It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+48 more 
posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:00 AM
Our next interview from the 2011 UFO Conference in Arizona features a fascinating conversation with Stanton Friedman, on the subject of "UFO Debunkers." Mr. Friedman is a nuclear physicist and one of the original civilian investigators of the Roswell incident. He is often credited for brining the events in Roswell to popular awareness due to his research and and diligent fact-finding. There are few people in UFOology with longer resume than Stanton's nearly five decades of involvement. During that time, he's become frustrated with what he feels are errant arguments of habitual debunkers. He shares some of his thoughts on that subject and more.

NOTE: The first few minutes of this interview lack on-the scene video of Mr. Friedman. As our frustrations with the organization of the vent continued, our only opportunity to get a few moments of his time was at his table in the exhibit area. Our cameraman was jostled and bumped during the crowded first few minutes (as a lecture let out) making that portion of the video unwatchable. Also, lighting was not optimal. We apologize for the less-than ideal video quality, however, the content of the interview is excellent.

Standard Definition video...

(click to open player in new window)

Watch the video in full HD.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:11 AM
Ya I love how he talks about scientist saying it would take 700k years to get to the nearest star by voyager. Why do scientist think we will not have the ability to learn to travel through space at a faster pace in the future?

Lets look at Motor car speeds over the last 100 years. Or jets compared to planes.

Scientists can be so blind.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:21 AM
Do you notice how many of the Debunkers aren't flagging this thread? Its amazing they say its a made up word and no body does it? I love for this fella to come onto ATS that would give some of these troll debunkers a run for there money.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:21 AM

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!


posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:22 AM
About half way through the video so far. Very interesting stuff from a very smart mind, thanks for posting it.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:30 AM
Great interview!

It sounds like Stanton Friedman feels debunkers are extremists, which I can agree with. You're not open minded when your objective is to discredit someone's claims. Skepticism on the other hand, is a healthy reaction.

Thanks for the video, Bill!
edit on 6-3-2011 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:33 AM
Stanton Friedman is a nuclear physicist. Does being educated in that field mean that he would have more credibility than someone who is a professional truck driver, a pilot, a Dr., a teacher, etc.

I imagine he has dealt with many things in his eduaction and work life that would let him know things that the avg person doesn't know. Should he be taken more seriously because of his educated background or does he ride on that as a way to obtain instant credibility?

I have heard him in many videos and he always seems to be straight forward and sincere, but hasn't he done some things recently that would cause a layman's credibility to be questioned?

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by m0r1arty

Funny how you show up after I said that.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:40 AM
I was glad that he stated a difference between debunkers and skeptics. Many people here do not realize there is a difference. To quote his statements-

There is difference between skeptics and debunkers.
A skeptic says, "maybe. lets check the facts."
A debunker says,"I know what the answer is. These things can't possibly be real." If the first explanation doesn't work, lets try a 2nd one. If that doesn't work, lets try a 3rd one.
Skepticism we need. Debunking, we do not need.

I agree with that, especially since I would consider myself to be a skeptic, who truly does want to believe. I do believe. I just don't believe a lot of what others claim to be proof.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by Slipdig1

Funny how he's peddling a potential film of his life and writing books stating that science is wrong.

Science always states it's a theory in progress and is likely to change.

He speaks like a guy who has money to be made from his wares and hates those who could jeopardise that.


posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:44 AM
Controlled disclosure and gatekeepers is what I see, though I enjoyed the interview. Bob Lazar is an interesting name. I had someone accidentally mention it and suddenly the chat was gone, and some directions to go somewhere else, so I tried linking his video to a friend, and instantly both our chats were gone, and it wasn't until much later, he could watch the video. Seems his name activate some kind of spyware online, like spy bots, at the time until that filter was removed.
edit on 6-3-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by

Great vid,, even with the camera problems..

Thanks ATS..!!!

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by esteay812

What? Did he go on some coc aine binge that I am unaware of? Hookers maybe? So far, all I have heard is good things about Friedman, both in UFOlogy and mainstream science.

Anyway...people seem to be small minded when it comes to things of "uncertainty" and in order for the proper credibility to be built upon in such a "insecure world" built on false paradigms, one has to have the "illusion" of a larger mind. Fear is a mechanism that is easily triggered in a very youthful and un-evolved mind, therefore when someone comes forward who has the err of a powerful reputation, it eases the minds of those prone to emotional extremes.

To me though, its suspicious that we would rely on such illusions in order for us to entertain higher realities. Most scientists are at the mercy of what we call "observation," and, if you have ever studied the "observer effect," you would know that this totally destroys what is known as "external validity." Instant catch 22.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:02 PM
Interesting yet strange interview. I will have to watch it a few more times as it seems that I might misinterpret some of the points that Mr. Friedman has put forward. Skepticism vs debunking for instance. I have a feeling that this is something that he feels like he's on slippery ice...Noticed he wasn't at ease when Bill brought the point of some youtube videos as being silly...

Science is wrong. That's another point that bugs me.

However, I give him credit for pushing his books and mentioning with great pride that he'd be personified in a possible upcoming movie. Nothing like self acknowledgment...

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:03 PM
Friedman is certainly an effective salesman for his out-of-this-world theories. He is extremely good at all the psychological tricks of the trade useful for making one's arguments seem logical and compelling.

Friedman accused skeptics ("noisy negativists") of trying to discredit people (witnesses) instead of tackling the data. He also referred to ailing skeptic Phil Klass as a "nattering nabob of negativism," borrowing the old line from Spiro Agnew.

