• 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!

A Troubling Observation About UFO Reality

Forums New posts
Trajanus said:
Lol, those who've read Randle's latest writings can discern frustration about Roswell. The case has been mucked up by many phony stories and claims. Same true of UFOlogy in general. But I've never despaired of this field. I strongly suspect even some of the nonsense has a redeeming feature--often it seems a kind of indirect confirmation of the phenomenon. Remember what T. Good once said. :)
Click to expand...
I think in essence most of the field has devolved into some kind of soap opera tinged with mythology and nostalgia.

It's like watching Stranger Things and forgetting that it's just a really good TV show. And then debating about it for 50 years.

Who cares?
 
@Trajanus
I wanted to respond to a few of your thoughts so I took advantage of the board's nifty multi quote facility. You are very transparent and I like that. Honesty goes a long way and like me, I can tell that you really struggle with UFO phenomena. That's wonderful. :)

Trajanus said:
The problem is, 1.) the phenomenon tends to be secretive and avoids letting us have good data. I doubt new photos will be better--if as good--as old ones like McMinnville. Also, no matter how good the data may be, regardless of age, there will always be skeptics who won't accept it.
Click to expand...

As marduk so economically stated, who cares what the skeptics think. Whether they believe, or whether they are bound by a predisposed insecurity that makes them as religious as any true believer. I think you may have missed a far more critically important point brought about by your own considerations. 1.) Do we know whether the phenomena has a decisive volition that insists on being or appearing secretive? What if that is an illusion caused by the way we think about or identify the phenomena.

Trajanus said:
Sure like Planck once said, a new ideas don't win out by convincing opponents and getting them to see the light. A new, receptive generation just replaces them. But the worst problem isn't hard core skeptics. 2.) It's the phenomenon's secretiveness and capriciousness, enhanced by its capabilities. It evidently doesn't want us to be sure it's here.
Click to expand...

You're doing an awful lot of thinking for this phenomenon. Again, what if the myriad of phenomena that is the UFO consideration are confused by our perceptions of them, and the manner that we interpret those perceptions. I believe in the phenomena and I absolutely KNOW something critically important it is occurring within the phenomenal aspect of whatever is UFOs. But think T, just take time to back off and think. Is our preconceived definition of this phenomena the very reason why data is so tough to come by. Maybe we are hiding it from a capacity of awareness that we are not even aware we are in possession of. Possible?

Trajanus said:
3.) We can't solve any case, new or old, definitively because of the way the phenomenon operates. But you can't say for sure old cases will never have an answer. Many people presume the government has some of the answers and are trying to get them released. I've long doubted the government will reveal much anytime soon. But it's at least as naive, and probably more so, to think advanced ETs will do so either, even inadvertently.
Click to expand...

Again, I only ask you to reasonably consider whether it's the manner in which the phenomena operates, or is it the manner in which our investigations of the phenomena operate? * In a matter so critically important, shouldn't we at very least adopt the investigative lens with the broadest and least predetermined and refined perspective.

*This @marduk *is* the careless flaw of reductionism as a philosophical tool or approach to phenomenal investigations. Seeking to reduce larger or more potentially encompassing phenomenal matters yet defined to what are simpler more reasonably mundane phenomenal guesswork is no way to increase the odds/chances of arriving at the truth of the matter. Occams razor is almost always the wrong way to approach truly monumental or paradigmatic discoveries. The truth is almost always stranger than the vain imaginings of those seeking short cuts to profound truths. Thus he who seeks not to make mountains out of mole hills should do as well to keep from making mole hills out of mountains.
 
Jeff Davis said:
*This @marduk *is* the careless flaw of reductionism as a philosophical tool or approach to phenomenal investigations. Seeking to reduce larger or more potentially encompassing phenomenal matters yet defined to what are simpler more reasonably mundane phenomenal guesswork is no way to increase the odds/chances of arriving at the truth of the matter. Occams razor is almost always the wrong way to approach truly monumental or paradigmatic discoveries. The truth is almost always stranger than the vain imaginings of those seeking short cuts to profound truths. Thus he who seeks not to make mountains out of mole hills should do as well to keep from making mole hills out of mountains.
Click to expand...

And now I get your point.

And totally disagree with it, but at least I understand it.

One way of looking at science (and empiricism) is reductionism and systems theory. I think you're advocating systems theory.

Except that systems thinking is also well in the domain of occam's razor.

When Einstein proposed the special theory of relativity, he did so in a very economical way: he didn't propose that the universe is filled with ether, he took existing constructs and extended them in a new way with a different perspective. And I don't know very many truly monumental discoveries than special relativity.

