• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Fact, Fiction & Flying Saucers: Ask Kathleen Marden & Stanton Friedman


Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
The authors of "Captured," return to talk about their new book subtitled, "The Truth Behind the Misinformation, Distortion, and Derision by Debunkers, Government Agencies, and Conspiracy Conmen."

I'm especially curious about those "Conspiracy Conmen," since we've encountered a few over the years.

This episode will be recorded on September 22, Thursday, starting at 11 AM Pacific.
 
Isn't Stanton also a conspiracy conman?

He keeps pushing the explanation that the roswell craft was brought down by radar.

There is no evidence to support this, none. Radar to my knowledge hasn't brought down any primitive by comparison human flying machines and wouldn't interstellar civilisations as Stan says have technology significantly advanced enough to appear as "magic" ?

Radar is just RADIO WAVES broadcast out and the ones that bounce off objects return to the receiver. An interstellar civilisation being grounded or thrown off by a radio wave is preposterous. Stan is a physicist, with just a little thought on this he would surely know this theory is grade A baloney.

Even in the face of zero evidence and illogical technological hypothesis Stan doesn't change his position. Why? Because it adds plausibility to his money maker which is the Roswell case.

That surely is the definition of a conspiracy conman.
 
On the premise that aliens have been interacting with humans, I wondered if either of you were aware of anyone who suggests that aliens are playing both sides of the UFO controversy:

a) aliens interact with experiencers in ways that convince them of some kind of direct contact, and

b) the aliens act on skeptics to intensify their skepticism with subliminal influence that is not detected as "contact" per se.

In other words, much of the controversy is facilitated by the aliens themselves, keeping the UFO topic nice and murky, and keeping humans in perpetual conflict.

I wondered if your book looks at Richard Doty and Wm. Moore. I didn't see them listed in the index or bibliography.

I also wondered if you covered the recent Not Roswell Slides of the child mummy, since none of those associated with that SNAFU appear either. Do either of you think that this fiasco was some sort of intentional operation?

Thanks.
 
Isn't Stanton also a conspiracy conman?

He keeps pushing the explanation that the roswell craft was brought down by radar.

There is no evidence to support this, none. Radar to my knowledge hasn't brought down any primitive by comparison human flying machines and wouldn't interstellar civilisations as Stan says have technology significantly advanced enough to appear as "magic" ?

Radar is just RADIO WAVES broadcast out and the ones that bounce off objects return to the receiver. An interstellar civilisation being grounded or thrown off by a radio wave is preposterous. Stan is a physicist, with just a little thought on this he would surely know this theory is grade A baloney.

Even in the face of zero evidence and illogical technological hypothesis Stan doesn't change his position. Why? Because it adds plausibility to his money maker which is the Roswell case.

That surely is the definition of a conspiracy conman.
Possibly being wrong doesn't make someone a "conspiracy conman." If that was the criterion, we'd all be guilty.
 
Oh wow. That's a bit of a difficult and touchy subject. One person's disinformation agent is the other one's whistleblower, I guess...

Is disinformation a concerted effort by one or a few groups or could people who knowingly spread false ideas, stories and "truths" just follow their own agenda (misanthropy, glee, cynicism, narcissism)?

Where does one draw the line? Can we define what might be in possible and what probably isn't in the realm of UFOs?
 
Last edited:
I would interpret a con as something that the presenter knew to be false. Being wrong or having a different opinion is not being deceptive.

I do not regard Stan as attempting to deceive anyone. He believes what he says, totally. I suspect he would have earned far more money as a scientist than as a UFO writer and lecturer. There's just not enough money in it.
 
This is a place to ask questions and not to attack.

Apologies I think it started off as a wish to write a question and ended in a Stanton rant.

If he keeps pushing a theory he knows is baloney I would personally interpret that as disengenuous and a con.

Anyways good luck guys, please don't be afraid to interrupt the Stanton friedman playback of answers tape we have heard a 100 times. He is tough as old boots and it won't kill him. Chris you know this responsibility falls on you, get in there and spa with him and stretch his debating ability for us!!
 
Stanton: Are you still suggesting that the Zeta Reticuli star system is a good candidate for an alien home world?

Stanton: If alien craft aren't interstellar, where do you think their next logical place of origin might be?

Kathleen: Do you believe with 100% certainty that any particular alien abduction case is true? If so which one? Why? If not. Why not?

Kathleen: Any comment on the Allagash abductions?

Kathleen & Stan: Overall, do you think that skeptics and debunkers do more harm than good?

Kathleen & Stan: What do you think the most important thing is that ufologists can do to help bring credibility to the field?
 
Last edited:
Asking whether he still feels radar took down the Roswell saucer is a legitimate question.

Stan, regarding your hypothesis that radar COULD have been responsible for causing the roswell crash, I have heard in previous interviews you suggest that the alien ships navigation or operation may have been taken by surprise by the radars radio waves causing it to catastrophically fail to the fullness of crashing. Considering this:

- Please can you explain your hypothesis in some technical detail using your physics background?

- if radio waves caused the alien navigation or propulsion system to fail can we shortcut the 'what technology is being used by these crafts?' list to only things that interact with radio waves?

- Have you ever had any doubts on the radar bringing down the craft theory or has it changed at all over time?
 
Its very plausible more than one theory might be happening and like Stan work but we all have a open mind its combination. More planets more discoveries keep coming and events in the future.
 
In 1991-1993, gold prospectors on the Narada river on the eastern side of the Ural mountains in Russia found unusual, mostly spiral-shaped objects, the smallest measuring about 1/10,000th of an inch! The objects are composed of copper and the rare metals tungsten and molybdenum. Tests showed the objects to be between 20,000 and 318,000 years old.

http://phys.org/news/2010-11-earth-climate-years-reversed-circulation.html

When a human being has the ability to review data, then the UFO condition makes sense.

- out of space fallen debris demonstrates "different stone fusion"

- Earth has a large body of disintegrated matter......sand and also nuclear dust, the stone of Earth different to out of space debris.

- radiation particles as a difference between out of space debris and nuclear dust particles on Planet Earth.

Why would a metallic object form in our atmosphere, when stone fusion holds natural metal within its stone?

UFO as a metal object would infer that out of space particles are larger than Earth's own metal fused particle.

Has Earth been attacked before by occult practices...science as the conversion of the nuclear of stone or the stone Philosophy?

The evidence states that it has.
 
Back
Top