Join Free! | Login    
   Popular! Books, Stories, Articles, Poetry
Where Authors and Readers come together!


Featured Authors:  Tobias Roote, iGraham whittaker, iMary Ann Barrucco, iJill Eisnaugle, iIan Irvine (Hobson), iPier Tyler, iAlfred Garrotto, i

  Home > Science > Articles Popular: Books, Stories, Articles, Poetry     

Michelle M Pillow

· + Follow Me
· Contact Me
· Books
· Articles
· News
· 92 Titles
· Save to My Library
· Share with Friends!
Member Since: Feb, 2006

Michelle M Pillow, click here to update your pages on AuthorsDen.

Featured Book
Sci-Fi Series 1
by Stan Law (aka Stanislaw Kapuscinski)

Anthology: Thirsty Work, The Acorn, Dare, Black Hole ..  
BookAds by Silver
Gold and Platinum Members

Science Was Wrong Interview with Stanton Friedman and Kathleen Marden by Mi
by Michelle M Pillow   
Rated "PG" by the Author.
Last edited: Saturday, September 08, 2012
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012

  Print   Save    Follow    Share 

Recent articles by
Michelle M Pillow

Vivian Arend, Interview by Michelle M. Pillow
Kristen Painter, Author Interview by Michelle M. Pillow
Johanna Garth, Interview by Michelle M. Pillow
Paranormal fiction author Caridad Pineiro, Interview by Michelle M. Pillow
Parapsychology, Flying Objects and a Hanging Ghost: A Conversation with Dr.
Ghost Hunters: WPRS Interview
Interview, Producer/Director Suzanne Taylor by Michelle M. Pillow
           >> View all

Science Was Wrong Interview with Stanton Friedman and Kathleen Marden by Michelle M. Pillow (Originally published in Paranormal Underground Magazine)

Interview with authors Stanton T. Friedman, MSC and Kathleen Marden
by Michelle M. Pillow,

I have often noticed that there seems to be, at least in recent years, a real focus on approaching paranormal subjects with a scientific mind. The word “science” and “scientific evidence” gets thrown around a lot, as if calling it such will suddenly add validity to what is being said. However, I have to wonder exactly what is going on in the scientific community as far as the paranormal is concerned. Since I’m hardly a scientist, I figured it would be best to seek out some experts on the subject and probe their brains. The most logical place to start was with the authors of Science Was Wrong and try to understand their views on how, historically speaking, science has led us astray in the paranormal fields.

Social scientist and educator, Kathleen Marden, has served as its International Director of Field Investigator Training for ten years, and is highly involved with the Mutual UFO Network ( She’s lectured extensively on the subjects and is a UFO abduction investigator and researcher. Twenty years ago she quit her job and became a full-time ufologist and writer. She’s written several magazine articles and is the coauthor (along with Stanton Friedman) of the books Science Was Wrong and Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience, the latter of which tells the story of her aunt and uncle.

Nuclear physicist Stanton T. Friedman MSC has lectured all over the US and other countries at more than six-hundred colleges. He has worked at classified R and D programs for such companies as GE, GM, Westinghouse, Aerojet General Nucleonics, McDonnell Douglas and TRW, where the objectives were fission and fusion rockets, nuclear airplanes, nuclear power plants for space and terrestrial applications. Stanton is also a columnist for the MUFON Journal and for UFO magazine.

Kathleen and Stanton’s coauthored book, Science Was Wrong, released in June 2010 and can be purchased at as well as other major bookstores. I would like to thank them for taking the time out of their busy schedules to talk about their latest work.

* * * * *

In your book, Science Was Wrong, you examine scientific history. What inspired you to write about this?

Kathleen:Stan presented his fabulous idea to me and I, being naturally curious, was intrigued about researching a variety of topics. It would be a great learning experience. I suggested a section called the “Frontiers of Science” in order to demonstrate that, despite the evidence, psi phenomena and UFOs have not gained mainstream scientific acceptance just like so many discoveries in the past. And just as occurred in the past, both topics are misrepresented on a regular basis by a small group of vocal debunkers.

