It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's Larry King's deal?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I spoke with Stan Friedman on the phone last night. The show next Friday July, 18 sounds awesome for sure!




posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ProjectXYZ
 


Larry King's "deal" is the same as with any other pop-journalist: to follow the interest of the public. That's all.
This year, he has had many shows on UFO because there have been more reports than usually.

As for him personally, he is interested in many things... superficially.


I actually like him, but he is not exactly the best journalist in the world.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
With all due respect, what has Stan Friedman presented in the last 20 years that was ground breaking? He is going to be on to promote his book released 6/1/08 (Flying Saucers and Science: A Scientist Investigates the Mysteries of UFOs: Interstellar Travel, Crashes, and Government Cover-Ups) and I suspect that no revelations are going to surface.

delius


[edit on 12-7-2008 by delius]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
galactic freedom day is 8-8-08...the atom smasher will get turned on in 8-?-08...COINCIDENCE?????



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Larry King knows that ufo's and aliens bring him big ratings.
I also took notice and it didn't make sense the wording in bold letters "UFO MYSTERY EXPLAINED?" as a member mentioned. I thought the ? mark was interesting

I also noticed he "did not" have a """debunker""" on and Seth poor Seth who has devoted his life to this even put not much effort into a sweet argument, lol.

I don't know about you but everyone one of them looked like they wanted to admit out right they thought it was a UFO but they watched there words and had to catch themself and say object.

I also noticed they didn't get into who they thought might be flying that thing after all we wouldn't want panic.

The radar amount of unknowns should tell the skeptics something? Mufon did good but I wonder why when the Mufon man was on the Soapbox in the ATS MIX he didn't hint about this he did mention San Jose and everything that was going on there!

Uforeality good job as usual for keeping us updated.




[edit on 12-7-2008 by observe50]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by delius
With all due respect, what has Stan Friedman presented in the last 20 years that was ground breaking? He is going to be on to promote his book released 6/1/08 (Flying Saucers and Science: A Scientist Investigates the Mysteries of UFOs: Interstellar Travel, Crashes, and Government Cover-Ups) and I suspect that no revelations are going to surface.

delius


[edit on 12-7-2008 by delius]


Stanton Friedman is the most solid researcher out there imo. The reason he doesn't provide "ground breaking" stuff is because the things he studies can be backed by fact, not by guesswork. It was he that brought Roswell to light. If not for him, none of you would have even heard of Roswell.

As far as Larry King goes, it is odd, especially in light of the upcoming election.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
After last night I uninstalled SETI from my comp.The head guy last night gave me the impression that he thinks there is only one way to find aliens and thats with SETI.He also tried to hard to corner some of the panel guest to say that the Texas UFO was alien.Like he had an agenda that went far beyond on finding alien contact.Now that I think about it more I'm not sure if SETI would tell up if they had a hit.The idea of aliens coming here is kinda out there I know,but wow this guys mind is completely close on the idea.Yes it possible for aliens to have some very good stealth that can get past our detection.Yes its possible that aliens would not want to land on the white house lawn.Yes it is possible that its a military thing. If it is military that would be harder for me to take instead of being alien. If it is a military thing and we have something that can sneak in ans sneak out,why in the hell didnt we use it to get Sadaam instead of sending troops in.If that is military why in the hell dont we use it to get Bin Laden.Hell you dont even have to say you used it,just fracking use it.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


I don't disagree of his contribution to the widening the exposure to Roswell. I'm sure if he never existed, our time line would be entirely different, probably no ATS and we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Researching UFO Phenomenon requires thinking outside the box and additional risk that would not necessarily be a positive attribute in other areas.

delius



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ProjectXYZ
[more.]
He's lost some ground on the celeb interview front and is looking to boost ratings. Back when King was THE late night radio guy, he often did UFOs and "weird" stuff. He was no Art Bell, but neither was he a stranger to the stuff.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by delius
reply to post by fleabit
 


I don't disagree of his contribution to the widening the exposure to Roswell. I'm sure if he never existed, our time line would be entirely different, probably no ATS and we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Researching UFO Phenomenon requires thinking outside the box and additional risk that would not necessarily be a positive attribute in other areas.

delius


Well, as far as that goes, there are pleeenty of researches that stretch believability and take plenty of risks. The study also needs some very solid folks who take his stance imo. The only way it will ever be taken seriously by the mainstream media, is if the researchers are also very serious. Scientists are typically respected for two reasons: They are serious about their study, and they don't use guesswork, they want facts. And I think ufology needs more of this as well.

