• 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!

Stanton T. Friedman — August 3, 2014


I rather enjoyed the interview with Mr Friedman. Reflect on this: when you see nature documentaries on the TV, does the wildlife cameraman interfere if a pack of Lions attack a Zebra? Or perhaps when an elephant calf gets lost from its mother? No, because you cannot effectively study any creature in its natural environment if you do interfere. The same can be said for psychological or sociological studies on fellow humans, to interfere or engage in the behaviour you wish to study changes the behaviour. So if we wanted to study, say a type of fish deep in our own ocean, we build a deep sea craft to get to them, we dive down and film them, sometimes we may take one and cut it up to see whats inside, or we tag one to track its movements, we don't ever think of trying to share our technology with them or to try and communicate with them. You see what I'm trying to say?
 
I don't agree with the theory the moon landings were abandoned because 'aliens warned us off'. Remember, the moon landings were a product of the cold war, specifically and secretly, if a moon base could be built from which to launch nuclear missiles against the USSR. Such launches would be undetected and the soviets wouldn't know anything until it was all over. Of course useful science would be gained from moon missions but Nixon perhaps cancelled the moon program to open the way for the SALT negotiations with the soviets.
 
And I'd like to add just one final point regarding Mr Friedmans interview. I agree with him that any visitor to our world, may well have encountered life on other worlds. When you consider the 'Drake equation'. Now, we are currently looking at this from a perspective of not directly contacting (Well publicly anyway), ET life. We are therefore keen to seek an answer to the question 'are we alone'. Now if we are not the first other world life that ET have encountered, we may be just one of many. Nothing special. It may well be the case that that ET visiting us have encountered other planetary life forms that were much more peaceful than we are, the ET may have shared advanced technology with them only to see them use it to end up destroying themselves...so do you think based on this ET visitors would want to share advanced technology with us? It is speculation, but we have to keep an open mind.
 
Okay! So here I am watching shark week and there is this 6 foot blue shark ripping a new asshole in some unsuspecting fish! Hummmm! Kinda like this thread I am reading right now. I have the sound down and I'm listening to the Don Berliner interview. Now this is one for the ages. It is lightyears better than the Stan interview. The reason I bring it up is because he, also, calls Mr. Carrion full of bologna when it comes to the ghost rockets conjecture that started this scrum in the first place. Hey Chris.... Might wanna get an extra chair warm for that debate!

I love Stan! When I really started to get interested in the "UFO" phenomena, starting in the 60's and forward, it was Stan Friedman who made me really start to think that there was something happening and it was not all swamp gas. I have never had anything paranormal ever happen to me! DAMN IT! Actually, a former co-host once told me in a private conversation we were having one day is that I "better watch what I wish for". Researchers (and I use that term loosely) have taken up the sport recently of attempting to nail Stan to the proverbial tree of irrelevancy by calling him too old and unable to do research anymore (Don Schmitt on another show but it is hosted by Bill and Nan...... Oh! Forget it), Karl (the late) Pflock basically called Stan a criminal in Paul Kimball's documentary on MJ-12, and Kevin Randle who, in my humble opinion, tends to use his aversion to the MJ-12 documents to bring Stan down a peg or two at every opportunity that presents itself. Of course I would be remiss if I did not mention those who use the anonymity of the internet to prognosticate and bloviate about how Stan is out of touch with this or that or inter-dimensional is the new and greatest and nutz and bolts is OUT and that space brothers are in and that blah blah blah blah blah blah! If everyone would pick their ears instead of their nose they would find out that Stan rarely talks about more than 3 or 4 cases that have held his interest for years:

1. Rosewell
2. Betty and Barney Hill
3. That farm in Kansas
4. McMinville Oregon (The Trent Photos)
5. The photos of some ship in South America
6. And.... wait for it....... MJ-12! Father! Forgive him. He knows not what he does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, that's 6 cases.