Stanton: I had already found many false claims by credentialed scientists about UFOs, Flight in the atmosphere, Space Flight, supposed absence of evidence re UFOs. It seemed clear that such claims were very common and, upon, examination had serious consequences with regard to people’s health and technological progress.

Why do you think readers, and society in general, are fascinated by the paranormal?

Kathleen: These are areas of study that science has not yet officially accepted as being real, although most of people think they are. I think that the challenge of investigating the evidence is tantalizing.

Stanton: Many know somebody who has had what might be described as a paranormal experience but rarely are taken seriously. Nowhere to turn but to books, movies etc since professional scientists usually just brush the topics off. They want rational answers.

What are your favorite paranormal shows, movies and books?

Kathleen:UFO Hunters, The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin, Ph.D., Firestorm by Ann Druffel, Messages by Stan Romanek, UFOs and Abductions edited by David Jacobs, Ph.D., Encounter at Bluff Ledge by Walter Webb, Intruders by Budd Hopkins and the peer reviewed journals that publish abduction research information. I also think that telepathy is real and that some medical intuitives have an uncanny ability to detect physiological problems inside the human body.

Stanton likes Travis Walton’s Fire in the Sky, Dr. Bruce Maccabee’s UFO books, and Jerry Clark’s encyclopedia.

Do you believe in the supernatural? Or are you a skeptic?

Kathleen:I am a rational skeptic who believes that some UFOs and UFO abductions are real. Stanton is skeptical about many things but refuses to come to a conclusion until having studied relevant data. He maintains a large “Gray basket” for topics about which there is too little solid data to reach a rational conclusion. He believes that Chocolate tastes better than vanilla, that classical music sounds better than rock.

Have you ever had a paranormal experience?

Kathleen:If you categorize a close encounter with a UFO as paranormal, then yes I have. The multiple witness sightings occurred on February 22, 1966 when I was 17. My aunt, Betty Hill, my mother, grandmother, brother and a family friend had a close encounter with a disk-shaped unconventional craft for at least 60 minutes over Country Pond in Newton, NH. It traveled in stair-step and falling leaf patterns, swayed back and forth in a pendulum motion and wobbled before it went down and appeared to land. It then projected a telescoping funnel like spotlight upon my mother. That was just before we hightailed it home. You can read the full account in Captured! Chapter 19.

Stanton has not had any paranormal experiences so far as he can recall.

What kind of paranormal creatures do you wish you could meet?

Kathleen: I’d like to meet a cooperative team of alien scientists (on my own terms) who can explain to me where their home base is; why they are coming to Earth; why they are abducting humans; what they know about Earth’s history; how their religion (if they have one) differs from ours; what their planet’s environment is like; what their cultural, moral and ethical values are; and whatever I can comprehend about their technology; etc, etc. A very tall order! Stanton would like to attend those meetings and also find out about such things as memory suppression; passage through “solid walls” how they have learned to live at peace with their neighbors. If they haven’t they would have been destroyed already

If given the chance, would you leave with an alien spaceship?

Kathleen:Only if it were for a short excursion around the Earth and perhaps to Mars. Of course, I would insist upon retaining full conscious recollection of the event. I have close ties with friends and family here on Earth, along with seven precious grandchildren. I’d never willingly leave for good because I love my life on Earth.

Stanton: Yes, if I could be sure of returning with memory intact and new knowledge about intelligent beings in the local neighborhood.

What does the future hold for your work?

Kathleen: I’m considering the idea of writing either a fiction of non-fiction book on what I know about alien abductions. Also, Stan and I have been talking about collaborating on another book when time permits. Stan and I have also optioned the rights to our book, Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience. We are hoping that it will be made into a motion picture.

Stanton: Rights to my life story and to my book TOP SECRET/MAJIC have been optioned by Stellar Productions for a movie “Majic Men”. I would like to do a book with Kathleen and also a biography about Dr. Donald Menzel an astronomer who led a double life debunking UFOs and being part of a secret group “Operation Majestic 12” knowing a great deal about their reality.

Have you ever been abducted by aliens?

Kathleen: If I have, they wiped out my memory. (grin).

Stanton: Not so far as I know.


