From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Archived: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:05:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:11:42 -0400 >Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >Hi David; Stanton, >Thank you both for your responses. My reply is once again combined >into a single message to you both: <snip> >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 16:13:33 -0700 (PDT) >>Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? ><snip> >>I am glad you bought my books Crash At Corona (1997) and hope >>your copy of the Top Secret/MAJIC was the 2nd Edition (2005). >>However, much more to the point about my views is my 2008 >>"Flying Saucers and Science":and Kathleen Marden's and my >>"Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience (2007). ><LOL> Actually, I bought Top Secret/MAJIC as a first edition >hardcover when it was initially published. So, nope - not the >second ed. I'l check out Flying Saucers And Science" though. >Thanks. I will say that my favorite book on the subject is Paul >Hill's Unconventional Flying Objects, which I think treads the >razor's edge between fact and speculation on the UFO subject >beautifully. >>There is a major difference between observing eclipses, >>earthquakes, and solar storms.Mother nature produces them out >>side the influence of any intelligence. Flying Saucers a small >>subset of the UFO phenomena are controlled by intelligence. >>Secondly the best tools for observing UFOs(whose behavior is not >>under our control) are those operated by the military which >>provide data that is born classified specifically Aerospace >>Defense Command and aircraft and ship mounted radar and the eyes >>of those witnesses .as well as analysis of recovered wreckage. >BREAK-IN: >One argument I would make _against_ and chasing unofficial >military documents and anonymous testimony is how badly they >have damaged the credibility of researchers. I mean, if what >I've read in Dolan's Vol 2 '73 - '91 history is correct, Doty >really screwed the community. And while it might be conspiracy >theorist to assume he did so as disinformation at the behest of >the intelligence community, it's hard not to at least wonder. >His SERPO stuff makes me want to bang my head into the nearest >wall. >OTOH: FIOA requests and official archive digging did generate >documents leading to such classics as Clear Intent, which >documented UFOs buzzing missile silos and military installations >over two decades ago. Another very good book and excellent >research done by the author. >>I don't talk about bi-pedal aliens. I do refer to observations of >>clearly manufactured craft behaving in ways we can't duplicate >>with the many flying vehicles produced by earthlings.If they >>weren't manufactured on Earth, they are ET in origin. Doesn't >>tell us where, when, why, how.. only not manufactured here. As >>it happens the many reports of beings associated with physical >>trace cases and abductions seem to indicate bi-pedal. That tells >>us nothing about "creatures" out there. It doesn't tell us if >>they are cyborgs, partly artificial. >This I agree with. My sense of it is that biological species >evolved on planets are likely not well suited to space. >Organisms would have to build big pressurized tin cans and >simulate gravity to come close to creating a comparable >environment they're suited to. I'm not convinced it's worth the >energy expenditure, assuming that alien biotechnology emerges >along similar timespans as space faring technology - as it has >with human development. Rather than changing the environment to >suit the travelers (build space ships) why not change biology to >suit the environment (live in space)? That's a speculative >argument that follows from Singularity promoters like Ray >Kurzweil. > >>I have no idea why you bring up remote viewing , William Cooper >>or Bob Lazar, Courtney Brown etc ad nauseum. I have done more >>than anybody else to expose Lazar as a fraud having talked to 5 >>offices at MIT, his high school, LANL,Cal Tech, Bill Duxler his >>supposed prof at Cal Tech who actually worked at Pierce JC and >>did have Bob in his class. I noted problems with his espousal >>of Element 115. I have also written about fraudulent Cooper. >Only because the claims of Doty, Cooper, Lear, and Lazar are >still widely circulated. I did so as an example, not to say that >you argue _in_support_ of their claims. The Element 115 claim is >just plain bogus. Though I suppose he couldn't have known in the >late '80s that it would be synthesized so soon and thus blow his >claims sky high. >>Why in the world do you claim"Known forgeries for initial >>batches of MJ-12?". Where are your arguments and refutation of >>my dismember- ment of the claims of forgeries about the CT, >>EBD, and TF memos? or my review of "Case MJ-12"? I have made >>quite clear that there are phony documents just as most isotopes >>aren't fissionable, and most chemicals won't cure any disease, >>and most people aren't over 7' tall. The real ones matter, not >>the phonies.The question isn't what are UFOs, but are any of ET >>origin. The answer is yes.. > >Well, I think that even on UFO UpDates you might find some >diversity of opinion on the validity of the Eisenhower Briefing >Document, Cutler Twining Memo, and the Truman Forestal memo. >I've certainly read that there are plenty of UFO researchers who >aren't as certain as you, and even more skeptics who simply >debunk them outright. I'm not convinced. >>I believe I have also done more than anybody else to show that >>numerous so called MJ-12 documents are frauds. I espouse 3 and >>possibly SOM 1.01 . I can find no good reason for you or any >>body else to talk of initial ones as frauds. Can you? >No, but there are sources on the internet that claim so. For >example: >http://www.hyper.net/ufo/docs.html >"However, many other UFO researchers (Brad Sparks, Robert >Hastings, Kevin Randle, Jan Aldrich, Jerome Clark etc) consider >the MJ12 documents fraudulent. To them, the only remaining >question is whether MJ12 docs were created by USAF/OSI as part >of a disinformation campaign, or inside the UFO community to >catalyze disclosure and/or propel specific people into the >spotlight. New MJ12 revelations by Brad Sparks (MUFON 2007 >conference). Robert Hastings' 2009 series: Operation Bird >Droppings: The MJ12 Saga continues, Update 1, Update 2" >Some of these folks are on-List, so if they're opinions have >been misrepresented I assume they'll chime in. I'm simply >quoting from the source. >Again, thank you very much for your detailed reply. Also, thanks >to Jerome Clark, who also replied. I didn't respond to that as I >mostly agree with his argument and didn't want to take up >additional list space on minutia. I would certainly acknowledge that there are many people on this List and elsewhere claiming that the EBD, CT, TF items are fraudulent.I believe I have dealt with all their arguments. I keep asking for refutations of my refutations. All I get is research by proclamation."They are obvious frauds". I wish they would add "because A,B,C... which with STF hasn't dealt". I am off to a conference in Strasbourg... Back Monday. I won't hold my breath. Stan Friedman Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp