Stanton T. Friedman is Real

[Paul Kimball]

My 2002 documentary Stanton T. Friedman is Real is now available in its entirety on YouTube, courtesy of our distributor, Paranormal TV. The film features Dr. Benson Saler, Vaughn Rees, Kevin Randle, the late Karl Pflock, Don Ledger, Rev. Barry Downing, the late Walter Haut, and, of course, Stan himself.

Paul

 

[mike]

Watching this now, well worth the time. Thanks Paul

 

[nameless]

cheers

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I watched this a while back and anyway, I already really like Stanton. Not everyone agrees with his complete nuts n bolts approach but no-one can argue with his huge contribution to the field and that he seems to be just a genuinely nice bloke.
I can't remember ever hearing any accusations of him doing anything dodgy - and that seems to be quite rare.

 

[Trajanus]

I watched this a while back and anyway, I already really like Stanton. Not everyone agrees with his complete nuts n bolts approach

I have no problem with it.

but no-one can argue with his huge contribution to the field...

I'll say. We're indebted to him for his work on Roswell and for standing up to the skeptics for so many years.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Yeah, I am pretty nuts and boltsish myself, one reason why I identify with Stanton as much as I do. It seems 'fashionable' in ufology these days to think there is a very non-physical or spiritual facet to the appearances of UFOs, ideas like inter-dimensional travelling or demonic intelligences - there are quite a few variations on the possible source of UFOs.

For me though, IF there really are advanced craft in our skies, using advanced anti-gravity propulsion and they are piloted by non-humans, then I am going to go with the occams's razor idea in that I see it more likely UFOs are advanced solid craft, as real as the space shuttle and that they are from very far away or indeed something a little weirder such as a sub-surface martian civilization etc.
There is little evidence either way with UFOs so we are all pretty free at this stage to pick and choose pet theories and debate the pros and cons of various ideas mooted by those interested in the subject.

 

[mike]

Yeah i'm a nuts and bolts guy myself.

I see the universe as a series of mechanisms, from the simple to the complex.

Give me a technological mechanism i can understand, over a supernatural explanation anyday.

As Mr Dolan said in his recent interview, the whole interdimensional thing is poorly used these days, unless you can first define inter/ultra/extra dimensional you may as well say they come from fairyland.
Its a label with no meaning

 

[Trajanus]

Yeah, I am pretty nuts and boltsish myself, one reason why I identify with Stanton as much as I do. It seems 'fashionable' in ufology these days to think there is a very non-physical or spiritual facet to the appearances of UFOs, ideas like inter-dimensional travelling or demonic intelligences - there are quite a few variations on the possible source of UFOs.

None as credible as the ETH. We know space travel is possible; our probes are UFOs to anyone from outside earth. But we don't know if other dimensions exist, let alone how to pass from one to another. As for "demons" that belongs in the realm of myth, not rationality.

For me though, IF there really are advanced craft in our skies, using advanced anti-gravity propulsion and they are piloted by non-humans, then I am going to go with the occams's razor idea in that I see it more likely UFOs are advanced solid craft,

Sure but it's likely many UFOs are just projections, as some don't show up on radar and seem to vanish into thin air. Of course that in no way disproves nuts and bolts; something physical would have to be behind it.

as real as the space shuttle and that they are from very far away or indeed something a little weirder such as a sub-surface martian civilization etc.

I doubt a sub-surface civilization is possible. Even if it were, space travel is the last thing it would be adept at.

There is little evidence either way with UFOs..

Plenty of evidence for a nuts and bolts/physical phenomenon e.g. landing marks.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Trajanus - did you not just contradict yourself a bit? At one point you say many UFOs are just projections and don't show up on radar (F117) and then after I'd said there is little evidence either way with UFOs you said there is plenty of evidence for nuts and bolts?
I'm a little lost!

Whereas I do agree there have been cases with landing marks I have to look at like the CSI's in that you need to 'place that craft in those landing marks'. I've never seen that, it still comes to witness testimony, which leaves us with little either way.

My comment about a sub-surface civilisation was a nod to theories about how an ancient people on Mars may have had to go sub-surface after their atmosphere became messed up. So even though they would be now underground, they could have developed technology for space travel long before going under.

