Saucer Reality
Today we have a guest-post from Stan Friedman. Enjoy!
Flying Saucers Are Real
By Stanton T. Friedman
After 50 years of study and investigation I have concluded that:
Some UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft.
The subject of flying saucers represents a “Cosmic Watergate” (government cover-up of the best data obtained by intelligence agencies).
Visits to planet Earth and this cover-up represent the biggest story of the millennium.
The next step in humanity’s thinking is to go beyond the “Earth bound” mentality. We are part of a bigger picture and members of a populated universe.
Unfortunately, as a scientist who has lectured on the topic “Flying Saucers ARE Real!” at over 600 colleges and over 100 professional groups in 50 states and 18 countries, and appeared on hundreds of radio and TV programs, I have found that anti-UFO arguments so often made in the name of science are based on ignorance of the facts, arrogance about the critics’ “superior” knowledge, and a strong denial of the evidence. Instead of an admission of ignorance, we find an attitude of: “If that was true, it would be important. If it were important, I would know about it. I don’t, so it must not be true, and I won’t waste my valuable time.” It is time to correct the false impressions created by science fiction writers, SETI (Silly Effort To Investigate) specialists, and journalists.
The major arguments are that there is no evidence of UFO reality, that one cannot get here from there, that secrets cannot be covered up, and that the great majority of sightings are by unrespectable people. All of these are demonstrably false.
My approach to these claims is based on working on classified research and development programs for 14 years, visits to 20 document archives, the collection and evaluation of a number of large scale scientific studies, and doing my homework on pollsters and reports of observations. I have found that fewer than 2% of the attendees at my programs have read any of the 5 major studies to which I refer in my new book, Flying Saucers and Science.
The history of the denial of UFOs is interesting. Everybody knew that the only way to fly would be with a balloon; that it would be impossible to place anything in orbit around the Earth, and that space travel, in the words of the British Astronomer Royal, was “utter bilge.”
Science fiction writers such as Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke have decried UFO reality, not only because of their ignorance of the facts, but amazingly because of their lack of imagination as to why aliens might visit and why governments would cover up. They cannot even imagine any national security aspects to visits and crashes of very advanced flight systems. One would think there would be no reason to try to duplicate the flight capabilities of flying saucers and that people in power would not be threatened by a worldwide movement towards an Earthling rather than nationalistic orientation and way of thinking (viewing ourselves as Earthlings rather than Americans, Canadians, etc.).
Some of the most compelling pieces of evidence for UFOs are the six large scale scientific studies discussed in Flying Saucers and Science. They provide a multitude of excellent UFO sighting reports including multiple witness radar visual sightings, sightings by pilots, sightings over big cities and from astronomers and meteorologists. There are direct cross comparisons establishing that the better the quality of the report the more likely to be unexplainable and the longer the duration. These studies are ignored by UFO deniers. Testimony from 12 scientists to congressional hearings is very impressive and illuminating and also ignored by the debunkers. The attacks on flying saucer reality from science fiction writers and SETI specialists are found to have no basis other than bias. It is easily established that government agencies are withholding UFO information, that there really was a saucer crash near Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, and that some of the controversial Majestic 12 documents are genuine.
In addition, is a formerly classified comment by Air Force General Carroll Bolender: “Reports of UFOs which could affect national security were not part of the Blue Book system.” UFO critics do not deal with a number of multibillion dollar technology programs which were kept secret for more than 3 decades, the very highly censored UFO documents from the CIA and National Security Agency, or the engineering studies of high performance nuclear and other systems.
I have found that audiences are:
Shocked to hear about public opinion polls showing that the greater the education the more likely to accept flying saucer reality.
Amazed that the better the quality of sightings investigated by the US Air Force, the more likely to remain inexplicable.
Incredulous at the lies about flying saucers that have been presented by government officials.
