• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

April 1, 2018 — Stanton T. Friedman with J. Randall Murphy



Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
#1
I like Stan. But his views have been unchanging for decades, and thus Randall and I focused on taking him out of his comfort zone.

This episode fueled the discussion on this weekend's episode of After The Paracast, which also featured Greg Bishop.

After The Paracast is an exclusive feature of The Paracast+. For more information, please check:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 

wwkirk

Paranormal Adept
#2
It was delightful hearing about Stan's personal life, although the information about his sons is tragic.
Is everyone as optimistic about post-Friedman ufology as he is?
 
#3
Stanton has been my favorite researcher growing up. But it makes you wonder when somebody believes a story as ludicrous (IMO) as Frank Feschino Jr.'s story and account of The Flatwoods Monster - what other stories and information are they being fooled by? If I hadn't heard it with my own ears - I would have thought someone of Stan's intellect would have laughed Frank's story out of the room. But as it turns out, I'm 100% wrong. Not only doesn't he laugh it out of the room but fully endorses it.

This is what I thought Stan would dismiss....

flatwoods.png
 
Last edited:

TDSR

Skilled Investigator
#4
This was a really interesting show, specifically because, as Gene said, he seems to take his conclusions as beyond fact, and frankly that is really encouraging! To trust your deductive instinct is courageous in a world where people like to talk more than listen. So we go from Doty to Friedman.....a dichotomy and a resemblance, nice. Friedman had a "stock" dataset/example for each of the more inconclusive event which you guys asked about, which shows he has been round and round for many years following those cases. With a man of Friedmans intellect, I put a lot of stock in those rebuttals and those details should be up for further investigation and validation. It would be a good data point to collect over multiple guests responses to the notion of "what is your rebuttal to case X,Y,Z?" I am going to make a Friedman list when I relisten to the episode.
 
#6
Professor Stanton T.Friedman : Is outstanding researcher he has done the leg work into declassified files in those archives. Having listen to half way through the Paracast Show it's the authorities who should release all the classified files ( camera footage, satellite and underwater images ). Stanton is spot on if it affects national security it never be open and yeah it would be great for AFOSI Veteran R. Doty join Stanton with Gene, Chris and Don on the Paracast Show. I would like to hear his thoughts on Sci-Fi Movies through the decades and his thoughts on Canadians UFO archives? Also Happy Easter Stanton and God Bless.
 
Last edited:

Existential

Paranormal Maven
#7
As we have often noted with his appearances, Stan has a lexicon of anecdotes, sayings, that any interview would not be complete without.
Possibly the greatest example is his anecdote regarding Phil Klass challenging him to produce MJ12 documents containing certain Pica typeface elements for $100 a document, and subsequently writing Stan a cheque for $1000.
He faithfully squeezed this in, and I would almost be willing to wager that no Friedman interview in the last 35 or more years has been without it. Lol.

I believe he managed to include all of them in this interview, the only two ‘sayings’ that he missed out on crowbarring in were:
"Not all isotopes are fissionable, I don't care about those. I’m only interested in the ones that are”.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense"
.

The way Stan uses (abuses) these sayings and anecdotes is almost like them being famous songs, perhaps how ‘Livin’ on a prayer’ is to Bon Jovi.
And no good Bon Jovi show would feel quite right without ‘Livin’ on a prayer’ performed.
So I was disappointed that Stan failed to include them, but it was surely only by fluke.

I missed the window to ask Stan a question but if I had been able to I would have liked to have this comical 1983 quote by Klass read, and his thoughts heard:

The UFO curse
"To UFOlogists who publicly criticize me or who even think unkind thoughts about me in private, I do hereby leave and bequeath the UFO Curse. No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about UFOs than you know today. ... As you lie on your own deathbed, you will be as mystified about UFOs as you are today. And you will remember this curse."

His response may have been his ‘Absence of evidence...’ saying though...

If Doty returns with Stan for an episode I will throw it in.

It seems misreported that he is ‘retiring’, as he himself states that it is only from the lecture circuit.
He will probably continue to write books, do radio, not that much will change so he may be on the show once a year as usual.
 

pigfarmer

Paranormal Maven
#8
As we have often noted with his appearances, Stan has a lexicon of anecdotes, sayings, that any interview would not be complete without
I wish I could have gone to one of his lectures to see him live. Sounds like fun and no, I wouldn't be one of his rare hecklers.

To hear the same thing again verbatim in an interview well, yawn. The needle's stuck in that groove pretty deep. If much of what he was saying were coming from a new unknown person that wasn't a celebrity the details would probably be questioned.
 
#11
Rutkowski seems convinced. Not me so much. On the show I had meant to say Fox Lake, but got it wrong. Sounds like Stan knew what Falcon Lake was about though.
Well that's perfect for me though - as I've never heard of Fox Lake. I'll have to look it up & see what info I can find. In the meantime, is there anything you'd like to mention about the case? Thanks :)
 

Jimi

Skilled Investigator
#13
I'll just say that I've actually been to Dodgers Stadium several times to see the Dodgers play, so clearly Stan isn't always right. ;)
So the great man is indefatigable yet not infallible? I love him just the same for a phenomenal contribution to the study of an unintelligible phenomena. Despite the fact that he may have been studying solely a small aspect of a far greater phenomenon.
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#15
So it's so detailed that it seems like it falls into the same category as the Coyne helicopter case; it either happened as described - or is an outright lie.
I liken it to the Phoenix lights case. Maybe some witnesses saw space junk ( flares ) while others saw a real UFO ( in another spot ), and the two separate incidents became merged in the telling of the story. Make room for subjective factors like embellishment and wish fulfillment, and a lot of the case disintegrates. Yet there remains a residue that if true, is still best explained by something alien.
 
Last edited:
#16
I liken it to the Phoenix lights case. Maybe some witnesses saw space junk ( flares ) while others saw a real UFO ( in another spot ), and the two separate incidents became merged in the telling of the story. Make room for subjective factors like embellishment and wish fulfillment, and a lot of the case disintegrates. Yet there remains a residue that if true, is still best explained by something alien.
Wait, would this Fox Lake case be considered the same thing as the Yukon case? Or are they two different events?
 
#18
The Yukon is rather large and there have been more sightings than the December 1996 Fox lake case. But I imagine that because it's such a high profile case that it gets referred to simply as The Yukon Case from time to time.
One thing I was just thinking of is that you would think that someone could differentiate a celestial falling object vs something that is at tree top level. So it's automatic to rule out that these people confused space debris as a UFO hovering over a lake. However, then I go back to Tim Edwards video that shows a spider web attached to his roof in broad day light but then listen to him and the other "eyewitnesses" exclaim that it is "miles and miles up in the atmosphere" and "look how fast it can cover a distance of 10 miles" and "look at all those tiny UFO's being emitted from the larger UFO"......when meanwhile it's a spider web 6 feet in front of their faces.

I'd love to almost stage another type of experiment like the Morristown UFO Hoax but give people a pen & paper and let them draw what they saw and write down estimates of height, width, distance, diameter, etc. See what type of results come in from that.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
#19
One thing I was just thinking of is that you would think that someone could differentiate a celestial falling object vs something that is at tree top level. So it's automatic to rule out that these people confused space debris as a UFO hovering over a lake. However, then I go back to Tim Edwards video that shows a spider web attached to his roof in broad day light but then listen to him and the other "eyewitnesses" exclaim that it is "miles and miles up in the atmosphere" and "look how fast it can cover a distance of 10 miles" and "look at all those tiny UFO's being emitted from the larger UFO"......when meanwhile it's a spider web 6 feet in front of their faces.

I'd love to almost stage another type of experiment like the Morristown UFO Hoax but give people a pen & paper and let them draw what they saw and write down estimates of height, width, distance, diameter, etc. See what type of results come in from that.
Good post. If I may solicit your advice. How do you think I should handle this thing with Gene and Chris? March 4, 2018 — Joshua Cutchin with J. Randall Murphy
 
#20
Good post. If I may solicit your advice. How do you think I should handle this thing with Gene and Chris? March 4, 2018 — Joshua Cutchin with J. Randall Murphy
Being that I think you do a really good job as co-host and you are easy on the ears, I would love for you to stay. As long you are ok with Gene's situation. Stay with the program until you no longer enjoy it and/or until you are no longer comfortable with Gene's situation :)
 

Top