UFOs - The Stanton Friedman Story

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
What kind of kudos does somebody like that deserve? "Nice try?"

Or, "Thanks, but no thanks." Stanton can't, of course, be held responsible for not solving the ufo enigma, but we can hardly thank him for literally ignoring the high-strangeness aspects as you so well noted.

Plus, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that MJ-12 was a sham...oh wait...he is a rocket scientist. Never mind.


So, he's either way too gullible and close-minded to be competent, or maybe he really is compromised.




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Oh, I don't know that he's come up with zilch.

He's sparred with a lot of naysayers to great effect.

He's been informative and funny, witty at countless conferences.

He's given the field more respectability.

He's given solid facts, logic, good reasoning etc. when many just emote and blather.

No, he's not produced a smoking gun in the shape of a tangible saucer or even an orb. Nor has anyone else.

Yes, he's ignored a lot of things I'd rather he didn't. He prefers to limit his pontificating to things he can prove or at least that have an abundance of evidence.

I like him. I just don't fully trust him.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by ScientificUAPer
 


Yet another hostile-to-belief rant

without

addressing my points much at all.


No.

But I'm hostile to people who cannot differentiate between their personal beliefs ('scientific' beliefs, or religious beliefs) and hard-core factual science.

There are things science cannot explain at this point, I suspect there are things science never will explain satisfactorily, perhaps because they are entirely metaphysical. But atmospheric physical systems and chemical reactions do not belong in the unexplainable category. That's just the way it is. And that is the point.

About the topic, I am not impressed by a physicist (of any sort), who doesn't acknowledge the research of his collegues, and doesn't by his own volition seek to advance science. THEN science is made a slave to politics, or religion, or business.

Which reminds me, as we perhaps agree, the oil biz funds disinformation about global warming.

Worldwide, the oil biz gets $ 775 billion in subsidies. www.sustainability.com/blog/the-economics-of-energy-ending-fossil-fuel-subsidies#.UJOCkGdijZ8


Originally posted by BO XIAN

Perhaps one day you will realize the overwhelming part BELIEF plays in your life.

You must be projecting.

My old philosophy professor is a bit of a curmurgeon of the Christian/Post-structural sort. He says stuff like you did there. He uses deconstruction to invalidate science by portraying hard-core science as a social construction.

But he confuses scientism with the scientific method, and so do you. Anyone who studied/used the scientic method can see the falllacy.

Eventually, my old professor would say that we 'know nothing' - and since we nothing, he thinks he's perfectly capable of being hard-core Christian, and claim that his 'revealed science' is as rational as real science. I challenged him on these things several times, but he could never give me a proper discussion, his insight into the scientific method was too poor, or he was too locked in his box. An otherwise rather respected philosopher, he apparently needs to read the Bible quite literally, to believe.

And thus the world suffers from human folly.


Originally posted by BO XIAN
.. doggedly persistent and thorough research.

There might be something worth modeling in that.



edit on 2-11-2012 by ScientificUAPer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Do we know if Stanton Friedman has changed his tune on any of the issues on which people think he's wrong? Has anyone asked him lately where he stands on the MJ-12 documents or global warming? He can be contacted via his Web site.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
April 2012 interview:

www.newdawnmagazine.com...

". The data do not support the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore. Mother nature has far more to do with overall weather cycles than man. Contrary to the IPCC’s claim that all scientists agree with them, there are many examples of serious scientists who do not. Politics has become the major issue not science."

Oh, the irony


edit on 2-11-2012 by ScientificUAPer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


I know this isn't a MJ12 thread but considering Friedman's involvement.

Whether a sham or not it was certainly a shambles from at least one aspect, that of the perpetrator(s).

It is a fact that both the original and subsequent documents came from (anonymous) sources rather than research, as did pointers to documents to Friedman whilst conducting research.

