Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant By Stanton Friedman

reply to post by Logical one
Thanks, found it. That was Ed Lovick and his segment begins at 12:56 in this clip:
youtu.be...
Watch it again- I think you mischaracterized it a bit.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Hiya LO, nice to see you posting.

Whatever happened that night remains 'unknown' with the the more favourable explanation being a straying weather balloon (meteorological) being hit under war jitters. There's no great evidence of US forces testing their own defences and, at the time, nobody had any certainty over what they had been shooting at...

Hi Kandinsky, thanks for the welcome back!up:

I did take a lengthy sebatical from ATS, one thing I have found with with ATS is that it does sneakily absorb a fair bit of time and a daily dose of highly speculative predictions of impending doom or conspiracy theories can't be healthy.........so now I will try to restrict my ATS visits to smaller doses!

As to the "Battle of LA"..........I agree attributing anything to UFOs of the ET variety during the war is unsound ............the "fog of war" is notorious in any conflict.......but the Second World War was altogether of a different magnitude, and I think many younger posters here don't always appreciate the scale of World War 2 ,or even what constitutes a world war.......... just the amounts of post that suggests a strike on Iran will create WW3 shows how little they know of warfare or any of the major conflicts post WW2.

As for little evidence of the US testing their own forces.........yes that is true, but then again it's not something they would want to shout about if it was going on, as any future raid by the enemy may not be taken seriously if the forces on the ground suspected an unannounced testing drill........think the boy who cried wolf too many times or the Fire Alarm system being "tested" too often.
We don't know what was flying over LA that night...........but I strongly suspect that it was war related rather than anything ET.:

Originally posted by CardDown
reply to post by Logical one

 

Thanks, found it. That was Ed Lovick and his segment begins at 12:56 in this clip:
youtu.be...
Watch it again- I think you mischaracterized it a bit.

It was some time ago since I watched it, but as I recall the pilot spoke about flying past their own military radar announced.
From the pilot's point of view it would simply be to test out the planes capabilities.......but to me it would serve 2 purposes, both testing out the military detection capabilities and the plane itself.
Any good chess player knows that a good defence is just as important as a good attack........I would have little doubt the US millitary feels the same.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth

Anyways, we don't need to have a whole discussion about it. I think aliens crashed, 90 percent of the world doesn't

lol

What is the smoking gun evidence that leads you to this conclusion though?

reply to post by Logical one


There is no smoking gun, only the first and second hand testimony of many citizens of the area, plus the occasional 'insider' whistle-blower testimony.

Unlike the skeptics I just don't think all these people are lying or not remembering what they saw.

It's also quite suspicious how many time the Air Force has changed their explanation for the Roswell incident, and how unlikely the 'Mogul Balloon' explanation is.

I know I don't have much evidence, it's more of a gut feeling that something happened.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Just opening his big, boring mouth satisfies his audience which is built up of totally gullible non-thinkers.

I laughed, but I don't agree.

If it was a Mogul Balloon, how come experienced officers such as Jesse Marcel could not identify it as such?

Other Mogul crashes were recovered quickly without incident, how come only the one at Roswell was misidentified?

Anyways, we don't need to have a whole discussion about it. I think aliens crashed, 90 percent of the world doesn't

lol

edit on 31-3-2012 by thesearchfortruth because: changed word

The problem is that we are dealing with a 65-year-old event for which all of the facts are unknown. We don't know, or do you, if Jesse Marcel had been present at other downed balloon recoverings. Maybe Jesse spoke with someone who knew about the secret project and was told to disguise it with the UFO story otherwise the Russians might have found out they were being spied upon. Maybe...

But regardless of what went on, the fact is that no UFO crashed near Roswell, at Aztec, at Socorro, nowhere on earth. UFOs don't crash, people's minds do.

reply to post by The Shrike

Maybe Jesse spoke with someone who knew about the secret project and was told to disguise it with the UFO story otherwise the Russians might have found out they were being spied upon.