What, I think that, bugs most people is that when you hear Stan lecture once, is that you have heard him a thousand times. If you listened to the interview last week when Gene and Chris asked him questions the answers he gave are lifted right from his lecture for the most part. Go find one of his lectures on YinzTube and then listen to the interview again. Son of a bi..... "Everyone who is a great-grandfather...." . Heard that. "Absence of Evidence....." Hummmm.... Heard that. "Worked on claasified...." HEARD THAT!!!!!!! The point is that Stan, basically, says the same thing over and over again. Because he believes what he says. He is like one of those old time preachers who went from town to town preaching the gospel the same way in all of those churches where people would fill the pews and the rafters would ring. I will tell you that as a youth I sat in many of those churches and listened to those sermons over and over again. In hindsight I treasure those moments with my parents. I know that most of you would disagree (some of you with venom) but my parents cared enough about us that they thought they were doing the best thing they knew they could do to preserve our future. Stan is not a song and dance man. He is not a snake oil salesman. He is a preacher. Trying to tell the world the known truth (as he sees it) of the reality of "flying saucers". I find Stan's lectures comforting and always entertaining. No matter how many times I hear them. Because I believe them. Don't even ask me how many times I have heard Sgt. Pepper or Close to the Edge by Yes. I will probably listen to them again tomorrow. And then hit up Stan for some reinforcement.

Mr. Carrion, I have no quarrel with you. You have every right (and obligation) to explore your views in the public domain as you rightly have. And you have the right (and obligation) to defend yourself when you feel you have reason to do so. I look forward to a debate. But I am sure you know that it is hard to go up against the legend himself!

To everyone else.... you can wake up now. I hear you snoring.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
hey, what's the latest on stanton friedman's health? do we know any more than that he is recovering at home? i had the chance to talk with him once on the phone years ago. nice man and nice that he took the time.
 
As he said on the show, he had two stents installed by his doctors, and he's doing well, though he had a little less energy. I had some communication with him after the show, and he says he'll be traveling again later this month. He's not going to let a little heart attack slow him down.
 
I'm a little behind with my Paracast listening. Right now I'm about to listen to this episode, but before I do, I wanted to offer my 2 cents with re. to Mike Clelland's article on Open Minds, which Gene & Chris commented upon in the intro.

First, I want to state that I've been following Mike's since 2009. I've read everything he's written on both his personal blog & other sites, so I'm very well versed with both his story and his personal views about the UFO phenomenon, and what we (inadequately) refer to as the 'abduction experience.' What's more, I consider Mike a personal friend.

Being Mike's friend does not force me to agree 100% with him. You can all read the opinion I gave to his article here. My main objection was not based on whether all witnesses of 'unambiguous UFOs' could be alien abductees even if they are not consciously aware of this or not; the problem here is semantics. Something that needs to be kept in mind before casting judgement on Mike's POV, is that he seldom uses the term 'abduction' because it's already such a loaded term in the field; but since it's all we have in the end --'experiencer' is much too vague & ambiguous-- Mike is using abduction to infer a much deeper involvement with the UFO phenomenon, than just a chance encounter resulted from being 'in the right place & the right time.'

So before we start wondering whether seeing a flying saucer fairly close is a sign that the witness is an abductee, first we need to define what abductions are.

Another thing to keep in mind here, is that Mike is NOT among those people who view the abduction phenomenon with the simplistic lens of some nefarious genetic experimentation, conducted by diminutive ET scientists, aboard their shiny spacecraft. What IMO Mike failed to convey in his Open Minds article, is his working hypothesis that what we call 'abductions' should be better understood as some sort of 'shamanistic initiation', regardless of the nature and origin of the non-human component intertwined with it.

So, in light of all of this, is Mike's idea completely without merit? Yes, painting with a broad brush can lead to wrong assumptions in this field, but I do suspect that Mike's hypothesis is worth taken into consideration regardless. I do feel some folks, for reasons we are yet to elucidate, act as some sort of 'high-strangeness magnet', and that the number of anomalous events in their lives is above the average --Or perhaps they're just the ones paying more attention, I don't know...

We often talk about 'window areas'. What about 'window individuals'?

You yourself, Chris, forgot to mention in this intro your childhood encounter with an alien-like entity at a very early age. Is it really so preposterous to consider that your continuous encounters with anomalous phenomena throughout your entire life are purely accidental, or just the logical result of your active interest in UFOs as an adult?

What came first: The researcher chicken or the ufological egg? ;)


Saludos,

RPJ
 
You yourself, Chris, forgot to mention in this intro your childhood encounter with an alien-like entity at a very early age. Is it really so preposterous to consider that your continuous encounters with anomalous phenomena throughout your entire life are purely accidental, or just the logical result of your active interest in UFOs as an adult?
My personal experience at age seven at the time and since has always seemed real to me. Was it some kind of abduction? Possibly. Was it some kind of initiation? Possibly. Does it have anything to do with all of the strange events and sightings I've experienced throughout my adult life? Again, possibly. I can never really know for sure. I can entertain the concept that some people may be weirdness magnets looking at how my own experiences have unfolded in my life. Of course, I have also gone out of my way to be in the right place at the right time. I have spent many countless hours outdoors skywatching, chasing around locales where events are currently be reported and networking w/ folks to get real time reports, so I'm sure this also comes into play. I still don't see a direct correlation in my data that suggests some kind of contact experience happens to anyone (or most people) that have a close-up sighting. I like Mike and I think he is a creative analyst, so I won't throw his ideas out with the baby's bathwater, but his owl hypothesis (if I understand it correctly) doesn't seem very plausible. That's an example of possibly getting too creative with his thinking (?) FWIW...
 