It is also a fact that some of the documents are definitely hoaxed whilst some are unable to be proven a hoax, yet occasionally details emerge from these that corroborates with known genuine documents, sometimes indirectly in such a way as to have been implausible if not impossible to hoax.

Therefore in my view this points to the doctoring of (some) genuine documents but was this for the purpose of avoiding prosecution by a whistle blower or deliberate deception for darker reasons.

Either way I call it a shambles because I don't think the current situation is what was intended as the outcome.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Having calmed down again, I'd just like to add that I respect Steinberg's Paracast transmissions a lot!


Currently, it's my main source on the whole topic together with ATS. I've never done any research on my own and don't expect to find the time or even desire anytime soon, so I'm happy to get it 'served'!


And I always find Friedman's stories and conclusions on the UFO topic well presented and entertaining, on TV or in the radio. Whether I agree with him on everything, or not.

It was the GW part that got to me having fought that war (figuratively speaking) for the last 10 years. Almost burned out on that. Truth is, it's gotten a bit better, and even many of the hard-core deniers have come around. But I still wonder what's keeping the rest of them.

edit on 2-11-2012 by ScientificUAPer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I like Stan Friedman because he sticks to the facts, like someone trained in the scientific method should. You can argue about his interpretations of the Betty Hill and Marjorie Fish map, as I would, I think it's pattern forming nonsense, but you can respect his overall approach. He doesn't break down into Ancient Aliens, Biblical prophecies, New Age hokum, Niburu, or the rest of the embarrassing trash associated with Ufology. He correctly and consistently points out that there is a real phenomena here.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Yea, he's the old school nuts and bolts kinda guy. I wish there was more of that stuff, many of the modern cases are just plain weird and incomprehensible in comparison to the classic 'flying saucer' stories.

PS: I like your avatar, she was fine in that role.

edit on 2-11-2012 by ScientificUAPer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScientificUAPer
Yea, he's the old school nuts and bolts kinda guy. I wish there was more of that stuff, many of the modern cases are just plain weird and incomprehensible in comparison to the classic 'flying saucer' stories.


"Classic flying saucer stories," is a somewhat ambiguous term. "Classical Flying Saucer Stories," might be more revealing of the nature of the enigma and I've linked scientist Dr. Jacques Vallee's (and Chris Aubeck's) book below.

The "nuts and bolts" theory might have more to do with modern sociological perceptions molded by the sci-fi publications/media rather than a balanced historical survey of the phenomenon. Which is exactly what is suggested by Keel in the article on Ray Palmer. Certainly food for thought when we look at how closely the modern reports stuck to the sci-fi of the times.

Stanton eliminates anything that doesn't fit his paradigm. I hesitate to call that "science."

The Man Who Invented Flying Saucers By John A. Keel

Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nighthawk1954
Is Stanton Friedman the real deal or a fake??? What is your opinion??? Me I think he is real.

Published on Aug 14, 2012 by UFOTVstudios
Are Flying Saucers Real? Take a biographical look at Stanton T. Friedman, who for the past 40 years has been the world's foremost investigator and lecturer on the UFO phenomenon, also credited with breaking the famous Roswell UFO case. He has authored over 70 UFO articles, and is the author of two books "Crash at Carona" and "Top Secret MAJIC."

About a hour long, a good Vid.

www.youtube.com...


My signature!



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by Blue Shift
What kind of kudos does somebody like that deserve? "Nice try?"

Or, "Thanks, but no thanks." Stanton can't, of course, be held responsible for not solving the ufo enigma, but we can hardly thank him for literally ignoring the high-strangeness aspects as you so well noted.

Plus, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that MJ-12 was a sham...oh wait...he is a rocket scientist. Never mind.


So, he's either way too gullible and close-minded to be competent, or maybe he really is compromised.


It is so hard to separate truth from fiction around the UFO subject. William Cooper said Friedman and Lazar, among others, were CIA agents. Truth or raging, lunatic fringe from a disturbed human being? Or was Cooper telling the truth, and literally went crazy from knowing the truth?

