Roswell: The lies just keep on coming.

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: mirageman
However "flying saucer" at the time was not necessarily associated with it being an "alien spacecraft".

I tend to disagree, I believe the term 'flying saucer' was used precisely to refer to an 'ET' aircraft, something out of this world.

In 1947, there had been no serious studies of the phenomenon by the government/military. It could have easily meant a Soviet spy satellite, reconnaissance aircraft, or any craft built to spy on the American military. The Japanese launched "balloon bombs" during WWII designed to travel the jet stream and land in North America. Many made their mark. So strange "flying" objects from other countries wasn't unusual during the time. "Flying disc" was also coined only 2 weeks earlier and hadn't gone through the 70 year UFO history it has now. So, you can't apply a 21st century mindset to 1947 America.

I don't know, but the press was referring to the object as a flying saucer, it seems that the term as was used was clearly referring to a supposed 'ET' vessel, and not something ordinary like a balloon, enemy plane, or whatever, no matter how hard you try to convince us of that.

In short, the military informed they found a 'flying saucer', but 1 day later, it was a 'balloon'. Why?

When the truth is elusive to some, as in this case, one has to put 2 and 2 to get 4. By the beginning of July Kenneth Arnold's sighting, as erroneously reported in the press, had taken hold so it wasn't unreasonable to think that rumors of a crashed disk could override the truth which, eventually, it didn't and that's why Roswell was not heard from again. It could have been General Blanchard's zeal to be the first to claim a crashed disk that got the better of him. But what did Arnold really see?

Wikipedia says:

The following day (June 26) were the following quotations attributed to Arnold: [11]

United Press: "They were shaped like saucers and were so thin I could barely see them..."
Associated Press: "He said they were bright, saucer-like objects--he called them 'aircraft'. ...He also described the objects as ‘saucer-like’ and their motion 'like a fish flipping in the sun.’ ...Arnold described the objects as 'flat like a pie pan'."
Associated Press: "They flew with a peculiar dipping motion, 'like a fish flipping in the sun,' he said. ... He said they appeared to fly almost as if fastened together -- if one dipped, the others did, too."
Chicago Tribune: "They were silvery and shiny and seemed to be shaped like a pie plate.... I am sure they were separate units because they weaved in flight like the tail of a kite."
On June 27 was the following quotation:

Portland Oregon Journal: "'They were half-moon shaped, oval in front and convex in the rear. ...There were no bulges or cowlings; they looked like a big flat disk.’ ...Arnold said that the objects weaved 'like the tail of a Chinese kite'."

originally posted by: fleabit

Didn't read it because when it came out in 1997 I was already saturated by crashes everywhere with not one iota of evidence and the authors' names Don Berliner and Stanton T. Friedman were a sign that we, the readers, were not going to be treated to an impartial investigation. I enjoyed reading some of Don's writing but right under Friedman's name it says "Nuclear Physicist". Bull feces! He retired in 1970!

So you didn't read the book from the guy who probably put the most effort and time into researching Roswell? But can make definitive argument against it? Huh, that's an interesting take. Might want to consider it, if you can read it with an unbiased mindset of course. Also many folks reference a past career to bolster their value - Stanton Friedman would never say he currently a nuclear physicist in any way. He only typically references it as it gave him access to top secret material from time to time.

Friedman may still be slightly biased as is pretty much every UFO researcher out there, but he by far, puts the most effort into his research, and actually attempts to make valid connections based on fact, not fancy. I found his book very insightful in regards to the Roswell case.

interviewly.com...

I am Stanton Friedman, Nuclear Physicist, and world renowned expert on UFO phenomena.

YouTube - 2016 Stanton Friedman interview he is introduced as a Nuclear Physicist. When Friedman speaks his first words should have been: "I'm a retired Nuclear Physicist" or, more truthfully, "I was a Nuclear Physicist until 1970". But he doesn't correct the interviewer.

And he is NOT a world renowned expert on UFO phenomena 'cause he doesn't know any more than anyone who wants to research UFOlogy. Everything he knows is hearsay or whatever he learned from field studies still depended on reports. To me, into UFOlogy since 1958, he is not an authority. When he got involved with UFOlogy in 1970 I already had 12 years of UFOs on him.

No one is an expert on UFOs.

And here, in his own words, is the reason why I consider him to be the uber of Roswell bs. He has no pride.
Stanton Friedman on Roswell: Secrets Revealed
www.ufoevidence.org...

