Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd = UFO UpDate: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Friedman

Expand Messages
  • Frits Westra
    Forwarded by: fwestra@hetnet.nl (Frits Westra) Originally from: UFO UpDates - Toronto (by way of UFO UpDates - Toronto
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Forwarded by: fwestra@... (Frits Westra)
      Originally from: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@...> (by way of UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@...>)
      Original Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Friedman
      Original Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 21:21:53 -0500

      ========================== Forwarded message begins ======================

      From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@...>
      To: <ufoupdates@...>
      Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:07:56 -0400
      Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out


      >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@...>
      >Message-ID: <189.10ed0764.2afce4ca@...>
      >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 04:58:34 EST
      >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out
      >To: ufoupdates@...

      >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@...>
      >>To: <ufoupdates@...>
      >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:31:09 -0500
      >>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out

      >>>From: Tim Mathtews <TMMatthews99@...>
      >>>To: updates@...
      >>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
      >>>Subject: Black Projects Come Out

      >>>Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
      >>>assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
      >>>Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
      >>>like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
      >>>sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
      >>>of production.

      >>>We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
      >>>seen the light of day.....

      >>I don't think there's any question that some unidentified flying
      >>objects were mis-identified experimental aircraft (black project
      >>or otherwise), but do you contend that a majority of such
      >>sightings were really "Black Project" related?

      >A majority of which sightings? In any case, we're very happy
      >with the conclusion that FTs and Flying discs were of
      >terrestrial design. The majority of "UFO" cases relate to
      >natural phenomena; earth lights and so on. That's what we think
      >the "zig zag" video footage mentioned more than likely
      >represents.

      >Could some UFOs be alien? Possibly. But not FTs and discs. What
      >is happening here is that evidence of man made projects is
      >ignored consistently. Stan simply continues to proselytise that
      >discs "couldn't" be man made and tends to cite sightings by
      >witnesses as evidence that the technology is "beyond" the
      >capacity of humans.

      Come off it Tim. Now you are trying to be psychic and as might
      be expected you are wrong. The question for me is _not_ what are
      UFOs? but are Any UFOs ET spacecraft? My answer is yes. If you
      are aksing are some UFOs astronomical or secret government
      military projects I would also say yes.

      When People ask me about FTs I refer them to the NIDS report.

      Remember that military secret projects are done to develop new
      systems for use in military efforts. The high peformance clearly
      manufactured objects reported in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s
      still haven't shown up in our arsenals. The Stealth when needed
      was called on. So was the B-1. and the new UAVs.

      Estimates of the Black Budget run 25-35 Billion dollars per
      year. Did you notice any of these hot shot new vehciles that
      could duplicate flying saucer behavior in the Korean War or
      Vietnam or the Gulf war or Bosnia or Afghanistan? I surely
      didn't. Stealth recently sure and the B-1. They don't fly like
      flying saucers.

      >Yes, Blue Book had its unknowns but was a
      >badly funded and organised effort. Where really good cases of
      >structured UFOs exist, like the Henderson, NV, case mentioned in
      >Hynek's UFO Report (1957), where a disc was seen by a USAF
      >Officer, the thing was debunked as "psychological". We are sure
      >we know why. A bit too near Groom Lake/Papoose for comfort!

      >But then the vast majority of sightings are flawed and the tiny
      >fragment of credible evidence we have tends to indicate the
      >existence of structured objects whose flightpaths coincide with
      >the location of military facilities. Take, for instance, the
      >fairly recent NIDS report that supported our conclusion that FTs
      >operated from several military facilities. Stanton would have us
      >believe that these craft are "checking out military bases", or
      >some similar argument.

      As noted above this is hogwash plain and simple You are not
      psychic. Please do not put false words in my mind or mouth. FTs
      do _not_ describe most UNKNOWNS.

      >This doesn't hold water and I'm sure the
      >CIA and co and happy with his 40 years of promoting the remnants
      >of their 1950s 'Aliens in UFOs' agenda!

      Nice to know you know what the CIA thinks, Tim. I doubt if they
      like my showing their blacked out UFO documents. Research by
      proclamation which you seem to enjoy is not the same as research
      by investigation.

