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.

 

Debunkers at it Again

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008

1. Ronnie Zamora:


Who's Ronnie Zamora? He has pictures of an alleged "landing site" but no pictures of the UFO itself. How convenient! How do you know he did not make up the story?



Originally posted by kidflash2008
2. The late Colonel Gordon Cooper saw a group of metallic disks flying in formation during the 1950s. He saw they were manufactured craft, and unlike anything we or the Soviets had in our arsenals at the time. (From his book, "Leap of Faith".) He was not the type of person to make something like that up.


Perhaps he did not make it up, but only believes what he saw were metallic disks. Believing you have seen something, and actually having seen that something are two completely different things.


Originally posted by kidflash2008
3. The Betty and Barney Hill case, with its physical evidence and radar confirmation of an unknown object in the area and time frame of the sighting by Pease AFB.



In The UFO Handbook, Allan Hendry describes an apparent close encounter of the third kind stimulated by Venus. A woman reported that a very bright object in the southwest had made a slow, jerky descent over a period of an hour one evening. As she stared at it, she became convinced that she could see occupants with rounded silvery heads looking out of the object’s windows. The UFO turned up again on subsequent nights, exactly where Venus should be.

Keep this report of apparent occupants in mind when considering the famous story of an American couple, Betty and Barney Hill, who claimed to have been chased by a UFO one night. Barney stopped to look at the object through binoculars and reported seeing a row of windows with alien faces peering out. Thinking they were going to be abducted, the Hills drove off in panic. Later, Betty Hill dreamed that they really were abducted, and many UFOlogists have believed her dream story.

Yet, from Betty Hill’s own sketch, Robert Sheaffer has identified the UFO as Jupiter, which is second only to Venus in brightness. The apparent ‘chasing’ is another phenomenon of celestial objects, which appear to keep pace with moving cars. Sheaffer also describes a hilarious 100 mph police chase of Venus through Ohio and Pennsylvania in 1966. They never did catch it, but they did inspire a scene in the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind.


Source: Astronomical Causes of UFOs


Originally posted by kidflash2008
There are many other top notch cases where the conclusion of Occam's Razor must be extraterrestrial craft.


Top notch?

Sorry, but if the above is the best you can come up with - why bother?

This is why I don't spend much time here in Aliens & UFOs any more... people will believe what they want to believe, even when a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation for a certain phenomena/event/UFO is presented.




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
Here is the truth about Friedman. First, he is in it for the money since if he wasn't he would be a poor, unrecognized man.

Wow I never knew the truth about Friedman so thank you for finally enlightening us.


Friedman is a nuclear physicist and his employment record and degrees are impressive. If you have better credentials then I salute you.


Stanton T. Friedman received BSc and MSc degrees in physics from the University of Chicago in 1955 and 1956. He was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist for such companies as GE, GM, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas on such advanced, classified, eventually cancelled, projects as nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and nuclear powerplants for space.



Both do not stand up to scrutiny but he doesn't care because most humans will ignore the evidence in favor fantasy which sells more than truth.

What scrutiny and what evidence? And I could be blind but it seems you haven't provided any for your claims. Maybe you want to hop into the Roswell thread and back up your claims with actual evidence?


Third, he is mainly responsible for the Roswell b.s. that permeates the UFO industry. Friedman cannot support anything he says about Roswell and whatever he produces to support his b.s. can be shot down with logic, common sense and reason, and the actual record, of course.

See above.


Anyone worth his sanity can do proper research and come to the only conclusion about Stanton Friedman, Nuklear Physicist, he's an anal cavity.

No offence but so far your research consists of nothing more then speculation and accusations with no evidence to back them up whatsoever.

But why bother eh?


[edit on 7/2/09 by Fastwalker81]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


Ronnie Zamora was recently interviewed, and is not the type of person to make something like that up. He took his work as a police officer seriously. In the case of the photographs of the landing, he went back to the site with a camera. This is one of the complaints of Mr Friedman, and that is attacking the source when all else fails.

The late Colonel Gordon Cooper had other pilots in the fighters witness the disks flying in formation. He also had seen negatives of film shot by two of his men at Edwards AFB of a flying saucer landing. The Pentagon took the film, and it was never seen nor heard of again. The above was witnessed by people other than Col Gordon. The man was an astronaut, and experienced pilot. He turned down a chance to earn a star, as it would of prevented him from his love of flying.

