Stanton T. Friedman

[Gene Steinberg]

Perhaps Gene and David can get someone from the SETI project on the paracast and ask them why they aren't looking at UFO cases, why they aren't talking to the Disclosure Project, why they aren't requesting classified UFO documents and why they think their way has the best chance of find ETI.

In the recent past I've become less interested in the specific UFO cases and more interested in the motives of groups and individuals who appear to be denying even the possibility that UFOs could be ET craft.

We're looking into a number of possibilities for guests, and there's so much we haven't even begun to explore.

 

[Rick Deckard]

We're looking into a number of possibilities for guests, and there's so much we haven't even begun to explore.

Cool - perhaps you could put aside a couple of minutes in each show to ask guests questions raised on the forum?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Cool - perhaps you could put aside a couple of minutes in each show to ask guests questions raised on the forum?

That's a possibility. Problem is that we often get a guest with little lead time, so we don't have a chance to actually grab questions, although we try.

However, I can give you a heads-up that we have Loren Coleman scheduled for a taping towards the end of the month, if anyone has some questions, now's the time to post them

 

[Rick Deckard]

However, I can give you a heads-up that we have Loren Coleman scheduled for a taping towards the end of the month, if anyone has some questions, now's the time to post them

Oh okay - thanks.

Unfortunately, cryptozoology is not my 'thing' so I haven't got any questions for Loren - but I will still listen to the show anyway and look out for UFO-related guests in future.

Cheers.

 

[meciar]

Perhaps Gene and David can get someone from the SETI project on the paracast and ask them why they aren't looking at UFO cases, why they aren't talking to the Disclosure Project, why they aren't requesting classified UFO documents and why they think their way has the best chance of find ETI.

In the recent past I've become less interested in the specific UFO cases and more interested in the motives of groups and individuals who appear to be denying even the possibility that UFOs could be ET craft.

I would love to hear a show like this. I really like to hear the perspectives people have on both sides of the ET field. The SETI program being very accepted by most people as legitimate and the SERPO project sort of being on the other extreme.

 

[Rick Deckard]

BTW, I have tried to the find the document entitled "Why the SETI Institute does no UFO Research" on the site - it isn't there. If someone has a link to the document, I'd be interested to read it.

Okay, I'm replying to myself here - I couldn't find that document on SETIs site, so I went to The Internet Archive and was pleasantly surprised to find it archived:

Archived Page

Why the SETI Institute Does No UFO Research

The SETI Institute's Project Phoenix searches for scientific evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Investigations of UFO sightings or alien abductions are not conducted at the SETI Institute.

A practical reason for this is that the distance to the star nearest to our own is over 4 light years. That's about 24 trillion (24,000,000,000,000) miles away. With our current rocket technology, it would take around 300,000 years to travel there. This poses a daunting engineering problem even for a more advanced civilization.

In addition to the unlikelihood that we have been visited by extraterrestrials, there is no scientific evidence to prove it. Personal accounts are not physical or verifiable evidence. These reasons are sufficient to exclude UFO's from the research objectives of the SETI Institute. Anyone interested in contacting organizations that do investigate UFO's and other paranormal phemomena can refer to the following:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal)
P.O. Box 229
Central Park Station Buffalo, NY 14215

CSICOP investigates anomalous phenomena, including UFO reports. Open to scholars and the general public.
Society for Scientific Exploration
Department of Astronomy
University of Virginia, Box 3818
Charlottesville, VA 22903

SSE provides a forum for the discussion of anomalous phenomena. Full and student memberships are available.
CUFOS (Center for UFO Research)
2457 W. Peterson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60659
MUFON (Mutual UFO Network, Inc.)
103 Oldetowne Road
Seguin, TX 78155
E-mail: mufonhq@aol.com

I was expecting something a little more in-depth than that. They're basically saying "It's such a long way, it would take a long time to get here", which is the age-old flawed argument which says "if we can't do it, then they can't do it". Pathetic.

Like I said earlier, SETI WILL NOT find ETIs because they are NOT seriously looking for them.

 

[Rob]

BTW, I have tried to the find the document entitled "Why the SETI Institute does no UFO Research" on the site - it isn't there. If someone has a link to the document, I'd be interested to read it.

Okay, I'm replying to myself here - I couldn't find that document on SETIs site, so I went to The Internet Archive and was pleasantly surprised to find it archived:

Archived Page

Why the SETI Institute Does No UFO Research

The SETI Institute's Project Phoenix searches for scientific evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Investigations of UFO sightings or alien abductions are not conducted at the SETI Institute.

A practical reason for this is that the distance to the star nearest to our own is over 4 light years. That's about 24 trillion (24,000,000,000,000) miles away. With our current rocket technology, it would take around 300,000 years to travel there. This poses a daunting engineering problem even for a more advanced civilization.

