Stanton Friedman Is he for real?

originally posted by: Aspie
I would like to ask if Stanton has ever shown any evidence of actually being a nuclear physicist. Any evidence of employment with any of these companies he claims to have worked for?

Don't know about his status as a physicist but I believe him to be a fraud.

I have watched many of his lectures, his big thing is Roswell. He always uses the newspaper article as proof of a crashed flying saucer. He says something like " Yes, a flying saucer crashed in Roswell, the paper even said so and then the paper was retracted by the military." So he's using that fact as a huge selling point to the reality of the crashed saucer theory.

His other point is that the rancher Brazle wandered onto the crash site and found strange unbreakable foil-like substance that was otherworldly.

Here is the problem that takes 10 minutes to debunk. Brazle did not see any alien bodies and he did not see a crashed saucer. He reports seeing the weird foil, which was BROKEN into hundreds of pieces. He also reported seeing rubber parts, flimsy eye beams and lots of scotch tape.

As for the newspaper article that was retracted, if you read the actual article it describes this "saucer" as being made of weird tin foil broken into many pieces, rubber, eye beams and lot's of scotch tape. It goes on to say the object was most comparable to a box kite. This is basically a description of project Mogul. The "Flying Saucer" term in the headline was obviously just a phrase to attract readers. In 1947 the word did not yet exist like it does now - as a term to describe an actual alien, metallic flying saucer. Back then for all we knew aliens could have been flying around in box kites. I think that possibility has been ruled out.

The military obviously wanted the article retracted because it described project Mogul which was a secret device to detect nuclear explosions in the atmosphere. It was a humongously classified project. The military wanted the paper to say straight out that it was a weather balloon so the Russians wouldn't read too far into it.

Ever book, the UFO Hunters Roswell special, whatever, all documentaries skim quickly over the Brazle story and only focus on the "strange otherworldly metal" and the newspaper headline but not the newspaper article which uses words like "scotch tape" and "box kite".
They NEVER explain why Brazle, first on the scene doesn't mention a ship or alien bodies?

One interview I found on youtube from the 70's had some ufo guy on and he was asked questions about that and he said "oh, there were 2 crash sites"??? At least this guy recognized the problem with the story.


Anyway, Stanton researched the crap out of Roswell in the 70's and I'm sure he read the newspaper article about the scotch tape and box kite. And I'm sure he noticed that the first man on the scene did not mention alien bodies but did mention scotch tape and kites. Yet he ran with the story misleading people and creating a modern mythology.

Anyone can write a book and bend facts, people do it all the time. But to say they are "for real" I don't know about that.

There are some other suspicious things he mentioned about winning debates and such but this Roswell thing is something that needs to be explained.

a reply to: Aspie

He is as he says he is, an engineer working in a branch of engineering that was all the rage when he graduated. Or I should say worked, I get the impression he was not a passionate engineer.

On another topic, why do you have a Nazi swastika as your avatar?

I've always been skeptical of big Stan ever since his vitriolic attempts at discrediting Bob Lazar.

He also seems to think that UFOs travel in a linear mode, which would be silly given the distances in space travel.

He seems to think fusion would be the power source so he suffers from confirmation bias as well.

If astronauts have to wear kevlar for micrometeorites at 17,000 MPH imagine travelling at 6.706e+8 MPH....

a reply to: Blue Shift

His credentials are real, but his total contribution to the UFO field has been unfortunately marginal.

This statement is almost as ignorant as the OP, which is saying something.

Stanton Friedman is the reason you know the word "Roswell".
And it's painfully obvious you've never read his work on the subject from your BS summation of the event.
In fact, you even seem blissfully unaware that E.T.s are not simply a "hypothesis", they are a fact of life. Which Friedman documents quite clearly and accurately.

I realize the truth isn't for everyone, but don't expect to peddle that nonsense about Stanton Friedman's truly important investigative research and documentation and get away with it.

And as far as the OP goes, maybe you should try google or wiki before you say something stupid.

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
a reply to: Blue Shift

His credentials are real, but his total contribution to the UFO field has been unfortunately marginal.

This statement is almost as ignorant as the OP, which is saying something.

Stanton Friedman is the reason you know the word "Roswell".
And it's painfully obvious you've never read his work on the subject from your BS summation of the event.
In fact, you even seem blissfully unaware that E.T.s are not simply a "hypothesis", they are a fact of life. Which Friedman documents quite clearly and accurately.

