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.

 

Friedman Review of Randle's "Case MJ-12"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Anybody read this newest article by Stanton Friedman? It's actually quite good. I figured some of you might want to check it out. It's a review of Randles book, "Case MJ-12".

www.v-j-enterprises.com...




posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 05:47 AM
link   
In his book, TOP SECRET/MAJIC, Stanton Friedman discusses his early UFO lectures:

"As I gave more lectures, I found that I enjoyed speaking, and that people believed me no matter what I said. After all, I was a nuclear physicist for Westinghouse…"

The guy has not worked as a physicist for over 30 years and is now totally into ufology. The ufo community is honored and in awe that a "nuclear physicist" speaks about ufos in a positive fashion. They lower their voices when they speak of him. He could never admit that the MJ-12 documents are fake, because he would lose all credibility.

Based on info on the internet, both he and Randle ignore evidence which does not fit in with their theories.

Anybody a bit critical is termed a "debunker" and not invited to appear at any ufo conference.

This link is interesting: opinions on Stanton Friedman and MJ-12



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Admittedly, we can argue over various typos and semantics on those pages eternally. Yet, there is one fact which remains, and makes me wonder..

Of all the credible journalists in the US at the time, why o why would anyone wanting this story to be revealed give this information to

William L. Moore, Jaime Shandera & Friedman

Of all people, it so happens that these people standing to profit the most receive the documents, ergo validating their Roswell literature.

I hope for them they are either valid documents, or they were victims of a hoax. We can forgive them their over-zealousness in either case, but there is no forgiveness for greed.



posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I do not think that Stanton Friedman would knowingly support a hoax. I think rather he is no longer objective. I think he now shows as a "believer" the same traits Philip Klass does as a debunker: too readily dismisses any point of view and evidence which is not his own.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join