Interview With Stanton Friedman - Debunking the Debunkers - 2011 UFO Conference

reply to post by m0r1arty

The longer someone studies and researches something.... makes you suspicious??? What the hell....

reply to post by m0r1arty


Ok a nuclear physicist says science is wrong? You are wrong sir... All I need to do is NAME HIS BOOOK... I suggest you READ it before posting again. "Flying Saucers and SCIENCE" Ahem ty

reply to post by roughycannon


Ummm because 40+ years researching... I think he knows the truth... That aliens exist and so do flying saucers. So anyone saying NO THEY DON'T EXIST... HAVE 0 PROOOOOOOF... So what does that make them? Wrong

I don't like Stanton Friedman. Regardless of what anyone will say ( I know they will come after me), I agree with Bill Cooper's taking on Stanton Friedman and possibly Stan Deyo. He believed they were intention disinfo agents planted within the UFO community to keep the distraction ongoing. He also believed that some documents produced by Stanton Friedman to be false. Don't believe everything you hear about Bill Cooper, as usual nothing is as it seems...

Just my take...

reply to post by Sestias

Even if one is a Darwinian to the extreme, and consider that human evolution was just the result of the permutations of non-intelligent matter, a kind of cosmic fluke, it would stand to reason that the same coincidence would occur elsewhere, under the right conditions, in the universe.

And, we would also expect this skeptic to also give the notion a chance that, while evolution clearly occurs (on the micro level, at least, if not on the Macro level, as Darwin suggested and even admitted could not be proven(!)) that we could have been give a jump-start by an advanced civilization as part of some cosmic experiment.

I've often thought an interesting way to end the battle between Christians and non, and even align themselves better with most other religions of the world. A way that unifies our beliefs & theories while at the same time not changing or thrashing [much of the historic aspect, anyway] of the bible...

Add an 's'!!!

Every time the word "God" appears in the bible, make it "Gods" - likewise "he/his" to "they/their", etc, accordingly.

Then, instead of a single all-seeing, all-knowing benevolent entity (which is preposterous if you *really* think about it), becomes an advanced civilization that put us here - and bestowed life, knowledge, and rules to live by...

Their mastery of science can explain away most 'miracles' and 'events' performed by 'gods' (ETs) - science that we certainly couldn't comprehend back then, and are barely on the cusp of understanding it, now!

Some food for thought, anyway.

Originally posted by Mr Mask
Oh Stan...

Good interview. I really enjoy Bill's interview skills. He jumps in there and asks a lot of good questions.

As for Stan, well, I still remember him in old Vampire documentaries talking about Dracula and the possibility of vampires being real. I sorta hold that against him...also his early work within UFO documentaries of the late 80s where he was just "not believable".

But on the other hand, I like his personality as shown over the years. Dunno, Stan seems like a good guy to drink with and shoot the breeze. He obviously isn't dumb and shows a working sense of humor over the years.

So...good interview. I don't invest much in Stan's work or views, but I don't think he should be destroyed for what he does.

If he is making money (and he always is), god bless the guy...as long as he isn't making profit off Dracula documentaries anymore.

One thing I DO agree with Stan on is- Screw Bill Nye.


MM

edit on 6-3-2011 by Mr Mask because: (no reason given)

Wow LOL ! a Thought Moment Vampire's Aliens Hmm

Ohh here it is !


LIFEFORCE (1985) Trailer for Tobe Hooper's space vampires in London



Maybe Stan knows something that we Dont

Thanks for a great share: posts will not get much better then this. Whether one agrees or not: this triggers our thoughts in a very good way.

reply to post by esteay812


No, Friedman's educational background does not qualify him to be any more believable on these topics than any other reasonably educated person. And yes, he's always careful to be "the nuclear physicist," as if it were relevant and would tend to improve his credibility.