Part 2: In depth with Kathleen Marden

Kathleen, your book is titled Science Was Wrong. Yet it is obvious that both of you hold the scientific community in very high esteem. Was science wrong or was it related more to personal bias on the part of some scientists?

Kathleen: Science Was Wrong informs readers that throughout history it has been difficult, if not impossible, to promote the acceptance of new discoveries. Today it is apparent that similar forces are engaging in ad hominem attacks against some leading edge scientists, disseminating fabrications and misrepresenting factual information. Each chapter in our book explores the causative factors behind the scientific bias and tunnel vision that have impeded scientific progress. We present example after example of the failure of science to make progress, not because the science was flawed, but as a result of human bias.

Why do you think it is so difficult to advance new sound scientific ideas and discoveries?

Kathleen: I think that there are several reasons. First, scientific methodology is naturally conservative and in a sense this is good. But it is extremely difficult for scientists to admit that their life’s work was wrong. Imagine that you are a an academic scientist who has spent your entire career as the proponent of a particular theory only to have a young upstart come along with conclusive evidence that effectively refuted and therefore nullified everything you had accomplished.

Second, we should consider Occams Razor, the theoretical construct that demands that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. According to Popper, we prefer simpler theories to more complex ones “because their empirical content is greater; and because they are better testable”. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often give way to more complex explanations as new data become available. Most of the time, Occam’s razor is a conservative tool that assures hypotheses are grounded in the science of the day. However, it has not been useful to science in its failure to accept some scientific evidence such as meteorites, continental drift, and the idea that genetic information is carried in DNA, not proteins. This also applies to telepathy and UFOs.

Next, I want to mention the difficulty scientists experience in having their sound scientific ideas and discoveries published in prestigious peer reviewed journals. The scientists who control the flow of information usually adhere to existing theories and reject new ideas. For example, R. Leo Sprinkle, Ph.D., formerly a psychologist at the University of Wyoming, spent much of his career researching UFO abductions. He met the university’s publishing requirement, but couldn’t advance in his career because the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals wouldn’t publish his work.

As noted in Science Was Wrong, Luc Montagnier, a researcher from the Louis Pasteur Institute, had already submitted a professional research article about his work on the HIV virus to Nature but he was not successful in getting it published. These findings were only published after Robert Gallo from the National Cancer Institute agreed to submit the Pasteur team’s research findings to Science magazine, along with his own.

Finally, human motivations such as big egos, greed, power grabbing, politics, religious beliefs, and the denial that it was possible get in the way of good science.

Your book has a chapter titled “Politics, Personalities and Childbed fever”. Tell us a little bit about childbed fever and why you wrote about it.

Kathleen: Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818-1865) grew up in Pest in Hungary and graduated from medical school in Vienna. After graduating he found a position teaching medical students at the Vienna General Hospital. The birthing ward at Vienna General Hospital was the largest in Europe when it was divided into two units: one for teaching medical students and the other for midwives. Although the midwifery unit averaged a 2% mortality rate from childbed fever, the obstetrical unit that taught from cadavers instead of wooden models, averaged 20%, and ran even higher during epidemic periods. Sometimes entire rows of women and infants died.

Childbed fever is caused by sepsis, but during Semmelweis’s time bacteria hadn’t been discovered. It occurred up to two weeks after childbirth, typically in the uterus or genital tract, and became a systemic infection within hours. I know that it sounds gruesome, but Semmelweis instructed his students in the autopsy room mornings where they dissected the bodies of the women and infants who had succumbed to childbed fever the previous day. As ridiculous as it seems in modern times, sanitation was limited to wiping one’s bloody hands on a filthy apron before proceeding to the obstetrical unit in the afternoon. Laboring and postpartum women were subjected to several intrusive exams by several medical students who were often inexperienced and tore their delicate tissues. You can understand how easily the contaminated matter could be transferred from the medical students’ hands to the laboring women.

Quite by accident, one of Semmelweis’s colleagues had pricked his finger on an infected scalpel during an autopsy. He subsequently developed the symptoms of childbed fever and died. Semmelweis realized that contaminants carried on the hands of his students that were intended to heal these women were actually killing them. In May 1847, he introduced hand washing into the obstetrical unit using a chlorinated lime solution and a nail brush prior to each student’s entry into Division I. Over time, he carefully recorded scientific data that clearly demonstrated a reduction in the mortality rate in the obstetrical unit. He even conducted laboratory experiments on rabbits that clearly supported his hypothesis. However, his actions were interpreted as insubordination by his supervisor who was grounded in the zeitgeist of the old guard. Instead of being rewarded for his significant discovery, he was relieved of his duties.

