The UFO Challenge – Stanton Friedman

Originally posted by totallackey
I just have a hard time believing a space ship operated by aliens could make an interstellar flight without incident and then crash here on Earth...

While I don't exactly believe the official story of what happened at Roswell, things like these plague my mind when I think about them. Then when I bring them up in a debate or conversation people always seem to have some sort of reason why the ship crashed. "It was from radar and microwaves etc interfering with the ships controls" or "It was shot down"

Ya cause there are no microwaves and EMPs in space or anything else that could potentially wreak even more havoc on a ufos systems. Not to mention how strong the material would have to be to withstand the types of forces it would have to go through traveling FTL or using some sort of tele-port technology.

The sad part is, Stanton seems to be one of the only ones I have seen to be credible, many other "Ufologists" have come and were soon found out to be fakes or charlatans. While Stanton may "twist" things with some of his stories, he is one of the only ones who seems legit.

Originally posted by totallackey
I just have a hard time believing a space ship operated by aliens could make an interstellar flight without incident and then crash here on Earth...

As much as it bothers me to give ammunition to the believer camp; for comparison, how many spaceships have we sent to Mars that failed catastrophically after getting there?

List of missions to Mars (and thier results)

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

He's become a product, a brand. Products and Brands must sway to consumer demand to survive in the market.

I'm with you. Here is the clip I was talking about but it starts mid sentence.


Does he do that to his eyebrows on purpose?

Originally posted by merka
The problem with his statements is that it hinges on the fact that Roswell was a real UFO.

So what if it wasnt? Well we know what all UFO believers would do... "Well, maybe THAT isnt real, but THIS [presents random UFO picture/sighting] looks real [thus implying everything before it is real as well]!!!"

Hell it even happened in this very thread. Look a few posts above. That was pretty much proven to be a boat window in the night.

And round and round the argument goes.

edit on 24-3-2013 by merka because: (no reason given)

If Roswell is a fact as you say, that makes all Stanton says is true, so not a problem there then.
But there are some facts about Roswell that don't change, and also do, and that is something did come down, or crash there, full stop. That witness testimony was made, full stop. That the USAAF said it was a weather balloon, full stop.That it was a mogul balloon, that it was Skyhook full stop. USAF say it was project Moby Dick, case closed? BTW, as another poster has rightfully mentioned, the Kumburgaz video was not at all proven to be a boat 'window' it was a theory, and that theory was that what was seen had to be the bridge of a fairly large vessel, and that to make the case, the image of the Kumburgaz UFO was superimposed over a vessel in dock over the bridge area, and which totally ignored the real fact that a bridge on a vessel like that is at least halfway down the frontal superstructure, with a huge frontal mass above it, a bit like sticking a false handlebar moustache under your nose...in fact.

I believe Stanton's done his part, as with many other Ufologists. The phenomenon is real, The government is hiding the truth, and in due time their presence will be known to all

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by totallackey
I just have a hard time believing a space ship operated by aliens could make an interstellar flight without incident and then crash here on Earth...

As much as it bothers me to give ammunition to the believer camp; for comparison, how many spaceships have we sent to Mars that failed catastrophically after getting there?

List of missions to Mars (and thier results)

And how many do you/we know nothing about????

Nasa isn't the department of the navy, so we know nothing about their secret space projects

Originally posted by SPECULUM

And how many do you/we know nothing about????

Nasa isn't the department of the navy, so we know nothing about their secret space projects

Just like we know nothing about Mexico's super ultra secret under cover top black space program to colonize their own planetary system in the

Our Lady of the Guadalupe sector of the galaxy right next to the Rio Grande belt.

Yep.

Just like we know nothing about Ethiopa's extra super secret invisible space program, or even the Irish space program by Faith and Begorrah.

Nope.
We can't say anything about those, since we know nothing about them.


Of course, if anyone had any sort of evidence that could be linked to or cited, even if just speculative with wispy thin weak support, then, maybe, just maybe such things might be of some kind of value, if only to say "We know nothing about".

Originally posted by SPECULUM
[
And how many do you/we know nothing about????