It is really hard to say. I tend o think Friedman is not compromised, but it is hard to know for sure.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jchristopher5

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by Blue Shift
What kind of kudos does somebody like that deserve? "Nice try?"

Or, "Thanks, but no thanks." Stanton can't, of course, be held responsible for not solving the ufo enigma, but we can hardly thank him for literally ignoring the high-strangeness aspects as you so well noted.

Plus, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that MJ-12 was a sham...oh wait...he is a rocket scientist. Never mind.


So, he's either way too gullible and close-minded to be competent, or maybe he really is compromised.


It is so hard to separate truth from fiction around the UFO subject. William Cooper said Friedman and Lazar, among others, were CIA agents. Truth or raging, lunatic fringe from a disturbed human being? Or was Cooper telling the truth, and literally went crazy from knowing the truth?

It is really hard to say. I tend o think Friedman is not compromised, but it is hard to know for sure.


On the contrary, it is very easy to learn that Friedman is not only compromised but he is an outright liar, all for the buck$. Read "THE REAL ROSWELL CRASHED-SAUCER COVERUP" by Philip J. Klass and even if you have a disdain for Klass, read what he reveals about Friedman (and Schmitt, Berliner, Randle and others). It is not pleasant if you are a Friedman supporter and what Klass reveals can be verified and there are other sources which arrive at the same conclusion. Friedman is dishonest.
.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by Jchristopher5

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by Blue Shift
What kind of kudos does somebody like that deserve? "Nice try?"

Or, "Thanks, but no thanks." Stanton can't, of course, be held responsible for not solving the ufo enigma, but we can hardly thank him for literally ignoring the high-strangeness aspects as you so well noted.

Plus, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that MJ-12 was a sham...oh wait...he is a rocket scientist. Never mind.


So, he's either way too gullible and close-minded to be competent, or maybe he really is compromised.


It is so hard to separate truth from fiction around the UFO subject. William Cooper said Friedman and Lazar, among others, were CIA agents. Truth or raging, lunatic fringe from a disturbed human being? Or was Cooper telling the truth, and literally went crazy from knowing the truth?

It is really hard to say. I tend o think Friedman is not compromised, but it is hard to know for sure.


On the contrary, it is very easy to learn that Friedman is not only compromised but he is an outright liar, all for the buck$. Read "THE REAL ROSWELL CRASHED-SAUCER COVERUP" by Philip J. Klass and even if you have a disdain for Klass, read what he reveals about Friedman (and Schmitt, Berliner, Randle and others). It is not pleasant if you are a Friedman supporter and what Klass reveals can be verified and there are other sources which arrive at the same conclusion. Friedman is dishonest.



That would be Klass the proven liar, as opposed to Stanton the rather boringly straight as a die character? Anyone who quote Klass and talks about honesty needs to to check the reality they're living in because, it's not the same one most of us inhabit.

This is the same Klass who.... Invented a relative that Travis Walton can prove he doesn't have and then wrote a book attacking Walton using totally false evidence.

This is the same Klass who took a photograph from a Newspaper article from 1955 and then insisted it was of an object sighted in the late 1960s

This is the same Klass whose...lecture on the "Fast Walker" incident is so shot full of holes, innacuracies and down right lies it's actually laughable in a painful sort of way

This is the same Klass who, when faced with a blank on mundane explanations for "Shag Harbour", resorted to personal attacks on a government scientist involved in the follow up report to the incident, of a nature that went way past bad manners into simple lies and bad taste by claiming they were "demonstrably mad" when there is no evidence to suggest anything of the sort.

This is the same Klass who, had a fellow skeptic walk out and flat out refuse to carry on the analysis of the Heflin photos due to unfair and unscientific pressure from Klass. Klass has since been shown to 100% wrong in his claims about the photos on just about every level, the suspicion being that his colleague bailed out when Klass "insisted" he back him in his provably false claim, that there is clearly a "Line" holding the object in the air when in fact, we now know, with the return of the original photos, it was a fault in the copies and there isn't even a hint of it in the originals.

