Stanton Friedman vs. Robert Sheaffer—August 8

Apparently there is going to be a debate tomorrow, august 8th between Friedman and skeptic Robert Sheaffer. It is mentioned on his blog here badufos.blogspot.com...

One of the main points of discussion will be the alleged Aztec UFO crash of 1948.

Personally I'm not a fan of either debater, Friedman seems stuck in his beliefs and unable to admit mistakes, and Sheaffer seems just as biased and even worse, close minded.
Regardless I think the debate will be interesting to listen too.

from Sheaffer's blog:

The debate is sponsored by Third Phase of the Moon (a well-known UFO advocacy site, the leading UFO channel on YouTube), and carried by the Revolution Radio Network. The time is 5:00 PM Pacific Time (8:00 PM Eastern Time). To listen, go to www.freedomslips.com... and click directly on the unlabeled "play" icon for Studio A on the left. At some point the host will open up phone lines for questions. When that happens, the call in number is 818-923-1713.

I will be listening tomorrow, anyone else?

I will now, Thanks for the heads up

" Scheaffer seems just as biased and even worse, close minded"

you spelled it right in the thread title: SHEAFFER

whatever his going-in attitude, he HAS done some good work. you should pay attention to his investigation of the Jimmy Carter story, rather than just making believe the research doesn't exist.

ADD
here's his blog entry on the debate:
badufos.blogspot.com...-form

Originally posted by JimOberg
" Scheaffer seems just as biased and even worse, close minded"

you spelled it right in the thread title: SHEAFFER

whatever his going-in attitude, he HAS done some good work. you should pay attention to his investigation of the Jimmy Carter story, rather than just making believe the research doesn't exist.

ADD
here's his blog entry on the debate:
badufos.blogspot.com...-form

edit on 8-8-2013 by JimOberg because: add blog url

Sorry for the misspelling, although I'm not sure why that was an important point.

I agree, he has done good work, and I'm not sure where your seemingly aggressive response comes from as I never claimed he hadn't done good research.
Stanton Friedman has done good research on the Roswell incident but that doesn't automatically make him credible. My point is, a person can do good research on one or two or even many cases and still be biased and incredible.

also I believe my link in the OP worked??

ps, jimmy carters sighting was nothing special, if we're talking presidents ronald reagans sighting was much more interesting.

I certainly appreciate how you qualified your statement about Stanton Friedman not being very willing to admit to his mistakes, but I beg to differ that he has done good research on Roswell. He's repeatedly failed to "fact check" his "witnesses" and as such he has only perpetuated myth and easily discernible falsehoods. There's much more that can be said about how unreliable Stanton is but I'm on a tablet and don't want to try and type it all.

Thanks for the heads up though for real!

reply to post by The GUT


Thanks for the comment GUT, I always enjoy reading your posts,

I beg to differ that he has done good research on Roswell. He's repeatedly failed to "fact check" his "witnesses" and as such he has only perpetuated myth and easily dicernible falsehoods.

In this regard I disagree, partially because without him we may never have even known about the Roswell incident.
regardless, I agree he is not credible. (although he does seem very personable/it would be nice to talk w/ him)

I think what ufology needs is another person like jacques vallee, would you agree?

Yes we agree on Vallee and many other things. I appreciate you, too, and hesitated to weigh in here because of that fact, but I have come to really regret the money I've spent on Friedman materials.

Much respect, friend, but I'll probably have to dissect ol' Stanton here because of his glaring omissions and suspect research.

This subject always gets me some "hate mails" but I gotta calls 'em as I sees 'em.

reply to post by The GUT

hesitated to weigh in here because of that fact, but I have come to really regret the money I've spent on Friedman materials.

please never hesitate, as I said before I always enjoy your posts!

of the friedman materials, I found only Crash at Corona interesting and frankly that was mostly written by don berliner.

anyways, thank you for the kind words, im off to bed..

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
reply to post by The GUT

 

Thanks for the comment GUT, I always enjoy reading your posts,

I beg to differ that he has done good research on Roswell. He's repeatedly failed to "fact check" his "witnesses" and as such he has only perpetuated myth and easily dicernible falsehoods.

In this regard I disagree, partially because without him we may never have even known about the Roswell incident.
regardless, I agree he is not credible. (although he does seem very personable/it would be nice to talk w/ him)

I think what ufology needs is another person like jacques vallee, would you agree?

edit on 8-8-2013 by thesearchfortruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2013 by thesearchfortruth because: (no reason given)

Apart from him we wouldn't have known about Roswell? I beg to differ..he didn't break the story, and the aftermath was broken by Phil Corso.

Stanton is a 'gatekeeper' for lack of a better word - he was sent in to throw us all off the trail.
For example, he's spent his careers pooping on any other researcher that does not share his agenda, as a further example, Majority 12 DID exist, Majestic 12 did NOT... However which story did he endorse?

