Stanton Friedman says: Some UFO's are Alien Spacecraft

Just was looking over some interviews at the International UFO Congress and a thought crossed my mind. We see the Likes of Jamie Maussan tell us about UFO's and we label him a fraud or charlatan.. but when Stanton says the same thing, because he is a man of science, he is a respectable researcher.

In the end they all tell the same story, so why should be trust Stanton any more than Jamie? Afterall the first thing they say while introducing him is "Read his new book"



Jaime Maussan: Amazing UFO Footage from Mexico
[yvid]bZ-VtDL73dw[/yvid

Stanton T. Friedman Presents Flying Saucers and Science
]

Dr. Roger Leir Presents New Startling Findings: Alien Implant Research


Jim Marrs : The Rise of the Fourth Reich - IUFOC 2009


Here are the rest of the interviews
www.ufocongressstore.com...

Enjoy

Because, sadly My Friend, we cannot just consider things based ONLY off of what we can see, hear, touch, feel, taste, and sense. We are, being repeated victims of deceptions in the past, paranoid at this point, as we should be and as it's a GOOD thing to be, in my opinion. So, if one presents the color green to the RED colored community, the REDs ask what good and why is green around and being introduced? Standing Freidman (name??) must've presented or implied his information in NON-greedy way or a way indicating truth to majority... the first to proclaim, according to your OP, was discredited or not believed. Must've been because it was presented incorrectly or it came from a person who it was assumed made up story for personal gain or because of mental issues. We, as constant victims, are ever on the watch-out to be sure we aren't victims again..THAT's why we question, THAT's why we deny ignorance... THAT's WHY, my friend, this world is what it is now... because we're EFF-ing tired of being fooled, victimized, and manipulated off of our IGNORANCE. So, in the end, why do we easily believe one and not the other although both say same message? Because, my friend, the game of the court, the court of power, is ever at play, despite how much we've come OR how much we will go, the game/court of power exists, and always will... for if we don't know, somebody does, and whoever does know this, owns the power, and he/she who has the power, is the next target for attack (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, etc)... very complicated question involving human psychology to which there is nothing black/white or definitive. I'm polarized oppositely, I find it easier to believe these guys than not... but your paranoia is good as it keeps slackers like ME on my toes so good job and keep questioning (although i DOUBT answers are making their way to you)....

reply to post by zorgon


Because Stanton Freidman does not spend his time presenting every questionable video he gets his hands on as absolute proof of extraterrestrial visitation. Personally, I feel it is very unfair to compare the two. One is a reknowned nuclear physicist and the other is what? A journalist?

Stanton Freidman says "some" UFOs are alien spacecraft, while Jaime Maussan says "all" ufos are alien spacecraft.

one thing to say about jaime maussan : "metopec creature"

thanks

rich

Originally posted by zorgon
Just was looking over some interviews at the International UFO Congress and a thought crossed my mind. We see the Likes of Jamie Maussan tell us about UFO's and we label him a fraud or charlatan.. but when Stanton says the same thing, because he is a man of science, he is a respectable researcher.

In the end they all tell the same story, so why should be trust Stanton any more than Jamie?

The difference between Friedman and Maussan is that the former is a scientist and the latter a journalist.

Friedman reasons as a scientist, he doesn't venture into far-fetched hypothetical thinking, he bases his reasoning on probability (and the probability of extraterrestial visits is high, as Enrico Fermi has already established), so skeptics sometimes find comfort in his discourse.

Maussan reasons as a journalist. He takes whatever UFO incident he can get that seems reliable to him, and the more spectacular the more it is of interest, then throws it at his audience to see how they react.
In a sense, a journalist isn't responsible for the veracity of what he reports. He's supposed to check his sources and eliminate information that does not seem reliable, but then again, when it comes to the UFO phenomenon everything changes.
A skeptic will see no UFO incident source as reliable, since they already know beforehand that UFOs are just bunk and therefore it can't be true... whereas people who have actually studied the phenomenon and come to accept it for what it is will have a much higher tolerance rate for what is possible or not.

Or, as Friedman often repeats; as a skeptic, all you need to do is to accept ONE UFO incident as 'real', then your whole reasoning falls apart as a house of cards.

Here on ATS, a bunch of amateur debunkers have decided that Maussan is a professional hoaxer, therefore everything he reports on is automatically a hoax. It's the easy way out, you can steamroll over any UFO incident. As long as Maussan is involved somehow, forcibly something's fishy about it, and abracadabra you've discredited a possibly authentic case.