The fact is that his new "Science Was Wrong" line of talk seems to eliminate any credibility he had remaining. First of all, "science" can't be right or wrong. Science is just a process. If an individual scientist makes an error, that is not the same as "science is wrong." And if Friedman is confused about that, it's clear that he's confused about a lot of things. To say, for example, that "science was wrong" because someone made a business judgment that TV would not be profitable is risible. Utter bollocks.

I haven't watched the video yet. I will try to get through it, but I've had so much Stanton Friedman over the last couple of decades that I can hardly believe he will have anything new to say. Still, I'll listen, just on the off chance. One of these days, perhaps he will admit that the whole MJ-12 thing is a total fraud. When he does that, he will regain some possibility of credibility.

Originally posted by vertedtwylight
The longer someone studies and researches something.... makes you suspicious??? What the hell....

Call me a funny old sexy model of a man but when you've been at something for this long and can't produce more than sensationalist books then you are either not very good an investigating, have nothing to investigate or are peddling some sort of snake oil and using it for a cover. Science was wrong is a Friendman book that pokes sticks at science and glosses over the scientific method with ridiculous arrogance.

Originally posted by vertedtwylight
Ok a nuclear physicist says science is wrong? You are wrong sir... All I need to do is NAME HIS BOOOK... I suggest you READ it before posting again. "Flying Saucers and SCIENCE" Ahem ty

I suggest you go to a library and borrow "Science was wrong" for a while before returning it thus minimising the chance for him to get at your hard earned pocket money. Perhaps nuclear physicists turn you on or you don't understand what a masters from 1956 means in today's competitive market of nuclear physics. A brief look at how all Marvel comic characters, from around that time, got their powers will give you a clue about how the general public thought of nuclear physics at that point in time.

-m0r

Originally posted by Chillax
I don't like Stanton Friedman. Regardless of what anyone will say ( I know they will come after me), I agree with Bill Cooper's taking on Stanton Friedman and possibly Stan Deyo. He believed they were intention disinfo agents planted within the UFO community to keep the distraction ongoing. He also believed that some documents produced by Stanton Friedman to be false.

Well if you look at this thread, he's got everyone talking about the difference between a debunker and a sceptic. So if he's a disinfo agent, he's an incredibly effective one.

There are two natural responses to such talk:

1) An uncontrollable desire to defend yourself and prove that you are actually a sceptic not a debunker (or that you are a believer).

2) An uncontrollable desire to blow him off and dismiss everything he says.

Someone also just posted suggesting that at the time Friedman gained his qualifications as a nuclear physicist they didn't mean very much. This is an alternative possibility, namely that Friedman is a UFO researcher pretending to be a famous physicist.

Then again, he has equivalent industry experience which at most institutions would probably stand in lieu of a PhD. It's hard to dismiss that entirely.

Certainly if anyone has any reason to distract the UFO community from the real deal, it would be companies such as the ones he worked for.

Maybe if Stanton could make his master's thesis available to us or perhaps some papers he has written on nuclear physics, we could get a better grip on the strength of his qualifications. Not that this will help us establish anything whatsoever about UFOs of course.

Actually, all you need, or anyone needs to do, to get a full picture of what Stanton knows about physics is to read some of his books..

Pretty darn simple.. and judging from some of unfair and lazy armchair criticisms of him seen in this thread, it appears virtually no one has even read one of his books at all..

The guy is one of few people left that were very hard working and diligent when going to college back in the 50's..

How many of you haters here even went to college? If you did, you should seriously try and get your money back..

Stanton kicks the crap out of the media type scientists because he actually learned the skills of his trade, and isn't just some ivory tower media consultant the news people have on call when they need some "expert"

He was learning about advanced and highly classified ion drives and very compact nuclear and fusion fuel cells that would be used in military and space applications way back.. many of those power generating technologies are still classified..

Some say he wouldn't know more about ufo's than just some joe off the street, but that is rubbish too..

He worked in corporations that were, and still are a part of the military industrial complex, that were designing state of the art non conventional power generation and propulsion with people that were "in the know" about secrets no one else would know... There wouldn't be a better source than these industries and the top people in the entire country for learning about what was going on with the ufo situation back then, and also still today..

Also, by reading some of Stanton's books you could get a lot of info about him as a person, what he is like as a person shows in how and what he writes about, and the things important to him..

He is one of the few really decent people left, and is not corrupt, nor is he dishonorable in any way..

Sure, that's just my opinion, but it is based on a HUGE amount of achievments he has accomplished, and by the way he conducts himself..

People coming in these threads to try and rubbish a person should at least research the person they are targeting, because it certainly shows when you don't.

reply to post by alienreality


Yeah, you're right about Stanton. I have been following him for years. Like I said earlier in this thread, he's about the best there is. I'm an electrical engineer, I went to school, and I busted my hump to get through. I did quite well too. Most people here have utterly no idea how hard it is to get through a highly technical curriculum like Stan did. I had to take a lot of physics as well. Real hard stuff to master.

Originally posted by GhostLancer

Originally posted by m0r1arty

Originally posted by Kargun
Scientists can be so blind.

And so ends my relationship with ATS.

Friedman is the best of the bunch - but he's still peddling, albeit in how not to accept paddlers, and has been built up within the U2U I got to be something of a celebrity. He's not. He's a guy with an interest and tries to keep others steady on the basis that they will go AWOL based on nothing.

Good guy - but hanging around this field for this long makes me suspicious.

Still, nice interview ATS and well done for getting it!

-m0r

This is the typical "debunker" attitude. "Don't bother me with the evidence. I've already made up my mind!" It's a shame that people base their *beliefs* that there is nothing to the UFO topic on character assassination. To insinuate that there is something categorically wrong with the fact that Freidman has been in the field for "this long" and is therefore "suspicious" is in and of itself: wrong. Freidman is not a peddlar. The reason his has risen to prominence in the field is that he brings a high level of scientific professionalism and quality to a field that desperately needs it. The fact that he wins the majority of his debates ruffles many feathers. When "debunkers" find themselves on the end of a losing debate, they will resort to attacking the person instead of the theories, facts, ideas and evidence presented.

For someone to end their relationship with ATS over a post concerning one of the best minds exploring and investigating the UFO field is simply juvenille. The church closed their minds to scientific facts in the days of Leonardo DaVinci, so determined that their *beliefs* about the universe were correct. So closed-minded they were, people were put to death over controversial ideas that later proved TRUE. Thank goodness there is no powerful institution as that these days, for "debunkers" would have a long list of murdered folks who just happened to think beyond conventional wisdom and discover the universe as it really is, not how they *believe* it to be.

edit on 7-3-2011 by GhostLancer because: Typo

Lol, you really don't see what you've said there do you - "I believe, leave me alone" seems to be your mantra. Can you name ONE person who was put to death - just one, relative to the beliefs you are discussing. I think you'll find you can't, but it's always a good thing to say to people isn't it?

How come Friedman talked about 'skeptics' and 'debunkers' (debunker actually means someone who removes bunk, or lies) but not closed minded believers who will refute any other opinion than their own? Oh, ok, because he's selling them a product...

Greetings,

While I'm new to ATS I have always found the forum on this site fascinating.
In fact after visiting a few times I was inspired to write down a few words regarding this issue and thought this thread would be a good place to share it with you.



The first thing that must be understood about any exploration of the unknown is that the answers to the questions we seek are likely to fall outside of existing paradigms.

At first glance this statement may seem rhetorical but losing sight of this is the single biggest impediment to open minded investigation. We need to come to grips with the fact that in the course of investigating the unusual, the evidence we encounter will likely be of the unusual variety as well.

We must be thorough in our information gathering efforts,
We must employ a healthy skeptical approach grounded in neutrality.
We must accept nothing at face value nor dismiss anything out of hand.
We must abandon the ego based delusions that we already have all the answers, or that any new discoveries must fit within the comfortable confines of our current level of understanding.
We must have the courage to trust our powers of discernment and intuition and learn to recognize and embrace the truth, even if that truth is contrary to popular views.
We must examine the evidence with earnest curiosity without ego, without prejudice and without fear.

