The physicist and the flying saucers

The physicist and the flying saucers

telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com

FREDERICTON - The galaxy's greatest authority on flying saucers sits in a white wicker chair in his living room, books and videos about unidentified flying objects at his feet.

"If you told me in the early 1960s that I'd turn into a full-time ufologist, I would have laughed my head off," Stanton T. Friedman, a former nuclear physicist who was honoured with a proclamation this week by the City of Fredericton, says. "I preferred science and people, not science fiction.

"But how can you not believe?"

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Stanton Friedman: Introduction -- My Name is Stanton Friedman
Stanton Friedman: Roswell, and more.
Stanton Friedman: Your Opinion On Disclosure
Stanton Friedman: United Nations

Interesting news article.

Many of you know who Stanton T. Friedman is, but did you know that he was a 'Guest Speaker' here at AboveTopSecret.com?

He is perhaps one of the greatest minds ever involved in the area of Aliens and UFOs.

Has he told the world everything he really knows?

telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

But he is only human and could be as totaly wrong as anyone else.?

He may be a physicist but when it comes to UFO's hes no brighter or more intelligent than anyone else.

I his own field of work and experience he is probably a genius, but when it comes down to UFO's hes in the same class as all of us, having to rely on the same eveidence as anyone else.

[edit on 1/9/07 by Chorlton]

Since he worked for companies that have classified projects i'm sure he isn't telling us everything because of the non-disclosure agreements he signed when he was hired. He wouldn't even be able to mention the projects or hint at what they are.

I did like reading that he is from Linden NJ and went to Rutgers. They do have some great places to eat in New Brunswick, not to mention some great places to party. This is based on my personal experience.

As far as him knowing about UFOs or aliens, he said that he hasn't seen any but met people who have. I look at this two ways, he does know something but can't talk about it, or he knows nothing. If he did sign paperwork vowing his secrecy we won't ever find out unless he speaks up about something that may land him in jail.

I think him sticking around this arena is a good enough answer that he does know something and is waiting to talk about it once the curtain is pulled back on what is actually going on. Sometimes you don't have to say anything directly to give the public an answer.

Originally posted by Chorlton
He may be a physicist but when it comes to UFO's hes no brighter or more intelligent than anyone else.

Really?

He has researched and investigated this subject in depth longer than most who will read this have been alive. He has potentially had access to information we have yet to, or may never see.

While I really looked forward to his activity here as a guest speaker, his actual involvement was brief and to me raised a simple question.. Is there more he can't tell us?

Originally posted by UM_Gazz

He has researched and investigated this subject in depth longer than most who will read this have been alive. He has potentially had access to information we have yet to, or may never see.

While Stan has done some very important work with the MJ-12 documents and Roswell and the statement that "he has researched and investigated this subject in depth longer than most who will read this have been alive" is technically accurate, Stan has his prejudices and opinions just like any other researcher. And those prejudices and opinions could be wrong just like any other researcher.

Stan has been holding up the same piece of paper (the one with the major portions of record blacked out) for almost 30 years. Its time to hold up a different piece of paper or get some new evidence.

Other than the MJ-12 documents I don't know of any significant evidence Stan has contributed or researched in the past 20 years.

Stans place in Ufology is to bring the less informed up to date. But as a spearhead of investigation he is essentially a critic.

Stan does not believe that Bob Lazar is a physicist or that he worked at S-4. Stan bases this opinion on the fact that he cannot confirm or substantiate Bob Lazars attendance or degrees at CalTech or MIT. Stan does not base his opinion on the technical data that Bob brought forth, i.e. The Gravity A and B wave, Element 115, etc. That is beyond Stan educational and scientific background. So the best he can do is say, "Wheres the diploma?"

And thats fine. He never met Bob, never interviewed him never talked to him even once. Apollo Astronaut Dr. Ed Mitchell came to Las Vegas specifically to see Bob. So the truth is Stan is not a very thorough investigator having only looked at one side of the equation in the Bob Lazar affair. It would be nice that along with saying he couldn't substantiate Bobs college record to be able to say that he spent 2 hours talking with Bob before formulating his opinion.

I wonder why he (Bob Lazar) can't show proof he went to Cal Tech or MIT?

Is this the case, or is it that no one else can prove it?

Either way that's very strange.

His story was facinating.

reply to post by johnlear


Dear Mr. Lear,

I must first say that I truely love the fact that you're such a willing participant on board here at ATS. In fact you are the sole reason I have an account here. Your theories are extremely compelling and thought provoking to say the least. Thank you, most sincerely, for all you've done, and for laying your own personal credibility on the line to share both what you know, and what you believe to be true.

That being said, I can't help but wonder if you are merely dissapointed in Mr. Stanton Friedman's views on Mr. Robert Lazar's claims, due to his lack of documented evidence, to make such statements. It seems a little contradictory on your part to accuse Mr. Friedman of "holding up the same piece of paper for almost thirty years", when the most proof I've ever read of you providing, were all hearsay, and photos of the moon which are always left to interpretation. And often an unwillingness to share your sources, siting their protection.


I dunno, maybe it's just me.

Wow.
No wonder John Lear needs no
publicist.

This thread is about Stanton Friedman.
Not John Lear.

I'm of the opinion that Mr. Friedman
says what he believes.

Whether it's all factual is up to the
audience.

But, I believe that what he says, is
what he honestly believes.

Does he know more than he can tell ?

I'm sure.