They somehow don't realize that they have left the scientific, empiric paradigm behind them by doing so, since this reasoning demands that every case be studied and evaluated apart, without preconceived opinions of what the results should indicate.

reply to post by Heliocentric

Here on ATS, a bunch of amateur debunkers have decided that Maussan is a professional hoaxer, therefore everything he reports on is automatically a hoax.

You're being slightly misleading with this statement. Maussan has very little credibility within the field of ufology (such as it is). He used to have credibility and has since lost it by supporting very suspect videos and stories. His failure rate is as sky-high as his income.

You're suggesting that people should take every single case on its merits...admirable! At the same time, how often must we be hoaxed or watch hoaxes from the same source before we stop? Should every Billy Meier image be looked at carefully? When Greer's CSETI releases another fraudulent image, should he be given respect? Furthermore, is it wise to read every news release put out by Exopolitics when their record is almost 100% support of frauds and BSers?

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Heliocentric

 

Here on ATS, a bunch of amateur debunkers have decided that Maussan is a professional hoaxer, therefore everything he reports on is automatically a hoax.

You're being slightly misleading with this statement. Maussan has very little credibility within the field of ufology (such as it is). He used to have credibility and has since lost it by supporting very suspect videos and stories. His failure rate is as sky-high as his income.

That's your personal opinion.

Remember that Maussan is NOT a ufologist, just a journalist passioned by the subject.

He's caught between viewer ratings (which all TV journalists have to take into account) and what he perceives as the truth. I agree with you that his source checking skills are bad, but then again he simply throws out the more spectacular cases to his audience and say "What do you all think?"

The same principle is applied here on ATS, you get a lot of spectacular threads that can be cleared up rather quickly, it doesn't mean that we brand the poster as a hoaxer.

As to his failure-rate... if only ONE of the cases he has reported on turns out to be authentic, it's good enough for me.

reply to post by Heliocentric

As to his failure-rate... if only ONE of the cases he has reported on turns out to be authentic, it's good enough for me.

Fair enough. If he ever brings anything that isn't a hoax or plain BS, it'll likely find its way onto the UFO lists and websites. Penguins in trees and little skinned animals in traps haven't helped his case much. Rocket contrails as 'sky dragons' and so forth. Seriously, good luck going through the Maussan finds.

Can you guess who's video was in my first ATS thread? Never did get an answer!

Stanton Friedman doesn't know with any certainty that some UFO's are alien spacecraft anymore than you or I do. If he did have significant evidence that would convince just about anybody he would have found a way to capitalize on it way better than he's doing now.

In fact, he doesn't know much more about this subject than you or I probably do.

The future of Ufology doesn't rest on some individual researcher anyway, you all can pretty much guess where I would go and what I would say from here. Don't think I'm right? Well, keep on the same track and I will bring the things like this that I post up in another 20 years to prove my point.

reply to post by Kandinsky


All I'm saying is that a UFO incident or video reported on by Maussan is not automatically a hoax, it doesn't work like that.

I could probably line up half a dozen cases reported by Maussan (among others) that I cannot find a reasonable explanation for, or that anyone has given - in my eyes - a logical explanation for.

But I don't think this thread was made for another Maussan debate, so... anytime, anyplace

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Heliocentric

 

As to his failure-rate... if only ONE of the cases he has reported on turns out to be authentic, it's good enough for me.

Fair enough. If he ever brings anything that isn't a hoax or plain BS, it'll likely find its way onto the UFO lists and websites. Penguins in trees and little skinned animals in traps haven't helped his case much. Rocket contrails as 'sky dragons' and so forth. Seriously, good luck going through the Maussan finds.

Can you guess who's video was in my first ATS thread? Never did get an answer!

A little presumptuous... a weak and feeble attack easily deflected with truth...where you at bro? He's not saying or even talking about MAUSSAN specifically. He's merely using him, as he's mentioned in OP, as an example for his main point on the sadness of labeling and stereotyping known Hoaxers, as well, such. That even though they are gullible or easy believers easily deluded, not entirely sure that all videos OUGHT be discredited, but these people are still capable of capturing legitimate imagery/video evidence as you or I, is he not? Physically he can hold the camera so, he is. Granted, he can also physically alter to benefit/boost himself. But this is most easily noticed. He's only saying that not ALL footage be discounted, which I respect, and agree with; the second you close/limit your mind for ANY reason will be your UN-doing. You're beating a dead horse out of pride...