The Betty and Barney Hill case has physical evidence to support it. The debunkers always seem to ignore the radar confirmation of Pease AFB of an unknown object in the area of the sighting.

These are cases from my immediate memory. I can also bring up Shag Harbor, Papua New Guinea, and many sightings by military pilots near nuclear missile bases. I have read each of the cases in the past, and have asked many questions myself about what happened. I am not one to believe any case, and many of the posters here will tell you that. I am one who has problems with the Travis Walton and Phoenix Lights cases, but I do keep an open mind.

For those who say the crafts are time machines from the future, it may be possible, but I would think the paradoxes created would prevent time travel from ever being a reality. I will keep an open mind about time travel, but the extraterrestrial hypothesis is a solid theory.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008

Ronnie Zamora was recently interviewed, and is not the type of person to make something like that up.


You mean like Steven Greer? Or countless others, who people keep or used to keep saying the same thing about?

How do you know that for sure? Have you met him? Were you married to him? In some cases, spouses lie to each other for many years without the other finding out. It's not unknown for seemingly upstanding and honest people to turn out to be liars. How sure can you really be?

This case can never be water-tight on one persons testimony IMHO.

No corroborating photographs of a UFO or corroborating witness statements... not even close without those, sorry.



Originally posted by kidflash2008
The late Colonel Gordon Cooper had other pilots in the fighters witness the disks flying in formation. He also had seen negatives of film shot by two of his men at Edwards AFB of a flying saucer landing. The Pentagon took the film


Well, we have no film, again...

Witness statements that corroborate it, would suggest that something was seen, but how can you be sure it was what they thought it was. See the link I posted above for multiple examples of many whitnesses to the same event who make the same basic identification mistakes.


Originally posted by kidflash2008
The Betty and Barney Hill case has physical evidence to support it. The debunkers always seem to ignore the radar confirmation of Pease AFB of an unknown object in the area of the sighting.


It's not physical evidence though. Have you ever heard of "false radar-returns"? They are not uncommon. How do you know that this was not the case here?

As I said before, none of these cases are even close to being water tight. They can all be explained by people misidentifying either common or uncommon phenomena.

This is the most basic stumbling block in UFOlogy today, and until people here start seeing that there is not going to be much progress made.

Don't get me wrong, a case like the Colonel Gordon Cooper case should be fully investigated to see if there is anything to it, but as soon as there is even a chance that something is misidentified, then it may as well go in the bin, unless further supporting evidence can be turned up.

That would have to be overwhelming evidence too, otherwise, the razor says, the most likely possibility remains a misidentified phenomena.

All I'm trying to say, is that *anybody* no matter how well trained or skilled in the art of observing can misidentify something, and if you don't believe me, spend a decade (100's of hours) watching the sky/stars/meteors/satellites/etc like I have. Don't bother with telescopes, you see more UFOs using your own eyes, and don't just observe, LEARN about what you see.

I'll be here in 10 years time, to the day, to see if you still feel the same. That goes out to anyone else here who wants to take up the challenge


[edit on 7-2-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
[Wow I never knew the truth about Friedman so thank you for finally enlightening us.


You never knew the truth about Friedman 'cause it would be wasted knowledge.

Friedman WAS a nuclear physicist. You provided the factual data that shows that since 1970 he hasn't done any nuclear physicsism. He jumped on the UFO bandwagon when he saw that there was a fertile field to exploit. He knew that the truth didn't sell, that only those authors making outrageous claims that did not require evidence were getting rich, selling books, appearing at UFO conferences, being on TV, bein written up in the media, etc. Yes, he isn't a fool. But he is an exploiter of minds like yours. Roswell had been forgotten and he was prominent in reviving it for money because the world was ready for a non-event that had been explained beyond mondo, except that now there were more stupid humans than ever before. The same stupid humans that favored a prosaic explanaion not only for Roswell for the Phoenix flares as well.

One doesn't need credentials to show Friedman for what he is and others have done a bette job than me, such as Karl T. Pflock, Kal K. Korff, and many others. Criticize anything I said, that's your right. But there are a lot others you'll have to criticize also. And then it turns around to you; who are YOU?

If you want to believe Roswell was more than a mundane event, be my guest. But always keep in mind: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." You've been fooled.

Your comment: "No offence but so far your research consists of nothing more then speculation and accusations with no evidence to back them up whatsoever." could be leveled at Friedman!




