alot of money out of stuff that hasnt got much evidence - the monoliths in citys etc are interesting - i guess im more an icke beleiver (i must stress - only some of what he says i ponder longer then 5 seconds).

friedman - well hes just a known mouth peice that gets more airtime then say icke/lazar. - he only rehashes what we already know. - I offer the recent interview here for that evidence - roswell -mj12 - bluebook etc - yes - we alrdy know of this mr friedman - sommit better nexttime please.

think thats all sir....

My opinion of Lazar.. I think he tells a fascinating story, but there is so much evidence BOTH for and against, you can't help but wonder if misinformation is at work. Remember there was interaction with the media (George Knapp) during that whole fiasco. If anything perhaps a controlled release of misinformation? Lazar released flight times to Knapp to get the video, therefore he violated his national security oath (if these filmed objects were US x-craft).

Now - icke has made alot of money out of stuff that hasnt got much evidence - the monoliths in citys etc are interesting - i guess im more an icke beleiver (i must stress - only some of what he says i ponder longer then 5 seconds).

Alot of Icke's historical references & geneological references are right on, if you care to do the research yourself (each of his chapters have a list of references). I don't think there's a problem with making money off of one's own intellectual property (or abilities). The reptilian issue tends to distract folks away from examining the bulk of his theory, which can be independently applied as an analytical system. Try to predict what Icke will say about a world event, see if it turns up in his next book.

friedman - well hes just a known mouth peice that gets more airtime then say icke/lazar. - he only rehashes what we already know. - I offer the recent interview here for that evidence - roswell -mj12 - bluebook etc - yes - we alrdy know of this mr friedman - sommit better nexttime please.

Couldn't agree more. Watching Friedman now is like watching him 10+ years ago. Like Icke, Friedman has made a career out of the UFO community. So, he goes into all the FOIA documents & asserts a firm opinion. Nuclear physics degree gives him face validity to the general public, but he does not seem to apply that knowledge to his "research". He's been around so long, so the name brings more than the message. He seriously needs to update his research and databases.

MK

Originally posted by ubermunche
Jumping in here and forgive me I'm no expert on UFOlogy but just wanted to say a talk radio station here in the UK was advertising an appearence by David Icke and I tuned in with the express intention of having a laugh at this insane lunatic frothing at the mouth. Stone me but the bloke was articulate, intelligent and amusing, not a hint of a froth anywhere, he spoke about different dimensions, holographic theory, different states of consciousness/being and some fringe science ideas that have gained some currency and gave two hours of bloody good quality radio. Take away the lizard issue and this man could have been one of the best spokesmen for the paranormal going. I'm seriously thinking about reading some of his books now.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by ubermunche]

I can totally indentify with what you are saying. First time I ran across David was in a link here on ATS that I stumbled across. The 3 links to the different radio interviews with him are below.

Just like you I heard him talk, I didn't know anything about him, and he blew my mind... some here would argue that it's still "blown"....

For those who like me have a hard time reading books, or are not willing to shell out the bucks for his books take a trip to peyota land with David Icke. If you don't like him you'll still be amazed at his intelligence and articulate way of breaking the chains of your mind and shoothing it into orbit...

www.contactradio.info...
www.newsforthesoul.com...
radioalchymy.com...

This buy is like no other, and I would seriously like to meet him. He's the only person I have ever heard talk where I just totally understand his way of thinking!


Sincerly

Cade

Originally posted by Gazrok
While knowing the above and recognizing it IS important... Knowing WHO and WHY is likewise important. We need to know WHAT we are up against, and also what their motivations are....as well as the desired end result.....

Important, but secondary. We have no means to test the differing claims, without tangible evidence, and that is why even after several decades, we have not made any headway. So what do we do? Let me summarize it for you:

We have established from them, there IS a shadow government that IS dealing with Aliens and DOES have advanced techology. That HAS been been covering it up for decades and is planning a NWO for us.

This means: there is an illegal global governing structure that we have not elected, and do not know, and that is dealing with more advanced races that have the technological abilities to destroy us, without any safety mechanisms or legal framework in place. That are potentially involved in exo-political deals and treaties that involve us, without us even knowing. That have technology so advanced that it can solve our energy crisis, eradicate poverty, minimize wars and render obsolete much of our scientific knowledge, that we are taught in schools and colleges. They are planning an new world order for us, without our real consent, that is likely facist.

So where do our priorities lie, discussing the WHO and WHY, or exposing them based on what we know, which will lead to the WHO and WHY. automatically. Or do you really prefer debating another 50 years, on which investigator or claimant is right?

We have ample evidence to push for disclosure. So why aren't we doing it? I sure hope it is not because you enjoy talking about it rather than doing something concrete and physical about it, or it's about the intellectual masturbation over criticizing UFO researchers and claimants, because in some way that is more exciting than lobbying for the truth.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Dead on!

disclosure project yielded the same reaction. Everybody was arguing back and forth missing the obvious.

And what is the abvious? That everybody should support the disclosure project, everybody.
Why? if you do not believe in UFO's how could you be against a full disclosure of everything our govenments know? wouldn't it in the end prove your point that it's all a lie?
If you believe in UFO's why would you not be for a full disclosure that would bring to the light of day what you already know has been hidden?