This is the same Klass who, when confronted on a, live TV about the Valentich case in Australia and presented with witness statements, taken that corroborated Valentich's description of the object that was tailing him, turns and accuses the missing Valentich, 17 years old when he vanished, of being "a drug runner"... even though, there isn't a shred of evidence to support this claim and it's one that the police have never even considered a "goer".

This is the same Klass who, the FBI began to wonder about and released a memo about under the FOIA asking if he was playing off a full deck, as he continually peppered them with mails demanding anyone who claims to have seen a UFO was mentally unfit to do any sort of serious "work".

Klass was a serial liar with an almost pathological hatred of anything to do with UFOs a fact, even people who knew him personally have admitted, Anyone who critiques the subject using Klass's analysis, is either simply an uneducated and ignorant person about the subject or just as much a bunko artist as Klass was himself.
edit on 3-11-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
snip


Now that you got that off your chest, read the book and refute what Klass says about Friedman, and the others. Stick to the facts, not ad hominem attacks.

A taste of what others say:
reinep.wordpress.com...
Stanton Friedman Questionable!
August 14, 2011 · by Ray · in Latest. ·
I often thought about how some of the so called UFO experts trying to discredit others and accentuate themselves. One good example of a such a person is Stanton Friedman. And to be honest with you I`m getting really annoyed and irritated about this Stanton Friedman character. Stanton Friedman is attending almost every TV documentary about UFOs, and of course he wrote the most significant books ( according to some ) inventing the most popular UFO stories. I used to listen to him and wonder: The TV always said “nuclear physicist” under his name, so of course, anything he said had to be true. At least I thought so in my age at that time. I didn’t know that his real career, in fact his only career since 1970, was writing UFO books. I guess the TV producers feel that calling him a nuclear physicist gives him more credibility than calling a spade a spade

www.skepticblog.org...
Stanton Friedman Doesn’t Like Me
by Brian Dunning, Dec 04 2008
Stanton Friedman
A reader wrote me on Facebook that he was listening to the “Paranormal Podcast”, another of the usual promoters of nonsense inexplicably allowed to remain in the Science & Medicine section of iTunes. The guest was Stanton Friedman, the principal author of the Roswell, Travis Walton, and Betty & Barney Hill UFO mythologies. Anyway, at 25 minutes into the episode (#56, but don’t bother listening as it’s only a 15 second blurb), Stanton mentioned that he “came across a piece on the Internet” the other day that got “40 flat-out false claims” about the Betty and Barney Hill story, and added with a condescending chortle that he “couldn’t believe it.” It was the online transcript of my Skeptoid episode on that story.

www.realityuncovered.net...
Ufology War: Colin Bennett vs. Stanton Friedman
by ryguy » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:18 pm

Well, there's a bit of a battle brewing in the world of Ufology this week. After Dick Farley distributed an email noting what he views as the impending implosion of "old-school" Ufology (see Steve's post), Colin Bennett responded with his own observations - and in his signature style, in one stroke he laid down the law against several notable old-school Ufologists...most notably the old "expert" many UFO shows approach when they need a Ufologist to feature on camera - Stanton Friedman.

Last night, Stanton threw his own angry response back at Colin's comment that Stanton hadn't actually done any "nuclear physics" work in about half decade. Apparently Friedman took issue with Colin's inaccuracy....it's been more like a quarter century, thank you very much.

www.skeptic.com...
Michael Shermer
on Larry King Live on UFOs
I thought eSkeptic readers might appreciate some of the more amusing (and nasty) letters I have received (appended below), plus one very revealing letter about Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin’s “UFO sighting” on the way to the moon, recounted by him on the show (revealing UFOlogist Stanton Friedman to be an incompetent researcher).

www.drboylan.com...
BAD GUYS/WOMEN (Bad=harms UFO truth - a partial list)
Stanton Friedman, M.S., engineer, defamer of relevant researchers, tries to mis-focus people on a half-century old crash instead of current Star Visitor contacts



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Pointless really Shrike, cos if you actually read what I post in general, I'm firmly with GUT on the whole "Stanton, just skirts round the difficult stuff ". I also authored a post stating that, I suspect that Stanton's aversion to Bob Lazar is based partly on, Bob being everything Stanton isn't , personable, easy going and a bit of a natural genius. Ergo, he goes gunning for Bob wanting to believe he's a "fake".