It's amazing, really, how Friedman can simultaneously damn the "skeptics" for their awful ad hominem attacks, whilst at the same time attack the "witnesses" he disagrees with. I don't think Stan even sees the dilemma he has created for himself.

I wonder how much he's made from his CDs and books? Plenty, because suckers in this world are a dime a dozen!

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:10 PM
Great interview! The look at all the booths was interesting also.

Thanks ATS.

P.S. how many little gray alien figurines did Springer buy?

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:20 PM
I am a skeptic about many things, including a lot of theories on ATS. I like to consider myself a practical, give-me-the-facts kind of person.

Still, it has always made common sense to me that humans on this relatively tiny planet, in the midst of a universe that is infinite, at least to our perception, could not possibly be the only form of intelligent life in existence anywhere. If we were that would make us gods, wouldn't it? And most sane people do not consider themselves gods. Humans have pretty much always believed there were powers greater than their own.

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.

To me it seems more than possible, it seems probable, that there are beings in the universe that are at least as advanced as we consider ourselves to be and as intelligent.

I speculate that perhaps we as a species are limited by our five physical senses to what we can see and perceive, and we may be incapable of detecting or understanding life which takes any other form and which may be abundant but beyond our perception.

I consider that anyone who is not at least willing to contemplate the possibility that there are intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe are just plain dumb.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by SonoftheSun

I'm right with you on this one:

.... I might misinterpret some of the points that Mr. Friedman has put forward. Skepticism vs debunking for instance.

I'm afraid the purest definitions of those two terms are becoming blurred.

So, will likely will also have to cogitate on his words, roll them around for a while too....

Ed. ---(Did anyone else notice the unfortunate...and totally innocent, I presume....reference when he was talking about Dr. Tyson?? I'm not implying anything other than a poor choice of phrase, but seeing how Dr. Tyson is African-American, well....just one of those "D'oh!!" moments, perhaps.....).

edit on 6 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:27 PM
It's bizarre reading Stanton Friedman's wikipedia page. It talks about mostly ufo stuff and only tangentially mentions that he did work as an industrial nuclear physicist including work on propulsion systems. I was up to this point under the impression that he was a famous academic nuclear physicist.

His name seems incredibly familiar to my ears, but I think I might be getting him mixed up with Milton Friedman.

I have to say, the video didn't get into the details of any cases he had looked into in detail recently. I found that a bit odd.

I did find the mention of the MJ12 stuff, of which he says he has exposed over 100 documents as frauds, to be interesting. For some reason I didn't know about this. But that's more reflective of my ignorance on the matter than anything.

Does anyone know what the five big extraterrestrial studies he refers to are?
edit on 6-3-2011 by XtraTL because: typo

edit on 6-3-2011 by XtraTL because: another typo

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:41 PM
Really great interview and excellent pointed questions. The interviewer did a wonderful job.

Was interesting regarding the Chicago O'hare incident and especially good question. His answer indicates a deliberate and quick cover up there and in Stephenville, losing (?) 10 F16s!
He strongly implicates THE PRESS as complicit in a cover-up as well.
I never liked Bill Nye the Science Guy. Yes, it was because he is adamantly against all possibilities of UFOs - at first, but then it grew. I just sense something creepy about him..
To me, you have to look at this subject with at least the open mindedness to say "it is possible." Follow that with "though doubtful, highly unlikely" etc. whatever you want... but at least man up and admit "it is POSSIBLE."

Friedman mentions when people present him with photo or film evidence he says 'I am no expert and cannot verify THIS is real.' (whereas eyewitness, radar or other parts of an account may be verifiable...the photo evidence cannot) and so this he puts in his gray basket."
Neither proved nor disproved.
He points out that he himself outed or debunked Bob Lazar and parts of Lt Col Corsos stories, so he IS critical and does not blanket believe.

I put it in my gray basket.

I thought, "There are people who do not have a gray basket."
They have only 2 baskets. This explains a lot.

To me you have to look at this subject with at least the open mindedness to say "it is possible."

It is as possible as is possible there is a God.
God is (admittedly- because I am a believer) in a gray basket too.
To some more so and to others less so but still - the gray basket.
Aliens are AS possible AS God - no matter what your thoughts on God are.
It is even possible the aliens ARE "God" - causing rise to the many colorful, assorted tales and bizarre customs based on claims of otherworldly beings from heaven, helping and hurting lowly stupid humans... as recollected in Muslim, Christian, Jew, and Buddhist tales... or tomes.

He points out being a "debunker" can cost lives. Goes on to mention a historical example where ignorance killed. There was once a doctor with an impossible (to prove) idea - washing his hands before delivering babies could lessen death of the mothers. Instead of believing him, the hospital Administrator "debunked" the claim - booted him out of his job for even making the outlandish suggestion the doctors were in any way responsible for killing mothers.
Then the hospital proceeded in misguided and inadvertent kill a great many more mothers.
Maybe you can't prove a negative but you should always pause for thought.

Finally, I especially love where Stanton Friedman says in the interview (paraphrasing)

"new and different, evolutionary ways of thinking are not accepted because the opponents of such thinking come to believe them...they are finally accepted because the opponents die." I love this!

"...and a new generation comes to replace them."

This is hopeful since it means I don't have to frustrate myself trying to change anyone's mind.
Seems time heals all wounds, even huge, gaping ignorance.

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

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in