December 21, 1999
Dear History Channel

As the nuclear physicist who began the civilian investigation of the Roswell Incident back in the 1970s,

a reply to: klassless

Klassless, out of interest, do you know What prompted Jessie Marcel to come into the public arena in 1978?

Why are you so fixated on his use of nuclear physicist? He was a nuclear physicist. Who cares if he used it present or past tense? And I don't believe for a moment you have put more man-hours into researching UFOs than Friedman has, not buy a long shot. Nor does your history of study into UFOs negate his work. Not sure honestly what you are getting at.

As far as the Roswell case goes, there is plenty to chew on that is ignored. For example: It was reported that the debris from the wreck was hauled away in multiple trucks. You could have scooped the remains of that balloon into the back of a Fiat 500. Multiple flights into and out of Roswell after the crash, from many bases that were involved a lot of top secret projects. Friedman, who you dismiss apparently because of his terrible misuse of past vs. present tense regarding his work history, did not release his book before the others.. because he was researching during that period. He was the one who basically uncovered and brought to light the Roswell case. He intervened some 110 witnesses and involved parties. He actually looked up flight records, phone records, called radio stations, newspapers, researched the topic for something along the lines of 10 years before writing his book on the subject.

Thus my bewilderment why you would dismiss who was probably the most important researcher, the most ardent researcher, who spent the most time researching that one case. I daresay he has probably in multiples, more time researching just the Roswell case, than you have done in all your many years of "UFO study."

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: klassless

Klassless, out of interest, do you know What prompted Jessie Marcel to come into the public arena in 1978?

I can't answer your question without some serious research but Stanton Friedman should be able to, based on this:
kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

According to Stan Friedman, he was in Baton Rouge on February 20, 1978, when one of the directors of a television station told Friedman he should talk to Jesse Marcel. Marcel said that he had handled pieces of a flying saucer, and though Friedman said he was dubious, he took down Marcel’s name and using directory assistance (does that still exist?) was given Marcel’s telephone number. At the airport with some time to spare, he called Marcel. According to Friedman, Marcel related to him, during that telephone conversation, the details of the crash, though Marcel couldn’t remember the date. He knew it was Roswell where it happened.

a reply to: klassless
ha ha ha...

I am Stanton Friedman, Nuclear Physicist, and world renowned expert on UFO phenomena. AMA

favorite comment:

As Mr. Friedman already mentioned, we don't understand any of the science behind hypothetical alien technology. So I guess my question is, why does it matter that you are a nuclear physicist?

Poor Stanton got beat up pretty bad in that AMA which is probably why the one here was so heavily censored.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: klassless
ha ha ha...

I am Stanton Friedman, Nuclear Physicist, and world renowned expert on UFO phenomena. AMA

favorite comment:

As Mr. Friedman already mentioned, we don't understand any of the science behind hypothetical alien technology. So I guess my question is, why does it matter that you are a nuclear physicist?

Poor Stanton got beat up pretty bad in that AMA which is probably why the one here was so heavily censored.

I loved it! Great link for us anti-Friedmans. He has a big mouth, an ugly puss, and he hasn't said anything new about Aliens and UFOs since he became a "nuklear UFO-logist". Yet, one thing he's brilliant at is self-marketing and he recognized early on that he doesn't really have to produce anything worth considering by us except for his audience.

Thanks for that!

originally posted by: fleabit
Also many folks reference a past career to bolster their value - Stanton Friedman would never say he currently a nuclear physicist in any way. He only typically references it as it gave him access to top secret material from time to time.

He typically only shows his credentials to get access to top secret material? You must have missed out on Friedman's nuclear physicist sign in a UFO parade:

Or having it plastered on every television interview he has done. C'mon... we all know he does this in an attempt to bring credibility to what he says.

Honestly, if he would admit he's wrong when the data shows it, maybe it would it give him a hint of credibility as someone searching for the truth. An example would be the debate with Robert Sheaffer HERE Friedman refuses to acknowledge the Yukon UFO was shown to be a rocket re-entry. When Sheaffer makes a valid and logical point: If there was a rocket re-entry and UFO, why weren't there reports of two objects in the same area and time? Friedman doesn't have an answer.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: klassless
ha ha ha...