Excited about new developments such as nuclear fusion propulsion systems able to exhaust charged particles having 10 million times as much energy per particle as in a conventional chemical rocket.
Dismayed by the fact that while it was only in 1938 that we determined that nuclear fusion is the process that powers the sun and all other stars, it only took 14 years to use that fusion process in a hydrogen bomb with the destructive power of 10 million tons of TNT.
Awed to find out that just 39.2 light years from us are two sun-like stars that are not only 35 times closer to each other than the sun is to the next star over, but are a startling billion years older than the sun.
Understanding that civilizations only a little older than ours would have technology that would be as much advanced over ours as a modern computer is over the slide rules of less than 50 years ago.
My previous books have dealt with individual areas of interest, such as the recovery of a crashed flying saucer near Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 (Crash at Corona), or the controversial and very important original Majestic 12 documents (TOP SECRET/MAJIC) or the fascinating abduction of Betty and Barney Hill (Captured!: The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience). Now it is time to review the big picture.
In Flying Saucers and Science, I have tried to deal with all the important evidence for saucer reality and the official cover-ups, and all the phony arguments made against those realities. It has been fairly easy, after answering more than 40,000 questions after lectures, in classrooms and during media appearances, to show that the supposedly anti-UFO case against some flying saucers as alien spacecraft, as made by the anti-UFO scientists, is bare of reason. The anti-saucer emperors have no clothes. It is time for truth to prevail as opposed to ignorance and bias.
This entry was posted
on Friday, June 27th, 2008 at 2:45 pm and is filed under Abductions, Alien Encounters, Books, Breaking News, Close Encounters, Conspiracies, Evidence, Guest Column, Roswell, The Redfern Files, UFO Sightings, UFOlogists, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- Man-Made Mini-Saucer »
- Flying Saucer For Sale! »
- Saucer Spies »
- Saucer Smear! »
- Human Saucers »
- The BBC on UFOs »
- Saucer Test Flight »
- Nazi Saucers: Part 3 »
- Nazi Saucers? »
- UFOs As Metaphors »
|
Jun 27 2008 
June 27th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Unashamedly biased! My copy of Flying Saucers and Science is already on order at Waterstones!
June 27th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Hi Stan!
I also ordered your book and it should arrive on Monday!
I am also looking forward to Dreamland this Saturday with you and Jim Marrs.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
“After 50 years of study and investigation…”
How much of that study and investigation been of sufficient quality to have been accepted for publication in a respectable peer reviewed science journal(s)?
“My approach to these claims is based on working on classified research and development programs for 14 years, visits to 20 document archives…”
Classified information is based on a “need to know” basis so having access to any classified material does not prove you actually know anything. If you think you can scientifically prove the existence of the saucer reality via the logical fallacy of a filibuster, you are mistaken.
“In Flying Saucers and Science, I have tried to deal with all the important evidence for saucer reality and the official cover-ups, and all the phony arguments made against those realities”
Did you also try to deal with all the phony arguments made for those realities? Afterall, phony arguments are made by both sides and it would be intellectually dishonest to give your audience the impression that the only kinds of arguments made against the saucer reality are phony while the only kinds of arguments made for the saucer reality are not.
“Just 39.2 light years from us are two sun-like stars that are not only 35 times closer to each other than the sun is to the next star over, but are a startling billion years older than the sun”
Just 4 light years from us are two sun-like stars that are not only 22,996 times closer to each other than the our sun is to them, but they also are a startling billion years older than the sun.
That too is awesome, but so what?
“It has been fairly easy, after answering more than 40,000 questions after lectures, in classrooms and during media appearances, to show that the supposedly anti-UFO case against some flying saucers as alien spacecraft, as made by the anti-UFO scientists, is bare of reason”
Is all that anyone have in regards to proof of the existence of extraterrestrial spacecraft are the mere words of an argument or of reason based on ethereal claims, or is there some actual physical facts you can hold in your hands?