The tragedy is that although Semmelweis was right, his ideas were generally scoffed at during his entire lifetime. He endured personal attacks by his adversaries throughout Europe who flat out lied about his theory and findings because they were personally invested in promoting their own miasma, milk metastasis and emotional distress theories.

“The Hemophilia Holocaust” sounds ominous. What caused the holocaust among hemophiliacs?

Kathleen: First, let me say that hemophilia is a genetic disorder in which blood fails to clot normally due to a deficiency in clotting Factor VIII. Drug companies developed sophisticated chemical processing techniques to extract the Factor VIII from blood and to process it in large batches—up to 20,000 units of blood produced a powder which had a high concentration of Factor VIII. The problem occurred when the blood supply became contaminated with HIV and the pharmaceutical companies and blood banks reassured users that the chance of contracting the virus was only one in a million. The tragedy is that another drug and been developed and heat treating showed promise, but they were both rejected by the pharmaceutical companies. In the end, 90% of Factor VIII concentrate users became HIV positive. Various factors were responsible for spreading the disease to the hemophilia community including political correctness, denial and disbelief, incorrect assumptions by the medical establishment, political posturing and greed.

You seem particularly passionate in your chapter titled “The Eugenics Movement in America”. When did you first learn about this movement and do you have a personal story to tell about it?

Kathleen: Forced sterilization of the developmentally disabled and convicted criminals was still being debated in sociology and genetics classes when I was a college student in the mid to late 1960s. Had the Eugenics Movement succeeded, I might have been sterilized because one of my cousin’s is deaf. Also, my brilliant Jewish coauthor would probably have been exterminated.

You touched briefly upon the story of Carrie Buck describing her as a victim of the Eugenics Movement. Who is Carrie Buck and what is her story?

Kathleen: Harry Laughlin, one of the leading figures in the Eugenics Movement, wrote the “Model Sterilization Act” which served as a mock-up for Virginia’s 1924 “Eugenical Sterilization Act” to legalize compulsory sterilizations of “defective persons”. Later that year, the statute went before the court in the famous test case Buck versus Bell, and finally on to the U.S. Supreme Court which passed it.

Carrie Buck was the daughter of a woman whose husband had died and who attempted to support her family through prostitution. Carrie was placed in foster care and her mother was institutionalized at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded in Lynchburg, Virginia. Carrie had been raped by her foster parents’ nephew and gave birth to an illegitimate child. For this she was declared feebleminded and the potential parent of socially inadequate offspring in what can only be described as a sham trial. Her fate was sealed on May 2, 1927, when US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes delivered the Supreme Court’s decision: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Later, evidence confirmed that Carrie and her daughter were of normal intelligence.

You devote a chapter to Methyl‐Mercury in the Food Chain. What is methyl‐mercury and how does it differ from mercury? What causes methyl‐mercury contamination and why is it dangerous?

Kathleen: Methylmercury is an organic form of mercury that arises when inorganic mercury is absorbed by small plants and animals in lakes and streams. At each step up the food chain, it accumulates in greater concentrations. So that predatory fish at the top of the food chain can have dangerously high levels of the neurotoxin, 10,000 to 100,000 times greater than the water.

Virtually every state in the United States is at risk for methyl-mercury toxicity. Chronic mercury exposure can have a serious impact upon fertility and the outcome of pregnancy. It interferes with the part of the brain that controls reproduction and results in menstrual cycle disorders. In men organic mercury can cause low sperm count, minor genetic damage, a reduction in libido and impotence. It has also been linked to an increased level of cardiac arrhythmia and heart disease, autoimmune disorders, kidney disease and liver disease in both men and women. In children it has been linked to neurological disorders such as learning disabilities, and at worst, symptoms similar to Cerebral Palsy.

You wrote a powerful account of the devastating effect of methyl‐mercury contamination in Minamata, Japan. What went wrong and what was the impact?