Everybody should be supporting the disclosure project, not argueing if that witness or this witness is credible, there are now over 500 of them !!! This is insanity at it's peak!!!

We are so easy to lie to, we run around in the maze of subjects like rats never realizing what is important and what's not.

There can really be only two groups who could be against the disclosure project. The first group are hiding that which the disclosure project wants disclosed. The second group have such an admiration for the rank structure that they would rather live on a lie than find out this system is no better than the people in it.


When will we wake up? They will come when they can see that we are ready to deal with the fact that they are real, and that we are not affraid. They are showing themselves a little bit at a time, giving us a chance to get used to them. The are so much evidence out there, the sceptics want it served on a silver platter so they can have the fun dismissing it, hence appearing clever.

The only thing that comforts me is that we have friends out there on our side.


Sincerly

Cade

Sorry, had gotten busy.


Glad to see the discussion is moving though.


On a scale of 1- 5 (1 being greatest and 5 being worst), here's my breakdown of the researchers:


1.0 Stanton Friedman He may be "old news" to some of the people here, but that also is consistency and credibility, something that's rare in this stuff.


2.5 Hoagland. Like him, and he tries hard. I just don't know where he wants us to focus.



3.8 Icke I can follow him through a lot of his stuff, so I can't condemn him for the minority of his info that I don't agree with, and have yet to fully study.


5.0 Hands down Lazar really burns me. I expressed my opinion on the two motivations I imagine are behind him and his "story". He's the least credible or most questionable person out of these folks.



That's my gut instinct on it as it stands.


X

Originally posted by MKULTRA

My opinion of Lazar.. I think he tells a fascinating story, but there is so much evidence BOTH for and against, you can't help but wonder if misinformation is at work. MK

Lazar is a puzzle to me for JUST the reason you mention. There seems to be a BUNCH of evidence going both ways its hard to make a good call on him. To be honest I am fairly sure SOMETHING is going on there but just not sure what it is. You basicaly have four options with ALL of them.

1. They are what they say
2. they are coning people
3. They are spreading disinformation
4. They are insane.

Lazar and Hoagland are two I have a hard time labeling

Originally posted by Xatnys


5.0 Hands down Lazar really burns me. I expressed my opinion on the two motivations I imagine are behind him and his "story". He's the least credible or most questionable person out of these folks.

Another problem with Lazar is if his story is true he has broken enough National security laws to be UNDER the prison, or just "disappeared". Again with him most of the pieces seem to fit but something is just not right

Another problem with Lazar is if his story is true he has broken enough National security laws to be UNDER the prison, or just "disappeared". Again with him most of the pieces seem to fit but something is just not right

Exactly.

And when you reach this conclusion, you find that Lazar's believers will then state:

"But if the government were to arrest him or silence him, it would add greater validity to his claims."


Personally, I think the government has no problem with silencing anyone they deem a "Clear Threat".

In fact, I'd wager that there have been some people that tried to bring info to the public and never made it. But that's just mostly speculation on my part.



Also, on Hoagland: Either he's got stuff that really needs to be looked at, yet is so unfocused that it's hard to know "what" we should look at. Or he's intentionally convoluted his work in order to lengthen the time people spend looking into him. Dunno which one of those is the "truth".

X

Originally posted by Xatnys
Also, on Hoagland: Either he's got stuff that really needs to be looked at, yet is so unfocused that it's hard to know "what" we should look at. Or he's intentionally convoluted his work in order to lengthen the time people spend looking into him. Dunno which one of those is the "truth".

X

Hoagland and Ickes stories could both be easily verefied or debunked the other two would be a bit harder IMO. Of course neither side would acept either story but to everyone but the most hardcore skeptic or believer those two should be rather easy to prove.

I am jumping pretty late in the fray, but I would vote for Richard Dolan and Dr. Richard Haines and Friedman Stanton tied for first as the best UFO researchers.

More on Haines: www.narcap.org...

More on Dolan: keyholepublishing.com...

Icke, Lazar and co.? IMHO: screwballs. Read their books? No thank you.

Originally posted by gzhpcu
I am jumping pretty late in the fray, but I would vote for Richard Dolan and Dr. Richard Haines and Friedman Stanton tied for first as the best UFO researchers.

Thanks for the links

Could you give a brief introduction for these two?

that is part of the reason I started the thread was to try to find the serious reasearchers and most creditable. I will check them out.

Originally posted by Xatnys
And when you reach this conclusion, you find that Lazar's believers will then state:

"But if the government were to arrest him or silence him, it would add greater validity to his claims."
X

The threat is not in him talking, but in who and how many is listening. As long as we are all here debating if he is for real or not, how could he be a clear threat?

It's sometimes better to create credibillity doubt.

If a whistleblower dissapears on the other hand we all wouldn't be here having this debate back and forth, back and forth, doing nothing, just debating...

It's an excellent method of controlling this part of the public who just know something is wrong but still just can't really determine WHAT, darn, shoot, we just know we're gonna find the evidence some day...

When JFK was shot, it was never about who bennefitted, but did he fire 5 or 6 bullets? They know they can't fool the critical thinker, so they control what we are debating.

We are not debating what we should do to put pressure on the government for a full disclosure, we not arranging a demonstration for truth on these matters. We're here, debating who's the most credible spokesman. It's all right to have this debate, the problem arrises if this is all we do.

Sincerly

Cade