Stanton Friedman on AOL News

[Angel of Ioren]

I thought that some of the people that frequent this forum would be interested in this:

Stanton Friedman: A Scientist Searches for the Truth of UFOs - AOL News

Personally, I don't think that there's any good evidence that supports his theories, but he's always interesting.

 

[rfrancisco]

do not delete thankyou

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well, it'll be interesting to hear what he has to say when Paul Kimball interviews him in a few weeks. That episode will either be great, with new things to hear, or a complet and total disaster. Either way, I will be entertained.

 

[Paul Kimball]

He pins so much of his hopes on the MJ-12 papers which are almost certainly fraudulent (and created by Bill Moore) and yet he complains that folks don't take UFOs as seriously as they should! The hypocrisy of it.

Lance

Lance,

It may be a lot of things, but it isn't hypocrisy. Stan is honestly convinced of the validity of some of the MJ-12 documents - ergo, how can he be called hypocritical when he complains that folks don't take them seriously?

Just because he doesn't agree with you, or me (or most other people) on this point, doesn't make him a hypocrite.

Paul

---------- Post added at 11:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 AM ----------

Well, it'll be interesting to hear what he has to say when Paul Kimball interviews him in a few weeks. That episode will either be great, with new things to hear, or a complet and total disaster. Either way, I will be entertained.

I think this episode will be best remembered for me saying halfway through, after several minutes of discussing UFOs, that UFOs are boring, followed by a switch back to non-paranormal topics.

Having said that, we did discuss the UFO phenomenon for a bit, because Stan and Kathy have a chapter on it in their book Science Was Wrong, and we also touched upon the subject of the alleged alien abduction phenomenon, and the use of hypnosis in particular. Other subjects covered included climate change / global warming, eugenics / genetic engineering (including, much to the chagrin in doubt of our more right wing listeners, a Marxist analysis of what a revised eugenics program could mean for our future), the pharmaceutical companies and their relationship to science and government, morality and ethics in science, the past, present and future of space flight, and a whole lot more. At one point, I also got the chance to call Wehrner von Braun a war criminal, which I've always wanted to do.

Paul

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Oh boy do I foresee an interesting forum discussion coming from that episode - all you're missing there is some more 9/11 truther nonsense.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Oh boy do I foresee an interesting forum discussion coming from that episode - all you're missing there is some more 9/11 truther nonsense.

Nope - no 9/11 stuff. It's not in his book.

Interestingly, I was with Stan the evening after the attacks occurred, having driven from Halifax to Fredericton earlier in the day and listened to the reports on the radio with my camera crew. We were there to film Stan for Stanton T. Friedman is Real. We interviewed him the next day, but that evening we went outside and shot some b-roll footage through the window of Stan looking pensive - what he's actually doing is watching CNN coverage of the terrorist attacks.

 

[Paul Kimball]

I see your point, Paul.

But what is the right word for someone who writes a book called "Science Was Wrong" even while exhibiting little knowledge of how to apply the scientific method to his own shaky beliefs.

Of course Science was Wrong--it's supposed to be wrong a good portion of the time. And it is supposed to find out why its wrong. That's how we find out what is likely to be right. Science is about changing deeply held ideas when the evidence leads you that way.

Friedman rigidly and psychotically holds onto pro-UFO evidence even while EVERYONE else at least sees terrible weaknesses in that evidence.

To have someone like that pontificate on the value of scientific thinking is rich.

Lance

I prefer the term irony.

Just because one disagrees with Stan about UFOs doesn't mean that he isn't worth listening to on a range of other subjects... because he is, particularly on subjects where he is well informed, like nuclear power.