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 , Science Was Wrong , Exeter UFO Convention [ video ]

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by gortex
Good .... glad you liked it , always happy to help .
Of course we all know that science is the only true religion , science is infallible and is never wrong , why would anyone even bother to question scientific reason .


If that if what you really believe, then you have a no understanding of what science is.

And Friedman's reliance on that particular non-sequitur shows what a poor scientist and thinker he is. I


HUH?

He seems to be quite brilliant and a professional on the subject. Did you get the wrong link? Not that Stanton Friedman I know? Could you please point out his poor scientific thinking ?

I see none

thanks

[edit on 7-9-2010 by theMegaladon]




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
One thing that always gets me with Freidman is that the only cases with enough to convince him are just his own two investigations. Seems if it is not about Roswell or Betty & Barney Hill then he slam dunks it into his +1 "Grey Basket" of Holding. All props to the man; he IS ,no doubt, the grandaddy of ufology. Just after 35 nearly 40 years of research, I'd like to see him open his mind up a little more.


-


Posted Via ATSmobile (BETA v0.3)


-



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
@dethduck

I agree he does dwell on the Hill case and Roswell too often it seems. I would like to see him touch more on recent cases. I guess he might be trying to rehash these old cases to reach a new audience that is not aware of those classic cases. Then again we pretty much know all there is to know about those cases until we get some official confirmation. It is not a bad thing to keep talking about those big 2 in UFOligy. They are pretty concrete cases never the less. There is some controversy in regards to the MAJ-12 papers and he gets a bad rap about it. We will probably never know if those papers were real or not. I think he meant well none the less and was fooled perhaps by PTB... or they are real after all.


I love how he grills that egomaniacal Michael Shermer and all his drivel. That guy is a tool. He really gives it to Skeptic Magazine on his home page. Psuedo science makes me throw up a little in my mouth I just do not have a stomach for those types any more. There is no light at the end of the tunnel with the Shermer types.







I hated wasting the money to buy the January/February 2009 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (Vol. 33, Issue 1) which has for years been trying to debunk all sorts of so-called paranormal phenomena. But the cover said: Special Issue “The New UFO Interest: Scientific Appraisals.” This is an excellent example of false advertising since the appraisals are anything but scientific. SI is published by what is now labeled “The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry” (CSI Lite??). In actuality, the active writers and “investigators” aren’t skeptics. They are Debunkers doing their best to pull the wool over the eyes of a curious public. They know the answers, and so don’t really need to investigate. Proclamation is more their style. Deception is the name of the game. For example, inside the front cover is a very impressive list of about 75 scientists, writers, philosophers, etc., including three Nobel Prize winners. Also included on the list is Bill Nye, “The Science Guy,” whose purpose is to Deny… judging by his Larry King appearances. Unfortunately, most of the highly credentialed people aren’t the ones who write the articles or “investigate.” The dirty work in the trenches is normally done by the debunkers in residence. The primary tools are those of the propagandists such as very selective choice of data, positive and negative name calling, and misrepresentation.



more

www.stantonfriedman.com...

This is an excellent video






[edit on 7-9-2010 by theMegaladon]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by theMegaladon
Psuedo science makes me throw up a little in my mouth I just do not have a stomach for those types any more.


Then how could you possibly be intrigued by a guy like Stanton Friedman who is the quintessential pseudo scientist? The simple fact is that UFO skeptics wouldn't exist if there were testable, tangible evidence confirming the existence of aliens or UFOs. And without it, people like Friedman have some nerve making statements about how science was wrong.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by theMegaladon

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by gortex
Good .... glad you liked it , always happy to help .
Of course we all know that science is the only true religion , science is infallible and is never wrong , why would anyone even bother to question scientific reason .


If that if what you really believe, then you have a no understanding of what science is.

And Friedman's reliance on that particular non-sequitur shows what a poor scientist and thinker he is. I


HUH?

He seems to be quite brilliant and a professional on the subject. Did you get the wrong link? Not that Stanton Friedman I know? Could you please point out his poor scientific thinking ?

