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.

 

Stanton Friedman - An Enigma In UFOlogy.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


Andy, alot of what you have said I can agree with you, in regards to Friedman being a government shill, its a tough call. My gut feeling tells me that he got in a little too deep once upon a time, exactly like Timothy Good/Nick Pope and the 'forces' at work brought him down a little. Although his government ties do raise suspicion on the whole he has brought forward the ufology scene to another level.




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Wasn't the disclosure project headed by Greer and his cronies? I would also steer clear of anything that is to do with them, no wonder Friedman didn't participate further.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Scope and a Beam]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Nuclear Physicist-Lecturer Stanton T. Friedman received his 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 by such companies as GE, GM, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas working in such highly advanced, classified, eventually cancelled programs as nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and various compact nuclear powerplants for space and terrestrial applications.

He became interested in UFOs in 1958, and since 1967 has lectured about them... www.stantonfriedman.com...

For sure, I have no idea what it takes to be a Nuclear Physicist but I often wonder why someone so intelligent would have 6 or more jobs in a 14 year period. In the general work force, that implies incompetence. At 33 years old, he quits being a Nuclear Physicist to become a UFO lecturer??? I like his work on Roswell and Betty & Barney Hill, they appear to be thorough, but I can't put myself behind him 100% because it just seems to me that he makes irrational decisions. A Nuclear Physicist at age 22, that's impressive. At age 24, becomes interested in UFO's, sounds like many of us.

My point is that just because he was a Nuclear Physicist doesn't mean he was the brightest bulb in the box. Someone has to be the lowest in the class of graduates, knowing or guessing right just enough to pass. A person like that would have a degree, but companies would learn quickly enough that they don't know what they are doing and would fire them. Someone like that would have 6 or more jobs in 14 years. Not saying that's the case here, but it is something to ponder.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
He doesn't seem to think much of Bob Lazar's claims. Wonder what his take on Greer is.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   

I did notice that he steers toward these two but maybe they simply have the most credible info to go on. They aren't so well known for nothing.


I do the same thing actually, and for me, it's because the two cases have strong evidence, and evidence of numerous types.

I think Greer's past efforts were excellent, but as one poster mentioned....only so far before Lear Syndrome, and that's what I think happened to Greer.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Personally, I like Stan Friedman's work, I like his interviews and I've enjoyed reading areas of his website. He's done a massive amount of work in UFO research and personifies FOIA research. Who can really say for sure, but I don't think he's a shill or anything dodgy. He's a stubborn man on a mission to persuade the world into accepting 'nuts and bolts' ET craft.

Current trends seem to be pushing him on to the outskirts of ufology. Critics focus on his belief in some few MJ-12 documents. In recent months a lot of attention seems to be focused on his fairly standard presentations at conferences and in interviews. Some of those points are possibly true. Others overlook the impact he's made on the subject, in my opinion.

I don't want to sound shallow or heartless here, but it seems to me his significance in Ufology will only be realised in the future. His legacy will gain far more appreciation than it does now.

In short, I rate the guy.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by cdesignmaster
My point is that just because he was a Nuclear Physicist doesn't mean he was the brightest bulb in the box. Someone has to be the lowest in the class of graduates, knowing or guessing right just enough to pass. A person like that would have a degree,

That is some serious character assassination. It is insulting and it is nonsense.

While there is no doubt a difference between the quality of students, obtaining a Msc degree in physics from a decent university would hardly qualify as easy, even assuming he was not the "brightest bulb in the box".

The suggestion you could pass exams with "guessing" is even more ludicrous. I studied four years of engineering physics at the graduate level before deciding it was not my "thing" (and getting a bachelor and masters degree in law instead). In none of those years was I able to pass exams by "guessing".

In fact, I would argue that in those days the courses taught were much tougher. Education has suffered in the past decade, even university has become much less demanding than say 20 years ago, at least here in the Netherlands.

Either way, what professional qualifications do you have to make the above determination? Do you have a Msc or MA?

[edit on 15-6-2010 by jclmavg]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by cdesignmaster
Nuclear Physicist-Lecturer Stanton T. Friedman received his 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 by such companies as GE, GM, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas working in such highly advanced, classified, eventually cancelled programs as nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and various compact nuclear powerplants for space and terrestrial applications.

He became interested in UFOs in 1958, and since 1967 has lectured about them... www.stantonfriedman.com...

For sure, I have no idea what it takes to be a Nuclear Physicist but I often wonder why someone so intelligent would have 6 or more jobs in a 14 year period. In the general work force, that implies incompetence. At 33 years old, he quits being a Nuclear Physicist to become a UFO lecturer??? I like his work on Roswell and Betty & Barney Hill, they appear to be thorough, but I can't put myself behind him 100% because it just seems to me that he makes irrational decisions. A Nuclear Physicist at age 22, that's impressive. At age 24, becomes interested in UFO's, sounds like many of us.

My point is that just because he was a Nuclear Physicist doesn't mean he was the brightest bulb in the box. Someone has to be the lowest in the class of graduates, knowing or guessing right just enough to pass. A person like that would have a degree, but companies would learn quickly enough that they don't know what they are doing and would fire them. Someone like that would have 6 or more jobs in 14 years. Not saying that's the case here, but it is something to ponder.