I am Stanton Friedman, Nuclear Physicist, and world renowned expert on UFO phenomena. AMA

favorite comment:

As Mr. Friedman already mentioned, we don't understand any of the science behind hypothetical alien technology. So I guess my question is, why does it matter that you are a nuclear physicist?

Poor Stanton got beat up pretty bad in that AMA which is probably why the one here was so heavily censored.

well...I havent red that AMA...but I would respond to that comment something along the lines...

"I matters because it shows I'm a scientist...and not some uneducated redneck. It matters because I have scientific background and I can talk about UFO's from scientific standpoint, and not solely from a point of UFO believer.
If anyone is educated to talk about aspects of UFO's...it would be physicist, astronomers and the like."

a reply to: klassless

So we are to believe a Sheriff, an Intelligence Officer & other Airmen, all misidentified crashed balloon material for Alien saucer technology, reportedly in an Ventricular Aerodyne shape. That the young kid, who reportedly touched it & even ended up with some of the material, that'd he run away from it his whole life until dying early.

So we are to believe that the USAF used parts of a classified project (MOGUL-weather balloons) to cover up the headline "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer" even though for ~70 years, they'd claim they made up UFOs entirely to cover up normal classified projects. Implying that UFOs seen are military black projects.

On top of that, coincidentally, the CIA would then put agents or assets in every new media corporation across the country, including at the wire. This was tested, as a researcher puseposely put out a UFO/CIA Cover up story, and it was quashed before being published. Then the CIA funded National Enquirer using one of its psychological-warfare officers.

Shortly after, the USAF would participate in 3 studies, each sparked from public concern over the phenomena----SIGN, GRUDGE & BLUEBOOK. The official stance by the review boards was to ignore scientific data, ignoring the empirical evidence they'd then recommend a public campaign of Debunkery, using media, doctors/psychologists, celebrities, news, etc. The USAF finished its studies determining 'nothing to see here' & officially closed the book. Two board members were fired from Condon Committee & Sagan was prevented from moving forward for "going to soft on UFOs". In the end when it was shut down, a person in charge said basically, 'Who cares, anything serious is classified under JANAP147 anyway'.

Coincidentally, the "skeptical science" movement started right before or during the campaign to ignore evidence. Martin Gardner would coin various ad hominem attacks, "quack", "crank", "crackpot", "pseudo-science" & CSICOP was born. James Randi, famous for the latter, would hire 'plants' to disprove psychics & other phenomena (e.g. scientific fraud) Uri Geller would later be ID'd as a Mossad/CIA agent. Again by coincidence, CSICOP would be next to nearly every CIA operation working on Occult, Psychic, Remote-Viewing, UFOs, etc----& they'd be ready to 'debunk' anything coming out public.

To top it off, 50ish(?) years after Roswell, Billionaire Lawrence Rockefeller would publicly lobby the government for disclosure. Funding a study which operated directly with the White House. Highlighting 20 Cases in the last 50 years. Around this time a CIA-related-physic would tell an X-Files producer they were about to hit it big (before the pilot aired). The CIA would admit to interfering in Hollywood, yet no one truly announced the scope of their involvement. Rumours of disclosure would get steam, but eventually fall flat. Rockefeller failed & died before disclosure.

CONCLUSION: This is just a scraping of the UFO subject. But it starts with Roswell & ends 50 years later. And it doesn't make a single bit of sense. Not if Roswell & other incidents are nothing. Not if the cover-stories are real. Not if they had no motive or reason to cover-up as much as they did. I read a quote a couple weeks ago. Someone asked, 'so are UFOs real?' -----Either UFOs are real, whatever they might be, or the government spent 70 years and a S###load of money convincing a very small subset of people they are.

It may have made sense back then, but today? C'mon. Totally corrupt, paid off govs. Fraudulent markets with no arrests at the end, bail outs instead! We see false flags by Mossad, burned red-handed. A semi-manufactured/heavily influenced "terrorism". We've watched the government dump drugs in LA, transfer billions out of BCCI, get in bed with crooks, traitors & enemies of state.

Anyone who's done serious research knows its impossible for them to have faked the sheer randomness, frequency, level of involvement with each case over the years. We are told it's only ever some crazy loon from the desert, but speak to people & you find your mom, your dad, a cousin, grandfather, etc. But it doesn't matter because people are just apathetic. The Matrix called, the world chose to blue pill.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: fleabit
Also many folks reference a past career to bolster their value - Stanton Friedman would never say he currently a nuclear physicist in any way. He only typically references it as it gave him access to top secret material from time to time.