Originally posted by RadiatorOfTheLight
He's not saying or even talking about MAUSSAN specifically. He's merely using him, as he's mentioned in OP, as an example for his main point on the sadness of labeling and stereotyping known Hoaxers, as well, such. That even though they are gullible or easy believers easily deluded, not entirely sure that all videos OUGHT be discredited, but these people are still capable of capturing legitimate imagery/video evidence as you or I, is he not? Physically he can hold the camera so, he is. Granted, he can also physically alter to benefit/boost himself. But this is most easily noticed. He's only saying that not ALL footage be discounted, which I respect, and agree with; the second you close/limit your mind for ANY reason will be your UN-doing. You're beating a dead horse out of pride...

edit on 11/19/2009 by RadiatorOfTheLight because: I agree, OP'er...

You nailed it.

There was a funny film made in 1997 called "Conspiracy Theory".

Mel Gibson plays a NYC cab driver that comes up with one conspiracy theory after another, that he mails to government officials.

One day he's captured by Government people (CIA, FBI), who starts grilling him about 'how much he knows'.

It turns out one of his theories was spot on. The only problem is, he doesn't know which one...

You can look at Maussan with that movie in the back of your mind. He throws a lot of stuff out there, one or more could be real. The problem is, he can't tell one from another...

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Stanton Friedman doesn't know with any certainty that some UFO's are alien spacecraft anymore than you or I do. If he did have significant evidence that would convince just about anybody he would have found a way to capitalize on it way better than he's doing now.

In fact, he doesn't know much more about this subject than you or I probably do.

The future of Ufology doesn't rest on some individual researcher anyway, you all can pretty much guess where I would go and what I would say from here. Don't think I'm right? Well, keep on the same track and I will bring the things like this that I post up in another 20 years to prove my point.

One thing he talks about is not laying everything out on the table. He believes in keeping some things secret. He has worked for many of the big industrial research companies that do top secret things. Have you? He has held top secret clearance. Have you? I'm sure he has seen things and knows things that we have no clue about. He has forgotten more than we probably know about the subject.

He says if you can't attack the evidence attack the person no one will know the difference.

1. Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

2. What the public doesn’t know, I won’t tell them.

3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people; it is much easier.

4. Do one’s research by proclamation. Investigation is too much trouble and nobody will know the difference anyway.

He has mulled over thousands of government documents and has file cabinets full of little pieces of the puzzle that he has painstakingly put together. Have you? He has interviewed hundreds of witnesses and is the grandfather of the Roswell crashes, and why wouldn't he write books to highlight his findings and career. Who knows what he has been privy to. If this guy is convinced some are alien I feel quite comfortable believing him.

So many things have now come to light in the past 20 years reinforcing things that were previously speculated about. There comes a point where a person can feel comfortable believing after patterns of truth emerge over and over again.

Anyway he has dedicated a career towards bringing things to light and making connections that lead towards something credible. He knows more about the subject than most. in fact he is probably in the top 5 percent of those who do know.

reply to post by sparrowstail


If Stan had something that was conclusive, trust me he would play his hand ASAP. Folks can claim that he can't because he "swore not to tell anyone" or some bs like that, but that type of ignorant thinking is what "researchers" rely on. They NEED folks like you to believe that they know way more than they are showing you (because they can't, lol)....because you guys eat that stuff up. You somehow point out to the amazing lack of evidence he presents as evidence that he has more that he can't tell us about. What?!?!?

First of all, the work he did in his past professional life had nothing to do with UFO's or the such, and his clearances didn't put him in a position to know either. Anything he heard was hearsay and conjecture based on that.

So, ignoring his "credentials", given the mountains of time you spend detailing how your "hero of ufology" has massed tons of evidence, turned over every leaf, talked to billions of witness, is a grandfather for Roswell, once at an an IHOP in Utah, bla....bla....bla.....given all the stuff he has "done for the subject" over all of these years he still has NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY CONCLUSIVE TO SHOW FOR IT. He gives the same damn speech every place he goes for crying out loud. He says the same things over and over (well, so do I so I guess I can't really fault that).

And to answer some of your first questions, yes.

reply to post by RadiatorOfTheLight
You've misunderstood the OP and misinterpreted what I wrote. It's a forum and these things happen.

He's merely using him, as he's mentioned in OP, as an example for his main point on the sadness of labeling and stereotyping known Hoaxers, as well, such.

