Friedman has always been a lecturer, first and foremost. I highly suggest listening to the Xmas episode of BoA : Audio where we talk about his "early years". I agree that if you listen to a lot of Friedman, you'll hear a lot of stuff for the 2nd, 3rd, etc. time. But, considering he gives countless interviews a year, it's to be expected he'll have his set "routines". It's the job of the interviewer to (a) know those routines and avoid getting into them and (b) generate new, different and/or fresh material from him. (I can only hope I succeed w. the annual X-mas specials).Original here (go to the "ufology" section, and then the "Stanton Friedman" thread).
It's easy to look back now and consider him a great "researcher", because Roswell and MJ-12 got so huge. But he sort of lucked into Roswell and never knew it would become a cultural institution that it ended up being and the MJ-12 documents remain one of Ufology's more dubious stories, despite their fame.
I haven't heard him asked about alternative dimension hypothesis. As a matter of fact, I can't recall anyone really asking him his thoughts on all the various other theories. If you know of an interview, let me know, I'm sure it would be intersting to hear. I'll also keep that line of questioning in mind for next year's Xmas special.
I'll agree w. Paul Kimball in that Friedman will be (or at least should be) remembered by history as the great popularizer of the UFO phenomenon. By sheer longevity and dilligence, he's planted the UFO seed in the minds of countless people.
Paul Kimball
10 comments:
Actually Biedny asked Stan about the alt. dimensional theory, and how he looked at that. I think (if I recall correctly) Stan said that the theory was for people who didnt want to do their technological homework, or to the effect that the theory was an easy way out.
I dont think Stan is totally dismissive of the idea...he just more or less exclusively focuses on the ETH rather then other theories, because his research more accurately lays into that framework.
I believe they asked Mr. Friedman about the alternative dimensions idea when he was on The Paracast, although I think his response was that you didn't need extra dimensions to explain the behavior. I could be wrong on that though.
I logged in to reply to this, and then I said to myself: "There's a lot I could say in response to this, but it's nothing I haven't said before."
Then I wrote this, and closed th box.
I think the single-most important thing Friedman has said (and continues to say) is that it *is* possible to get here from there, despite the porous proclamations from the likes of Shostak. That's a vital point, and it sets the stage for some fascinating discussion.
As jr and nycjeff pointed out, we did indeed ask Stan about his thoughts regarding the possibility of multidimensional sourcing, and he was quick to poo-poo the idea, suggesting that it was more in the realm of fantasy than reality. I had the distinct impression that he was not open to anything besides the "nuts and bolts" explanation he's spent so many years refining. I think that this is one of the most frustrating things about moving the discussion of this topic forward - folks have years invested in promoting a specific view, and will simply fight tooth and nail to keep those vested theories in play.
I'm sure if you ask Stanton anything, he will give you his opinion of it, but what does one man's mere opinion have to do with the pursuit of truth? Would that be a case of "Stan said it, I believe it, that settles it"? Sure Stan still calls himself a nuclear physicist but every project that I remember reading about him being in was a big failure (remember nuclear powered airplanes?). Is Roswell and MJ12 his way of compensating for something he didn't have before he retired?
As a media darling, Stanton has done so much for the UFO industry, but he has done absolutely nothing to further the science or credibility of UFOlogy -- if UFOlogy ever had such a thing. Let's ask Stan for some facts or evidence instead of his opinions and see where that get's us.
I'm sure if you ask Stanton anything, he will give you his opinion of it, but what does one man's mere opinion have to do with the pursuit of truth? Would that be a case of "Stan said it, I believe it, that settles it"?
No, in Stan's case it's an informed opinion, and that does indeed count for something, even if I frequently disagree with it.
Sure Stan still calls himself a nuclear physicist but every project that I remember reading about him being in was a big failure (remember nuclear powered airplanes?).
This isn't relevant to anything.
Is Roswell and MJ12 his way of compensating for something he didn't have before he retired?
More ad hominem attacks from an anonymous source. One could just as easily ask whether your attacks on Stan are your way for compensating for something you haven't achieved.
As a media darling, Stanton has done so much for the UFO industry, but he has done absolutely nothing to further the science or credibility of UFOlogy -- if UFOlogy ever had such a thing.
Utter hogwash, and it betrays your lack of knowledge about Stan's career or the history of the study of the phenomenon.
Let's ask Stan for some facts or evidence instead of his opinions and see where that get's us.
A lot further than anything you would offer, given that you didn't offer any facts or evidence, just knocks on Stan.
I don't always agree with Stan, but he does indeed look at the facts and the evidence. If he chooses to draw different conclusions than I do, and then promote those conclusions, so what? It's not like he's making stuff up out of thin air. On Roswell, and even MJ-12, reasonable people can agree to disagree as to what the evidence means.
Paul
Sweet. I knew if I pontificated on something long enough, then Kimball would snag it for further review by the Kimballheads.
The full URL for the Friedman discussion is http://www.theusofe.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5889
Just to add some context to my remarks, I was responding to a poster @ my forum who said that Friedman "strikes me as someone who has given up researching in favor of lecturing."
My point was that Frieds has always been a lecturer more so than a researcher.
Haha! But Stan *IS* making stuff up out of thin air. Of course you would disagree...it's called nepotism.
Anonymous:
Again, just for you, I disagree with Stan all the time. Hardly nepotism.
On the other hand, you sound like you've got a pretty serious case of envy / jealousy going on.
Paul
Post a Comment