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
The only "evidence" that exists in the Hill case is the paperwork generated by Dr Simon who did not accept the Hill's story as being factual. When your doctor does not believe you...

Additionally, any serious research into the Hill's "experience" only results in the "experience" being a product mainly of Betty Hill with Barney an innocent accomplice. Never mind the TV documentary about the dress, it didn't result in a positive report.


Originally posted by kidflash2008
The Betty and Barney Hill case has physical evidence to support it. The debunkers always seem to ignore the radar confirmation of Pease AFB of an unknown object in the area of the sighting.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Evenin' EN,


Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Frank Warren
 



Hello Frank and thanks for the post


Your welcome!


first off i have to say that you can color me in as a believer because i have had a close encounter years ago, so there is no doubts in my mind about Aliens visiting this planet.

but i have to say...

how can Stanton just assume that some UFO's are E.T.'s if he is only basing his opinion on reports and documents and does not have any conclusive hard evidence such as alien body's or a crashed UFO to examine ?



Proclamation is more their style


isn't this statement by him somewhat hypocritical ?

i am just guessing but i think that would be Nohup's argument about what Stanton is claiming. he is proclaiming some UFO's are from an E.T. intelligence.

but they are only proclamations from him based on circumstantial and controversial evidence.

i am assuming this is the case with Stanton,but heck for all i know he might have an Alien body somewhere...lol

my point here is...

if i had not experienced the close encounter that i did, i would be a skeptic also.

so where does a provable proclamation come from on either side, if it is not hard evidence based ?

are you confused yet ? i know i am



First Stan isn't "claiming" or "proclaiming" . . . he's deducing, or coming to a conclusion based on many decades of research and the preponderance of evidence.

His argument is that there is an abundance of evidence in support of the notion that some UFOs are "ET in origin (and I agree with him).

His deductions are based on far more then "circumstantial and controversial evidence, or just documents and reports."

His criticism toward debunkers is that fact that "most" don't do any homework, and feel that they can speak "authoritively on the subject which of course is balderdash!

Pick up his latest book and everything will become crystal clear. :>))

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Frank Warren
 



Thanks Frank for straightening me out on that one, i see that my mistake is,

i was using proclamation in the wrong context.


Pick up his latest book and everything will become crystal clear. :>))


it's clear already but i will still take a peak at his book.

thanks again



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Evenin' LH,

I don't mean to be rude; however, this is the biggest load of flapdoodle I've heard in some time! The ineptitude exhibited here is mind-boggling.


Originally posted by Learhoag
Ah, good ol' Stanton "don't confuse me with the facts" Friedman. Of course, everyone has their defenders and detractors. Except in this case the defenders are just as "fact-blind" as Friedman will always be. I started to read his article but when you're saturated by b.s. as one must be when reading anything he spouts, I had to call it short.


Stan's research, and the "facts" uncovered through his efforts are unequaled as far as most are concerned. To state he is "fact blind" is oxymoronic.


Here is the truth about Friedman. First, he is in it for the money since if he wasn't he would be a poor, unrecognized man. Since the majority of humans are a gullible bunch, he will always have an audience.


I'm afraid Learhoag you're delving into pure fantasy and utter stultiloquence. Moreover, you have Ufologists reading this, rolling on the ground laughing; first if you think there's any money in Ufology, then it would appear that you are as nescient to the subject matter, as well as the man you're criticizing. Second, although he may not have been as well known had he not gone down the Ufological path, he certainly would have been better off financially.


Second, Friedman cannot rely on evidence 'cause that would cause him to come up short with facts. His specialty is keeping Roswell alive as well as the Phoenix flares. Both do not stand up to scrutiny but he doesn't care because most humans will ignore the evidence in favor fantasy which sells more than truth.


Stanton Friedman "does nothing but rely on evidence!" Moreover, he doesn't keep Roswell alive, people's interest do. Although Stan is certainly intersted in the "Phoenix Lights" it isn't one of his pet cases . . . which is another one of your mounting erroneous edicts.

Both cases have stood up to intense scrutiny, and particularly when Stan argues the issues, as he hasn't lost a debate yet. Stan Friedman is not only a gentleman and a scholar (literally) he is one of the most generous men I know . . . trying paint him as a charlatan is deceptive and shameful.


Third, he is mainly responsible for the Roswell b.s. that permeates the UFO industry. Friedman cannot support anything he says about Roswell and whatever he produces to support his b.s. can be shot down with logic, common sense and reason, and the actual record, of course.


Stan is certainly responsible for Roswell being in the public domain; had it not been for him, Roswell would just have remained a be a sleepy little in New Mexico, opposed to the iconic emblem that it has today.

"Logic, common sense and reason" are the tools that Stan employs to educate the uninformed. Additionally, Stan is responsible for the "actual records" coming to light.


Fourth, he carries on in the same manner with the Phoenix flares which have been shown to be military flares. Documentaries have proven this and additionally I posted at U-M my findings regarding seeing human aircraft strobe lights in the video that is used to prove they're alien craft.


Again, you are mistaken; Stan does not dispute the fact that flares were dropped on March 13th, 1997, and all but one video is in fact that of flares; I might add that the majority of Ufologist agree with this mindset. This of course doesn't account for the huge V-shaped craft seen earlier in the evening by thousands.



Fifth, oh why bother.

Anyone worth his sanity can do proper research and come to the only conclusion about Stanton Friedman, Nuklear Physicist, he's an anal cavity.


From what's evidenced here, I would say, "not anyone" can do "proper research."

A few months back a couple of others attempted to slander Stan, this is what I wrote to them:

Stanton Friedman is credentialed both academically, and by his tenure as a nuclear physicist. The latter involved “classified programs” which necessitated a “Q clearance.” The DOE’s “Q Clearance” is equivalent to the DoD’s “Top Secret Clearance (TS)”; his achievements have been such that he has been called on by The Untied Nations, as well as Congress . . . hardly the accolades of a charlatan!

Equally important is the fact he his a man of impeccable character, ethics, and principals—a true gentlemen in every sense of the word; fortunately, for those who choose to slander him, fear not, as he need not slither down to the level of ad hominem attacks.

One other attribute Stan possesses is “courage!” He crossed a line long ago that most “academics and or mainstream scientists” won’t dare! He became cognizant of a “global phenomenon” decades past and took action! He did what science prescribes, setting aside “cognitive bias” as well as selfishness, then began to research and investigate. He is a Copernicus of his time, defying the status quo, and staying true to science.

I might add for those that feel that Ufology isn’t worthy of science, let me remind them that the first physicists who broached the subject (albeit by mandate) are names they might recognize e.g., Dr. Edward Teller, Dr. Norris Bradbury, Dr. Frederick, Dr. Reines, Dr. John Manley to name a few.

One final note for those who don’t know him, yet choose to malign the man; Stanton Friedman vindicates his thesis with factual data; he lays it on the table for all to see, and he invites logical inquiry; he takes on any all challengers with plausible arguments; those who can’t step up and argue the scientific points, and can only sling mud certainly don’t conform to science or common decency for that matter.


Respectfully,
Frank Warren



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Learhoag
Friedman WAS a nuclear physicist. You provided the factual data that shows that since 1970 he hasn't done any nuclear physicsism.

Indeed and this was exactly my point. Had he remained in that field he would have made alot more money then he is now like Frank points out nicely. So much for your money grabbing argument shall we say.

And secondly I have to say the "he's in it for the money" claim gets old fast. Let's assume here you are educated yourself. The books you read in school were authored by scientists just like Friedman. Do you really think they wrote these books for free? Did you stand up in your classroom shouting: This book is fantasy, the author clearly was out to make a dollar? I find this notion hilarious for obvious reasons.


But he is an exploiter of minds like yours. And then it turns around to you; who are YOU?

Look if all you can come up with are some snide remarks directed at me rather then backing up your drivel with evidence it quickly becomes clear for all to see that you know nothing of the cases you babble on about.


If you want to believe Roswell was more than a mundane event, be my guest. But always keep in mind: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." You've been fooled.

I still haven't seen you post any evidence for your claims whatsoever. Are you going to continue your baseless accusations or are you going to present something of substance?


Your comment: "No offence but so far your research consists of nothing more then speculation and accusations with no evidence to back them up whatsoever." could be leveled at Friedman!

Wrong again. The only thing you have proven so far is that my comment
regarding you is completely accurate and that you don't seem to have any case knowledge whatsoever.

Again where is your evidence? That's right you don't have any.




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


When there are more than one coincidence in a case, one can make good deductions. It is true there are false reports of radar, but that happened at the same time as the Hill sighting? Mr and Mrs Hill filled out a report of what was seen, and the drawing of the craft with the crew watching Barney was made before the hypnosis began. Also, the car had the three circular spots that made the compass go crazy. That was witnessed and tested by numerous people. The stain and rip on Betty's dress, and the scratches on Barney's shoes also add up.