June 27th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Sage:
The article was sent to me by Stan’s current publisher, not by Stan himself.
Even though permission was given by the publisher to reproduce the article as part of the promotion for Stan’s new book, he may not personally know that it’s posted here, in which case he won’t read the questions you addressed to him.
June 28th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
OK I’ll take another look at Stan’s book down at B & N (and hopefully they’ll have ALIEN WORLDS this time). Still I’ve read one non-fiction book a day since I got a masters degree in 2001: Stan’s book was fluff.
I think it’s telling that Asimov and Clarke are “old school” scientists — not just because they’re no longer living. I think Stan, if anything, is trying to subconsciously ride the new Nuke promo (brought to you by both the Dems and the Repubs).
June 28th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Thanks Nick! I’m not worried about whether Stan sees my questions or not, it is mainly food for thought for everyone who, like myself, is interested in the pursuit of truth.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:31 am
For once I find myself - shock! - generally agreeing with Sage. I’ve read Stan’s book, and the title “Flying Saucers and Science” is highly misleading. What, for example, does another re-hash of his MJ-12 views have to do with science? Even then, Brad Sparks, Kevin Randle and I all take a beating, but only because all of our views and criticisms are misrepresented by Stan, who can dish it out to people he doesn’t find credible (Bob Lazar, for example, or Phil Corso), but who replies with charges of “character assassination” when you question the credibility of one of the “witnesses” that he hangs his hat on (in my case, Wilbert Smith - nowhere in his book does Stan mention the myriad points that undermine Smith’s credibility).
The worst thing about the book is that whole sections of it are taken, lock, stock and barrel, from previous books, papers, and media appearances, re-arranged only slightly, and presented as a “new book”. Shameful.
I like Stan as a person. Always have. Always will. But he should be embarrassed by “Flying Saucers and Science”, a book that boldly goes… exactly where Stan has gone before.
Paul
June 29th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Stan Wrote:
“My approach to these claims is based on working on classified research and development programs for 14 years, visits to 20 document archives…”
Sage wrote:
“Classified information is based on a “need to know” basis so having access to any classified material does not prove you actually know anything. If you think you can scientifically prove the existence of the saucer reality via the logical fallacy of a filibuster, you are mistaken.”
What Stan was implying was that he was familiar with the culture and mechanics of secrecy from this inside, not that he had any particular inside dope as a result of having access to classified material.
June 29th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
RK:
Yes, that’s what Stan is implying, but it’s nothign more than a transparent debater’s trick to distract people from the meat of an issue. The fact that Stan worked on classified projects for many years is meaningless when it comes to the discussion of UFO secrecy, because good - and even some bad - historians can easily tell you how government secrecy works. You don’t have to have done something to understand it, or comment on it, although Stan would like people to think that you do. What’s important is your ability to place information in context, overcome your own pre-conceived notions, and interpret it properly. That’s where Stan falls short, and he uses the “I was there” dodge to distract people.
What’s worse for Stan is the flip side - if you accept his argument that he’s more knowledgeable because of his years of working under security, then you must also start to question his role in the MJ-12 saga, because, by his own “reasoning” he knows how the inside stuff works, and would have been perfectly positioned to help create the documents and make them look authentic, at least to we rubes with no experience working under security.
Goose and gander.
PK
July 6th, 2008 at 2:49 am
PK:
A thoughtful comment, but it’s at right angles to what I said. My post was only meant to correct Sage’s misinterpretation that Stan was claiming he had inside dope. Stan wasn’t claiming knowledge of content, but only knowledge of form.
Your reply to me was that Stan lacks real understanding of form. That may be true, but it doesn’t rebut what I wrote. All I was doing was clarifying the nature of Stan’s claim, not endorsing it.
July 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
“Stan wasn’t claiming knowledge of content, but only knowledge of form”
You are putting words into Stan’s mouth that he never said, as Paul Kimball just pointed out.
