UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2010 > Oct > Oct 14

Re: Shostak's Search Shift?

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:


>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 16:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift?


>>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

>>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.


>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

>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
>>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


>"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



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.