After a while, coincidences stop becoming coincidences and the story needs to be looked at.

I have never met Ronnie Zamora, but there have been numerous character witnesses come forward about his integrity. (The same cannot be said of Travis Walton.) There was no reason for him to lie about what happened, as he was a respected officer who was doing his job. This case has been researched and gone over a dozen times, and it holds up.

It is true the military brass took the film from Col Gordon Cooper. They also ordered him not to view it, but he took it that he could look at the negatives. The film was taken by two workers who witnessed it, and Col Cooper saw the craft in great detail. He also had the incident with the disks flying in formation that was also witnessed by others. I am sure he wished he had a camera back then, but unfortunately he did not.

There is film and radar confirmation of the "Summer of Saucers" during 1952. There are also hundreds of witnesses to those cases, and a shoot down order given by a top general.

Many do attack Stanton Friedman, but he has found many documents that would otherwise not be discovered in his quest to find out more about the MJ-12 documents. One of my favorites is the FBI memo written by J Edgar Hoover himself, lamenting he wanted to get his hands on a disk. Most researchers never would of thought to look at the FBI, and that little gem was found.

I, too, want to find out the truth. I do state the above cases as very good ones in the search for the truth. I do thank you, Mr C.H.U.D. for having a good debate and asking tough questions. The UFO community needs more of persons like you to keep them on their toes, and to start asking tough questions themselves.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Mornin' KF,

reply to post by kidflash2008
 



That's "Lonnie" Zamora.

The FBI doc you cite actually referred to incident in Louisiana which ended up being a hoax; however, Hoover's interest was indeed genuine, ad there are more significant FBI docs. Hoover did have a problem in that he didn't want (the FBI) to be the gopher for any military agencies.

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Oh yea... Stan really cleaned up didn't he? 10 years of research for 1 book! Wow.. what a scam artist!


As opposed to someone like Sitchen, who cranks out books based on flimsy, slapdash research, and popular ideas.

Stan also is not someone who believes all UFO are alien craft. Quite the contrary. He more than any other researcher I know, approaches cases with a neutral mindset. He does not believe anything at face value. Every time I've seen him comment on any case, he takes the cautious route. Saying he believes all ufos are aliens is fairly laughable.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
When there are more than one coincidence in a case, one can make good deductions.


Like what?

Edit: Have a look at this link, and let me know if you still feel the same way about it.
Here's another good link that explains coincidence, and why it's such an easy trap to fall into.



It is true there are false reports of radar, but that happened at the same time as the Hill sighting?


Yes... why couldn't it? Was there some "safety mode" engaged at the time, that the radar goes into, where it becomes 'infallible' when ever there is a UFO sighting?




Mr and Mrs Hill filled out a report of what was seen, and the drawing of the craft with the crew watching Barney was made before the hypnosis began.


She drew what she thought she'd seen. That's hardly a surprise.



Also, the car had the three circular spots that made the compass go crazy. That was witnessed and tested by numerous people.


Got a link to the witness statements/lab analysis?




The stain and rip on Betty's dress, and the scratches on Barney's shoes also add up.


A stain and a rip? Could have come from anywhere... especially if you're in a panic trying to get a way from something you think is chasing you... Did the stain contain alien DNA?

Scratches on shoes? I have those too...



After a while, coincidences stop becoming coincidences and the story needs to be looked at.


I agree 100%, but where do you draw the line?

Some nights ago, I happened to be looking out of my window, and I saw an Iridium flare...

Coincidence#1 - looking out of window
Coincidence#2 - looking in the right direction
Coincidence#3 - looking at the right time
Coincidence#4 - no clouds to block my view (we get lots here)
Coincidence#5 - Iridium satellite being in the right location and correct angle
Coincidence#6 - Sun being in correct position and angle relative to me and the Iridium satellite

That's 6 separate events coming together so that I could see that Iridium flare!

Given what you said, this should be a rare event worth investigating. I've seen flares like this on a number of occasions whilst not specifically looking for them.

Let's look at the case in question again...

In the US there must be 100's of military and civilian radar facilities, there are also many 10s of millions of people. Almost every other day there is a new post here on ATS about a UFO that turns out to be nothing more than Venus, and ATS represents only a tiny fraction of the US, and indeed the world.