I realize the truth isn't for everyone, but don't expect to peddle that nonsense about Stanton Friedman's truly important investigative research and documentation and get away with it.

And as far as the OP goes, maybe you should try google or wiki before you say something stupid.

You're back in full SCUD mode, I see.

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
a reply to: Blue Shift




Stanton Friedman is the reason you know the word "Roswell".
And it's painfully obvious you've never read his work on the subject from your BS summation of the event.
In fact, you even seem blissfully unaware that E.T.s are not simply a "hypothesis", they are a fact of life. Which Friedman documents quite clearly and accurately.

I realize the truth isn't for everyone, but don't expect to peddle that nonsense about Stanton Friedman's truly important investigative research and documentation and get away with it.

And as far as the OP goes, maybe you should try google or wiki before you say something stupid.

Well sure, but if you go to Wiki it basically says the same thing I was saying - the original man on the scene, Brazel, found:

"When the debris was gathered up, the tinfoil, paper, tape, and sticks made a bundle about three feet long and 7 or 8 inches thick, while the rubber made a bundle about 18 or 20 inches long and about 8 inches thick. In all, he estimated, the entire lot would have weighed maybe five pounds. There was no sign of any metal in the area which might have been used for an engine, and no sign of any propellers of any kind, although at least one paper fin had been glued onto some of the tinfoil. There were no words to be found anywhere on the instrument, although there were letters on some of the parts. Considerable Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the construction. No strings or wires were to be found but there were some eyelets in the paper to indicate that some sort of attachment may have been used."



The retracted newspaper article also said this (again, the headline was just good marketing).

The only thing that was even out of ordinary was Marcel said some of the debris was unusually strong for a weather balloon. But it wasn't a weather balloon it was project mogul and it used some form of bendable aluminum.


In the late 70's the books started coming out and each time the case added saucers and more alien bodies. The wiki article pretty much debunks all the witnesses who jumped in 40 years after the fact with crazy stories.

Stanton never explained why Brazel found a box kite-ish object when this is supposed to be a ufo crash.
And he used the retracted article as proof of a cover up of a crashed saucer in the lectures.
But the article uses the explanation I quoted above of the crash debris. Read it. Can you honestly say that that sounds at all like a ufo flying saucer? It does not yet Stanton waves it around as proof. I've seen him in a lecture say "I know an alien saucer crashed at Roswell because look - they printed it in the paper!". As he says that he shows a picture of the article.
That description of a box kite has nothing to do with a ufo and to use it as proof is an outright lie. Ufo researchers have been able to flash the "Flying Saucer Crash" newspaper title at people to build their case because rarely do people actually try to find the article and read the actual description.

This kind of stuff has killed the ufo field. No one is going to ever take it serious because of scams like this.
Smart people can see the obvious problems with the case and the people who we want to take ufos seriously are never going to because any time a good case comes around it will just be assumed to be another scam.


I mean seriously:

"Considerable Scotch tape and some tape with flowers printed upon it had been used in the construction"

Hello?
Is there some theory that a kite crashed AS WELL as a flying saucer?? Because this is not an alien spaceship??
How are people not saying "Yeah I don't care what some old army dudes in the 80's said, something crashed that was held together with flowery scotch tape, end of story, stop trying to scam me".
How did Stanton get away with this?

originally posted by: joelr
Here is the problem that takes 10 minutes to debunk. Brazle did not see any alien bodies and he did not see a crashed saucer.

"Bodies" were not reported at Roswell until a book 30+ years later....

Personally Im not a fan of Stan, but why do credentials matter in this case? He makes whatever points he has to make and then we should evaluate them like any other, right? Who cares if hes a carpenter or engineer, it isnt going to make his arguments any better.

In the case of Bob Lazar, hes a whistleblower with a rather fantastic tale and not much corroboration, reputation/education is going to mean much more dont you think?

Either you believe the evidence for UFOs or you dont, in the end thats what it comes down too. Personally I think it is willful ignorance to say its all got a "prosaic" explanation, but you can check it all out here and other sites to make up your own mind...

