show about hills

[Open_Mind2007]

What is up with the pretentious hosts talking crap about Stanton T. Friedman and Kathleen Marden after the show was over. If you guys had doubts then why not express them when their on the show not when they have left and cannot defend themselves. You guys question Stanton motives because it does not fall into your line of belief, which is that maybe these "creatures" are not alien but rather from earth itself. Whatever...I am used to the fact that you guys "attempt" to have all the answers and also feel that you guys think you have a better understanding of any subject.

 

[Goody]

What is up with the pretentious hosts talking crap about Stanton T. Friedman and Kathleen Marden after the show was over. If you guys had doubts then why not express them when their on the show not when they have left and cannot defend themselves. You guys question Stanton motives because it does not fall into your line of belief, which is that maybe these "creatures" are not alien but rather from earth itself. Whatever...I am used to the fact that you guys "attempt" to have all the answers and also feel that you guys think you have a better understanding of any subject.

Open_Mind,

Well what aggrivated you so much about the analysis that Gene & David gave at the beginning of yesterdays program?

Was it Davids impersonation of Stanton (ie. "Noisy Nasty Negativists")?

The "Why would you ask that"? - Stanton.

It's not out of line to ask what David asked, I mean after-all, this is one case that stands out from the long line of abductions after all these years & these guys have got the balls to put themselves on the chopping block, & ask the difficult questions.

 

[Jersey John]

OpenMind 2007 wrote...

Whatever...I am used to the fact that you guys "attempt" to have all the answers and also feel that you guys think you have a better understanding of any subject.

I have a somewhat different perspective on the subject. I don't know exactly which Pope of Ufology canonized Friedman but that's an altar I'm not prepared to worship at. He gets a free pass pretty regularly because he's one of the few true scientists operating in a field full of pseudo-scientists and self-proclaimed "researchers" (and at least one podiatrist). Of course, he abandoned his relatively short stint in mainstream science for the lucrative niche he's carved out as "UFO Physicist". Nevertheless, it seems as if he's given very wide berth on anything he says, almost in deference to his CV. Getting tweaked a little--a very little, in fact--by David and Gene is not, therefore, uncalled for. And I frankly think if anyone could use a little hot air let out of his balloon it's Friedman. So I had no problem with it, and thought the show was quite balanced and enjoyable.

At the end of the day, my opinion was unchanged...the Hills seem to have been nice, sincere people who had enough cultural and social "baggage" (with apologies for not being able to think of a more appropriate word) to warrant consideration of their experiences as something other than extra-normal or extraterrestrial in nature. In any case, it's an interesting story the foundations of which we'll never know.

 

[Richard Bailey]

IF good old Stan is infallible and if he is all knowing then what is the harm in asking a few questions or even expecting an answer. Now I am a fan of Mr. Friedman and have been for some years but if he can't answer a few questions maybe he needs to stick to lecturing. I wouldn't have expected him to dance around the question. If he didn't know the answer I would have expected him to answer "I don't know"

or maybe I am just a "Nasty, Noisy, Negitivist"

 

[CapnG]

The problem is Stan has painted himself into a corner. His entire career is based on the notion that his theories represent the only logical conclusion to a series of rather fuzzy questions. David is right to point out that Stan needs to practice what he preaches with the whole "My mind's made up!" attitude.

 

[Goody]

I got it around the wrong way hahaha....

I love Stantons piece of mind, anywhere. But if he's been that involved in the field, in 'my opinion', than he ought to shed some light on a few perspectives that are seemingly 'different' from his own. Or in other words, include himself '&' his ideals in untrodden territory.

David asked why did the 'visitors/intruders/abductors/aliens/extraterrestrials/unknowns' (whatever.) place a cup-piece over Benny's genitals & Stan jutted back, &/or commented in a rather strange & 'taken-aback' mannerism which consisted of 'Why would you ask that"?...

Why? Because, we're so involved (we= mostly anyone involved within the abduction community) with a certain set of parameters, that do involve the notorious 'semen extration' & 'sample analysis' 'consistencies'....

Never at all, was it out of the line for David/Gene (or anyone) to question such a situation. I do believe that Stan feels as if this was (& this is mere speculative-conclusion) a unique abduction experience, that separates itself from the line of status-quo scenarios....In other words, the Betty & Barney Hill situation, is alot more different than your George Adamski case; ala; a Contactee Experience.