... Of course, I have also gone out of my way to be in the right place at the right time. I have spent many countless hours outdoors skywatching, chasing around locales where events are currently be reported and networking w/ folks to get real time reports, so I'm sure this also comes into play. I still don't see a direct correlation in my data that suggests some kind of contact experience happens to anyone (or most people) that have a close-up sighting. I like Mike and I think he is a creative analyst, so I won't throw his ideas out with the baby's bathwater, but his owl hypothesis (if I understand it correctly) doesn't seem very plausible. That's an example of possibly getting too creative with his thinking (?) FWIW...

A very, very good point. It may seem anal to bring this up but what If one had never seen anything unexplainable like a ufo/up but then puts themselves in a position of seeing such phenomena , even to the point of traveling a great distance to a place like the slv that has many sightings, does that them make them an abductee ( only after having a bona fide sighting) in the eyes of some of the people mentioned in that article ?

Isn't there some guy in Washington state that runs some kind of camp for adults that all but promises the attendees a sighting? The article almost suggests that you could find out if you are an abductee without going through some couch time. Just go to this camp and let nature..or whatever... decide for you.

I still have maximum respect for mike though. I have Hidden Experience loaded up in my podcaster and it was his show w/Chris a few years back when he was promoting "Stalking Thr Tricksters" that helped me see the light on synchronicity for lack of a better phrase.
 
Last edited:
My personal experience at age seven at the time and since has always seemed real to me. Was it some kind of abduction? Possibly. Was it some kind of initiation? Possibly. Does it have anything to do with all of the strange events and sightings I've experienced throughout my adult life? Again, possibly. I can never really know for sure. I can entertain the concept that some people may be weirdness magnets looking at how my own experiences have unfolded in my life. Of course, I have also gone out of my way to be in the right place at the right time. I have spent many countless hours outdoors skywatching, chasing around locales where events are currently be reported and networking w/ folks to get real time reports, so I'm sure this also comes into play. I still don't see a direct correlation in my data that suggests some kind of contact experience happens to anyone (or most people) that have a close-up sighting. I like Mike and I think he is a creative analyst, so I won't throw his ideas out with the baby's bathwater, but his owl hypothesis (if I understand it correctly) doesn't seem very plausible. That's an example of possibly getting too creative with his thinking (?) FWIW...

Fair enough. But I really think you should try to consider, that all those countless hours of outdoors skywatching, that drive that put you 'in the right place at the right time', and all those years you have diligently devoted into studying & understanding this mystery, might just have been the result of some sort of external compulsion. The 'sense of a mission' Mike & many others who claim the direct contact experience feel.

Or are you still under the delusion that we're all here in the Paracast by mere chance? ;)

As a Fortean, I can entertain the possibility of the existence of UFOs, Bigfoot, ghosts, the loch Ness monster & even the goddamned Chupacabras. But random chance? Puh-leeease! :p
 
…Isn't there some guy in Washington state that runs some kind of camp for adults that all but promises the attendees a sighting? The article almost suggests that you could find out if you are an abductee without going through some couch time. Just go to this camp and let nature..or whatever... decide for you.
The guy up near Mt. Adams/Trout Lake is James Gilliland. As far as I can tell, based on what others have said, he is a guru wannabe, huckster. He appears to have delusions of Billy Meirdum. A scientist I know attempted to document and study the lights he purports to see and wasn't allowed on the ranch when he found out who she was. She set up next door at a neighbors and determined that what was mostly being seen were planes headed north toward the airport turning their landing lights on, and planes heading south toward another airport turning their landing lights on. Her analysis, not mine. That's not to say that the area doesn't have real events—it probably does (The Yakima Rez is just over the Cascade Mtns) The whole scene up there smacks of a guru PT Barnum. He contacted me in the early 90s and I've kept an eye on him ever since. I've heard horror stories from women who have made the mistake of getting involved at his ranch, etc...
 