He typically only shows his credentials to get access to top secret material? You must have missed out on Friedman's nuclear physicist sign in a UFO parade:

Or having it plastered on every television interview he has done. C'mon... we all know he does this in an attempt to bring credibility to what he says.

Honestly, if he would admit he's wrong when the data shows it, maybe it would it give him a hint of credibility as someone searching for the truth. An example would be the debate with Robert Sheaffer HERE Friedman refuses to acknowledge the Yukon UFO was shown to be a rocket re-entry. When Sheaffer makes a valid and logical point: If there was a rocket re-entry and UFO, why weren't there reports of two objects in the same area and time? Friedman doesn't have an answer.

Great photo! I tried to listen to the debate but I found it difficult to finish it as it needed me as a moderator to keep both on point by asking pertinent questions at the beginning and not letting them veer of. And Friedman's voice just makes me grit my teeth!

Sheaffer is also slightly difficult to deal with 'cause he's a closed-minded skeptic that cannot be swayed except by evidence he can touch and circumstantial evidence is not enough. And since he hasn't had the kind of sighting that would convince him of the reality of UFOs he might never veer. I'm a natural skeptic with an open mind so when I got into UFOs in 1958 it was with an open mind wondering what it was that people were seeing without accepting or denying their experiences until my first solid sighting and I was sold!

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

well...I havent red that AMA...but I would respond to that comment something along the lines...

"I matters because it shows I'm a scientist...and not some uneducated redneck. It matters because I have scientific background and I can talk about UFO's from scientific standpoint, and not solely from a point of UFO believer.
If anyone is educated to talk about aspects of UFO's...it would be physicist, astronomers and the like."

Well, he apparently didn't answer many questions directly but plugged his book often. You should read it though because it gives some insight into how an unmoderated non-ufo crowd on the interwebs viewed him. Many of these people never heard of him before but tore into his logical fallacies immediately. He never gets into an actual discussion about anything. He just repeats the same rhetoric over and over, dodges questions and promotes his books. So really, if this is the case, what does being a Nuclear Physicist have to do with anything? Since his target audience isn't made up of Nuclear Physicists and none of books have anything to with nuclear physics, he uses his title as an appeal to authority. How does it help with the Hill case or Roswell?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

well...I havent red that AMA...but I would respond to that comment something along the lines...

"I matters because it shows I'm a scientist...and not some uneducated redneck. It matters because I have scientific background and I can talk about UFO's from scientific standpoint, and not solely from a point of UFO believer.
If anyone is educated to talk about aspects of UFO's...it would be physicist, astronomers and the like."

Well, he apparently didn't answer many questions directly but plugged his book often. You should read it though because it gives some insight into how an unmoderated non-ufo crowd on the interwebs viewed him. Many of these people never heard of him before but tore into his logical fallacies immediately. He never gets into an actual discussion about anything. He just repeats the same rhetoric over and over, dodges questions and promotes his books. So really, if this is the case, what does being a Nuclear Physicist have to do with anything? Since his target audience isn't made up of Nuclear Physicists and none of books have anything to with nuclear physics, he uses his title as an appeal to authority. How does it help with the Hill case or Roswell?

As the saying goes: "There's one in every crowd" and Friedman is the one in "our" crowd. But of course, we know he's not alone, he has many compadres, sort-of like a UFO bs book group of authors who are either honest believers (I doubt this), or just people who became authors and found out to their enrichment that you can sell anything to believers.

However, to Friedman's credit he did do something by being one of the first to bring Roswell into modern consciousness, unfortunately he didn't have the investigative skills of Karl T. Pflock who is the only trustworthy author without having to have been a nuclear anything.

I have always wondered how UFOlogy would have turned out if Friedman hadn't been asked to interview Marcel. It might have been someone else since Marcel had come out of the woodwork and possibly was mentally unstable enough to just talk to anyone who would listen. It was bound to happen, it just got off on the wrong foot.

a reply to: boncho

So we are to believe a Sheriff, an Intelligence Officer & other Airmen, all misidentified crashed balloon material for Alien saucer technology, reportedly in an Ventricular Aerodyne shape. That the young kid, who reportedly touched it & even ended up with some of the material, that'd he run away from it his whole life until dying early.

