Stanton Friedman: The WHY questions.

[Aaron LeClair]

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sf-ufo-why1.html


He's going to be on C2C this week btw.

 

[musictomyears]

Very true:

"Based on my more than 600 college lectures, the younger generation, which, unlike me, was never alive when there wasn't a space program, would push for a new view of ourselves as EARTHLINGS instead of as Americans, Canadians, Greeks, Peruvians, etc. Many would think that would be great. But I know of no government on Earth that wants its citizens to owe their primary allegiance to the planet (where it belongs) instead of to individual national governments. Nationalism is the only game in town. I believe that alien visitors - they may be our landlords, for all we know - think of us as earthlings even though, because of our military traffic, they would be well aware of different ruling groups in different places."

 

[fitzbew88]

Very true:

"Based on my more than 600 college lectures, the younger generation, which, unlike me, was never alive when there wasn't a space program, would push for a new view of ourselves as EARTHLINGS instead of as Americans, Canadians, Greeks, Peruvians, etc. Many would think that would be great. But I know of no government on Earth that wants its citizens to owe their primary allegiance to the planet (where it belongs) instead of to individual national governments. Nationalism is the only game in town. I believe that alien visitors - they may be our landlords, for all we know - think of us as earthlings even though, because of our military traffic, they would be well aware of different ruling groups in different places."

LOL, it's not hard for me to picture some poor ET floating around out there scratching his head trying to figure out exactly which earthling they should contact first. Which language?

I think I would just add Earth to my "Check Again In A Thousand Years" list and move on to the next system.

Or maybe wait for them to come to me.

 

[mjw]

I printed off that paper and brought it to work a few months ago to read and after one of my coworkers read it he asked my why at the end of the paper a few of the references cited where books Stanton had wrote himself. He then said that it was cheap for someone to write a paper like that and then reference themself. I said that those books more than likely had resources cited in the back of them and that doing it the way he did it saved time and space. Well that wasn't good enough apparently so I facetiously said "If you are that upset about it then why don't you just call Stanton yourself. His phone number is on his website". So he did. And Stanton answered his phone and said that there was a large bibliography in the back of the book he referenced. Satisfied with So then my coworker says "Oh, by the way, there's a guy here that's a 'true believer' and you know what I bet he would love to talk to you about all kinds of stuff. Here he is." Then he hands me the phone. WHAT?! I admit I was pretty nervous. Stan's like a celebrity to me. So yeah I apologized and chatted briefly with him and he was a very cool fellow. I told him I had a sighting once and that I wrote a short paper about it and he asked me to email it to him and I did and he replied. What an awesome guy!

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Very true:

"Based on my more than 600 college lectures, the younger generation, which, unlike me, was never alive when there wasn't a space program, would push for a new view of ourselves as EARTHLINGS instead of as Americans, Canadians, Greeks, Peruvians, etc. Many would think that would be great. But I know of no government on Earth that wants its citizens to owe their primary allegiance to the planet (where it belongs) instead of to individual national governments. Nationalism is the only game in town. I believe that alien visitors - they may be our landlords, for all we know - think of us as earthlings even though, because of our military traffic, they would be well aware of different ruling groups in different places."

I remember that quote. He's up to over 700 hundred lectures now. He's been to Sydney Australia now too, so he can no longer use that as an example when combating the fact he's never seen a ufo. "I've never seen Sydney Australia either... It's there" he used to say.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

LOL, it's not hard for me to picture some poor ET floating around out there scratching his head trying to figure out exactly which earthling they should contact first. Which language?

I think I would just add Earth to my "Check Again In A Thousand Years" list and move on to the next system.

Or maybe wait for them to come to me.

I recently saw a cartoon of little green men (barf) at the white house in front of Clinton gorging himself, saying, "You think you can take us to another leader?"

 

[musictomyears]

I printed off that paper and brought it to work a few months ago to read and after one of my coworkers read it he asked my why at the end of the paper a few of the references cited where books Stanton had wrote himself. He then said that it was cheap for someone to write a paper like that and then reference themself. I said that those books more than likely had resources cited in the back of them and that doing it the way he did it saved time and space. Well that wasn't good enough apparently so I facetiously said "If you are that upset about it then why don't you just call Stanton yourself. His phone number is on his website". So he did. And Stanton answered his phone and said that there was a large bibliography in the back of the book he referenced. Satisfied with So then my coworker says "Oh, by the way, there's a guy here that's a 'true believer' and you know what I bet he would love to talk to you about all kinds of stuff. Here he is." Then he hands me the phone. WHAT?! I admit I was pretty nervous. Stan's like a celebrity to me. So yeah I apologized and chatted briefly with him and he was a very cool fellow. I told him I had a sighting once and that I wrote a short paper about it and he asked me to email it to him and I did and he replied. What an awesome guy!