Kathleen: Minamata disease was the natural consequence of the Chisso Corporation’s policy of dumping mercury into Japan’s Minamata Bay and its tributaries from 1930s to the 1960s. The company denied and covered up its role in causing the disease. To make matters worse, local politicians were in bed with the Chisso Corporation and refused to hold Chisso accountable. First it killed the fish, birds and cats that ate it. Then it started killing young children or terribly maiming them. The neurotoxin caused mental retardation and physical spasticity in children and also affected adults. The official denial went on until 1968—4 months after the Chisso Co. stopped using mercury in its manufacturing process.

Section 5 of your book has three chapters under the heading “Frontiers of Science”. What are the exciting new sciences?

Kathleen: PSI: There is reason to believe that psychic phenomena are real. Independent replication of controlled experiments performed thousands of times by researchers around the world has demonstrated statistical evidence in support of psi phenomena. Although the hit rate in experiments averages only 32 percent, among telepathic people such as psychics, it is 65 percent—pretty amazing despite the strong social prohibition against it by western science. A 1985 meta-analysis of 2,549 ganzfeld telepathy experiments by researchers around the world clearly showed that psi effects do occur in the ganzfeld.

UFOs and UFO Abductions: There is substantial support for the idea that members of the scientific community are refusing to examine UFO evidence for reasons that sometime have to do with the fear of not advancing in one’s career. I think that the scientific establishment is clinging to the zeitgeist of the old guard in order to perpetuate the scientific tenets for which they have been handsomely rewarded. This is blatantly obvious in the infamous “Trick Memo” written by Robert Low, the assistant dean of graduate studies at the University of Colorado and project coordinator for the Condon study of UFOs. He wrote, “In order to undertake such a project, one would have to approach it objectively. That is, one has to admit the possibility that such things as UFOs exist. It is not respectable to give serious consideration to such a possibility…The very act of admitting these possibilities just as possibilities puts us beyond the pale.” Edward Condon, the study’s chairman made the negative pronouncement that “Nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge…we consider it safe to assume that no ILE (intelligent life elsewhere) outside of our solar system has any possibility of visiting Earth in the next 10,000 years.” Subsequently, the National Academy of Science’s issued the statement that “The least likely explanation for UFOs is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations by intelligent beings”. However, the special UFO subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics found that 30 percent of the 117 cases studied in detail could not be identified. The AIAA finding clearly demonstrated Condon and the NAS, of which Condon was a member, were biased in their assessment of the evidence. There is substantial evidence that UFOs are real, and I think it deserves the attention of an unbiased scientific community.

In “Extraordinary Visual Feats: Psi Phenomena” you wrote about the plight of Natasha Demkina. Who is she and what brought her to your attention?

Kathleen: Natasha Demkina is a young Russia medical intuitive who claimed she could “see” the full structure of the human body, including how internal organs are positioned and how they function almost as if she had x-ray eyes. The Discovery Channel produced a television program in 2004 allegedly designed to test Natasha’s paranormal ability in an objective and unbiased manner. They said she would be tested by top scientists, but they were actually three members of the skeptic’s society, CSICOP, now CSI. By all appearances the experiment was designed to increase Natasha’s chances of failure. She complained that she had been forced to perform under conditions that are known to reduce psychic ability. These included stress, fatigue due to jet lag, and hostility from the scientific team, not being able to follow her usual protocols, not being able to use her own interpreter, and having the bar for a passing grade raised above that which is normally accepted by international statistical standards. If the bar had not been raised, she would have passed the test. In the end, several highly respected international scientists and a lawyer defended Natasha’s position. Nobel Prize winning physicist and director of the University of Cambridge’s Mind Matter Unification Project, Brian Josephson, Ph.D. criticized the experimental team’s methodology and questioned its motives.

Is there reason to believe that some psychic phenomena are real?

Kathleen: Yes, as I stated above there is significant scientific evidence that telepathy is real.

Tell me about UFOs and little green men.