If you give them nothing but facts, and they can't explain them away, then you have the upper hand. If you provide theories that are full of supposition, holes, and folks that believe anything told them at face value, the media is going to continue to have a hayday with these stories.

Case in point: Just before the show started, the previous shows host asked Larry what was coming up. When he told her, she had a big ol' grin on her face. One of those "omg you are talking about ufos, haha" sorts of grins. Which will continue to happen, until more facts are injected into these studies. We make it too easy to discredit imo.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DocEmrick
 


They are probably not setting him up to be the messiah, but they definetely could be using his notariaty and forum to leak info in preparation for a full disclosure.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by delius
With all due respect, what has Stan Friedman presented in the last 20 years that was ground breaking?

[edit on 12-7-2008 by delius]


no delete button? double post. oops!

[edit on 12-7-2008 by weknowyouknow]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by delius
With all due respect, what has Stan Friedman presented in the last 20 years that was ground breaking?

[edit on 12-7-2008 by delius]


Man some people just piss me off.

Stanton Friedman is the only SOUND voice in the UFO community. Everything the man has said has sound reason. Nobody has anything groundbreaking to say in this field. We all just simply don't know what going on and I think the government doesn't even know half of it.

Larry King does a fantastic job as always, asking the right questions to fuel the topic. He keeps the topic in proper circulation amongst the guests. I think he genuinely fascinated by the topic and wants to know more just like us. But for some people on this board, reality might hurt a little bit. Of course people are going to have different views but when you dispute the evidence, only the facts come clear.


People act like the government knows all.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Hi you all,

A couple of months ago there was a lot of talk about the US starting another false flag op. Imo it did start, and Larry King discussing UFO's is just one of the things covered in this huge op.

Imo (most) UFO's are govt/militairy projects and they must be loving us to keep on wondering about the alien aspect of it. All this (dis)info thus created the perfect cover for themselves..

What do you think??

Toine



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
When Noory from C2C was on recently you could almost see the wheels turning in King's head. Ratings, ratings, ratings. There is no harm in having a popular show. Maybe L.M.Howe will be on, too. There is a new find, a Roswell rock that is carved to duplicate a crop circle of 1996, she has covered it on Earthfiles.com.
If I get the time I think I will pop over to where the guy with the rock is and have a chat. Maybe he'll let me hold it, (the rock) and I could see if I got some impression.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
He wants the know the truth before he gets replaced with Jay Leno and dies.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I was VERY surprised that Bill Nye the Science Guy doesn't believe...

Huge skeptic.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufo reality
I spoke with Stan Friedman on the phone last night. The show next Friday July, 18 sounds awesome for sure!



I lived 2 streets down from Stanton in Fredericton, Nb.

Does he still reside there, It's been months since we talked.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by chapter29
 


Yeah I was kidding about being the messiah of UFOlogists. But I really do think that there is a slow stream of disclosure going on. The MSM is the primary tool that the government is using for disclosure. Hell, isn't next week like "UFO" week on the History channel?

I think a lot of the sightings we have are top-secret aircraft, and I don't think that people are right complaining about "We still use oil, why haven't they released it yet?" There's a lot of testing when you have a new propulsion / free energy system to implement into society. I'd rather have some Air Force Colonel die in a freak accident, instead of 1000's of civilians who don't know how to use the technology. At least the Colonel can get awards and recognized and "He died for the good of humanity." Whereas, if we have anti-gravity hydrogen cars of doom propelled by mind-power and we don't know how to use the technology, all fingers point to the military. "You uh released this too soon! IMPEACH! SUE!!!" You get the idea. It'll come soon enough.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   



Throughout the entire broadcast, in graphics, it said:

UFO MYSTERY EXPLAINED?

What was definitively explained during this broadcast, did I miss something?



It is a perfectly common journalistic device. (And very effective at that.)
Nothing is more eye-catching than a question mark, while at the same time preserving the semblance of journalistic integrity and committment to the truth.

The number of characters in a line is limited (e.g. 34 chs - etc.)
Also, the attention span of the typical viewer is limited.
So you take a short sentence to cacth the attention of the public (you have to be a good psychologist for that).

If your story deals with something that hasn't been proven yet but is the subject of public speculation, you simply take a short STATEMENT that you know will attract the public attention and append the question mark.
By doing this, you won't be misleading anyone with false statements, and yet you will attract the audience.



[edit on 12-7-2008 by AdAstra]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join