      >From the Boeing 360 to the jet-powered pancakes, the Navy disc
      >projects at China Lake, the AVRO effort, those at Papoose Lake
      >and elsewhere, comes significant evidence that discs, and later
      >FTs, were, and are, terrestrial. Of course we are rarely
      >afforded either the chance to debate with people like Stanton,
      >the chance to write about this in journals or magazines or to
      >present these apparently shocking ideas to conference attenders.
      >TV programme makers don't want to hear it either, as seven years
      >in this game have shown me.

      I suppose the thought never occurred to you that maybe others
      besides me recognize that you deal with proclamations not
      evidence? Try your psychic powers.

      >Shame, really, because if we had the amounts of money made
      >available to Ufology to "prove" the alien case we'd be so much
      >further advanced. In the meantime, I'm happy to accept the
      >testimony of Frank Carlson (who worked at Papoose Lake from
      >1960-62), Thomas Smith (Chance Vought 1944-46), Jack Pickett
      >(McDill 1960s) and others who tell us that we are right and that
      >everything else is belief driven.

      Wow. I am impressed. These people know not only what is secret
      weaponry, but know there is nothing else.and everything else is
      belief driven. Incredible!!I suppose they also tell you there is
      no gold in the hills because 99.44% of the so-called ore is
      Dross??

      >I don't intend to get into a ding dong debate on this because
      >very few are even interested in changing their minds or
      >admitting that they could be wrong. In my view, and that of my
      >many colleagues, Ufology is pretty much an alien believer cult
      >hardened against contrary evidence. It's not that we're against
      >the idea that UFOs could be alien, only that there is much
      >better evidence that aliens were promoted from the 1950s onwards
      >to cover the activity of US-made flying discs and, latterly,
      >FTs.

      Too bad you seem unable to provide that evidence. You might read
      my response to the CIA Historian's article saying something
      similar..... By the way what has been the war record of those
      fantastic discs? I am sure Kevin would have liked one to fly in
      Vietnam.

      >So it's not simply a debate about "aliens or not", rather an
      >argument about the best evidence that the few cases where
      >structured craft (rather than anomalous lights that zip around
      >the sky and look great on video tape) are fairly certain to have
      >been seen are of human design and operation.

      Ever hear me talk about anomalous lights that zip around in the
      sky? Have you watched my videos or heard my lectures or read my
      papers? I suppose that isn't necessary to make a judgement for
      somebody with such psychic skills.

      >Although I have my suspicions about the role of the CIA I'm
      >afraid we'll have to see what else emerges from the vaults
      >before going further on that one!

      Stan Friedman - not a psychic


      ========================== Forwarded message ends ========================
    • Roger Anderton
      Belief (1): UFOs can be explained without ETs. Belief (2): some UFOs are ET crafts. Before arguing between the Beliefs (1) and (2), one should establish what
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 10, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Belief (1): UFOs can be explained without ETs.

        Belief (2): some UFOs are ET crafts.

        Before arguing between the Beliefs (1) and (2), one should establish what
        the correct science is. So as then be able to know what is possible and
        impossible. And we are nowhere near that.

        Our science is still blundering along under misconceptions, e.g. about the
        Sea. see e- article: "Science wrong again."

        Modern Science has no unification between Quantum and Relativist theories.
        So what one theory might predict, the other theory might raise objections.
        Once one has the correct science then one can decide what is possible, and
        look to find if such 'possibles' are happening. Without the correct science
        one does not know what to look for.

        Modern Physics is supposedly founded upon Einstein's Revolutions. But the
        actual history is that Physics is founded upon misunderstanding Einstein.
        Einstein was despised by the Nazis up to WWII, and his science was conceived
        as 'Jewish Physics.' In an attempt to appease the ant-Semites, an Aryan
        Physics was put forward under Heisenberg, based on incorrect assumptions.

        Ideally after WWII, physics should have been corrected. But Einstein was
        then accused of being a Communist, and McCarthyism persecuted communists.
        So, science could not correct itself, and erroneous assumptions, beliefs
        etc., became a part of the natural education system.

        Einstein claimed his physics was a continuation of classical physics, hence
        it was not part of the Aryan Physics revolution.

        In the neglected history of classical physics, one finds-

        Galileo persecuted by the Catholic Church and the Copernican theory then
        banned.

