I met Stanton Friedman today.

If he can't convince you that aliens are visiting our planet, no one can!

Im not real certain about this, but is that really a good thing?

I'm certain what we are dealing with is a very old, misinterpreted natural phenomenon. Because he has successfully sold many books, does that make his point of view, true?

Congrats to you for your meeting. I spent 10 minuted with Jim Marrs, Great guy, no pictures though. Besides, he was drunk LOL LOL

Edit for dang spellin

[edit on 6-12-2009 by All Seeing Eye]

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Congrats to you for your meeting. I spent 10 minuted with Jim Marrs, Great guy, no pictures though. Besides, he was drunk LOL LOL

HAHA - that would have made the picture worth SO much more, not to mention more interesting!

Yeah I read Stanton Friedmans book "Flying Saucers and science" earlier this year and I must say he did go through a lot of information on Ufology point by point with clear analytical, concise facts that he had brought up through thorough investigative research as he had references for all the points he made in each chapter of the book.

Originally posted by xAZIMUTHpx
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Well when you have all the degrees, education and experience as Stan, I quess you could say that, however, for now the way you speak and act, your about 500 years from Stans league bud.

I got started in UFOlogy in 1957, youngster! I don't want to be in Stan's league, I'm not a bull#ter! I earned my money honestly. I worked for it. I didn't rely on the gullible as he does and as you must be.

I still don't think many people realize that Roswell IS Stanton Friedman. That is, he is the one who brought the entire thing to light. He spent 10 years researching it, then wrote his book... which I recommend, it's very good.

So.. another researcher had negative things to say about another researcher? Gee, what a stunner. If you've actually ever followed Friedman, you'd know what an excellent researcher he is. I appreciate his style of not just buying into anything because it would make a good story. Ala many other researchers out there.

I met Stanton Friedman in 1971! I worked for Dick ClarK Productions on a show called "Mantrap". I handled guest co-ordination & that included contracts. I kept some of them for sentimental reasons, & surprise...I have his contract. He was peddling his UFO presentation way back then & we had him on as a guest, paid in full.

He is still going with the same act. A nice person...but it's all been said before..& is now merely a 'stump speech'. He has the "easy life" to protect, so he stays on his usual message & there are always new UFO curious people who hear him & think his info is new & represents a revelation. But he has become UFO "cruise ship" entertainment. In 2003 he was going to do the cruise circuit with my friend, the late Graham Birdsall...but that ended when Graham suddenly died.

As I said, A good man..but forget all that nuclear physicist nonsense. He has not to my knowledge ever actually been one, as the UFO circuit provides a full time life. I know all this because I have also been on the UFO merry-go-round & it is so much fun, I can understand why he became addicted to it.

Originally posted by thepixelpusher
I heard Friedman lecture in the 70's at my local college when I was in high school. I remember the "Cosmic Watergate" term he used as his hook. Remember that the Watergate political scandal was still fresh in everyones minds. I saw Stanton again ths year and enjoyed him all over again too.

I saw the TV show "The Invaders" when it aired in the 60's and have been hooked on UFO's ever since. Friedman is about a plugged in as they get. Glad we've got him.

I saw him at a UFO conference in Manchester UK back in the early 90s,and he was still using the "cosmic watergate" term.
he was a good speaker on the subject of UFOs but what I found to be really interesting was after he spoke he made the audience raise thier hands if they had seen anything which they believed to be a UFO.Many people raised hands,and all got to descrihbe what they saw to the rest of the audience.

Congrats on the meet and greet...

But he has become UFO "cruise ship" entertainment.

Excellent analogy... I respect Stan for what he's brought to the field, but yes, these days, he's more about the circuit than new revelations. Still, there are far too many others in UFOlogy that do not deserve the same respect Stan garners.

As for those who harp on him not having a PhD....back in the 60's and 70's, a LOT of folks in the industrial and defense complex worked as engineers, physicists, etc. without degrees. It was a different world then. My father is an engineer and has worked on many top secret projects for Lockheed (and more recently, Sikorsky), and he never had more than a few classes of college (no degree, not even an Associate's), just because back then, you didn't need it, and he's in the whole "good ole' boy" network when it comes to defense contractors....

reply to post by Gazrok


In UFOlogy, a Ph.D. nor any degree is necessary. All you have to do is hunker down, do a hell of a lot reading of other peoples' work and a have propensity to bs without giving yourself away.

Look at John Edward Mack, M.D. and David Jacobs, Ph.D. Two allegedly highly-educated men with degrees and high placement and yet when it comes to UFOlogy, in my mind, they're failures. But one died garnering a bit of fame for his hijinks, and the other is respected by the gullible which makes up the majority of UFO enthusiasts.

Originally posted by xAZIMUTHpx
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Well when you have all the degrees, education and experience as Stan, I quess you could say that, however, for now the way you speak and act, your about 500 years from Stans league bud.

Do you think I'd be "speaking and acting" the same way for disagreeing with him on even just some points? Namely, my main area of "disagreement" would be that of how to handle UFO technologies. He has this idea that important UFO technologies of "military significance" should be kept in the dark so "bad guys" don't get them, and yet I haven't found anything to say what sort of criteria would make it proper for disclosure, nor what "military significance" means. There might be nothing wrong with doing that those technologies equal weapons on other destructive devices -- hey, I think if we have such things, we should actually destroy them ASAP so nobody here has them. We shouldn't have so many weapons, period. If not, however, and they equal something else such as Energy Technologies or Construction Technologies that have very important positive ramifications, then I'd say it'd be worth the risk -- or we better find a way to stop or strip these bad guys of power or disclose but control/regulate the technology (similar to how we control nuclear tehcnology, perhaps) with an immovable binding deadline of the year 2050 or 2060, maybe 2070 at the extreme best, to accomplish that goal. Yes, make that big a change in the world THAT FAST. Why? Because the ecological systems of the planet cannot take the current onslaught from polluting, fossil-fuel burning, chemical guzzling systems and devices we use now at this level for much longer, plus due to the Hubbert peak theory ("Peak oil"), such resources will run out and could cause mass famines if we don't act, and I think an action plan must include technological disclosure to more general availability if such things really do exist. If we don't, our continued usage of ecological-destroying methods and devices could lead to this becoming the 6th and maybe the biggest Great Extinction (next after after the end-Ordovician, end-Devonian, end-Permian, end-Triassic, and K-T extinctions) in the geological record -- an extinction of our own making, perhaps even we too could go extinct. With that much at stake, I'd say it'd be acceptable to chance "bad guys" getting this energy or materials production tech, especially if one implements a serious, no-nonsense control program to reduce that risk. Either we change the world enough by 2050-2070 to either reduce the "bad guys" to the point where they would no longer be an impediment to disclosure, set up some way to regulate the technology effectively, or change the world enough by that time so that it doesn't use so much ecology-toasting stuff -- I'd say at least a 75% if not 85% reduction in all fossil-fuel usage and pollution by that time. Of course none of our crap dollar-eyed politicians will agree to it... geez.... if anything they're the biggest bad guys and they already have the UFO technologies (if they exist)! Gee whiz!