• 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!

Upcoming interview with Stanton Freidman

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

mikec

mikec

Skilled Investigator
ATTN : DAVID B.
============

I heard that there will soon be another PARACAST interview with Stanton Freidman.

Now, I've heard David give Stan a hard time about his avoidance of anything that didn't fit his preconceived ideas about UFO's and the extra dimensional aspect of this very weird phenomenon.

Personally - I really like Stan, he's an amazing hard working guy - and a charming speaker, I'm super engaged whenever I hear him speak. Stan is the ultimate nuts and bolts guy. And - true enough - he did kind of act dismissive when confronted with questions that didn't fit his framework.

Stan is just too good (and too important) as a researcher to "push away"

I encourage you (David) to try and go into this with a different tact.

From my conflicted point of view, I constantly wrestle with the paradox of ETH or Extra-Dimensional? Is it "EITHER / OR?" Is that too simplistic?

I suspect it's Probably a lot more complicated than that. It feels like it's "BOTH / AND" rather than "EITHER / OR"


- also -

There was a wonderful little segment with AJ Grivard (from a while back) and he responded to David's frustration with Stanton's refusal to deal with certain inquiry. AJ replied in a very sweet way, he talked so kindly about the role of that Stanton plays in the big picture. He talked about puzzle pieces, and how each researcher brings a tiny piece to the big picture. It was a very insightful analogy.

My small bit of advice - - - Try and get Stanton to talk about the strange paranormal aspects. I am certian he will reply with good insights if it is "framed" in a way that engages him. He's really good at speculating.

David - you're a smart guy, you should be able to pull this off.


I'll add that I once asked Stanton (on a chat forum thru the Unknown Country site) the exact same question: "What about all the strange paranormal aspects?"

He replied: "That's something that needs to be investigated. Edgar Mitchell is someone that's raising good questions."

(the above was paraphrased from memory)



peace,
Mike C!




(also - did I mis-spell some names?)
___________
 
I just found the quote I referenced in the posting above.
Here it is:




mikec (question) :

Hello Stanton - You have achieved a sort of mastery as far as digging up
very pragmatic information (like documents and doing very thorough
research). The UFO phenomenon has a side to it where abducties will
change (sometimes) as part of their experience, and they will become
more spiritual and more insightful. How do you balance these "mystical"
new-age experiences with your hard research?


stanton friedman (reply) :

I think they are very important.There is a whole world we seem to be reluctant to explore. Need speciaists at both. Look at Dr. Edgar Mitchell..
 
I've seen Stan be open to time traveler and interdimensional being theories in regards to ufo occupants. He thinks they "aren't us from the here and now" which is a quote from an interview that pushed the issue.

Paul Kimball who's related to Stan can give insight into Stan's stance. Maybe he'll chime in.
 
I will be nice to move on from the silliness that was Greer ( Which I enjoyed very much. :) )To the intelligence of Mr. Freidman .
 
(as I continue today's batch of forum replies ...)

The several times Stan has been on, I get the impression that when Dave gives him a hard time about clinging to ETH or whatever, it's in an amicable spirit but with a certain degree of "Aww, Stan, you know better than that".

Stan's obviously a smart guy; he appreciates the value of evidence, he appreciates possibilities. But I suspect that like the best of us he gets a little bit of tunnel vision about the things that interest us the most.

Stan's background is in nuclear physics technologies, so he's interested in nuts and bolts because OH MAN a spaceship would be incredible for his work. Someone with an interest in occult and spiritual things is more likely to reject nuts and bolts cases in favor of the more "high strangeness" ones, like say the Andreasson case. It's only natural, but it's a tendency that it's good to "poke" at to make sure we don't close ourselves to alternatives.

--Shawn
 
I first saw Mr. Freidman on TV in the Eighties; he was a featured commentator on a show about UFO's. I think it was an HBO special or something like that. I also catch him frequently on C2C - he's very entertaining to listen to. To me, he represents what I think of as classic ufology.

Unfortunantely, it seems like ufology hasn't done much in the past twenty years. And for god's sake I wish he'd forget the whole Roswell NM thing; it's been explained already. Besides, if you want UFO crashes, there's a dozen better ones to look at, IMO. But then again, I guess it's pretty hard to give up on a conspiracy theory that he wrote a best-selling book about.
 
Back
Top