Don't we all, in one way or another ?

Regards,
Lex

reply to post by Lexion


I'm sure if Stanton Friedman were a member of this site, he'd recieve as much attention as he deserves. I, personally, greatly appreciate the offerings of both Mr. Lear and Mr. Friedman. But only one of them is accessible on board here.

Originally posted by BroknJokr

when the most proof I've ever read of you providing, were all hearsay, and photos of the moon which are always left to interpretation.

Thanks for the post BroknJokr. Fortunately, at the Bay Area UFO Expo we met a nuclear physicist who confirmed that the blue hexagonal shaped structure at Aristarchus was indeed nuclear reactor. He described the blue glow as Cerenkov radiation and mentioned the fact that it would require as atmosphere to glow like that. So unless you are a nuclear physicist its not left to interpretation anymore. Thanks again for the post.

We all have secrets, some bigger, some darker, some grandiose, and maybe some leading towrads alien visitation. I have secrets, but does that mean i have to tell anyone?

reply to post by johnlear


Bob Lazar is telling the truth. Stan will believe Bob Lazar when
he stands in front of a Sport Model , Top Hat or a Triangle Spacecraft
at a New and Improved Air and Space Museum somewhere in Las
Vegas. It should look like the Earth Station Roswell in Roswell.
Seeing is believing.

I really respect people who back up what they say. If such a person then goes the extra distance to say they believe, in absence of incontrovertible proof, then that is even better. The criteria, for me at least, is how conservative one's conclusions are based on the evidence that they present, and the data that they have been privy to. Richard Dolan strikes me as such a person, so does Jacques Vallee, and most certainly the same can be said of Stanton Friedman, in my opinion. No one is perfect, and based on the investigative methods chosen, any researcher will develop a bias that will affect the outcome of the research. That's just part of the nature of independent study. A researcher will only be able to communicate his or her point of view based on the evidence gathered through the investigative method decided upon. It's a major reason why science upholds the essential process of peer review. If Stanton Friedman's method is so rigorous that after 20 years all he can do is "hold up the same piece of paper", well just let him keep waving that sheet of paper then. At least we know that what he says based on that bit of information can be vetted to the extreme.

There are other folks, such as John Lear, who tell fantastic stories that even the most credulous have a hard time believing, and I am glued to the radio every time they make an appearance on Coast to Coast AM. I do so because even if I don't believe everything that they say, I do suspect that there is some truth to the stories that they tell. Generally, not much evidence to support those stories are given, but I do appreciate as much that is given. You see, I don't have secret sources of information, all I have is that person's word that they are telling me what they truly believe. These person's hardly ever say whether they think what they are saying is true or not. And I know they are competent enough to know the difference between believing and knowing for an observable fact the truth of something. Still that doesn't bother me too much because in the end I'm my own authority and I make the final determination of whether I take something to heart or not.

I guess what I'm leading to is the sort of infighting that I've witnessed in the field regarding UFOs and extraterrestrials. My perception is that there is enough room to fit all of the believers, skeptics, and the seemingly crazy without there ever having to be nasty and disrespectful asides creating fissures between all concerned. Every single person is restricted to their own perspective, and to see the world through another's eyes is, perhaps, a wish we all deeply hold. It's not Stanton's Friedman fault that some folks believe Bob Lazar and some folks, including himself, do not. He's just like any other person in regard to him having his own threshold of when to take something seriously or not to the point of being believed or not. His perspective should be respected by all of those concerned, and any attempt to dismiss that is erroneous on the part of the attacker. It's one thing to say that Friedman doesn't believe everything, it's another to say that he's less credible because of it. In other words, it's not necessary to pigeonhole another to a role that one finds favorable to all other roles that that person may also be known to represent. That, in my opinion, is spiteful and jealous. It would be good if one's opinion offered or withheld, sympathetic or dissonant, were respected and shown in that regard.

A storyteller trying to debunk someone employing the scientific method of discovery in his or her investigations doesn't make any sense. Nor does it make any sense for a scientific researcher to attempt debunking a storyteller. From what I can tell all sides seem dedicated to the discovery and disclosing of truth. If that is indeed the case, then there shouldn't be any person trying to limit the influence of another if all parties are committed to truth. And so maybe this is ideal and too much of a fantasy to consider. Maybe folks more involved than I am know certain things and feel compelled to diminish another's stature because that's an inherent part of their mission. So be it. Be evangelical if you have to, but understand that your own credibility diminishes when the only evidence you have to present are devices that are designed to cause division. It's not enough to shout "Propaganda!" or compare one set of circumstances to another set of completely unrelated circumstances, basically making an attempt to persuade through the use of fallacious argumentation. True, lies have been told, but one doesn't have the market cornered on truth.

reply to post by johnlear


No John, he thought it was a reactor, thats all, he thought. He didnt know, he cant know, its totally impossible for him to know.
Simply because someone is a Nuclear Physicist or any type of phycistsit doest give them any more knowledge of what is on the moon than noddy.
Moon gelology is and will remain totally unexplained in respect of anomalies, untill people go up there and take a good look.

You cannot postulate about things on alien planets using earth criteria.

Thanks for your post though it always brings a smile


Mod Edit: Converted entire post quote to a Reply To link only.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by UM_Gazz]

reply to post by johnlear


That sounds like hearsay to me. He confirmed nothing.




Mod Edit: Converted entire post quote to a Reply To link only.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by UM_Gazz]