I think Stanton's done some sterling work, do i agree with all his analysis ? No. Then again , given my own work, I also understand how people become addicted to being "famous" and cant become defensive and tetchy when anyone else seems to steal their limelight and often, they aren't even aware they are doing it.

Oh and realityuncovered?? really??? That site deals with facts with the same careless abandon Greer does. Self satisfied smug ignoramuses is one of the nice things I can think of to say about many of that particular site's contributors.
edit on 3-11-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Pointless really Shrike, cos if you actually read what I post in general, I'm firmly with GUT on the whole "Stanton, just skirts round the difficult stuff ". I also authored a post stating that, I suspect that Stanton's aversion to Bob Lazar is based partly on, Bob being everything Stanton isn't , personable, easy going and a bit of a natural genius. Ergo, he goes gunning for Bob wanting to believe he's a "fake".

I think Stanton's done some sterling work, do i agree with all his analysis ? No. Then again , given my own work, I also understand how people become addicted to being "famous" and cant become defensive and tetchy when anyone else seems to steal their limelight and often, they aren't even aware they are doing it.

Oh and realityuncovered?? really??? That site deals with facts with the same careless abandon Greer does. Self satisfied smug ignoramuses is one of the nice things I can think of to say about many of that particular site's contributors.
edit on 3-11-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)


"As Friedman himself would later admit, at the time he 'found it hard to get very excited' about Marcel's tale."

"Friedman appeared in the movie shortly after Marcel and said: 'We have verified every statement made by Jesse Marcel" (emphasis added). This claim is flatly contradicted by the article published in the July 9, 1947 Fort Worth Morning Star-Telegram (see pp. 17-18).

"The books by Randle and Schmitt and Friedman and Berliner claim that the balloon-borne radar reflector explanation was concocted by Gen. Ramey and that none of the debris photographed in Ramey's office was authentic. Further, they claim that the account given by rancher Brazel in the offices of the Roswell Daily Record was riddled with falsehoods. Friedman and Berliner suggest that Brazel was bribed while Randle and Schmitt imply he was intimidated by threats by unnamed AAF officers. (Friedman/Berliner, Crash at Corona, p.82; Randle/Schmitt, The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell, pp.31, 127)

If the balloon-borne radar reflector was a spurious 'cover story' concocted by Ramey, there was no way in which the details could have been communicated to Brazel before he met with reporters in the Roswell newspaper offices."

NOTE FROM ME, THE SHRIKE: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS, INCLUDING THIS NOTE, ARE IN ITALIC EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO CODING FOR SUCH EXCEPT FOR NEWSPAPER NAMES AND QUOTED MATERIAL WHICH WON'T SHOW. THIS IS AN ATS GLITCH.
"Yet Brazel's account, as published in the July 9 Roswell Daily Record, very closely matches the one quoting Marcel, which was published in the July 9 Fort Worth Star-Telegram. For example, Brazel said he first discovered the debris 'on June14' (emphasis added). Marcel said it had been found 'three weeks previously.' Berlitz/Moore, Randle/Schmitt, and Friedman/Berliner erroneously claim the debris was not found by Brazel until July 2 or July 4,"

"The Roswell Incident: Beginning of the Cosmic Watergate" was the title of the paper presented by Stanton Friedman at the 1981 MUFON conference, held July 25-26 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In the published proceedings, Friedman's paper opened with a quotation attributed to Albert Einstein: 'The right to search for truth implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be the truth' emphasis added).

The CIA's UFO papers had been made public more than two years before. In Friedman's twenty-two-page (single-spaced) published paper, he referred only briefly to the CIA papers, saying 'it is quite clear that the 900 pages released by the CIA were merely the top [sic of the iceberg, since they internally contain references to at least 200 other documents.' But Friedman withheld from his audience all of the information in the CIA documents cited in the previous chapter which would have demolished his claims of recovered crashed saucers and government coverup!"

Friedman wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit him on the face! There's lots more from where the above came, even worse! And sources are supplied so that you can't say the comments are unsubstantiated.

You're betting on a losing horse.

Not everyone likes Friedman:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Stanton Freidman is a big fraud, page 1

www.abovetopsecret.com...
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"

www.abovetopsecret.com...
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...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
As Stanton Freidman is known for saying, "Don't bother me with the facts because I've already made up my mind."

www.abovetopsecret.com...&colorshift=yes&colorshift=yes
Originally posted by yeti101
lmao at friedman whipping out his latest book to make his point. "the betty and barney hill case goes back to 1961 this is my new book on the subject" (holds it up on screen for a while) LOL

What Stanton also won’t tell you ...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
BTW, Friedman continues to bill himself as a Nuclear Physicist. Next time you run into him ask him when was the last time he did any work as one. This used to be a UFOdom joke and here is how another individual feels about him as posted at Unexplained Mysteries:

Posted 09 June 2010 - 12:46 AM by psyche101
"I agree with Mr Friedman on one point, we certainly are fighting forces of arrogance and innocence. Anyone who takes the time to read this half baked tripe is just supporting a hobby industry based on fiction. From what I understand, Mr Friedman has not delved into Nuclear Physics for decades, he is not an actively practicing nuclear physicist, he just drags that moniker out at every opportunity to garner further support from noobs.

And on and on...



edit on 4-11-2012 by The Shrike because: Corrections not made due to ATS glitch.
edit on 4-11-2012 by The Shrike because: To add comments.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
The CIA didn't actually exist when Roswell happened, it came into being in September 1947. On the other hand, the British had sent the Yanks a document on a "difficult sighting" that had occurred over British air space where they had decided to tell the public is was guess what? A weather balloon. That document arrived on those that needed to know's desks in the USA in June 1947.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
By the way, the CIA memos The Shrike mentioned are cited in this interview with Philip Klass:

Interview: Philip J. Klass

But I suppose that any classified memo that might have been written by or addressed to someone out of the loop should be considered very weak evidence at best for content of or existence of the loop in question, unless the content of the memo leads to an obvious and undisputable exception, such as perhaps demonstration of knowledge the writer should not have had at the time.

I'm not sure what stance Klass took on Mogul (pro, I would imagine), although I have no doubt he could have torn that story to shreds easily enough if so inclined.

One issue I have with both Stanton Friedman and many (not all) members of Reality Uncovered is their apparent jumping to conclusions not sufficiently supported by evidence, although the webmaster has stated that UAPs exist even though he seems to paint nearly every witness as a fool or hoaxer, even in multimode mass sightings. In the face of insufficient evidence on any issue, I usually prefer a simple “I don’t know”?

Regarding Roswell, the Haut affidavit seems relevant. You don’t have to take the word of a man making affidavit to be notarized, witnessed and sealed until after this death. There’s no guarantee he was being truthful, but it should carry more weight than the usual hearsay. But his statements are much stronger than what Jesse Marcel said on BBC shortly before he died or what Major Marcel’s son continues to say. Even being tantamount to a deathbed statement, it's still not by itself enough to convict, especially if you really believe all the other witnesses are untruthful, for whatever reason, and completely discount the relevance of what evidence there is that is not in question.

There was also an earlier affidavit. Anyway, here’s the link:

Haut affidavits

And like many (virtually all?) others, I love FireMoon’s avatar.






top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join