Kathleen: I thought they were gray. (grin) Although the “impossibilists” promote the idea that all UFO abductions are attributable to sleep disorders and delusional thinking, there is scientific evidence that some abductions are real. Psychological studies of suspected abductees have demonstrated that those who meet the criteria for having a real abduction are no more fantasy prone than the general population. They also score normal on psychological testing. Studies that limit their participants to self-identified abductees that lack supporting evidence for alien abduction tend to produce results indicating that they score higher than the norm on a variety of personality scales that measure fantasy proneness, dissociation, schizotypy, etc. Many do have sleep anomalies and personality disorders. However, they are in an entirely separate category than those who meet the criteria for alien abduction. In addition to the unbiased psychological study findings, the well investigated accounts of alien abduction provide evidence that some abduction claims have a foundation in reality. Despite the many psychological explanations, some abductions cannot be explained as personality aberrations, psychological abnormalities, hoaxes, sleep anomalies, hypnotic confabulation or misinterpretations. One needs only to read the peer reviewed journal articles. I have written an overview of their findings in Chapter 14 of Science Was Wrong.

Are we being visited by aliens?

Kathleen: One needs only to examine the evidence to be convinced that we are being visited by non-human entities. The greatest challenge for someone who is not a UFO abduction researcher/investigator is in determining what evidence is credible and where to look for it. Unfortunately, the UFO field has been riddled with hoaxes and false claims that tend to confuse. For example, the Betty and Barney Hill UFO abduction case has been terribly misrepresented. An Internet search will produce a plethora of false accounts and outright lies about their experience. They were my aunt and uncle. I have all of their files and evidence and researched/ investigated their experience for fifteen years prior to writing Captured!. I have separated fact from fiction and it is all in Captured!.

Can you sum up why this book is important and tell us how you are taking it to the world?

Kathleen: Science Was Wrong is important because it informs reader that throughout history it has been difficult, if not impossible, to promote the acceptance of new discoveries. It also gives “paranormal category” readers hope that mainstream science will one day accept the evidence that psi phenomena and UFOs are real. I only hope that the average reader will come away with an altered and enlightened perception of how mainstream science works and learn about the scientific evidence that psi phenomena and UFOs are real. I am carrying my message to the public through radio and television programs and speaking engagements. You can find my upcoming appearances on my Web site at


Part 3: In depth with Stanton T. Friedman, MSC

How is Science Was Wrong about UFO’s?

Stanton: I wrote a Chapter dealing with the positive evidence almost always neglected by the debunkers and refuting their false arguments. Kathleen wrote an excellent chapter on the Conundrum of Alien Abduction.

What do you think about Global Warming and Cold Fusion?

Stanton: I have reviewed a great deal of the literature and find enormous bias and selective choice of data on the part of those who claim that “man” is responsible for global warming because of his production of “evil” CO2, and who neglect such important factors as the fact that the most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor NOT CO2 and that the sun varies considerably in its emission of magnetic fields, particulate radiation, plasmas, all having a substantial effect on climate. I have also found that there has been an active effort on the part of the IPCC to suppress opposing viewpoints and data, hardly a scientific process. Variation of weather and climate is much more complex than they have presented.

Cold Fusion has been viciously attacked often by people who haven’t studied the many experiments that reproduce the findings of Drs. Pons and Fleishmann. The evidence is very convincing that some new and exciting processes are occurring

Several of the chapters deal with medical issues such as the Hemophilia Holocaust. Why are they important?

Stanton: When false claims are put forth by smart prominent people they can easily have fatal consequences for the people involved. 10,000 American Hemophiliacs became HIV positive and some of them spread the disease unknowingly to others. Many needless and preventable deaths resulted. Many women and their off spring died needlessly from child bed fever as Semmelweis’s work was ignored. Many people died from smallpox because of resistance to vaccination.

Why is that so many smart people made what turns out to have been such stupid statements?

Stanton: There is often arrogance that goes with high status and a belief that, if the claim being put forth (alien visitation, government cover-ups, the ability to fly in vehicles in the air or in space, new treatment for a disease, etc) were true , that the smart person who believes he or she keeps up with what is important, would have known about it. Therefore, since he doesn’t, it couldn’t be true . The smart person seems to believe he is all knowing and must use his status to prevent thinking people from accepting “impossible” notions, There can’t possibly be evidence to support the “crazy” ideas. If they were true , he would have to admit having been wrong.