I see none

thanks

[edit on 7-9-2010 by theMegaladon]


Sorry to quote a quote but my post will not make sense any other way...

Gortex, science is not infallible. 'It' in as much as it is a body of knowledge is constantly changing and therefore cannot be 'infallible' like some incorruptible truth (or dogma). As a method it is a powerful (arguably the best) way of interrogating nature. However you can use the scientific method in quite legitimate ways and frequently get at best incomplete answers as you can only control certain factors in an experiment, but almost never ALL factors. So science cannot be infallible and is very different from religion (ask someone else why, I'm a scientist lol).

DoomsdayRex is right about the non-sequitur. However, that does not mean that Freedman is wrong or what he says has no value. Feel free not to feel inferior to DoomsdayRex if you actually DISCUSS the content of his videos folks. Science will live to fight another day. Freedman may even still be a good scientist, even if his reasoning isn't perfect.

I hope you are not going to disappear on us now Doomsday. the Megalodon has asked you to DISCUSS with us the CONTENT and explain where Freedman's SCIENTIFIC THINKING is not up to scratch.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

And without it, people like Friedman have some nerve making statements about how science was wrong.


An example of Mr. Friedman's point being a statement from Lord Kelvin ( i think) that heavier than air flight is impossible, and eight years later The Wright Flyer did it's thing.

You should listen to the lecture.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by theMegaladon
Psuedo science makes me throw up a little in my mouth I just do not have a stomach for those types any more.


Then how could you possibly be intrigued by a guy like Stanton Friedman who is the quintessential pseudo scientist? The simple fact is that UFO skeptics wouldn't exist if there were testable, tangible evidence confirming the existence of aliens or UFOs. And without it, people like Friedman have some nerve making statements about how science was wrong.


Actually i meant psuedo skeptics is what i meant to say, who really are not skeptics rather or even use science. Isn't it the whole point of science to learn and progress rather than impose opinions over facts? Claiming science knows everything there is to know blah blah. Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial nonbelief rather than belief critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label. I consider myself a skeptic in that respect rather the undecided. How dare Stanton challenge science and say science was wrong? I mean Science is NOT etched in stone and is always subject to change. Science is always subject to change so yes it is wrong.



[edit on 8-9-2010 by theMegaladon]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Thanks for the links. I saw him speak on this in July at the Museum, but it was a shorter version. He now seems to have the speech down better, more cohesive and it flows much better...



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by theMegaladon
 


I find Carl Sagan's explanation pretty reasonable with the Betty and Barney Hill Case. You can look up the episode on youtube, obviously Carl Sagan/Betty and Barney Hill.

In summary he explains, Betty's star map, is all based on perception. Wherever the person is standing to observe a star system might look completely different if observed from somewhere else.

Carl Sagan also adds, if you remove the lines, her star map looks nothing like Zeta Reticuli.

So that kind of sealed the deal for me. However Roswell, is still unsolved.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by theMegaladon
 


i find friedmans rant on his homepage interesting. It also exposes how he works. Much of it is fair comment but when it comes to roswell he illustrates what sort of tricks he uses when it comes to the evidence.

Talking about a skeptics reference to Brazels interview with the roswell newspaper "He (skeptic) quotes the article at length but somehow never mentions that Brazel was sure what he had found wasn't balloons"

now now Stan. Thats not true lets look at what the roswell daily record really says.


"I am sure that what I found was not any weather observation balloon," he said.


So we see Brazel never said it wasnt a balloon like friedman claims. He said it wasnt a weather balloon as he had seen them twice before. He was right well done Mr Brazel becuase it wasnt a weather balloon it was a mogul balloon made of diffirent material and with a far longer train attached.


[edit on 8-9-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I will bet you that a lot of scientists know perfectly well that aliens have been visiting earth, especially the ones with government and intelligence connections. We now know that secret UFO investigations have been going on in many countries since the 1940s, and that many scientists have been part of those--including investigations of crashed ships and alien remains. Quite a few of them have come forward over the years and admitted it.

Even the ones who were debunkers in public often had very different views behind the scenes.