Nasa isn't the department of the navy, so we know nothing about their secret space projects

I know nothing about 2 of them because they are top secret and if I did know something about them, I would just say I know nothing about them so its really hard to say. Top secret stuff is trickery like that.

What do other ATS members think of Stanton Friedman and his UFO challenge?

I think Stanton is one of the most respectable people in the field. He examines the evidence, and follows it to the conclusion it leads to...whether pro UFO or not. He also does his own work...he physically did the interviews, saw sites, etc. Sure, he makes money doing what he does...doesn't make him wrong. I think he's right that there is enough convincing evidence out there. Proof? No...evidence? Sure.

Originally posted by antar
Stanton Friedman knows his place as a Scientist, some may complain over why he chooses not to introduces a new wave of continuous evidence to make his case, but in the time honored MO of most Scientists, he took a few points of interest which converted his mindset and has stayed true to that course though the years regardless of how others would have liked to have shaped his interests.

Friedman isn't a scientist any more than the Ghost Hunters are scientists. Both are people who have a point of view and then go out and try their damnedest to find "evidence" to fit their point of view.

Where some people just see blacked out pages, he sees missing proof of UFOs from other planets.

reply to post by GR1ill3d


Thanks for the reply. I cannot question Friedman's academic credentials and he certainly presents emotionally compelling material. But I still cannot mentally overcome my objection. I do not know how an alien species with such wondrous technology, capable of interstellar flight, could make the transit scott free and then end up crash landing here on our relatively small little speck of a planet.

I cannot remember the title of the flick, but Gary Sinise was the lead actor. We went to Mars, gained access to the Face on Cydonia, and there, according to the story, discovered the Martians colonized our planet prior to the destruction of their civilization by an incoming asteroid...the movie showed them taking off in their fanciful spaceships to galaxies far, far away.

This causes me to ask much the same type of question...Why would a species capable of traveling to other galaxies need to flee their home planet, just because an asteroid is on a collision course? With this type of power, I would think the asteroid could be easily destroyed...

Nope, do not believe in little green men...but, Friedman still is good at what he does.

reply to post by Druscilla


I think your post does more to add weight to my argument...we cannot even get one planet out of our own system without experiencing catastrophic failure...let alone interstellar travel!

reply to post by Blue Shift


When I clicked on your reply I spent the first 30 seconds or so with a really good feeling about your avatar and its beauty. Then I read your reply...

Nuclear Physicist-Lecturer Stanton T. Friedman received his BSc. and MSc. Degrees in physics from the University of Chicago in 1955 and 1956. He was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist by such companies as GE, GM, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas working in such highly advanced, classified, eventually cancelled programs as nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and various compact nuclear powerplants for space and terrestrial applications.

In my thoughts and opinions, anyone who steps outside their comfort zone to bring to the light and fight for something as strong as SF has, earns my respect. To do something on this level means setting aside ones own personal life and forging forward guided by something higher than the average person would take the initiative to do.

Imagine how isolated his future looked when he reached the point of no return in his quest to define something that was at the bottom of the scale in his field of study, or at least publicly. It is most certain that he had insiders who kept him moving in the right direction even they were to remain anonymous and in the shadows.

It takes tremendous courage to face such adversity, controversy and challenges against ones character most people could not even imagine.

I am sure he has dealt with fanatics on both sides of the fence, threats to ones self and worse to ones family and friends.

Just as there are no ex-*name and or organization* Stanton was and will always be a Physicist first which does make him a Scientist.

He became interested in UFOs in 1958, and since 1967 has lectured about them at more than 600 colleges and 100 professional groups in 50 U.S. states, 10 Canadian provinces and 18 other countries in addition to various nuclear consulting efforts.

www.stantonfriedman.com...

Friedman touts that Nuclear Physicist title every where he goes no matter how silly it looks. Even on the poster as Grand Marshall of the UFO festival in McMinnville Oregon:



UFOs and aliens: Never given us a shred of solid, tangible evidence in the 65+ years of the popularity of this phenomenon and thousands upon thousands of reports. Unless Stanton Friedman digs up a piece of an alien body, or scraps from a crashed spacecraft, he's like every other UFO enthusiast out there filled only with views and opinions.