& The star Map still leaves me intrigued...

Goody.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

What is up with the pretentious hosts talking crap about Stanton T. Friedman and Kathleen Marden after the show was over. If you guys had doubts then why not express them when their on the show not when they have left and cannot defend themselves. You guys question Stanton motives because it does not fall into your line of belief, which is that maybe these "creatures" are not alien but rather from earth itself. Whatever...I am used to the fact that you guys "attempt" to have all the answers and also feel that you guys think you have a better understanding of any subject.

I haven't listened to that part yet, think I'll go listen now. It has been a gripe Gene and David have had about Friedman. I'm surprised they didn't ask him about it. Or did they?

Friedman did mentioned during the show that, "I don't know what else to call them" in regards to he using the word aliens. I personally don't care if he thinks they're from Zeta or not. I have seen him express how he is open to other possibilities before. Maybe not so much with the Hill case, but in general. Paul Kimbaul (sp?) has said the same thing on one of he's appearances. That Stan is a lot more open than people think.

 

[DFWMike]

I get the impression that Stan can be rather ornery when he feels like he has done enough research on a certain situation. I believe he can be open to suggestion but when it's something he has collected quite a bit of data on then he can get a bit defensive. In this situation I detected a bit of that in the guys too, in all fairness, it was kind of like two stubborn mules going at each other, each tending to believe they have the right idea. It's something I haven't seen much in Gene and David, hope it doesn't become more prevalent. It's great to have a good idea of what one thinks is going on, but until we have some solid evidence on the table I think it probably is good to remain open on different ideas.

That being said, I like yall's style, just hope you continue to prod and don't end up developing a philosophy to counter all of your guests with that has no more basis than anyone else's ideas. Now if you have some evidence to support the theory, then by all means present it.

Good post by Open Mind, think it's a good one. Just because even the good shows need a tweak every now and then, and this is the best and most fair paranormal show for the time being.

 

[Richard Bailey]

I get the impression that Stan can be rather ornery when he feels like he has done enough research on a certain situation. I believe he can be open to suggestion but when it's something he has collected quite a bit of data on then he can get a bit defensive. In this situation I detected a bit of that in the guys too, in all fairness, it was kind of like two stubborn mules going at each other, each tending to believe they have the right idea. It's something I haven't seen much in Gene and David, hope it doesn't become more prevalent. It's great to have a good idea of what one thinks is going on, but until we have some solid evidence on the table I think it probably is good to remain open on different ideas.

That being said, I like yall's style, just hope you continue to prod and don't end up developing a philosophy to counter all of your guests with that has no more basis than anyone else's ideas. Now if you have some evidence to support the theory, then by all means present it.

Good post by Open Mind, think it's a good one. Just because even the good shows need a tweak every now and then, and this is the best and most fair paranormal show for the time being.

You know those guys from Texas make a lot of sense 8)

 

[DFWMike]

Oh, thats an intelligent retort, what's up with that? Was just an observation, am I supposed to kiss their butts when I disagree with them? David wouldn't do that with us, I said I like them, just had a problem with that particular situation, is that ok?

I actually was going to post a partial retraction after going back and re listening to the program. I was a little harsh, trying to make them stop the very thing I like them for. Getting a little too caught up in being a Friedman fan.

 

[David Biedny]

I admit that I got a little confrontational with Stanton, someone I respect and like. That said, some of his attitude during this interview definitely rubbed me the wrong way, there was a certain smugness that really got to me, and y'all are gonna hear me repeat little Friedmanisms in the coming weeks. What can I say, he's a performer, and I'm a troublemaker.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I admit that I got a little confrontational with Stanton, someone I respect and like. That said, some of his attitude during this interview definitely rubbed me the wrong way, there was a certain smugness that really got to me, and y'all are gonna hear me repeat little Friedmanisms in the coming weeks. What can I say, he's a performer, and I'm a troublemaker.

And Friedman has an easily-recognized voice that's easy for David to imitate

 

[Goody]

Then may I just say that David does it very well, everytime he imitates something i'm cracking up hehehe...