Best cases thread

Cases recommended by various writers/investigators, compiled by Isaakoi

Some I prefer
Levelland 57 - Several motorist encounter a glowing sphere that stops their motor, police try to locate the object and also see it.
Westall 66 (start in at 9:47, picture at 11:00). Daylight sighting of a drone like craft levitates up on a school campus.
Ravenna 66 - Several police chase ufo through 2 states
Minot AFB B-52 incident 68 - radar confirmation case
Belgium 89,90 - (start in at 2:20min) start of the ufo wave
Hudson Valley 86 - Multiple sightings of the same craft

Of course you can google any of these cases to see what the other side has to say

a reply to: 111DPKING111
In the case of Lazar, his story depends in major, upon corroboration of his employment claims. No?

Friedman makes no such uncorroborated claims. But while I have no reason to doubt his credentials, they have nothing to do with his opinions.

a reply to: Phage

yeah, I dont buy Lazar myself.

Yes, as many pointed out here, his credentials are real, and he heavily relies on them. Since the UFO community want so badly ufology to be accepted as a science, having a real alive scientist with real credentials among them is a rarity that has to be kept and pampered like a national treasure. Without his credentials Friedman would be just another UFO guy.
I have to say this - he bores me to death. Nothing puts me to sleep so quickly as his writing. They say the Vogon’s poetry is only the third worst in the world. Then the second worst is that of the Azgoths of Kria (the president of the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling Council survived it only by gnawing one of his own legs off.) The first worst writing in the universe is Stanton Friedman’s. Now you know why the aliens crashed in Roswell and now they circumnavigate the planet from afar.

After so much response to your original post, I was anxiously looking for your re post. Now I find myself wondering, "Are you for real?". I am interested in the 'why' of your question myself.

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
In fact, you even seem blissfully unaware that E.T.s are not simply a "hypothesis", they are a fact of life. Which Friedman documents quite clearly and accurately.

This is news to me. Pray tell how he managed to make connect the dots from Point "A" (an unidentified object) to Point "B" (hypothetical aliens).

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
In fact, you even seem blissfully unaware that E.T.s are not simply a "hypothesis", they are a fact of life. Which Friedman documents quite clearly and accurately.

This is news to me. Pray tell how he managed to make connect the dots from Point "A" (an unidentified object) to Point "B" (hypothetical aliens).

Forget it. And I'm so tired of your flashing avatar it isn't funny.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: joelr
Here is the problem that takes 10 minutes to debunk. Brazle did not see any alien bodies and he did not see a crashed saucer.

"Bodies" were not reported at Roswell until a book 30+ years later....

I know.

It took me watching different documentaries to catch the huge problem with the case because you get dazzled by all the claims made 30 years after the event. I also assumed the case was pretty tight because why would so many people get all worked up about a case with obvious holes in it?

Brazle found a fancy box-kite and the newspaper article could have just as easily read: Aliens use flowery scotch tape!

So disappointing!

a reply to: Aspie

Stanton is the man who does double check others on their credentials.. So did he do some extensive legwork to check the credentials of the most famous Area 51 worker Bob Lazar. Based on his unabillity to find Bobs credentials Stanton considers Lazars testemony a lie.

There you go...

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: Aspie

Stanton is the man who does double check others on their credentials.. So did he do some extensive legwork to check the credentials of the most famous Area 51 worker Bob Lazar. Based on his unabillity to find Bobs credentials Stanton considers Lazars testemony a lie.

There you go...

Exactly correct. This thread is largely compost. Not worth even reading through, unless you're really into smearing the reputation of important, accomplished scientists.
Not really my scene, but hey, if that's what floats your boat.

What is really happening is this; most people in here are simply dead-set against the fact that aliens are here, and they will go to enormous lengths to try and bolster their ridiculous position. And if that means trying to trash the reputation, credentials, and accomplishments of an important figure like Stanton Friedman, then so be it.

And so here we are. Nothing to be learned in this thread, other than to be astonished at the lack of understanding of the alien retrieval at Roswell.

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
Forget it. And I'm so tired of your flashing avatar it isn't funny.

Thanks for the feedback!

originally posted by: trueskepticnumberone
What is really happening is this; most people in here are simply dead-set against the fact that aliens are here, and they will go to enormous lengths to try and bolster their ridiculous position.

"Here?" Where exactly?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 111DPKING111
In the case of Lazar, his story depends in major, upon corroboration of his employment claims. No?

Friedman makes no such uncorroborated claims. But while I have no reason to doubt his credentials, they have nothing to do with his opinions.

Man, I hate to agree with this guy, but when you're right, you're right.

Lazar is a fraud who cannot even establish his alleged college degrees. Stanton Friedman has established credentials that cannot legitimately be called into question. He is the real deal, Lazar is not to be believed.