I think all the debunking is just in place to keep the unwashed masses from getting too upset, excited or hysterical, but it's running into the law of diminishing returns at this point since people just don't believe it any more. It has long since outlived its usefulnesss and I think the policy of gradual and limited disclosure makes more sense that outright denial that anything is happening.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by theMegaladon
Actually i meant psuedo skeptics is what i meant to say, who really are not skeptics rather or even use science. Isn't it the whole point of science to learn and progress rather than impose opinions over facts? Claiming science knows everything there is to know blah blah.


I hear this a lot but I've never heard anyone ever claim that "science knows everything there is to know". In terms of aliens and UFOs, anyone involved in the scientific fields can safely say that as of right now there exists no tangible, testable evidence that confirms the existence of UFOs or aliens or life existing anywhere else but earth. This is not blanket denialism but a reasonable certitude based on the current facts.



Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial nonbelief rather than belief critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label. I consider myself a skeptic in that respect rather the undecided. How dare Stanton challenge science and say science was wrong? I mean Science is NOT etched in stone and is always subject to change. Science is always subject to change so yes it is wrong.


For one thing, science is not an unchanging doctrine of knowledge but a ever changing, constantly updated confluence of facts and discovery. For Friedman to claim it was "wrong" about aliens or UFOs is going to take some tangible and testable evidence. If he had this it would be front page news worldwide and we'd see him on every TV show imaginable, not in some seminar with a slide show presentation.

It's not that I'm personally against the idea of the existence of aliens and/or their spacecraft but without confirmatory evidence - and with other explanations for such phenomena - taking the position that such things are real is in error. Friedman must take that errant position since it's his bread and butter. And whenever someone makes the claim that "science is wrong" it should be something that triggers the rational individual's B.S. detectors.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by type0civ

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

And without it, people like Friedman have some nerve making statements about how science was wrong.


An example of Mr. Friedman's point being a statement from Lord Kelvin ( i think) that heavier than air flight is impossible, and eight years later The Wright Flyer did it's thing.

You should listen to the lecture.


It was actually 2 months later.

He uses his point to good effect IMO, and even shows that even when presented with the evidence, Science chooses to ignore it through arrogance and to a large extent EGO, why would a top of his field Scientist admit that a lot of what they theorise and have worked on most of their careers is a load of rubbish?

They wouldn't and I know I have fought that kind of arrogance for a long time, it does prevent the forward movement of important research, it stagnates large parts of the Scientific World, when these arrogant egotistical dinosaurs have the final say on where the funding goes, which leads up and coming Scientists who are used to working with a little more than an abacus afraid to stand up for themselves.

Because if they do stand up to these people, their career is as good as over, and the same goes for many other aspects in the search for discovery, that is why we are finally now starting to move forward again, making new discoveries all the time, these old arrogant old school Scientists are dying off one by one, being replaced by those they told to be quiet, and their theories where ludicrous, surely they knew that those who they dismissed as being "WRONG" or "MISTAKEN" would one day be in their position.

And as those Scientists do take over the reigns, hopefully they will remember how their ideas where dismissed, and wont allow themselves to treat others with new ideas the same way.

As a wise man once said, nothing lasts forever, everything has a beginning and an ending, what is done to oppress the masses today will only serve to educate the oppressed tomorrow, which will lead to the rise of everything that has been hidden and forbidden in the near future.

Nothing stays the same for much longer than a single generation, once the old guard dies off, a whole new breed are waiting to take their place, and every single one of them strives to be remembered for something, while pushing aside the mistakes of the past.

So the future is bright, we just need to be patient and wait, those living by the rules of these arrogant Scientists would be wise to remember that.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by azzllin
why would a top of his field Scientist admit that a lot of what they theorise and have worked on most of their careers is a load of rubbish?