What always bothered me about the Roswell case is the fact that people conveniently skip over the materials, to the properties of those materials. Meaning, set aside for a moment these "incredible properties" and look just at the actual objects found as described by Brazel, Marcel, and Marcel Jr.: Small i-beams and foil-like material. Now, during that era in the late 40's, it's a fact that many weather balloons carried cargo suspended on a line. This cargo was made up of either targets to measure wind velocity at high altitudes or sound detection devices, and were constructed like kites with some using a foil type of material and small beams as structure. Reference the photos below. I find it to be an incredible coincidence that a spacecraft from another world breaks apart and pieces land on the Brazel/Foster ranch and is constructed EXACTLY as weather balloon cargo from that time period. Not to mention small lightweight i-beams and foil pieces found that would be completely in proportion in size for a 3-5 foot lightweight radar wind target or rawin high altitude sounding device, yet disproportionate to a large spacecraft. A coincidence?

For those who feel there isn't enough evidence. You should know that what got Stanton Friedman into the UFO field was the book "The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects" by Ruppelt, who led the US Air Force Investigations for a number of years. This book is free to download from Project Guttenberg.

My point is that before you say there is no evidence, go back to the original investigations. Go back to the mood of country when unidentified flying objects were occurring at record pace. A time when the press took it seriously. A time when people were more open minded. A time when people weren't called names if they saw a UFO. A time when man was a little more humble and perhaps more open-minded at the thought we may not be as advanced as we think. Also a time when we were exploding lot's of atomic weapons out in the open that were sure to get the attention of anyone watching.

Read this book first, then tell us there is no evidence. Friedman read this book and then became a believer. This book opened his eyes.

Originally posted by BMP2CPM

My point is that before you say there is no evidence, go back to the original investigations. Go back to the mood of country when unidentified flying objects were occurring at record pace. A time when the press took it seriously. A time when people were more open minded. A time when people weren't called names if they saw a UFO. A time when man was a little more humble and perhaps more open-minded at the thought we may not be as advanced as we think. Also a time when we were exploding lot's of atomic weapons out in the open that were sure to get the attention of anyone watching.

Read this book first, then tell us there is no evidence. Friedman read this book and then became a believer. This book opened his eyes.

I've highlighted your use of "open minded" twice.
Anyone familiar with the mythology associated with the UFOlogy circus would be familiar with the usage of buzz words which serve as tell-tale flags in detecting falsehoods.
One of these buzz words is "TRUTH".
Truth should be self evident and need not be promoted extraneously to the point that extra assurance needs be proclaimed that materials presented are indeed "True", "Truth", etc, in nature.
If anything, procalations of "Truth", either outright, or eg; "based on a true story ... " are indicative of either outright falsehood, or such liberal interpretation and embroidery of the basis that it may as well be a work of fiction in its entirety.
Just as "Truth" is a buzzword flag for anything containing it consisting of otherwise, "Open-minded" also denotes a requirement for suspension of disbelief to such extent that anyone in such a state is receptive to an outright fiction, or lie. If someone is required to suspend the functioning of their facilities for critical analysis and logical inquiry, certainly there's shenanigans afoot.
Requiring an "open mind" is thus another way of requiring someone to believe a lie.

For legitimacy, and credibility, examination of any subject should invite and welcome every sense of facility for critical interrogation and prejudicial inquisition. In essence, if it survives a crash test, makes it through the evening meeting the parents, whatever it is might just be worthy of note.

As far as "NO" evidence, I don't think any is claiming "NO" evidence.
Insufficient evidence, certainly.
UFOs exist. The Phenomenon is indeed a phenomenon. Most on any side of the argument can agree on that.
What UFOs are, however, is another question entirely.
Thus far, as stated before, there's insufficient evidence to make any reasonable claims.
Until such time as there is reasonable unambiguous data, UFOs remain Unkown.