I understand that and disagree. In my opinion it's a false comparison and the argument isn't valid. Stanton isn't taken seriously because he's a 'man of science.' Maussan's low credibility isn't because he isn't a man of science.

The two perspectives don't relate to each other. Maussan has accepted and supported any footage and claim that comes his way and generated a lot of success and support from fans. Along the way, he's also lost a lot of support in other areas because some people have different standards.

In contrast, Stanton's record only supports one instance of supporting a hoax and he does that in the sincere belief that the hoax ( 3 MJ-12 documents) is not a hoax. He has a strong argument in his opinion.

The main argument in the OP is that *all* these people are selling books and why should we give credence to folks selling their wares?! Can they be held as truthful or honest when it's in their interest to put one side of the story across? At the same time, is Maussan's incentive for accepting what he does motivated by the same reasons that drive Stan Friedman? In that sense (the OP argument follows), they are equally accountable and acceptable as messengers.

I disagree with the OP in this. I think Stan Friedman has a genuine drive to uncover the truth behind the UFO phenomena and his regular books and tours promote the idea and are part of what sustains it all. I should also point out that I disagree with Stan Friedman's conclusions, but still hold him as respectable in the field...it's Stan!!

Physically he can hold the camera so, he is. Granted, he can also physically alter to benefit/boost himself. But this is most easily noticed. He's only saying that not ALL footage be discounted, which I respect, and agree with; the second you close/limit your mind for ANY reason will be your UN-doing. You're beating a dead horse out of pride...

Constantly listening to boys who cry wolf is like 'beating a dead horse' out of stupidity or naive expectation...

Originally posted by sparrowstail
So many things have now come to light in the past 20 years reinforcing things that were previously speculated about. There comes a point where a person can feel comfortable believing after patterns of truth emerge over and over again.

Well said,

Funny thing how the UFO phenomenon refuses to die, after all the efforts put in to debunk it.

Instead, it amplifies, decade after decade, year after year.

Had the (major) world governments (officially) decided to take the phenomenon seriously and (officially) decided to put some hard cash into studying it, where could we have been today in our understanding of it?

Instead, we've spent half a century sticking to the basic question: Is the phenomenon real or not? Is it just planet Venus or chinese lanterns, or is there something we don't understand?

As long as we stay on that level, we deprive ourselves of understanding a phenomenon that potentially is the most important discovery mankind has ever made.

reply to post by Heliocentric

Funny thing how the UFO phenomenon refuses to die, after all the efforts put in to debunk it.

Instead, it amplifies, decade after decade, year after year.

First, those evil debunkers that scare you so much don't want it to die. Hell, we don't even want to debunk it. We just want people to understand if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....well, it's not plateuu from planet xenu or some bs like that.

And yes, it has amplified over the years. This has been largely in part due to ignorance. Once major example is folks not understanding capitalism and saying Hollywood is in on it every time a scifi movie come out, another example is the idiotic youtube videos that get posted here every 10 seconds, the other is predictions that only come true in a believer's mind regardless of what really happens.....

In short, yes this subject has blown up a lot recently. But to confuse that with this subject actually getting somewhere displays the same level of ignorance that has caused to blow up.

It's all about signal to noise ratio. And it would seem your confusing the noise ratio reaching unheard-of levels as an indicator that this subject is gaining positive momentum.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
reply to post by sparrowstail

 

And to answer some of your first questions, yes.

Well please do share if you're all about denying ignorance.

reply to post by zorgon


Even though i am dubious of friedman, at least he shows some sensible debating skills, and looks at things in a critical way. We only need one to be real, lol, exactly.

Skeptics ridicule this ufo field, and although friedman is not someone i would say i would trust, at least he can debate someone, and being a nuclear scientist you would expect him to have critical thinking, lol.

He is the most down to earth of all his collegues, but i say again, for him working for the gocv in the jobs he did, i am inclined to believe william cooper, saying he was part of there plan, to bring out this stuff. I think you guys should listen to what william cooper said about friedman.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
reply to post by Heliocentric

 

It's all about signal to noise ratio. And it would seem your confusing the noise ratio reaching unheard-of levels as an indicator that this subject is gaining positive momentum.

What are you trying to say? You are arguing quite strongly but I am not sure of your conclusions? Do you want the entire field of ufology to go away? Are you saying there is nothing to any of the thousands of credible sources that point towards something, heaven forbid ET visitation? You talk about signal versus noise ratio. There had to have been an original signal for there to now be excessive noise.