We must tread lightly around those that are overly negative in their assessment of other people's views, or overbearing in the stating of their own.
Any person that has taken the time to form their beliefs based on logic reason and life experience knows full well that the task is long, arduous and filled with many disappointments snares and pitfalls.

We must understand that every person's worldly experience is different than our own and that their views are formed and filtered through their own life experience. We must learn to be tolerant of this and take care not to react with harsh tones, criticism or slanderous accusations against those who do not share our views because this is a clear indication that there is a lack of proper grounding in neutrality.

While our journey of discovery is personal, we all share a common goal.
To finally arrive at a higher level of truth.

DK

The difference between debunker and skeptic is critical analysis. Debunkers do not apply full critical analysis to anything they debunk, any flaw is cause to dismiss a claim even if there's logical reason for the flaw. Skeptics apply critical analysis, they examine all evidence if there is a flaw, why is it there, if there's a logical explanation they move on to the next issue that raised any flags. Debunkers do have the ability to be harmful as in the example Dr. Friedman gave about doctors washing their hands. UFO research doesn't (typically lol) involve life and death situations but that doesn't mean it's ok to just debunk everything, who knows what we have missed out on due to such heavy debunking. Debunking makes it very difficult if not impossible to get the evidence we're all panting for.

Since the example has been used, I will too. The Jerusalem videos. They were in fact 100% debunked and thus labled hoax, however only minimal critical analysis was applied. No one has been able to take the same phone used and retrieve the footage off of it, no one has been able to use the exact phone to record and judge whether the same anomolies appear or not. Not any of the debunkers have been to Jerusalem at 1AM on the Sabbath even once never mind repeatedly in order to determine what a normal amount of people equipped with any kind of camera would be, that is some serious critical analysis missing. Debunking this video made it virtually impossible for critical analysis to occur as people lost interest or feared being labled stupid or blind believer and of course further discussion on it was not allowed.

reply to post by Kali74


You really expect that every single UFO video on Youtube needs to have the type of in-depth analysis you're requesting for the Temple Mount Hoax? It was simply a youtube video, alongside many, many others. That would be a feat of absolute foolishness. The Temple Mount Hoax was exposed so quickly not because nobody did their due diligence, but because it was a bad hoax. How can you expect so much from a debunking and yet not expect the same amount of diligence for your belief?

And debunkers are just like skeptics and believers, there are many and varied shades of them. So using a blanket statement to defame an entire group of people (many who do actual research and due diligence) like that is very offensive. This is my problem with the Friedman video overall. He's scapegoating an entire group of people, much like what was done to the skeptics here on this very site not too long ago. If the evidence is powerful enough, one person shouting "Fake!" out of the crowd won't make a lick of difference.

My question is: What's the real problem with a person debunking (remember, debunking means to expose a false, exaggerated, or misleading claim) the cases that come across these boards and UFOlogy as a whole? I think the problem is the flimsy foundation that so many of these cases stand on, not the people that expose that foundation.

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com
Question from Bill Evann(ATS)-

"When you mention the ar.... working to expose the Debunkers don't you think though there is some valuable debunking ar.... do you think it exposes a lot of the fakes that are out there and than puts maybe some of the sightings to a harsher test that with out Debunking may not necessarily exist"

Answer Mr Friedman states-

"There's a difference between a skeptic and a Debunker. A skeptic says maybe lets check the facts. The Debunker says I know what the answer is these things can't possibly be real and if the first explanation doesn't not work well than lets try a second one and if that doesn't work lets try a third one cause we know what the answer is. Skepticism we need, no question . Debunking we don't need I don't think it deserves a useful function other than the person making the noise"

For an educated ufologist of fifty years he certainly has no idea what he's talking about, with out a script.