In addition to the unlikelihood that we have been visited by extraterrestrials, there is no scientific evidence to prove it. Personal accounts are not physical or verifiable evidence. These reasons are sufficient to exclude UFO's from the research objectives of the SETI Institute. Anyone interested in contacting organizations that do investigate UFO's and other paranormal phemomena can refer to the following:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal)
P.O. Box 229
Central Park Station Buffalo, NY 14215

CSICOP investigates anomalous phenomena, including UFO reports. Open to scholars and the general public.
Society for Scientific Exploration
Department of Astronomy
University of Virginia, Box 3818
Charlottesville, VA 22903

SSE provides a forum for the discussion of anomalous phenomena. Full and student memberships are available.
CUFOS (Center for UFO Research)
2457 W. Peterson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60659
MUFON (Mutual UFO Network, Inc.)
103 Oldetowne Road
Seguin, TX 78155
E-mail: mufonhq@aol.com

I was expecting something a little more in-depth than that. They're basically saying "It's such a long way, it would take a long time to get here", which is the age-old flawed argument which says "if we can't do it, then they can't do it". Pathetic.

Like I said earlier, SETI WILL NOT find ETIs because they are NOT seriously looking for them.

What exactly would a more 'serious' search effort be? Are you implying that they would be better off spending their resources on building the technology that can actually go to a star 4 light years away?

Whatever you think of their techniques or methods, I don't see why you have a problem with what they actually are doing.

 

[Frozen E.T. Burrito]

What exactly would a more 'serious' search effort be?

For one thing they could broaden their search tech beyond common radio frequencies... another major instance of them holding E.T. to our limits.

 

[spookyparadigm]

I'd be curious to hear what David Biedny would ask a SETI researcher. Especially in the last few months, the show has not rejected the ETH, but I think it is fair to say that isn't a frontrunner on the show at this point. So it becomes something of an apples and oranges question. It might be fun to have a show on oranges.

Back on topic, I'll say this about Friedman. I think the cases he is most interested in (Roswell/MAJIC) are very interesting - as social history and politics, but I don't think there is anything non-human about them. Which means that I don't see the great love for his primary work. He did uncover Menzel's involvement with NSA, which is a good thing, again even if you approach this all from a historical/political perspective.

I want to read the new book on Betty and Barney Hill. Not Friedman's, but the Encounter at Indian Head (title?) one, that brings together various viewpoints, before I give an opinion on his involvement in that case.

All that said, Friedman comes across as a showman and yes promoter (as per the much criticized ABC special) on television and in his lectures. From having seen him inordinate times on TV, and seeing his lecture in Roswell in 2002, I was convinced that maybe he wasn't a conman, but that he wasn't being fully honest.

But my opinion of him changed after I had a conversation with him. He randomly sat down next to me in a restaurant after the Roswell fest, and after I introduced myself, we talked for about an hour. I made it clear that I'm fairly skeptical of a lot of things UFO, but also that I was interested, and that my background was in something else (archaeology and anthropology). We had a good conversation, he tried to get me to understand the POV of how difficult it would be to detect remnants of civilizations from millions of years ago (I'm not sure I agree, but it is a legitimate question that isn't easy to answer).

But overall, the thing I came away with was that Friedman is not a fakir, he does really have an interest in this stuff beyond just presenting it, and does want to intelligently follow it up. Doesn't mean I think he's right, but my mind did change on him. I think the fact that he does do a "spiel" ad nauseum as part of his employment has made his presentation look too slick and pat, and therefore somewhat disgenuous. It is something I've noticed in my own work, that I teach better when I have to improvise, it seems more real.

 

[Gil Bavel]

But overall, the thing I came away with was that Friedman is not a fakir, he does really have an interest in this stuff beyond just presenting it, and does want to intelligently follow it up. Doesn't mean I think he's right, but my mind did change on him. I think the fact that he does do a "spiel" ad nauseum as part of his employment has made his presentation look too slick and pat, and therefore somewhat disgenuous. It is something I've noticed in my own work, that I teach better when I have to improvise, it seems more real.

The reason that it seems like he does a spiel is that he does. He recites the same dry, raw data over and over again.

The reason that he does this is the same reason that advertising agencies repeat brand names over and over again--they have to break through the fog of everything else that's out there.

You're paying attention to Stan.

Most people that he's trying to reach (say, on TV), aren't. They only hear the speil once. So if you're into UFOs, or Stanton Friedman, then you're going to get... the Bonus Plan.

When you see one of his lectures, he does two hours, then there's an intermission, then he does another hour, then there's a Q&A that usually lasts an hour by itself.

Yes, he says the same old stuff all the time.

He has mellowed quite a bit, however, and changed his viewpoint on many things over the years. His "grey box" is sill there, but he's moved some stuff out of it, and put some other stuff into it.

I know that doesn't sound like much, but trust me, it is.

 

[Gil Bavel]

Oh, and by the way, I think you meant "faker". One thing Stanton Friedman doesn't do is charm snakes out of baskets.