I have classified clearance and you know why? Because the NSA and FBI are convinced that my JOB POSITION requires that I have a need to know. I had to officially apply for that very expensive (if you have to pay for it yourself) clearance and, per standard operating procedure, it expires every few years, so requires continual renewal (which is expensive if you have to pay for it yourself). More importantly, you cannot get classified clearance without a sponsor, like with a government contractor or for certain military occupations. So guess what? Stan has no obvious sponsor because Stan retired as a nuclear physicist years and years ago. Stan’s only current job, that I can find reference to, is as a speaker/author of New Age books on UFOs. I do not for one second believe that Stan currently has clearance or has ever had any clearance since he retired back in the 60’s or 70’s or whenever — has anyone ever called Stan’s bluff on his alleged security clearances?
Stan claims to have worked on some interesting projects before he retired as a nuclear physicist, one of those projects being a nuclear powered rocket. Well I have read the official report on that project and Stan’s name isn’t mentioned anywhere in it. What exactly was Stan’s function for that project? Was it sweeping the floors after everybody else went home, or what? Do you want to see some or all of that official report? Point your browser to http://www.dunnspace.com/dumbo.htm. By the way, the nuclear powered rocket was the stupidest idea I ever saw, seeing as the reactor weighed a lot more than a chemical rocket ever would and the exhaust would be highly radioactive — so why did it take all those geniuses SO long to figure that out? So has anyone ever called Stan’s bluff on his alleged part in the development of that failed nuclear rocket project?
Stan complains that his opponents resort to unfair tactics like attacking the person when you can’t attack their data, and he does this by calling all of them “noisey negativists” instead of attacking their data. Why can’t a nuclear physicist understand that calling people names is attacking the person? Stan seems to resort to the same tactics as those he condemns.
The whole point of this post is that Stan often says things that can be misleading or misconstrued, and I believe he does this on purpose. Stan has or has had security clearances or was or is a nuclear physicist or that he worked on a nuclear powered rocket BUT SO WHAT? What is he trying to say or imply by all of that IN REGARDS TO THE UFO PHENOMENON? Since all of those things are completely unrelated to UFOs, what he is doing is what it looks like he is doing: trying to impress you with his credentials instead of with his facts. The implication is that, “I am a rocket scientist and rocket scientists don’t ever mislead people or get their facts all wrong, so trust me”. Well I don’t trust him and I can see through the used car salesman facade. I don’t mind what Stan does and it is entertaining at times, but when he starts coming across as an arrogant smart a, calling people names, and taunting others, then I have an issue with that; then that is not entertaining.
Stan’s newest book is about science — or so he says. Stan seems to naively believe that TALKING about something that is allegedly scientific is the same thing as PRACTICING scientific. Wrong! How can we tell if something is real or not? How can we objectively observe and properly investigate a UFO sighting? That is what science tries to answer, but have you ever seen any book by Stan that had anything about what science is and what it does and how it does it? Have you ever seen ANY book in UFOs that had anything to do about what science is and what it does and how it does it? The answer is no.
The simplest, most accurate, and clear explanation of what science does is and how it does, as UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC REASONING put it, is when scientists make discoveries or claims, then must communicate that those discoveries are real and not imaginary. Any flaw in their logic, demonstratable experiment, reasoning, or justification will discredit their discovery because ANY flaw will do to discredit a discovery or claim and that is what science or the scientific method really is all about in a nutshell…finding flaws.
No UFO author has ever tried to find fault with their own theory, but they have tried to find fault with everybody else’s theories. It is the logical fallacy of the Last Man Standing — if everybody else’s theory is wrong then it must be because my theory is the only one left standing and therefore it must be the only correct one. Why can’t Stan find any fault with the ludicrous MJ-12 hypothesis? Does Stan really believe that an entire science can be based on what someone supposedly found in someone else’s mailbox? If only all of us could be as perfect as Stan imagines himself to be.