Have there really been serious consequences resulting from the Wrong Claims made by Scientists?

Stanton: The development of entire industries such as aviation and space travel were delayed because of foolish resistance. The US lost enormous prestige when the Russians launched the first satellite. Britain paid a high price during the battle of Britain because they didn’t develop jet engines prior to the Germans even though an English patent for one had been granted 6 years earlier than the German one. Big battleships were sunk at Pearl Harbor because the experts knew bombs dropped from an airplane could not sink a ship.

Some have wanted to heavily subsidize at public expense so called renewable energy schemes to avoid so called global warming. As noted above there were many needless deaths and serious illnesses because of resistance to new treatments.

Have you personally encountered many closed minds in the Academic world?

Stanton: I certainly have from professors who couldn’t believe there was evidence for alien visitations, alien abductions, or government cover-ups. I checked many audiences and found that almost none had read any of the large scale scientific UFO studies, or knew anything about how much acceleration people can withstand or that mother nature can provide much of the energy needed (cosmic freeloading) for space travel. Many seemed incredibly ignorant about the enormous amount of important research and development work that goes on outside academia. They think all research is published in the open scientific literature, which is absurd, and have no idea of the huge amounts of money spent in non academic facilities. Lockheed spent $10 Billion in secret to develop the stealth fighter. I have found that almost all know next to nothing about the development of nuclear systems for propulsion of submarines, for aircraft carriers that can operate for 18 years without refueling, fission rockets that produce much more velocity for a rocket than can chemical rockets and that nuclear fusion has been harnessed and could eject particles out the back end of a rocket and having 10 million times as much energy per particle as in a chemical rocket. They seem to be stuck at the level of the Pony Express for the transfer of information rather than at the level of the internet. Nuclear rockets have been tested. On Los Alamos system developed 4400 megawatts, twice the power of Grand Coullee Dam though only7’ in diameter. They seem oblivious to the fact that one H bomb can release as much energy as exploding 10 million tons of TNT.

You spent 14 years working in industry, but have lectured at over 600 colleges and universities. Did you find industry different from academia?

Stanton: Yes, I certainly did. People in industry and the national labs are motivated to make systems meeting a particular objective. They know that technological progress comes from doing things differently in an unpredictable way rather that by extrapolating from the old techniques. The academics are afraid that espousing new ideas might interfere with getting tenure and might lead to ridicule. They want to publish or perish. The industrials see goal achievement as more important and recognize that secrecy may indeed be necessary

Astronomers seem to be a favorite target in Science Was Wrong. Can you give some examples of their being wrong?

Stanton: Dr. Simon Newcombe top US astronomer in the 19th century said man would never fly in a machine. Two months before the Wright Brothers first flight, two British Royal astronomers indicated that space travel was impossible a year before the first satellite was launched. Others said the initial launch weight of a rocket able to get a man to the moon and back would have to have been a million-million tons. His computation was too high by a factor of 300 Million. Another proved it would be impossible to put anything in to orbit. Not enough energy available. Other claimed Mars had always been dry, that Venus was just a tropical paradise that the moon never had any water. That electromagnetic effects were of no significance in the solar system. They were wrong.

Stephen Hawking is one of the best known scientists on the planet. Were his comments in April about aliens another example of astronomers being Wrong?

Stanton: Very definitely. In the first place he knew nothing about alien visitations, behavior, or technology, despite the data that is available. Secondly he drew an analogy between Columbus’ impact on the natives and aliens’ impact on us. Bad analogy. Columbus didn’t have much more technology than the natives. We on the other hand have weapons of mass destruction, techniques for delivering them, many methods for reconnaissance to detect invaders. We have knowledge of nuclear fusion which is how the stars all produce their energy. He also claimed that if anybody came here they would have sent a message first. That is ridiculous. Columbus didn’t send a smoke signal. Our radio technology is less than 150 years old. Anybody coming here is much more advanced than we are and would have developed new techniques totally incompatible with our primitive receiving equipment. Why in the world would aliens send a message using old techniques? I don’t use a slide rule anymore. It is much more likely they are here to make sure we don’t go out there. We are a primitive society whose major activity is tribal warfare. We killed 50 million of our own in WW II.