Sooner or later, the inevitable will happen, and I would argue that, there is more chance of a coincidence like this happening at some point in time, than there is of it not happening, given that at any point in time when Venus is visible, there is probably someone (if not many people) looking up at it and wondering what they are seeing.

So, the probability of something like that happening is very high, and that is only 2 coincidences. It took 6 for my Iridium, and that's a relatively common event for me.

This case is no more than a common event blown out of complete proportion by a young couple, who simply did not know enough about the night sky to understand what they were looking at, and they got freaked out by it. There is no evidence to suggest anything alien in nature was involved, apart from Venus, which has been shown time and time again to catch people out.

I know Venus pretty well now, and sometimes how it looks has startled me (briefly)! Look for yourself:- low on the SW horizon at about 6.30 PM local time at the moment. Have you got astronomical software like stellarium?

It only takes one person to make a mistake (or two in this case, which is not unusual), and a seemingly impossible set of coincidences to set something like this off.




I have never met Ronnie Zamora, but there have been numerous character witnesses come forward about his integrity. (The same cannot be said of Travis Walton.) There was no reason for him to lie about what happened, as he was a respected officer who was doing his job. This case has been researched and gone over a dozen times, and it holds up.


It still relies completely on the testimony of one individual, who may or may not have known the true nature of what he saw, if indeed he did see anything.

Also, if exploring all of the possibilities is attacking the source, how can we ever have a balanced investigation?

Are you saying that we should never question the integrity of a source?

I'm not attacking the integrity of the source, I'm questioning whether all men tell the truth 100% of the time? If the answer to that is no, then IMO there always has to be a question mark over anything anyone says, since there is still a chance they could be lying. Name one person that's never lied? All it takes is one 'good' lier... and you have 'evidence' that aliens are visiting us?

I'd love to believe that people told the truth all the time, but in some cases, that's just not the case, and this possibility can not be ignored.

Anyway, how do we know that it was not a random hallucination, a stroke, who knows what... it's just another possibility. He might really believe that he saw something, but it was his mind playing tricks.

Have a think about the possibility of some random policeman, some time, having a 'brain-fart'. Police are not superhuman, or immune from imperfections that affect their health like the rest of the population.

There are more likely possibilities than aliens being involved... the fact that it happened to someone named Ronnie Zamora is irrelevant... in a big world, with lots of people... how could it not happen to someone?




It is true the military brass took the film from Col Gordon Cooper. They also ordered him not to view it, but he took it that he could look at the negatives. The film was taken by two workers who witnessed it, and Col Cooper saw the craft in great detail.


How do you know it's true? Another 'rumor' or is there hard evidence that it's true?



He also had the incident with the disks flying in formation that was also witnessed by others.


Have you seen these reports? What do they say? Are they 'official' reports? Any chance of a link?



I, too, want to find out the truth. I do state the above cases as very good ones in the search for the truth. I do thank you, Mr C.H.U.D. for having a good debate and asking tough questions. The UFO community needs more of persons like you to keep them on their toes, and to start asking tough questions themselves.


You're welcome kidflash, and thank you for being so candid and courteous. I'm just trying to get at the truth here too, and I hope you'll forgive the way I phrase my replies, as it's the only way I know how to, in order to get my point across.

The questions I'm asking are not that tough (apart from one perhaps which may be hard to swallow for some - that they could be basing their belief on a flawed assumption) - you would get a much harder time from a full time pro who really knew his/her stuff, and was prepared to investigate these cases in minute detail. I wish I had the time for that, but I do not, and I'm not a professional trained UFO investigator. I'm just a part timer who happens to have an educational background in the sciences, and a strong interest in astronomy.



[edit on 8-2-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Continued from previous post...

In fact, when I first started visiting ATS, I held pretty much the same views as you, but after a little bit of digging I realized it's actually quite easy for simple mistakes to be made when it comes to UFOs, but most importantly using my own experiences, and not relying on what others say is true.

The beauty of all this is you can go out and look for yourself, and trust me, it's worth it, not just because you will find out what is true and what is not, but you will find out how amazing the sky/nature can be.

A few suggestions of things to try and see:

Meteors/Meteor Showers
-Fireballs/bolides
-A meteor leaving a long lived persistent train
-Exploding and fragmenting meteors
-Point meteors/Earth grazers
These are all quite easy to see if you watch frequently when the time is right. See my thread here that's almost entirely devoted to meteors.