Fair enough. But I really think you should try to consider, that all those countless hours of outdoors skywatching, that drive that put you 'in the right place at the right time', and all those years you have diligently devoted into studying & understanding this mystery, might just have been the result of some sort of external compulsion. The 'sense of a mission' Mike & many others who claim the direct contact experience feel.
My motivations were much simpler: I wanted to get some great photos or footage and try to catch the bastards who were targeting the cattle. If I had a few good cases, I could write a compelling article, etc. No "Roy Neery" complex or mindless motivations...
But random chance? Puh-leeease! :p
Who said anything about "random chance"? Much of this does appear at times to be synchronistic, almost by design, but good luck proving that! ;)
 
[...]Who said anything about "random chance"? Much of this does appear at times to be synchronistic, almost by design, but good luck proving that! ;)
A long lecture by Vallee does propose an interesting idea about his "information theory" of the Universe. He admits it's a crude model, but it does make sense in the age of information storage [Google, Youtube, DNA, etc.] and the Universe "operating" on information too.

 
On the preamble: Always interesting to hear @Christopher O'Brien's personal experiences, but I have to point out that it only seems logical that if a person has a UFO experience of any kind, the chances that an abduction might be involved are increased compared to someone who has never had a UFO experience, and it also seems logical that the more sightings a person has had, the more those chances are increased again, and if those experiences include CE type sightings, particularly CE-4 or CE5, then we're moving into very high probabilities compared to the non-experiencer. So why would someone brush that logic aside as if it has no value, particularly someone with a history of UFO and paranormal experience? Could it be a case of denial programmed into the experiencer in order to keep the subconscious memories of much more intimate encounters suppressed? I don't know. Some people think it's possible. So why be so sure it's not the case?

On Stan: Although he's still working the same shtick, his core message is still just as valid as ever. However I'm a bit uncomfortable with how easily he's embraced the abduction phenomenon, but who knows? Maybe his belief in it will someday prove to be justified. Salas' story isn't convincing though, so I'm left to conclude that Stan only mentioned it in passing to help illustrate his alien space police angle. My favorite quote from the entire episode is his stance on the so-called giggle factor:


SF ( 01:50:31 ): "I don't travel with cringing and fear of what's gonna be said because I don't think there's anything to be worried about."

What a fantastically great attitude compared to NARCAP's view that it's critically important to disassociate from ufology and ufologists. While they "cringe in fear", here we have an 80 year old ufologist with a proven track record of success who has shown tremendous dedication to the field, and who tells us about how few negative responses he's had over the years. He's not the least bit ashamed or embarrassed to be called a ufologist and that's the kind of new blood and dedication we need in the field. I hope Stan continues to inspire interest in ufology for years to come.
 
Last edited:
[...]it also seems logical that the more sightings a person has the more the chances are increased again, and if those experiences include CE type sightings, particularly CE-4 or CE5, then we're moving into very high probabilities compared to the non-experiencer.
What's worse is his CE-4 happened when he was 7yo, and the story goes once taken as a child the abductions often repeat a number of times in the years that follow.

Chris, did you ever experience Sleep Paralysis too???

Implant marks? :D
 
A long lecture by Vallee does propose an interesting idea about his "information theory" of the Universe. He admits it's a crude model, but it does make sense in the age of information storage [Google, Youtube, DNA, etc.] and the Universe "operating" on information too.

Beat me to it! :p

Yeah, perhaps in the future Science will finally catch up and will understand the 'mechanics' behind synchronicities, precognition & other type of phenomena.

For example, notable parapsychologist Dean Radin had a personal synchronicity that is simply MIND-BLOWING, and he tries to posit a (primitive) hypothesis on why such things could happen:

 
Agree sighting UFOs human technology or not both have ( few times) seems to effect humans in different ways and does it effect domestic cats, dogs and any other pets are effected long term regarding memory of movement prior to a encounter for example fetching a ball, running etc. Evidence from other encounters show some combination of magnetic /chemical effects similar to addiction to seek unknown and does it effect the long term activity of the brain or blood flow when folks experience a encounter. The interaction with mechanical objects more of a clue ? (Human) as the strange awareness has the electrical power to effect transmissions on petrol motors. Which is able to restart combustion motors while sometimes leaving physical effects on human bodies agree with Chris the Owl rather part of a surrounding rather more the chemical influences of the surrounding area of contact. Wonder if air and soil samples could be taken while the sighting is being observed and abduction theory is another kettle of fish .
 
Back
Top