Mr Friedman says-

"I'm a skeptic I have exposed a number of people who haven't been telling the truth Bob Lazar for example and some of Colonel Coso's proclamations and other people"

So Mr Friedman has DEBUNKED theory's, cases and people! That makes Mr Friedmen a Debunker

What a Rant,
Imagine all the rubbish out there if there were no Debunkers. Fair-dinkum.


Zelong.

To Interviewer, Bill I couldn't hear your name very well, excuse me if it's wrong. Name in text on the bottom of the screen would fix that

UFOs = government technology with Nephilim inside

Um, Some of the posts seem like they’re vastly misunderstanding Mr. Friedman. Sure, He mentions his CDs & books, but he hardly drones on about them nor was he promoting them pretentiously. He mentioned them briefly but the vast majority of his video was about the differences between extremist debunking & rational skepticism.

IF he was pretentiously promoting his personal work in this subject via this video, I doubt he’d spend as much time as he did on this topics actual subject matter.

Overall, Taking into account this is my first ever exposure to Mr. Friedmans’s opinions, It was still easy to understand his distinction between skepticism & debunking. What seems obvious to me at least, Is that he was describing how debunkers want to act like they’re the definitive authority on these matters & many debunkers want to utterly smash believers, Even when believers aren’t being pushy in their belief.

While I believe in extraterrestrial life, My belief is balanced with a healthy dose of skepticism. Just because a source automatically is a believer doesn’t automatically give their claims credence.

I should not have to remind people of the hundreds of thousands of ufo sightings across the world in the past 60 years. Across the world, should I repeat? Many of those sightings come from people of sound mind, pilots, military men, professionals, and so on. Even if 1% of them saw something of truly extraterrestrial origins, that's nonetheless noteworthy and cause for concern. It's so easy for us in 2011 to erase anything that happened before 2000 or 1990 because the years tend to do that to us both as individuals and as a society. We cannot let the dust of time cover the past in such a meager and dopy fashion. Fight it! Search the archives. Remember. Only by remembering can we have an impression of the big picture and without that we're left with only a narrow portion.

With enough garbage thrown in it and enough back and forth a ufo case eventually dies whether it started from genuine origins or not. Of the FEW ufo cases that garner serious attention, they too are drowned in the 99% of bunk that passes for facts in ufology and the back and forth BS that clouds peoples minds as well. Ufology and the debunkers that fire shots at it are like a messy tornado. Try as you might it's impossible to get anything productive done with all of the sh** going on and the spin. Some work might get done but it's painfully slow.

I've always felt that if 1% of the cases or less are true that it will never get out, especially if the UFOs themselves do not want to be known. This is because it's human nature to bury minorities or things that have attracted ridicule. I agree with a quote I saw somewhere on this site. They only need to cover up small lies. The big ones are covered up because of simple human incredulity. I have no doubt that if the so called secret government wanted to misinform the public or distort the truth or something of that nature that they certainly could. However, I do not believe it would be enough. Something more is needed. Indeed, I believe the incredulity is enough by itself. With a government agenda to misinform and mislead, it would just be added assurance that the issue will stay dead.

Not all ridicule and doubt is earned or deserved. Unfortunately, a lot of us forget that somehow.

It's true that the best UFO cases offer no proof. Therefore we cannot come to a conclusion about them. They do bring up question, though. They should make a person think. Yet, there's no proof. However, it doesn't lend us the right to ridicule and insult the journey of those who seek to learn and uncover truths. It's human nature to make mistakes and sure enough those who search will stumble. It's only the venomous sort of human behavior that will make advantage of this stumble to taunt and exploit this person for their faults. It's indulgent and hints at a deeper truth: humans are biased in favor of majority viewpoints and safe viewpoints, whether they're scientists or not.

Ever so often one has to break from the flock and risk their career. It's the nature of things.

No guarantees in this life. Nothing is free. Most of us won't receive the credit we deserve either.

But go forth we must. Like the wind, like the ants that build colonies, like the spinning planet.