That's pretty cool. Stanton the man.

Isn't it odd that even the steady work carried out by someone like Friedman hasn't made as much as a dent in the public awareness of UFOs? What does it actually take, I wonder. UFOs dropping green goo onto the White House? Aliens in space suits serving burgers at MD?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

That's pretty cool. Stanton the man.

Isn't it odd that even the steady work carried out by someone like Friedman hasn't made as much as a dent in the public awareness of UFOs? What does it actually take, I wonder. UFOs dropping green goo onto the White House? Aliens in space suits serving burgers at MD?

Most want a landing at the White House, alien body, or good piece of wreckage.

 

[Ankhes]

I am watching Friedman on television right now on some Travel Channel program. I know that I have to get over my impression of him. I can't quite put my finger on why; but I don't care for him. All I can say is that he comes off as a pompous jerk in my opinion. I know that I am probably wrong, as many other people like and respect him. Maybe I am just not seeing him at his speaking best. Or maybe his eyebrows just look silly to me...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I am watching Friedman on television right now on some Travel Channel program. I know that I have to get over my impression of him. I can't quite put my finger on why; but I don't care for him. All I can say is that he comes off as a pompous jerk in my opinion. I know that I am probably wrong, as many other people like and respect him. Maybe I am just not seeing him at his speaking best. Or maybe his eyebrows just look silly to me...

Yes, maybe the eyebrows. I've known Stan off and on for a number of years, and, while I don't always agree with him, he seems to be honest in what he believes.

My biggest criticism is that he seems to have -- like Major Donald E. Keyhoe before him -- arrived at his conclusions about UFO reality early on. That's a good or a bad thing, depending on your point of view.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I am watching Friedman on television right now on some Travel Channel program. I know that I have to get over my impression of him. I can't quite put my finger on why; but I don't care for him. All I can say is that he comes off as a pompous jerk in my opinion. I know that I am probably wrong, as many other people like and respect him. Maybe I am just not seeing him at his speaking best. Or maybe his eyebrows just look silly to me...

I can see how one could interpret him in such a way.

 

[musictomyears]

My biggest criticism is that he seems to have -- like Major Donald E. Keyhoe before him -- arrived at his conclusions about UFO reality early on. That's a good or a bad thing, depending on your point of view.

That's a curious statement. Would you care to expand a bit?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

That's a curious statement. Would you care to expand a bit?

Both came to an early conclusion that UFOs must be extraterrestrial, since they are not ours. On The Paracast, we have also explored other possibilities. I'll expand more on this when I have extra time, which I don't now. But I think you can get the picture from what I've been saying on the show.

 

[Farside]

I am watching Friedman on television right now on some Travel Channel program. I know that I have to get over my impression of him. I can't quite put my finger on why; but I don't care for him. All I can say is that he comes off as a pompous jerk in my opinion. I know that I am probably wrong, as many other people like and respect him. Maybe I am just not seeing him at his speaking best. Or maybe his eyebrows just look silly to me...

I think he is one of the best UFO investigators to date, he is a high ranking one anyway , that is a figure head. He knows science, he looks at stuff with a critical eye, his theories are based with in the known(unlike the star child and The Science of Extraterrestrials) some times wrong, but we are not perfect.

 

[musictomyears]

Both came to an early conclusion that UFOs must be extraterrestrial, since they are not ours. On The Paracast, we have also explored other possibilities. I'll expand more on this when I have extra time, which I don't now. But I think you can get the picture from what I've been saying on the show.

I thought I understood your meaning, just wanted to make sure I did. I would be interested to know where you see yourself in this discussion (if you want to say).

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I thought there would be some kind of consensus by now, in Ufology, that UFOs and alien encounters can be all sorts of things: Anything from delusions to governmental black-ops, disinformation, honest errors of perception and interpretation of real events, dreams, OBEs, secret military craft... and finally, evidence for alien life-forms, some of which might be living right here on Earth. Then there is the possibility of inter-dimensional travel and shape-shifting. I fail to see why these possibilities should necessarily exclude each other..?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I thought I understood your meaning, just wanted to make sure I did. I would be interested to know where you see yourself in this discussion (if you want to say).

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I thought there would be some kind of consensus by now, in Ufology, that UFOs and alien encounters can be all sorts of things: Anything from delusions to governmental black-ops, disinformation, honest errors of perception and interpretation of real events, dreams, OBEs, secret military craft... and finally, evidence for alien life-forms, some of which might be living right here on Earth. Then there is the possibility of inter-dimensional travel and shape-shifting. I fail to see why these possibilities should necessarily exclude each other..?