Well, here's something to trump your thoughts; how many of those 6 jobs overlapped?

Just because you're a nuclear physicist working on a project doesn't mean you can't work on a couple others simultaneously. Hell, math is something you can do at home at a table with a mug of coffee at your side. I'd be wary of a scientist who did only one experiment and/or project at a time, it implies that he can't multi-task.

As for Stanton himself in the UFO field, I find him to be a remarkable breath of fresh air. He approaches the subject scientifically and places things under intense scrutiny. He's able to seperate facts from the crystal dragon jesus crap that unfortunately plagues UFOlogy. If something smells goofy to him, it most likely is goofy.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Stanton Friedman is one of the reasons I got interested in this whole field of study, more than just the occasional flip-thru-channels-and-find-ufo's type of entertainment...

I'm planning on seeing him speak at the Roswell July 4th thing...www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Whilst I respect this man and what he has done for the UFO community I have to ask why doesn't he go further?

I mean he could of been the driving seat behind The disclosure Project, instead it just fizzled away in to the ether.


I Agree with you 100% on this!

When I first joined ATS I corresponded with Friedman a bit - on a couple of current UFOlogy issues - and I was pleasantly surprised by his fast replies.

I then went on to ask him about pushing the envelope further, using modern communication options (web/youtube/etc), and even volunteered my services to do free Web Devleopment to assist in growing the legitimate UFOlogy movement.

He promptly discontinued our correspondence.

This is not the passion I would expect from a fellow scientist - for whatever reason - he is not interested in the success or the future of UFOLogy as a legitimate science.

Either he is in it for himself now - or he has been threatened to back down - would by my humble opinion.

I do not believe we can count on him to help further the UFOlogy movement - but rather to bask in it's former glory days - and we NEED new leadership in this field a.s.a.p - to get the science back on track!








[edit on 15-6-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Whilst I respect this man and what he has done for the UFO community I have to ask why doesn't he go further?

I mean he could of been the driving seat behind The disclosure Project, instead it just fizzled away in to the ether.


I Agree with you 100% on this!

When I first joined ATS I corresponded with Friedman a bit - on a couple of current UFOlogy issues - and I was pleasantly surprised by his fast replies.

I then went on to ask him about pushing the envelope further, using modern communication options (web/youtube/etc), and even volunteered my services to do free Web Devleopment to assist in growing the legitimate UFOlogy movement.

He promptly discontinued our correspondence.


No self-respecting academic like Stanton Friedman would consider something like >YouTube< to be a legitimate source for investigation. Academics will not even consider Wikipedia to be trustworthy enough for research because anyone can edit it and get things wrong or fabricate material. The Internet itself is filled with dubious material that is highly questionable in veracity.

I fully agree with his call for cutting you off.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oldtimer2
He has always struck me as a tool of the government,I mhave never trusted the guy,seems to always have preconceived notions


I have long suspected that because of his background he has had people tell him things that have convinced him that there is a component of UFOs that is extraterrestrial in origin. And he believed these people. But he doesn't have anything concrete to back up what they told him. So maybe they lied to him for some reason, or maybe they thought they were telling him the truth, and maybe they were telling him the truth. It doesn't matter, though. He believes it, and has been waving his blacked out pages around since then.

But he doesn't say who he got his stories from, or anything else that could be checked out. So he continues to harp on the ET angle, even though other possible explanations (like time travel) fit better. That either makes him a willing tool or a hapless fool.

On the other hand, he might be one of the oldest members of whatever Majestic-12 became in the years since the 1950s. A working group of UFO experts, scientists, and others who communicate what they know to each other and keep the public off balance. If such a group existed, and continues to exist, people like Friedman, Carl Sagan (when he was alive), Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, and others like them might be or have been a part of it. Friedman would be on the disinformation side of it, keeping the public focused on alien UFOs, but never offering any real proof. It would certainly go a long way to covering up what was really going on. (If anybody knows what's going on.)

At the very least, he's one of the old-school UFO researchers who must have over the years collected a lot of stuff he's just keeping to himself. Now, maybe that's what is necessary to keep it pure. But it also keeps the rest of us in the dark, which is completely against what he says he stands for.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Blue Shift]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
What do most here think about Timothy Good?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I have a feeling Stanton is desperate for the UFO question to lie in a simple nuts and bolts solution, cos in the end, he's a nuts and bolts sorta guy. That is, he sees thing totally from a traditional scientific perspective of test , test again , smash it and then test it again.

The truth is, amongst the more seasoned of us with along interest in the subject Stanton is very much in a minority. There is a whole psychological side to the UFO phenomenon, that many seasoned campaigners have taken on board that Stanton seems to wish to have no truck with at all. That's fair enough but that's a bit like trying to explain why people enjoy certain music and art by a purely mathematical stance. It can go so far, but it will never give you the whole answer or reason for people's various predilections.