You're forgetting something.

The Mogul explanation was put much much later, over thirty years after the actual Roswell event.

But regardless of what went on, the fact is that no UFO crashed near Roswell, at Aztec, at Socorro, nowhere on earth.

That's your opinion, and it is respected (at least by me), but please don't treat it as fact, like you know everything, because you don't and that is only being arrogant.

reply to post by thesearchfortruth


You should stop feeding the trolls, err skeptics. Actually that is a valid comparison, comparing internet trolls with skeptics(or atheists for that manner but I digress). Most "skeptics" behavioral pattern is similar to that of online bullies, trolls and contrarians.

I have had the unfortunate displeasure of running into these types of people in rl, so I understand the emotional machinations to a degree. These sociopaths/psychopaths get off on the discourse. With other psycho's, err skeptics, it may not be about deriving pleasure from causing discomfort/anguish in others, but about control. You have to understand that psychopaths are control freaks. They can't stand the notion that your presenting a world view different then the one they hold, so they will do everything to crush it out of sheer malevolence.

Most "skeptics" are not skeptics at all, but mentally and emotionally damaged people. The real skeptic is the one who is neither for or against, and calls a spade a spade. These emotionally/mentally damaged people though, do not call a spade a spade when it conflicts with their world view. Hence the almost pathological sense of denial in the face of seriously odd events.

It is pointless to debate, take seriously or even engage in conversation with these "people", and is nothing more then a display of futile masochism.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Maybe Jesse spoke with someone who knew about the secret project and was told to disguise it with the UFO story otherwise the Russians might have found out they were being spied upon.

You're forgetting something.

The Mogul explanation was put much much later, over thirty years after the actual Roswell event.

But regardless of what went on, the fact is that no UFO crashed near Roswell, at Aztec, at Socorro, nowhere on earth.

That's your opinion, and it is respected (at least by me), but please don't treat it as fact, like you know everything, because you don't and that is only being arrogant.

I accept your opinion of me being arrogant. But how about you providing evidence that a UFO crashed anywhere on earth? Newspaper reports? Government reports? Anything but belief, gossip, rumor or innuendo. I'm arrogant enough to tell you that you are not going to produce. Prove me wrong with irrefutable facts.

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by thesearchfortruth

 

You should stop feeding the trolls, err skeptics. Actually that is a valid comparison, comparing internet trolls with skeptics(or atheists for that manner but I digress). Most "skeptics" behavioral pattern is similar to that of online bullies, trolls and contrarians.

I have had the unfortunate displeasure of running into these types of people in rl, so I understand the emotional machinations to a degree. These sociopaths/psychopaths get off on the discourse. With other psycho's, err skeptics, it may not be about deriving pleasure from causing discomfort/anguish in others, but about control. You have to understand that psychopaths are control freaks. They can't stand the notion that your presenting a world view different then the one they hold, so they will do everything to crush it out of sheer malevolence.

Most "skeptics" are not skeptics at all, but mentally and emotionally damaged people. The real skeptic is the one who is neither for or against, and calls a spade a spade. These emotionally/mentally damaged people though, do not call a spade a spade when it conflicts with their world view. Hence the almost pathological sense of denial in the face of seriously odd events.

It is pointless to debate, take seriously or even engage in conversation with these "people", and is nothing more then a display of futile masochism.

So what are you doing here wasting your time and our time with your scholarly discourse that triggers nothing but laughs? Don't you realize you're in a public forum and everything is up for grabs? Don't you respect the rights of everyone to hold an opinion even if it goes against what you hold dear? Get off your high horse, it's a hard fall.

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth

Anyways, we don't need to have a whole discussion about it. I think aliens crashed, 90 percent of the world doesn't

lol

What is the smoking gun evidence that leads you to this conclusion though?