The Eisenhower breifing is complete BS also.

I'm giving this thread a bump as the debate's in just 2 hours.

reply to post by ObservingYou

Stanton is a 'gatekeeper' for lack of a better word - he was sent in to throw us all off the trail.
For example, he's spent his career pooping on any other researcher that does not share his agenda

I don't think that he was "sent" to throw us off the trail—he just has a very specific view on things.
What do you suppose his "agenda" is?

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
I don't think that he was "sent" to throw us off the trail—he just has a very specific view on things.
What do you suppose his "agenda" is?

Well, there is some evidence that suggests that Stanton Friedman was either a witting, or unwitting, stooge for disinformation, but it's kind of complex and I'm multitasking at the minute.

I like this topic of discussion, however, so I'll try to get back and address some of that later.

reply to post by thesearchfortruth


So how did the debate go? I'm UK based and didn't stay up to listen.

Stanton Friedman vs. Robert Sheaffer—August 8

Ding Ding!

Originally posted by torsion
Stanton Friedman vs. Robert Sheaffer—August 8
Ding Ding!

Come on out of your fantasy shell and discuss it like a grown-up, please.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim you grouch, I thought that was pretty funny

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by torsion
Stanton Friedman vs. Robert Sheaffer—August 8
Ding Ding!

Come on out of your fantasy shell and discuss it like a grown-up, please.

Sorry Jim.

Is this a preferred result?



Ding Ding

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by torsion
Stanton Friedman vs. Robert Sheaffer—August 8
Ding Ding!

Come on out of your fantasy shell and discuss it like a grown-up, please.

Sorry Jim.

Is this a preferred result?

Ding Ding

thanks for the imaginative artwork.

these are two sincere guys with solid styles and scholarship, it's not like
it's some clown like Timothy Greed Beckley or Richard Hoaxland, so
I'm eager to hear reports of the actualities of the conversation.

The debate is sponsored by Third Phase of the Moon (a well-known UFO advocacy site, the leading UFO channel on YouTube)

I'm curious if I pay the $4.95 to listen does any of that go to Third Phase of Moon?

Originally posted by JimOberg

thanks for the imaginative artwork.

these are two sincere guys with solid styles and scholarship, it's not like
it's some clown like Timothy Greed Beckley or Richard Hoaxland, so
I'm eager to hear reports of the actualities of the conversation.

I agree with you but I'm unable to find the discussion so had to resort to my imagination as to the outcome.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by torsion
Stanton Friedman vs. Robert Sheaffer—August 8
Ding Ding!

Come on out of your fantasy shell and discuss it like a grown-up, please.

Sorry Jim.

Is this a preferred result?

Ding Ding

thanks for the imaginative artwork.

these are two sincere guys with solid styles and scholarship, it's not like
it's some clown like Timothy Greed Beckley or Richard Hoaxland, so
I'm eager to hear reports of the actualities of the conversation.

Shaeffer sincere??Well I've heard it all now. Smug, arrogant, ill informed, pedlar of other people's ideas to suit an agenda would be far more accurate an assessment and like so many of his fellow sceptics, when the going gets tough, absolutely nowhere to be seen. I'm no great fan of Friedman however I am willing to bet this debate would never have happened had the subject been say, Shag Harbour. .This debate is akin to two old sporting hacks discussing the 3rd -4th place play off in the Confederations cup.

Let's be plain and open here. BOTH sides have been taken for a ride, we all have been lied to by both those pro and sceptical. The sceptics have been fed false data by governments keen to keep the real facts hidden and likewise they have muddied the waters by releasing wholly credible looking falsehoods that seem to support the ET hypothesis.

And there's you Jim pedalling your pop science about how the human mind works on such"documentaries" as NASA's secret files. Stick to rocket science Jim, you obviously don't have the first clue about how the human brain works. Pioneering work in the early 20th century in Germany shows that. The human brain actually needs only about 20% data for it immediately decide that it must be something that is "known" and has a habit of filling the rest in whether it's there or not. That's exactly the opposite of the explanation you give in that documentary. That's why, when someone's pupils are fully dilated they often think they see spiders on the periphery of their vision. The tiny motes that appear as black spots we don't normally register become visible and because of their movement, the brain resolves them as "spiders" as that's what it "knows" conforms to that visual data it's receiving .

In fact, one of the biggest myths about UFOs are that, people see "Flying Saucers" all the time because that's what they expect to see. They don't at all, that's what gives some credence to the subject, as people often see objects "flying" that they have absolutely no cultural reference for. For instance, in the case of the disappearance of Valentich and his Cessna in Australia. The craft described by the witnesses was "Like two pipes with two bars joining them together ". The brain simply doesn't have that as a precedent to "go to" for a flying object.