 

[Trajanus]

Trajanus - did you not just contradict yourself a bit? At one point you say many UFOs are just projections and don't show up on radar (F117) and then after I'd said there is little evidence either way with UFOs you said there is plenty of evidence for nuts and bolts?
I'm a little lost!

The evidence includes numerous radar sightings of course. Given the great multitude of UFO reports, plenty of evidence doesn't mean all, or even a majority of cases have to be something physical. Or, even if many reports seem to be projections, a minority of apparent "nuts and bolts"cases still constitutes plenty of evidence.

Whereas I do agree there have been cases with landing marks I have to look at like the CSI's in that you need to 'place that craft in those landing marks'. I've never seen that, it still comes to witness testimony, which leaves us with little either way.

There have been studies indicating something extraordinarily heavy and hot, caused certain marks--problematic for skeptics and hoax theorists.

My comment about a sub-surface civilisation was a nod to theories about how an ancient people on Mars may have had to go sub-surface after their atmosphere became messed up. So even though they would be now underground, they could have developed technology for space travel long before going under.

You know, one thing that strikes me as strange about that scenario is that even we are considering longterm plans to "terraform" Mars. Why go underground if they can fix the surface environment? Not that I believe Mars ever had any advanced life; from what I've read, its environment was already inhospitable by the start of the Hesperian period roughly 3.5 billion years ago.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I pretty much agree with what you've written. Probably the biggest problem with terraforming I believe is the time it takes to really change an atmosphere and have the bio-feedback from carbon dioxide-using plants. Projections of how we (humans) might go about terraforming indicate it is a centuries/millennia timescale. Knowing just how reactionary humans are, if we ever had to make a choice about planning to leave earth or planning to live underground I know that humans would end up using the easiest/quickest/cheapest method - I think that method would be the underground one. Now of course I am using such thinking talking about an ancient martian civilization and why they may end up underground as opposed to leaving the planet. But maybe both solutions were used, if at all!

Also, I have to accept that I may be anthropomorphising any inhabitants of an ancient Mars when I actually have no idea what intelligent life may have been there, never mind the cultural/moral decision-making of such a race. Having said that, because we do not know the mind of another intelligent race anywhere in the universe, it's pretty natural to use our own personalities etc until we have experience of something different. Imagine it actually - an intelligent species evolved over a much longer time than us may have a very differing view of things.
What might be perfectly acceptable to them is the opposite with us. How could you even have a system of justice catering for two different species living side by side, should such a thing ever happen?
(None of this has been inspired by the movie John Carter, which happens to be a good movie IMO)

 

[Trajanus]

... end up underground as opposed to leaving the planet.

Living underground sounds pretty dull, and difficult. How do you create enough space, and grow crops?

Imagine it actually - an intelligent species evolved over a much longer time than us may have a very differing view of things.
What might be perfectly acceptable to them is the opposite with us.

Probably the main difference between a space faring civilization--probably old by definition--and us is that the space farers think less in terms of the individual, more in terms of the group or Whole.

 

[Muadib]

I'd imagine if you were going to live underground you would try to take advantage of already formed tunnels or cavern systems, failing that there are ways to do it, ancient man was able to create underground living spaces like Derinkuyu. Derinkuyu, Turkey There are several other examples as well. I'm sure it takes a lot of time and work but it can be done. As far as growing crops I'm not sure how an ancient civilization would go about it but given our current level of technology in hydroponics and through the use of high energy heat lamps it wouldn't be a problem for us at all.

 

[mike]

Ive often wondered if moving underground might be a natural trend in the evolution of a space faring species.
If technology tends to ruin the natural surface environment , then eventually you need to create and be responsible for a new one, just as you would in spaceflight.
An artificial underground environment is good practise for a space faring future.

 

[Trajanus]

If technology tends to ruin the natural surface environment

It needn't in the long run, with a "green" approach, or, relocate polluting industries to lifeless worlds.

An artificial underground environment is good practise for a space faring future.

It may have some advantages like blocking deadly cosmic rays. But a dense atmosphere can do that. It would be very costly and tough to hollow out enough space below ground for a city or whole civilization, and grow enough to provide enough oxygen and food for thousands or millions. Also, impacts or eruptions can send shock waves, causing cave ins.