Comets - like Comet Lulin which is visible to the naked eye right now under dark skies, and is an easy target for binocs.

Satellites
-Flares and glints
-Re-entries/launches
-formations
Here's a good place to start: www.heavens-above.com...

Aurora Borealis/Australis

Other atmospheric phenomena like NLCs, halos, etc, etc

--

The above is just a starting point, and while looking for those you will also no doubt see some UFOs, as we all do (those who spend time looking or just happen to get lucky), but keep digging and watching and you will see most UFOs for what they really are, "common misidentified phenomena", and what is left can usually just as easily be accounted for by natural terrestrial phenomena we might not know about as it can for by an intelligent/alien explanation, which is not impossible... just highly unlikely when you weigh up the 'evidence' (or perhaps lack of any of it) in the cold, and I agree 'harsh', light of day.

Please try and understand, that I and others here on ATS that have been labeled skeptics, are just ordinary people like yourself, who happen to be interested in astronomy, and like thousands of other amateur astronomers have been saying, if you'll just listen, is that all you have to do is spend some time looking up, and listen to what we have to say.

We want the answers as much as you do, and there are IMO some very unusual cases that can't be explained by our current understanding of things, but most 'evidence' out their is flimsy at best, and that is all us 'skeptics' are trying to point out.

I hope that makes sense, and I thank you for listening to me. Stay on those toes



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
There is no "preponderance of evidence"! Tell me where I can find this "evidence." Isn't the lack of supportable evidence the major stumbling block in UFOlogy? That there is no evidence? Sure, I accept some photographs, films, videos as evidence. I shot a video of a UFO myself. But even these are not accepted by mainstream science since they can be created. And Friedman's research is mostly others' research since there is nothing to research and all you can do is speculate. So, many have speculated and everyone comes to the same conclusions so why bother doing individual research, you are just going to duplicate and there's enough already! It's a dead end.

There is no "abundance of evidence" to support that some UFOs are "ET in origin" since no one on earth knows ANYTHING about UFOs other than what's been seen by individuals and shown on TV. We have no idea what UFOs are and where they originate.

Friedman's deductions are based on available material, there is nothing else.

It is the debunkers that have done the major work and why he is criticized by many for contributing to the dumbness of humans with his pronouncements which he cannot back up with evidence. Holding up a blacked-out government document is not evidence of anything associated with UFOs and aliens except that there is something in those documents that the government doesn't want to show the public such as secret methods of this or that.

The only thing "crystal clear" about Friedman (and many others) is that he's having the last laugh as he visits the bank to play with his money. Only fools support him.

I met Friedman in the U.N. in 1978 and in Calif. in the early '80s and I have the photos to prove it


Originally posted by Frank Warren
[snip]
First Stan isn't "claiming" or "proclaiming" . . . he's deducing, or coming to a conclusion based on many decades of research and the preponderance of evidence.

His argument is that there is an abundance of evidence in support of the notion that some UFOs are "ET in origin (and I agree with him).

His deductions are based on far more then "circumstantial and controversial evidence, or just documents and reports."

His criticism toward debunkers is that fact that "most" don't do any homework, and feel that they can speak "authoritively on the subject which of course is balderdash!

Pick up his latest book and everything will become crystal clear. :>))

Cheers,
Frank




[edit on 8-2-2009 by Learhoag]



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
What I get from your replies supporting and defending Friedman is that you have no concept of what you speak of.

reply to post by Frank Warren
 



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Stanton is a legend , he knows more than any of us about this topic so when he says some ET's are alien and some may not . I agree on his statements.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


When there are more than one coincidence in a case, one can make good deductions. It is true there are false reports of radar, but that happened at the same time as the Hill sighting? Mr and Mrs Hill filled out a report of what was seen, and the drawing of the craft with the crew watching Barney was made before the hypnosis began. Also, the car had the three circular spots that made the compass go crazy. That was witnessed and tested by numerous people. The stain and rip on Betty's dress, and the scratches on Barney's shoes also add up.

After a while, coincidences stop becoming coincidences and the story needs to be looked at.

I have never met Ronnie Zamora, but there have been numerous character witnesses come forward about his integrity. (The same cannot be said of Travis Walton.) There was no reason for him to lie about what happened, as he was a respected officer who was doing his job. This case has been researched and gone over a dozen times, and it holds up.

It is true the military brass took the film from Col Gordon Cooper. They also ordered him not to view it, but he took it that he could look at the negatives. The film was taken by two workers who witnessed it, and Col Cooper saw the craft in great detail. He also had the incident with the disks flying in formation that was also witnessed by others. I am sure he wished he had a camera back then, but unfortunately he did not.

There is film and radar confirmation of the "Summer of Saucers" during 1952. There are also hundreds of witnesses to those cases, and a shoot down order given by a top general.

Many do attack Stanton Friedman, but he has found many documents that would otherwise not be discovered in his quest to find out more about the MJ-12 documents. One of my favorites is the FBI memo written by J Edgar Hoover himself, lamenting he wanted to get his hands on a disk. Most researchers never would of thought to look at the FBI, and that little gem was found.

I, too, want to find out the truth. I do state the above cases as very good ones in the search for the truth. I do thank you, Mr C.H.U.D. for having a good debate and asking tough questions. The UFO community needs more of persons like you to keep them on their toes, and to start asking tough questions themselves.


You are not quoting facts. Here are some facts. While it may seem from the popular press that the Hills were innocent victims of UFO occupants "abducting" them, the truth is that it was a book many years later that brought out their alleged experience. You know that authors have to be creative when writing about other peoples' experiences and you can see that a lot of the stuff in the book came from the author's mind. It is NOT a documentary.

Betty was knowledgeable and outspoken about UFOs waaay before their "experience." Nowehere in the record can you find that the Hills showed the circles (3? Where did you read this?) to anyone.

The dress story did not stand up to modern scrutiny as reported in the TV documentary. The statements about Barney's shoes are hearsay.

It was Betty who was responsible for Barney's side of the story as revealed by Dr Simon.

Lonnie Zamora could have seen a pre-NASA experiment . Look it up.

Regarding Gordon Cooper you weren't there and what's come down the pike probably has changed and it is a colored account. Until that film is found and released to the public, speculation is all that can accepted.

Friedman finds documents but so can anyone using the FOIA. There was no such thing as MJ12, that's a creation and they are 100% fake.

What the UFO "community" needs is more open-minded individuals who do serious research. So far, that seems to be lacking here.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Oh yea... Stan really cleaned up didn't he? 10 years of research for 1 book! Wow.. what a scam artist!


As opposed to someone like Sitchen, who cranks out books based on flimsy, slapdash research, and popular ideas.

Stan also is not someone who believes all UFO are alien craft. Quite the contrary. He more than any other researcher I know, approaches cases with a neutral mindset. He does not believe anything at face value. Every time I've seen him comment on any case, he takes the cautious route. Saying he believes all ufos are aliens is fairly laughable.


One book in 10 years? Look at the titles below, most if not all dependent on gullible minds to accept the contents of. Boy, are you and all of the other believers/supports way off the mark. Oh, wait, YOU are the mark!

Some of the books authored by Stanton Friedman (published!)
"FLYING SAUCERS & SCIENCE" by Nuclear Physicist Lecturer Stanton T. Friedman. June 2008, 320P. Covers all Aspects of 50 years of Research by STF, Large studies, Star Travel, SETI, Sci-Fi & UFO's, Press Coverage, Polls, Cover-up, Updates on Roswell & MJ-12, + much more.

"Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience. The True Story of the World's First Documented Alien Abduction" by Stanton Friedman and Kathleen Marden who is Betty Hill's Niece. Foreword by Dr. Bruce Maccabee. Career Press / New Page Books, ISBN 978-156414-971-8, ISBN 978-1-56-924741-9

“TOP SECRET/MAJIC”, 2nd Edition, Marlowe + Co. ISBN 1-56924-342-5; 2005. 296 pages, Stanton T. Friedman, Trade Paper, August 2005: 2nd Edition with new afterword. Foreword by Whitley Strieber. Covers Stanton's 11-year investigation of the Majestic 12 documents and 9 more years of responding to objections. None of the objections to the original documents stand up to careful scrutiny. Many later MJ documents are shown to be phony. ISBN 978-1-56-924342-8

CRASH AT CORONA: The Definitive Story of The Roswell Incident. The US Military Retrieval and Cover-Up of a UFO, Stanton T. Friedman (Original Civilian Investigator of Roswell) co-authored with Don Berliner, 1997 Trade paper edition with an additional new Roswell 50th Anniversary Chapter. Newest Edition May 31, 2004, ISBN 978-1-93-104489-9



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join