        Newton carrying on with the ideas of Galileo +co.

        An 18th century priest looking at Newton's theory persuaded the Vatican to
        lift the ban on the Copernican theory, so that Newton's theory could be
        taught.
        However, the Newtonian theory was incomplete, and the 18th century priest
        then discussed relativistic and quantum ideas more than 100 years before
        such ideas
        were supposedly conceived.

        The 18th century priest is deleted from the official history of Modern
        Physics by people who like to believe that in the 20th century there was a
        revolution away from classical physics. Hence it became standard practice
        for these people to misunderstand science, and believe that phenomena that
        highlights their misunderstanding could not exist. (e.g. such phenomena as
        freak waves could not exist, because it contradicted their common sense.)
        www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk






        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Frits Westra" <fwestra@...>
        To: <UFOnet@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 3:18 PM
        Subject: [UFOnet] Fwd = UFO UpDate: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Friedman


        >
        > Forwarded by: fwestra@... (Frits Westra)
        > Originally from: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@...>
        (by way of UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@...>)
        > Original Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Black Projects Come Out - Friedman
        > Original Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 21:21:53 -0500
        >
        > ========================== Forwarded message begins ======================
        >
        > From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@...>
        > To: <ufoupdates@...>
        > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:07:56 -0400
        > Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out
        >
        >
        > >From: Tim Matthews <TMMatthews99@...>
        > >Message-ID: <189.10ed0764.2afce4ca@...>
        > >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 04:58:34 EST
        > >Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out
        > >To: ufoupdates@...
        >
        > >>From: Steven Kaeser <steve@...>
        > >>To: <ufoupdates@...>
        > >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:31:09 -0500
        > >>Subject: Re: Black Projects Come Out
        >
        > >>>From: Tim Mathtews <TMMatthews99@...>
        > >>>To: updates@...
        > >>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:41:59 EST
        > >>>Subject: Black Projects Come Out
        >
        > >>>Below, an article for the New Scientist by David Windle who
        > >>>assisted me in researching my book, UFO Revelation, published by
        > >>>Cassell in 1999. The article demonstrates what the few people
        > >>>like me have been saying all along. That many of the better UFO
        > >>>sightings are, indeed, black projects aircraft at various stages
        > >>>of production.
        >
        > >>>We were right all along... and this is but one example that has
        > >>>seen the light of day.....
        >
        > >>I don't think there's any question that some unidentified flying
        > >>objects were mis-identified experimental aircraft (black project
        > >>or otherwise), but do you contend that a majority of such
        > >>sightings were really "Black Project" related?
        >
        > >A majority of which sightings? In any case, we're very happy
        > >with the conclusion that FTs and Flying discs were of
        > >terrestrial design. The majority of "UFO" cases relate to
        > >natural phenomena; earth lights and so on. That's what we think
        > >the "zig zag" video footage mentioned more than likely
        > >represents.
        >
        > >Could some UFOs be alien? Possibly. But not FTs and discs. What
        > >is happening here is that evidence of man made projects is
        > >ignored consistently. Stan simply continues to proselytise that
        > >discs "couldn't" be man made and tends to cite sightings by
        > >witnesses as evidence that the technology is "beyond" the
        > >capacity of humans.
        >
        > Come off it Tim. Now you are trying to be psychic and as might
        > be expected you are wrong. The question for me is _not_ what are
        > UFOs? but are Any UFOs ET spacecraft? My answer is yes. If you
        > are aksing are some UFOs astronomical or secret government
        > military projects I would also say yes.
        >
        > When People ask me about FTs I refer them to the NIDS report.
        >
        > Remember that military secret projects are done to develop new
        > systems for use in military efforts. The high peformance clearly
        > manufactured objects reported in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s
        > still haven't shown up in our arsenals. The Stealth when needed
        > was called on. So was the B-1. and the new UAVs.
        >
        > Estimates of the Black Budget run 25-35 Billion dollars per
        > year. Did you notice any of these hot shot new vehciles that
        > could duplicate flying saucer behavior in the Korean War or