I have always been interested in space and time travel. The existance of different dimensions and time travel seems to be a question of speed, however I wander if it is possible to alter our conception of linear travel and contemplate travel without movement.
The Universe is in motion. What exists in this universe has motion and what seperates us is not distance but time. Objects can not occupy the same space at the same time hence the need for dimensional time. Example would be a UFO seeming to travel and exhibit strange trajectory as well as high speeds. Is it not possible that the UFO did not move at all but that it's position in respect to it's surroundings changed via induced antigravity methods.
Our Planet has motion so does our solar system if you can nullify and control the gravitational effects of their influence would you not have travel without movement. Theses are my thoughts and was wandering if I could request your consideration on this theroy?

reply to post by mirageman


I think this is good thread to bump now with the recent AMA. Here is the video that got me interested in the subject again after several years. It is a well rounded documentary complete with some pretty harsh criticisms and, I believe. gives an accurate impression of the person that was just here.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Since writing the OP up I have changed my opinion of Stan slightly.

He's still a great speaker and although he could easily have slipped into retirement he's still out there telling his stories. They may be the same ones he's told for decades but he gets new people interested in the topic. I'll also credit him for coming on here and putting up with the barrage of questions posed.

That all said I learned nothing from the exercise. Stanton spouted out a lot of his stock phrases but gave us nothing in the end that would probably change anyone's opinion on the subject.

A year ago I did think he still truly believed in the 'Cosmic Watergate'. However I am now wavering a little and suspect that he may be perpetuating that view publicly but starting to realise that his 'evidence' from decades ago looks a lot flimsier today.

On the AMA I was disappointed with the way he responded to my question:

Why, despite all our advances in technology, have stories of contact with aliens all but disappeared in the 21st century?

Stanton Friedman
reply to post by mirageman


I don't understand the basis for the question. MUFON receives 600 UFO reports per month. You mean there aren't as many George Adamski's as there used to be? Public attitudes have changed. The Kepler satellite data suggests perhaps a billion planets in the Milky way. Many scientists present papers at the annual MUFON Symposia and at IUFOC. The press is much less likely to tout people telling the far out contactee stories. We know more about planetary surfaces. Venus is not a lovely tropical place.The atmosphere is at many hundred degrees and has sulfuric acid..

Source : www.abovetopsecret.com...

I didn't understand why he chose to mention Kepler and Venus not being a tropical paradise.

When I clarified my question he ignored it. When I asked a further question:

Whilst MUFON may have over 600 recorded UFO sightings a month, which ones of more recent times, would you consider constitute the best cases of proof of alien spacecraft?



www.abovetopsecret.com...

He once again ignored it.

Now maybe he missed, maybe he chose to miss it. I don't know.

Stan's a great entertainer though and that's why he continues to be a 'go to guy' for UFO TV and radio shows.

reply to post by mirageman

He conveniently skipped over my:

Strictly speaking on the construction and how this spacecraft was built as described by Jesse Marcel and Mac Brazel:
-Small lightweight beams.
-Foil-like material.
-Pieces no more than 3 or 4 feet in length.

Compared to RAWIN type targets of the 40's:
-Small lightweight beams.
-Foil-like material.
-RAWIN targets were generally no more than 4 feet.

Now, given those facts, wouldn't it be an astronomical coincidence that a spacecraft from another world, piloted by alien beings crash and:
A) Does so in the same general area where other RAWIN targets have crashed.
B) Is constructed exactly as our Earthly RAWIN targets of the 40's.

If parts of a B-2 bomber from 2014 crashed in 1947 Roswell, the construction of that plane wouldn't be relatable in 1947. And that's with a human built aircraft only 67 years in our own future. Every single piece of crash debris mentioned in Roswell is relatable to RAWIN type of construction of that era.

But then again, so did Tom Carey when I addressed basically the same thing. I'm not going to change his mind of course, nor vise versa, but I think it needs to be acknowledged at least. For me, it's the very first hurdle of this entire case. It's challenging his strongly convicted beliefs. I would think he would welcome such questions. Oh well, maybe I came off rude just stating and not opening with being cordial.

I guess in his defense, there aren't too many new cases around for him to pick up on. So, most of the things he says are going to be pretty much the same thing.