'Smugness' is definately a good word to describe Stanton's attitude in the last interview...I would like to read the book & draw my own conclusion of whether or not it deserves another look at, how different is The Hills case?

Excellant show as always guys.

 

[Koji K.]

I respect Stanton Friedman's work in the field, but I was glad to hear David and Gene talk about their problems with him, and Gene's issues with the Hill case in general, because they echoed my own thoughts. His problem is the same as 99% of authors in the UFO field today- they're just sure they have all the answers. And his reaction to the semen question was really odd- it's as though he hasn't read half the books on the abductee phenomenon published in the last 20 years. In this field, anyone who sounds sure of themself about anything should be taken with a large grain of salt. I do wish there were more Keels and Vallees out there today, who instead of telling us exactly what the ufo's are made of and where they come from, they ask us to expand our conceptions of what they could be.

While I'm posting- I find Vallee's control system hypothesis to be the only true hypothesis out there- that is, an *possible* explanation based on the phenomenology (which is all we have, nuts and bolts "evidence" notwithstanding), rather than the 'this mysterious lump of something couldn't be identified' or 'hypnotized abductee X says this so it must be true' types of explanations that fill the field these days. But anyone notice how hard it is to find Vallee or Keel in bookstores these days?

Incidentally, apparently Vallee is associated with Bigelow airspace these days. I've often wondered if Bigelow was the type of company which Vallee wrote about 20-30 years earlier (like that hospital in Argentina- I don't have the books a t hand or I'd be more specific) which conveys an impression of having some ufo connection in order to gain investor confidence. On the other hand, the one book I've read recently which echoes Vallee/Keel type thinking on the subject was that Skinwalker Ranch book (which was full of holes but conveys 'high strangeness' quite well- something again most ufologists dont like to deal with these days), which again was funded by Bigelow. You can try to connect the dots forever in this field.

 

[Jersey John]

From Koji K.

You can try to connect the dots forever in this field.

Agreed! That's because the dots are often more like big, felt tip smudges, and some of the dots aren't even there. So even if you could connect them they wouldn't paint any kind of rational picture.

 

[Mogwa]

From Koji K.Agreed! That's because the dots are often more like big, felt tip smudges, and some of the dots aren't even there. So even if you could connect them they wouldn't paint any kind of rational picture.

The defining term here is "rational." Attempting to comprehend the wide variety of phenomena that compromises the ufo conundrum by employing methods of traditionally rigid linear analysis is necessarily doomed to failure. We must be prepared to take the uncomfortable risk of thinking in new ways about a paradigm that violates all the rules we use to define our collective conception of reality.
The first step is to recognize the severe limitations of our physical senses. It's practically impossible to formulate an accurate perceptual model of the universe when you're relatively blind, deaf, and mute.
The second is an admission that whatever is going on, human beings do not control the agenda, or the methods used to further it. As individuals we are helpless to resist, but I'm not sure that's holds true when we work together. If that's an accurate observation, it would be in the best interest of those who seek to exploit humanity to keep that from ever happening. So far, with our enthusiastic co-operation, they've been quite successful.

 

[CapnG]

You can try to connect the dots forever in this field.

That's because the dots keep moving...

 

[Richard Bailey]

That's because the dots keep moving...

Thank you, I thought it was just me.

 

[Jersey John]

Two questions, Mogwa...

The first step is to recognize the severe limitations of our physical senses. It's practically impossible to formulate an accurate perceptual model of the universe when you're relatively blind, deaf, and mute.

If so, should we even bother trying to figure this business out. Or do we do our best to examine it within the parameters of our current limitations?

The second is an admission that whatever is going on, human beings do not control the agenda, or the methods used to further it.

Can you explain further, please?

 

[derekcbart]

I'm about halfway through this episode, but one problem I have had with most abduction stories is the reliance on "recovered memory therapy". This was once thought to be legitimate, but has now been abandoned by most legitimate therapists and reclassified as "false memory syndrome".
Recovered-memory therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
False memory syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other problem that I have with the Hill case specifically is that it appears that the concept of the "greys" started with their case and eventually evolved into the Whitley Streiber concept of the "greys". The thing is that an episode of The Outer Limits was broadcast before the events that very closely fits the description of the Hills.
Barney and Betty Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Bellero.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia