• 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!

October 25, 2015 — Stanton T. Friedman


Forums New posts
Gene Steinberg

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
In this episode, we grill Stanton T. Friedman on UFO abduction concerns, and about the lack of evidence that UFOs are, as he claims, spaceships perhaps from other star systems. Do we have to depend on disclosure from the government to prove the case?

We welcome your comments.

We have more to say about this episode on After The Paracast, which is an exclusive feature of The Paracast+.

Please check this signup page for more information about The Paracast+:

Introducing The Paracast+ | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
 
Friedman once again wonders why an alien society would want anything to do with us. "From an alien viewpoint, we're a primitive society," he says. How does Stanton Friedman know what the alien viewpoint is? Has he interviewed them? Do they communicate with him? This sort of thing, in one form or another, is constantly repeated. We're bad, we kill each other, we fight wars. No one has a clue what the "alien viewpoint" is. What Friedman says could be true. It could also be true that compared with far more violent alien societies we're remarkably peaceful and noteworthy for how few wars we fight, for how few people we kill. For all we know, we're famous throughout the galaxy for being meek, mild and nonviolent. We have absolutely no idea what the "alien viewpoint" is, and to keep repeating that they want nothing to do with us because of our violent ways is sloppy, lazy thinking worthy of George Noory. Friedman is a scientist. You'd think he'd know better than to make assumptions based on zero evidence and then state them as fact.
 
Last edited:
Mohawk said:
Friedman once again wonders...
Click to expand...

If we are being visited we know 2 things:
1_We are still alive, they didnt evaporated us yet.
2_They achieved a pretty advanced technology.

I don't see a way to be peaceful and advance so much in technology without the mentioned "viewpoint".



By the way, Im Jean Luc Picard, yup, the same from the spaceship and the TV show guys!
 
We can't presume to know the motivations of an advanced alien race. If they went through our growing pains and rampant tribal warfares, would they emerge at the other end with a saner structure? That's very much the guiding philosophy of Star Trek, where Earth joined with other planets to form the Federation. Of course, there are lots of warring races out there to fight the Federation, but the fundamental point is that it's very possible ET, if it exists, has figured out how to deal with problems that we still confront.

I think Stan's theories here about potential alien viewpoints are meant as nothing more than speculation. He's just wondering how we'd look to "them." Don't put any more into it than that. Haven't you thought about the image we'd convey?
 
Or that we Humans are completely different to all other(possible) species in the Galaxy/Universe . we are completely Driven by Cash and self motivation well i know the western civilisations are. We enjoy warfare and the suffering of others we are indeed a Strange Race
 
I like Stan, he comes across as a great guy but I increasingly find his dogmatic refusal to entertain anything but the conclusion that UFOs are alien controlled spacecraft whose existence is covered up by the government deeply tiresome.

You kindly asked one of my questions about the sometimes reported hallucinatory nature of UFO encounters and Stan dismissed the question out of hand. I found that surprising but perhaps I shouldn't have.

We have had two shows in a row of relatively old men discussing this phenomenon as the result of nuts and bolts physical events. This seems to have been the predominant theory since Kenneth Arnold's sighting almost 70 years ago. If we were dealing with nuts and bolts events, wouldn't we in all this time have some, any, nuts and bolts evidence? Of course we wouldn't, because the government is covering it up/aliens are using telepathy to tell people to turn off cameras etc (I joke).

But take a closer look at Arnold and the strange events he reported outside of June 1947, some of which sound almost like traditional ghost or poltergeist stories. Perhaps the phenomenon is stranger than the old ufologists are willing to give it credit for? Is this why evidence is so hard to come by?

Who knows I certainly don't. Which is why I restrict myself to asking questions I expect to remain unanswered rather than posit arguments described as the truth that are underpinned by nothing but belief. Even if that belief is sometimes disguised as a rational scientific argument.

I would also add that the discussions on this and last week's ATP have more than rivalled those on the main show. If you're not subscribed you're only getting half the conversation.
 
He seems to have some fixed scripts that he recites in responses to questions. I noticed the same reactions when he was on the show last year. So I had to carefully and strategically interrupt the spiel to get more nuanced answers. This is particularly true when I questioned him about UFO abductions, and the approach taken by Dr. Jacobs.

When someone has been interviewed as often as he has, it's tempting to resort to canned responses.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
He seems to have some fixed scripts that he recites in responses to questions. I noticed the same reactions when he was on the show last year. So I had to carefully and strategically interrupt the spiel to get more nuanced answers. This is particularly true when I questioned him about UFO abductions, and the approach taken by Dr. Jacobs.

When someone has been interviewed as often as he has, it's tempting to resort to canned responses.
Click to expand...
I did notice that you interrupted Stanton to get him back on track but he has a lot of personal stories he likes to trot out.
 
Unfortunately, as much as I like Stanton and his contribution to Ufology, I think he is a brilliant example of an old dog you cannot teach new tricks to. I think he made up his mind about UFOs a very long time ago and anything that is likely to contradict those views is not going to get a fair go with Stan. It's actually quite sad but because unlike most of the rest of us, Stan has spent a lifetime actually doing research, going to library's and reading lots of documents he really, really has contributed an enormous amount to Ufology and for that he deserves the highest of respect, which I gladly grant him, despite not agreeing with a fair bit of his thinking - which of courses is normal.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
He seems to have some fixed scripts that he recites in responses to questions. I noticed the same reactions when he was on the show last year. So I had to carefully and strategically interrupt the spiel to get more nuanced answers. This is particularly true when I questioned him about UFO abductions, and the approach taken by Dr. Jacobs.

When someone has been interviewed as often as he has, it's tempting to resort to canned responses.
Click to expand...


I was laughing to myself listening to the show - In my mind's eye I was picturing Stanton with a huge winding handle sticking out his back, being wound up and let go........hey presto!.....Robo-Stan recites yet one more of a rather large bank of pre-prepared min-stories that have certain instructional bents to them! You gotta love him but he repeats the same stuff like a doddery old man with dementia.
But he's still a friggin' dude in Ufology. Despite my mockery I must state that I salute Stanton overall.
 
I always enjoy it when Mr Friedman is on the Paracast, I respect the way he always says what he thinks, rather than sugar coating things.
A really good listen.
Thank you for asking my question, I found his response enlightening, I hadn't considered the possibility of refueling on the journey.
If in theory we could do it, why in theory couldn't "they"*?

*if there is a "they".
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Haven't you thought about the image we'd convey?
Click to expand...

Of course, but I don't state it as if it were an undeniable fact.

Also, I was interested that you and Chris echoed the comment I made a few days ago in a post to the Dr. Jacobs forum about how the aliens, if they're able to read our minds and control us, know when cameras have been set up with the abductees knowledge and so can direct the abductees to turn them off. If Chris is an "experiencer," as he claims, then perhaps the aliens are following his San Luis Valley project with interest and will take measures to ensure that it never succeeds.

I think the notion that aliens are controlling us, perhaps on a much larger scale than we know if indeed many of us are abductees without realizing it, is worth exploring further. That could explain much more than just abductees turning off cameras--perhaps they're behind the elaborate disinformation campaigns (Project Serpo? MJ12?) and "giggle factor" attitude of the press that keeps people in the UFO field fighting among themselves and being considered nutcases by the majority of the population. Of course this is just speculation. I'm not claiming that this is an undeniable fact.
 
I thought it was super weird when Dr. F said the ETs and the Chinese could be working together because they're both small???:confused:
 
Back
Top