        > Vietnam or the Gulf war or Bosnia or Afghanistan? I surely
        > didn't. Stealth recently sure and the B-1. They don't fly like
        > flying saucers.
        >
        > >Yes, Blue Book had its unknowns but was a
        > >badly funded and organised effort. Where really good cases of
        > >structured UFOs exist, like the Henderson, NV, case mentioned in
        > >Hynek's UFO Report (1957), where a disc was seen by a USAF
        > >Officer, the thing was debunked as "psychological". We are sure
        > >we know why. A bit too near Groom Lake/Papoose for comfort!
        >
        > >But then the vast majority of sightings are flawed and the tiny
        > >fragment of credible evidence we have tends to indicate the
        > >existence of structured objects whose flightpaths coincide with
        > >the location of military facilities. Take, for instance, the
        > >fairly recent NIDS report that supported our conclusion that FTs
        > >operated from several military facilities. Stanton would have us
        > >believe that these craft are "checking out military bases", or
        > >some similar argument.
        >
        > As noted above this is hogwash plain and simple You are not
        > psychic. Please do not put false words in my mind or mouth. FTs
        > do _not_ describe most UNKNOWNS.
        >
        > >This doesn't hold water and I'm sure the
        > >CIA and co and happy with his 40 years of promoting the remnants
        > >of their 1950s 'Aliens in UFOs' agenda!
        >
        > Nice to know you know what the CIA thinks, Tim. I doubt if they
        > like my showing their blacked out UFO documents. Research by
        > proclamation which you seem to enjoy is not the same as research
        > by investigation.
        >
        > >From the Boeing 360 to the jet-powered pancakes, the Navy disc
        > >projects at China Lake, the AVRO effort, those at Papoose Lake
        > >and elsewhere, comes significant evidence that discs, and later
        > >FTs, were, and are, terrestrial. Of course we are rarely
        > >afforded either the chance to debate with people like Stanton,
        > >the chance to write about this in journals or magazines or to
        > >present these apparently shocking ideas to conference attenders.
        > >TV programme makers don't want to hear it either, as seven years
        > >in this game have shown me.
        >
        > I suppose the thought never occurred to you that maybe others
        > besides me recognize that you deal with proclamations not
        > evidence? Try your psychic powers.
        >
        > >Shame, really, because if we had the amounts of money made
        > >available to Ufology to "prove" the alien case we'd be so much
        > >further advanced. In the meantime, I'm happy to accept the
        > >testimony of Frank Carlson (who worked at Papoose Lake from
        > >1960-62), Thomas Smith (Chance Vought 1944-46), Jack Pickett
        > >(McDill 1960s) and others who tell us that we are right and that
        > >everything else is belief driven.
        >
        > Wow. I am impressed. These people know not only what is secret
        > weaponry, but know there is nothing else.and everything else is
        > belief driven. Incredible!!I suppose they also tell you there is
        > no gold in the hills because 99.44% of the so-called ore is
        > Dross??
        >
        > >I don't intend to get into a ding dong debate on this because
        > >very few are even interested in changing their minds or
        > >admitting that they could be wrong. In my view, and that of my
        > >many colleagues, Ufology is pretty much an alien believer cult
        > >hardened against contrary evidence. It's not that we're against
        > >the idea that UFOs could be alien, only that there is much
        > >better evidence that aliens were promoted from the 1950s onwards
        > >to cover the activity of US-made flying discs and, latterly,
        > >FTs.
        >
        > Too bad you seem unable to provide that evidence. You might read
        > my response to the CIA Historian's article saying something
        > similar..... By the way what has been the war record of those
        > fantastic discs? I am sure Kevin would have liked one to fly in
        > Vietnam.
        >
        > >So it's not simply a debate about "aliens or not", rather an
        > >argument about the best evidence that the few cases where
        > >structured craft (rather than anomalous lights that zip around
        > >the sky and look great on video tape) are fairly certain to have
        > >been seen are of human design and operation.
        >
        > Ever hear me talk about anomalous lights that zip around in the
        > sky? Have you watched my videos or heard my lectures or read my
        > papers? I suppose that isn't necessary to make a judgement for
        > somebody with such psychic skills.
        >
        > >Although I have my suspicions about the role of the CIA I'm
        > >afraid we'll have to see what else emerges from the vaults
        > >before going further on that one!
        >
        > Stan Friedman - not a psychic
        >
        >
        > ========================== Forwarded message ends ========================
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
        > Sell a
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.