Research that culminates in scientific theory is not rubbish. Dissertations such as your which denigrate science and the scientific process is common when there's a pseudoscientist out there pushing as hypothesis that is appealing to some people. However, the truth always stands up to scientific inquiry and scrutiny, and if people with those hypotheses can support them with testable and repeatable evidence and results then the truth holds. Those with hypotheses that can't hold up to inquiry and stick with it are likely fools or charlatans; instead of revising their hypotheses or backing them properly they're doomed to denigrating science, it's methods and the establishment surrounding it and attempt to reap the benefits of victimology. And for types like Friedman, why enter the tough world of science anyway? Plenty of people will buy his books and attend his seminars without him ever having to establish any scientific credibility to his hypotheses.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


The truth can only stand up to any enquiry if it is allowed to be, I can tell you from experience that no matter what the truth is, if it will effect the life and career of those placed in charge or those who have political might to ensure where the funding goes, then they will use their influence to have it buried.

I have no opinion of Stanton Friedman really, he makes some very good points, he has done the research others refuse to do, and his credentials speak for themselves.

In the video he points to work which was carried out on Nuclear Rockets, a working model ran for a full 60 minutes at full power, compared with how long a Saturn Five Launch vehicle ran for before it became dead weight, why was the plug pulled when it was quite obvious the Nuclear propulsion was the better choice 40 years ago, why after 40 years have their been no advancement ? cant be for the well being of us Humans and the fear of a Nuclear accident after all we did send up Cassini, even with World condemnation.

My point was, no matter what was done to prevent young excellent minds from developing their ideas, that prevention cant and wont carry on forever, because those young Scientists are now in a position where they will be soon stepping into the shoes of those who had control over their work 40 years ago.

There are hundreds and hundreds of research studies that where closed down for no reason, yet they are just now starting to be passed off as a new idea today, you only have to go and do the research, nobody will ever learn anything if others do it for them.

If people have no interest, or are too lazy to even try, then I suggest they click the little X at the top right hand corner, people are too willing to take the word of another, but what if they took the word of someone who hadn't done their research? what if everything they say is just the word of another, who got it off someone else?

If it was wrong in the first place, its going to be even more so now that it has been passed from person to person, yet it is not the first person who is going to lose face, its the last person to pass it off as facts no matter how many times they cry it was such and such who told them.

I already said he makes some valid points by pointing out the smart people who said stupid things, only to have it haunt them not long afterwards, not going to use the World being flat as an example, because nobody ever thought the World was flat, its a popular misconception.

I even guarantee that many of the comments made right here on this site, comments about how something works, or why something is impossible, or that's not possible because Einstein said so, what a load of bollocks, Einstein was wrong about many things, but you would be hard pressed to find a top wig of Science saying so in public, because they have spent most of their Scientific career saying he was right, Einstein couldn't even dress himself, sure he was a brilliant man in many ways, but he still made mistakes, like many others.

Science is now coming out of the stagnant era and coming once again into its own, not by the wisdom of the old school, but with the magnificent minds that are now making a mark around the World, just look at all the new discoveries for instance in the past two years, they became possible because new minds created new technologies, and will continue to do so, we have learnt our lessons of the old fart with the shot gun bagging a tiger in the jungles of India during their time away from the Royal Institute, they were the ones who created the stagnation in the first place.

The World is about to become a Magnificent place of Discovery, more Magnificent than we have seen so far, if people want to stay sitting in the stagnant filth left behind in the heritage left by the old school, that's fine, nobody is going to stop them, things are rapidly changing, its a time to choose words carefully, because a bold statement based on the ways of days gone by, will in fact turn into the biggest foot in mouth scenario any of us have ever seen, who will be first up to the plate?

My guess is the ones with the balls to admit they could well be wrong, and not everything in the Universe works the way it does right here on our tiny World.

If you can imagine it, then it can be done, nothing is impossible.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by game over man
reply to post by theMegaladon
 


I find Carl Sagan's explanation pretty reasonable with the Betty and Barney Hill Case. You can look up the episode on youtube, obviously Carl Sagan/Betty and Barney Hill.

In summary he explains, Betty's star map, is all based on perception. Wherever the person is standing to observe a star system might look completely different if observed from somewhere else.

Carl Sagan also adds, if you remove the lines, her star map looks nothing like Zeta Reticuli.

So that kind of sealed the deal for me. However Roswell, is still unsolved.



I always felt the beings were time travelers "our future descendants" as well as the abduction phenomena.




top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join