You're going to wait until hell freezes over 'cause beliefs have never been the smoking gun. Jim Oberg likes to use the word "promoter" as those who sell a questionable bill of goods to believers. Well, Stanton Friedman holds the honor of being the world's greatest promoter of UFO bs. Friedman is not in a position to critize anyone 'cause he is first and foremost irrational. His books don't contain factual information. I would never recommend to anyone to read his books, they're bad for the brain.

Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

BTW, I met him twice and took his photo twice, I know who he is and I never liked him or what he stands for. Man, I can't stand bs!

I agree! Totally full of it! I'd love to see the pics you took of Stan.

Could you post them please?

reply to post by The Shrike


I can't prove you wrong because I admit that the facts aren't completely on my side, but I can provide some evidence.

Here's an interesting document.

Can you debunk it?

Originally posted by The Shrike

So what are you doing here wasting your time and our time with your scholarly discourse that triggers nothing but laughs? Don't you realize you're in a public forum and everything is up for grabs? Don't you respect the rights of everyone to hold an opinion even if it goes against what you hold dear? Get off your high horse, it's a hard fall.

I think it is very telling that the mods will allow a member to refer to other members as "psychos," "trolls" and "malevolent," nothing but a long-winded ad hominem against them.

reply to post by The Shrike


You should stop feeding the trolls, err believers. Actually that is a valid comparison, comparing internet trolls with believers (or the religious faithful for that manner but I digress). Most "believers" behavioral pattern is similar to that of online bullies, trolls and contrarians.

I have had the unfortunate displeasure of running into these types of people in rl, so I understand the emotional machinations to a degree. These sociopaths/psychopaths get off on the discourse. With other psycho's, err believers, it may not be about deriving pleasure from preying on the hopes and fears of others, but about control. You have to understand that psychopaths are control freaks. They can't stand the notion that your presenting a world view different then the one they hold, so they will do everything to crush it out of sheer malevolence.

Most "believers" try to cast themselves as skeptics, usurping skeptical terms and positions, but are mentally and emotionally damaged people. The real skeptic is the one who is neither for or against, and calls a spade a spade. These emotionally/mentally damaged people though, do not call a spade a spade when it conflicts with their world view. Hence the almost pathological sense of denial in the face of evidence that challenges their beliefs

It is pointless to debate, take seriously or even engage in conversation with these "people", and is nothing more then a display of futile masochism.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
Here's an interesting document.

Can you debunk it?

Can you prove it to be real?

lol this guy^

For me Stanton Friedman is a serious researcher, he does try hard to get the facts but when he doesn't he lets his BELIEF do the rest of the job for him. Kind of like Tsoukalos and the guys from AATheory but in its lesser form, while the ATT proponents quickly allow belief to complete the started sentences for them.

So Stanton cannot get to the truth any closer than any other of the researchers, He is not and has not beem with high clearance, he definitely is turning into a TV star more than actually bringing anything closer to thet truth. I do not diss his work and efforts but from his current position, he cannot do anything.

Only presidents, gov officials, military officials people who actually want to speak and WON'T speak because hey human instincts 'why make my life bad?'

Honestly it is likely that if I had known the truth, I would have kept it for myself, seeing how humans do their daily things, not realizing what is going on actually..

Call it human nature, we are all egoistic, eventually.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth


Here's an interesting document.

Can you debunk it?

Personally I dislike the word debunk in places like this..... To me this word suggests those who are not convinced via the data put forward regarding this enigma are stupid because they 'don't believe' & are ignorant of the truth!! A so called TRUTH that no one has managed to prove yet! Therefore technically it's NOT the TRUTH.

If someone honestly feels they've put forward a reasonable rebuttal regarding a claim then it's up to the person presenting the claim to convince those they feel will disagree! Said document is only referring to a downed satellite, nothing more as far as I know...!? I thought this was cleared up years ago?.... i could be wrong

peace.

dej...

reply to post by dejarmaX

Said document is only referring to a downed satellite, nothing more as far as I know...

That's an interesting idea, could you provide evidence this is the case?