One of the problems with the purely scientific view of UFO's as studied by the likes of Stanton is that. Scientists aren't, often, very good with people and social situations. Stanton's whole demeanour is, at times, rather aloof arrogant and bluff. The fact is, he like Randi and g few other vocal types, don;t actually understand this about themselves. They have a habit of thinking that, as they are *obviously right*, they don;t need to take into account anything that cannot be simply dragged under a microscope and measured accurately.

You will notice how often every skeptic is an armchair shrink, but the moment you really delve into the psychological side of it, they are also the first to start banging on about people being delusional. Truth is people such as Randi, Sagan don;t really have a clue about the subtleties of the Ufology.

Both Randi and Stanton exhibit a high degree of * controlling* behaviour. The problem is, UFO's often totally destroy that control. So, Randi simply dismisses them and Stanton tries to nail them as simple nuts and bolts, which as a scientist he then *control*, by dint of understanding their science. The knotty problem for both of them is. UFO's seem to be the controllers and we, humans, merely the intelligence acted upon. in effect, we seem to often see exactly what we are meant to see, and quite possibly they are nothing like we actually imagine them to be. That's not to say, there are no nuts and bolts spaceships/time ships/inter dimensional; craft visiting us. Just that what we might perceive as solid objects might well be a very advanced form of stealth disguise where our minds are manipulated, en masse, to see exactly what the controlling intelligence wants to be seen.

If that's hard to get your head round think of it like this. Fairies, little folk, dragons, etc etc are exactly the same as today's UFOs, but to hide themselves they have adopted a more modern modus operandi for their appearance.

Personally, i feel Stanton doesn't like that idea, can;t actually handle the idea, so goes out of his way to try and find the evidence for the physical craft. The truth is, many of us old lags would say is that. While Stanton hogs the limelight he is doing the powers that be's job for them by keeping the the *weirder* side of the whole subject under wraps.

Politicians, big business, scientists are about control and quantification. The idea that we are, essentially, being toyed with and have been for millennia, is an anathema to their very core beliefs. It's that word again, beliefs, both Stanton and Randi are believers, they have a set of values they are sure that everything has to conform to and therefore, seek to shoehorn everything into them.

Us old lags say this. To truly get your head round UFOs, you have to throw out belief and just, at times, ask yourself "Can i really believe the data i am seeing, in the sense that it exists as i think it does". Or, am I being led to see t what i think i see and is it possible to see past it, to what this really is? Furthermore, are you prepared to have your head thoroughly messed up when the results of trying to see past the *illusion* show we might well have been mucked around with for a very long time. Both Stanton and Randi can;t even stand someone else talking for too long when they are on camera, they sure as hell ain't ever gonna accept the are. possibly, little more than pawns in a huge experiment they aren't in control of..



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
^^ relax pal, stanton friedman isn't perfect, and I don't particularly agree with him on everything but for an academic, he's risked his reputation many times, doing his best to legitimize the ufo phenomenon.

And he's by every measure of standard alot more open-minded by comparison to mainstream scientists and those of his critics that are around skeptical circles.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by redrezo
 


He doesn't get on with Jacques Vallees and his thoughts on the subject. Personally i feel Vallee is probably closer to the answer than Stanton. Just pointing out, those in the field, tend to side with Vallee not Stanton, which is not the perception in the media. If anyone needs to relax, it's Stanton.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
if we are talking legitimizing the subject of UFO's and possibilities of Aliens visiting the earth and you are trying to sell the idea vis-a-vis skeptical mainstream media, mainstream science community or elected representatives in power (ie: congress, president).

I have to completely disagree with you here, you just can't go on feeling by itself, no matter how much you agree with Jacques.

It's highly more important to go with baby steps FIRST and not just blurt out that there are bases on the moon, and Area 51 has live aliens!

Most people out there will think you're nuts, and some people may even do so if you believe in the mere possibility that aliens even exist.

What Stanton Friedman get's right, is sticking with the most compelling evidence to government coverups, alien visitation. It's not going to spectacular as some of the theories that are presented, but much more realistic in outlook when you are actively trying to convince a skeptical public to investigate the possibility of government coverups and so on.

Views may differ but in the end everyone is on the same side as far as producing evidence, spinning theories and speculation is for enertainment but having any form of tangible evidence should be the most important thing in UFOLOGY.





[edit on 16-6-2010 by redrezo]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by cdesignmaster
 


I have had three jobs in the last four years and I have a pretty good reputation in my field.

Why? I went for more money every time!

Also, sometimes projects only go for a couple of years.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by -Blackout-
 


I don't know all that much about Timothy Good so I couldn't give you a firm opinion but what I've seen of his work seems, well, pretty good......

[edit on 16-6-2010 by OZtracized]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
He doesn't get on with Jacques Vallees and his thoughts on the subject. Personally i feel Vallee is probably closer to the answer than Stanton. Just pointing out, those in the field, tend to side with Vallee not Stanton, which is not the perception in the media. If anyone needs to relax, it's Stanton.

I think Vallee is quite the "crackpot" and that there are reasonable answers to the supposed problems he sees with the ETH.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join