No, no, no...we are to point out nonsensical arguments. What you are doing is repeating lore. Did anyone of those people you mention say "Alien saucer technology"? if they did, what's the source?

a reply to: klassless

As the saying goes: "There's one in every crowd" and Friedman is the one in "our" crowd. But of course, we know he's not alone, he has many compadres, sort-of like a UFO bs book group of authors who are either honest believers (I doubt this), or just people who became authors and found out to their enrichment that you can sell anything to believers.

Friedman is an interesting character. I believe that he really was an honest believer initially. I think he believed what he wrote about Roswell and the Hills initially but I really have a hard time thinking that he still really does. I guess he cant really go back and say he was wrong and sell books too. He can debunk Corso and Lazar to bolster his credibility even though the evidence to support Corso and Lazar is about the same as anything he does promote. He is a conundrum.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I think he once truly believed and then he realized that there was cash to be made in a time when corroborating UFO stories with data and documents was extremely difficult. Now I believe Stan sticks to his own mantra.

* Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

* If one can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.

* Do one’s research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway.

It's all on his own website : www.stantonfriedman.com...

a reply to: mirageman

Why oh why do so many of the prominent people on either side work for the government in some way?

- Karl Pflock: cia
- Bruce Maccabee: Navy
- Kehoe, Ruppelt etc
- Kevin Randle: airforce
- Stanton Friedman - interestly worked for a time on nuclear reactors for jet aircraft. That is telling...
- Ralph Noyes
- Nick Pope

Please note, I'm not trying to cast any aspersions here - I think many are genuinely and independently involved.

I could go on and on. I believe if only the most prominent ufologists and sceptics were looked at, the largest group by employer would be the governments of western powers. It's really odd how they occupy both sides of the game?

Bill Moore told us that four other prominent ufologists were also compromised by AFOSI. Perhaps for legal reasons I can find no significant effort to identify them.

Why go to all this trouble?

a reply to: mirageman
Oh I know his mantra...whats even worse is when people parrot it around here. I even see people make the exact same arguments Stan does but then when you try to discuss it, it never goes well because Stan never discusses anything. I actually blame him for the whole "believer/debunker" BS. Thanks for the link. I hadn't been to his site in a while and now I am just irritated.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: mirageman

Why oh why do so many of the prominent people on either side work for the government in some way?

- Karl Pflock: cia
- Bruce Maccabee: Navy
- Kehoe, Ruppelt etc
- Kevin Randle: airforce
- Stanton Friedman - interestly worked for a time on nuclear reactors for jet aircraft. That is telling...
- Ralph Noyes
- Nick Pope

Please note, I'm not trying to cast any aspersions here - I think many are genuinely and independently involved.

I could go on and on. I believe if only the most prominent ufologists and sceptics were looked at, the largest group by employer would be the governments of western powers. It's really odd how they occupy both sides of the game?

Bill Moore told us that four other prominent ufologists were also compromised by AFOSI. Perhaps for legal reasons I can find no significant effort to identify them.

Why go to all this trouble?

You make a good point.

The first head of the CIA Admiral Hillenkoetter was a charter member of one of the most influential UFO groups, NICAP

The National Investigations Committee On Aerial Phenomena was formed in 1956, with the organization's corporate charter being approved October 24.[15] Hillenkoetter was on NICAP's board of governors from about 1957 until 1962.[16] Donald E. Keyhoe, NICAP director and Hillenkoetter's Naval Academy classmate, wrote that Hillenkoetter wanted public disclosure of UFO evidence.[17] Perhaps Hillenkoetter's best-known statement on the subject was in 1960 in a letter to Congress, as reported in The New York Times: "Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense."[18]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

This is what he says debunkers do. But has obviously used it as a tactic himself.

* Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

* If one can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.

* Do one’s research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway.

But that is actually what Stan does. Despite saying

Since 1967 I have lectured on the subject “Flying Saucers ARE Real” at more than 600 colleges and over 100 professional groups in all fifty US states, nine Canadian Provinces, twelve cities in England and nine in other countries, with only eleven hecklers......

I think he's also added that a number of those hecklers were drunk as well in recent years. (If one can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.)

Sad really. He actually was a guy who could tune people into the UFO topic and sound rational for a while. But I think he got lost somewhere along the way and the lure of the book, TV and conference cash turned him into a UFOtainer. Like an old pop band he just churns out the same old popular hits from yesteryear. He doesn't care. There's still an audience who want to hear it....