I just think that we can speculate in lots of ways, but hard evidence pointing to any extraordinary theory is still lacking. The UFO field is a mess, and has been a mess for decades. Rather than just cataloging sightings, which often don't produce anything more than the previous batch, UFO investigators need to shed their beliefs and start looking at the evidence in a more concentrated fashion to see where the truth lies.

Assuming we can ever know that truth, and that can start a whole other discussion.

 

[musictomyears]

I just think that we can speculate in lots of ways, but hard evidence pointing to any extraordinary theory is still lacking. The UFO field is a mess, and has been a mess for decades. Rather than just cataloging sightings, which often don't produce anything more than the previous batch, UFO investigators need to shed their beliefs and start looking at the evidence in a more concentrated fashion to see where the truth lies.

Assuming we can ever know that truth, and that can start a whole other discussion.

I see. So, when you say "UFO investigators need to shed their beliefs and start looking at the evidence in a more concentrated fashion", do you have a certain procedure in mind, which could bring this about? What else could be done, apart from reporting lights in the sky, or highly personal abduction experiences? How do we blend it all together, and catalogue the data in a meaningful way? It seems a monumental task, and too big for one individual, for sure.

I agree with you, perception and what you call "beliefs" are a major stumbling block - everybody seems to nurture their pet theory concerning the origins and significance of the UFO phenomenon. Sometimes one could think that researchers talk about entirely different kinds of events and situations, when, in reality, it is only the different flavours of methodologies and terminology that result in producing many of the variables.

I was reminded of this again, when I read through the "Journal of Abduction Encounter Research". Mogwa posted a link to it in the thread "This is worth a download". For example: While some interpret the situation of an abductee floating through walls or windows as an Out-Of-Body Experience - in the spiritualist sense - others see it as evidence for advanced technology on the part of the aliens, which allows them to dematerialise a person and "beam him up".

You ask, "can we ever know that truth", the whole truth behind such confusing accounts and data? Perhaps we are approaching the limits of human understanding.

From my own observation, I have been feeling for a while that it is simply not possible to successfully squeeze the UFO phenomenon into a neat little box, and say: "Hey, we've got it now, that's what it is. We know the answer". If we ever arrive at an answer, I am sure it will be a very complex one.

The biggest problem I can see is the inevitably limited mindset of the experiencer, and the researcher. I have observed, time and time again, that people will try to interpret an encounter in one particular way only, almost regardless of the evidence. There are certain archetypes:

Some see UFOs as nothing but nuts-and-bolts craft, which they expect to originate from a particular planet, in a particular solar system. They balk at any suggestion that there might be an ethereal, spiritual component to the phenomenon, since they see no need for such a component. Furthermore, they are afraid that by even talking about something considered metaphysical, their credibility might be undermined.

Then there is the opposite extreme: You meet people who relate to aliens in a mystical fashion. They read reams of books about channelling, and they will claim that aliens originate from our future, or from a parallel universe, or from the mass-subconscious... Yet, they have little interest in nuts-and-bolts craft, and can even appear disturbed by the concept.

You see what I mean? And there are more archetypes I didn't mention (how about "Aliens are demons", or "It's the government, pointing secret ray guns at people").

I have come to the conclusion that most of these seemingly disconnected, if not paradox or illogical aspects, are part of the phenomenon, and need to be respected and investigated, if we can ever hope to get to the bottom of this. Otherwise, the "nuts-and-bolters" will forever be dissatisfied with their findings, and so will be the "channellers", or any other type of researcher.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Both came to an early conclusion that UFOs must be extraterrestrial, since they are not ours. On The Paracast, we have also explored other possibilities. I'll expand more on this when I have extra time, which I don't now. But I think you can get the picture from what I've been saying on the show.

Paul Kimball told you Stan's take on the matter last he was on, and how people get the wrong impression of Stan. I sent you in a quote by Friedman that indicated Stan's take too. He thinks they aren't us from the here and now when asked to get more specific, or someone complains about them being ETs.

Or, he at least thinks SOME are et. Some may be other things. He is more interested in the nuts and bolts aspect though, and the et possibility so he focuses on that end more. If you have him on again, talk with him about it. He's more open than people give him credit for.

 

[Miah]

I consider Stanton Friedman the best of the best in UFOlogy for many reasons. Always scientific and hands-on in researching.

The only thing I wonder is why he doesn't do more to help disclosure in the way of organizing people together. He seems to be missing a proactive stance, happy to sit back and talk and see what happens.

I also think he may be wrong on his totally debunking Bob Lazar. Go ahead, commence flaming.