Why are you better equipped to deal with topics such as space travel than the Professors who claim there is nothing to UFOs or to star travel?

Stanton: I have studied the relevant evidence about both topics. I also worked on many classified projects, so know about security. I have visited 20 archives. I worked on fission and fusion rockets, nuclear airplanes nuclear power plants for space. The professors haven’t studied the relevant data about any of these. I regularly read journals covering these matters. They don’t.

Tell us about space travel and other topics you discuss in Science Was Wrong?

Stanton: I tell the fascinating story of the development of aviation and space travel despite the claims of the noisy negativists that they were both impossible. Supposedly one could not fly faster than the speed of sound; here was no way to provide the energy needed or to withstand high acceleration. The data indicate otherwise

You and the late Carl Sagan were classmates in the physics department at the University of Chicago for 3 years. But you have noted in Science Was Wrong and elsewhere that he was wrong about UFOs, abductions, government cover ups. Why do you suppose that was?

Stanton: He was unwilling to waste his time checking the data; he was unwilling to risk ridicule from academia; he wanted to push SETI rather than evidence for visitations. If aliens are visiting, than listening for radio signals is silly. Maybe one should learn sign language. Of course, since he definitely had a security clearance, he may have been following orders to tamp down interest for national security reasons. Perhaps he replaced Donald Menzel as the chief debunker.

You seem to be an admirer of the late Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky and yet many scientists have heaped ridicule on him.

Stanton: True, Harvard astronomers attacked his books without even reading them. Hardly scientific.

Why do you support many of his views?

Stanton: Because he was far more often correct than wrong. He correctly predicted the surface of Venus would be very hot. He correctly predicted that radiation would be coming from Jupiter and that electromagnetic effects would be important in the solar system. He also had a medical degree which didn’t cut much weight with astronomers and he did find fascinating information in old stories from ancient civilizations. He was a thinker rather than a debunker.

Do you believe that the changes in the energy output of the sun are the real cause of climate change as opposed to the production of evil CO2?

Stanton: Yes, I do. The changes are influenced by the positions of the planets and the sun influences the atmosphere as well. Solar storms and sun spots turn out to be important

Dr. Robert O. Becker is somebody you obviously admire and consider to have been a pioneer in relating the effects of magnetic fields on people including not only treating certain medical conditions, but influencing people’s behavior. Can you give some examples of his work?

Stanton: He was able to demonstrate, after working on limb regeneration in salamanders, that appropriate magnetic fields could enhance healing in human fractures. He collected data showing that changes in the Earth’s electric and magnetic field environment influenced behavior of veterans being admitted to Veteran’s mental hospitals and also influenced behavior in mental wards as observed by neutral nurses. The brain is after all a sophisticated electrical system. He investigated, recorded and evaluated rather than scoffing. He was a real pioneer.

Can you tell us the general rules as you see them for the methods of approach of scientists who try to debunk such topics as UFOs, Cold Fusion, star travel?

Stanton: There are 4 basic rules for the nasty noisy negativists as I call the irrational debunkers:

1. Don’t bother me with the facts my mind is made up.
2. What the public doesn’t know I am not going to tell them
3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is much easier.
4. Do one’s research by proclamation. Investigation is too much trouble and nobody will know the difference


If you would like to read more about Stanton T. Friedman, MSC and Kathleen Marden, or any of their mentioned titles, please visit them on the web at: and

Interview by Michelle M. Pillow,

Web Site: Michelle Pillow, Author Site

Want to review or comment on this article?
Click here to login!

Need a FREE Reader Membership?
Click here for your Membership!

Popular Science Articles
  1. The Speed of Light
  2. Two Degree Global Warming Model Seriously
  3. Phobos-Grunt Re-entry
  4. New Science Perspectives on Ghosts and Oth
  5. The Cylons Cometh: Human-Machine Hybrids a
  6. Predicate of Reality: Wheeler's Paradox Co
  7. My Thoughts About Reality and Fantasy
  8. Finding The Fourth Dimension
  9. The Pi Day of the Century
  10. But Who's Going To Clean The Toilets?