(And his well-documented thought experiment with trains and mirrors started with reductionist thinking in my opinion)
 
Last edited:
marduk said:
I think in essence most of the field has devolved into some kind of soap opera tinged with mythology and nostalgia.

It's like watching Stranger Things and forgetting that it's just a really good TV show. And then debating about it for 50 years.

Who cares?
Click to expand...

Decades of inconclusive investigation (to say nothing of nonsense) may make the phenomenon seem unreal, and irrelevant. But I always thought its potential for a massive impact was great and that'll be the longterm result.
@Jeff Davis, what do you mean, specifically; how do you interpret the phenomenon?
 
Creepy Green Light said:
If your brain is telling you McMinnville (the truck mirror), then I cannot help you.
Click to expand...

It was no truck mirror; the object you posted was NOT what Trent photographed and nobody has found one which matches. That in addition to the investigator's conclusion that NO solid weighty object could've been used, as the wires above had no perceptible sagging. Not even Moody insisted it was a mirror.
 
Trajanus said:
It was no truck mirror; the object you posted was NOT what Trent photographed and nobody has found one which matches. That in addition to the investigator's conclusion that NO solid weighty object could've been used, as the wires above had no perceptible sagging. Not even Moody insisted it was a mirror.
Click to expand...
Ok great. There's a fellow over in Switzerland named Billy Meier that not only has great photo's & video's of flying saucers, but he's been taken on board one of them and traveled back in time to the age of dinosaurs. He even took pictures of some of the dinosaurs. It's a fascinating case. Look it up - you'll enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
Creepy Green Light said:
Ok great. There's a fellow over in Switzerland named Billy Meier that not only has great photo's & video's of flying saucers, but he's been taking on board one of them and traveled back in time to the age of dinosaurs. He even took pictures of some of the dinosaurs. It's a fascinating case. Look it up - you'll enjoy it.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I'd say that the Meier case is far more open and shut. I'd also say that the case for the object in the Trent photo being a truck mirror adds plenty of reasonable doubt.
 
Creepy Green Light said:
Ok great. There's a fellow over in Switzerland named Billy Meier that not only has great photo's & video's of flying saucers, but he's been taking on board one of them and traveled back in time to the age of dinosaurs. He even took pictures of some of the dinosaurs. It's a fascinating case. Look it up - you'll enjoy it.
Click to expand...

LOL this is demagoguery not a valid argument. They found models of UFOs at his place, not at Trent's.
 
ufology said:
They ( who? ) virtually disproved it ( what? ).
Click to expand...

As I wrote before, the commentators on KDR's blog some time ago, who investigated this case in depth. Again, a weighty object is practically ruled out due to lack of perceptible sagging of the wires right above it. Any hoax, they concluded, would have to have used paper. Last I checked, they don't make truck mirrors out of paper. :)
 
Trajanus said:
As I wrote before, the commentators on KDR's blog some time ago, who investigated this case in depth. Again, a weighty object is practically ruled out due to lack of perceptible sagging of the wires right above it. Any hoax, they concluded, would have to have used paper. Last I checked, they don't make truck mirrors out of paper. :)
Click to expand...
You talk as if the telephone/power lines in the photo are made of sewing thread. I don't know what type of lines you have in your neck of the woods but it would take a significant amount of weight to make them sag/dip. A truck mirror wouldn't even come close to making it dip - so your theory is ludicrous and out the window.
 
Trajanus said:
As I wrote before, the commentators on KDR's blog some time ago, who investigated this case in depth. Again, a weighty object is practically ruled out due to lack of perceptible sagging of the wires right above it. Any hoax, they concluded, would have to have used paper. Last I checked, they don't make truck mirrors out of paper. :)
Click to expand...
OK I just wanted to be sure rather than making assumptions because it could have been interpreted the other way, as in they ( the debunkers ) virtually disproved it ( the claim that the object is a UFO ), but you seem to be more pro than con on this one so that didn't seem to fit the context. Thanks for clarifying.

I'd have to see the study and examine the scene in order to determine the accuracy of any conclusions about the overhead wires, however I do tend to concur with @Creepy Green Light in that overhead wires can take a fair bit of weight, not to mention that the object might have been swinging on the wire, and to me, the wires don't seem to be hanging normally. Unless the distortions are from really bad warping of the picture, they look like they were photographed in motion to me, and include at least one spot that might indicate a point of attachment, but I'm certainly no photo expert or an expert on this case. Perhaps we should consult @Sentry because he's good at this sort of thing.
 
Creepy Green Light said:
You talk as if the telephone/power lines in the photo are made of sewing thread. I don't know what type of lines you have in your neck of the woods but it would take a significant amount of weight to make them sag/dip. A truck mirror wouldn't even come close to making it dip - so your theory is ludicrous and out the window.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the investigators. They took everything into consideration, and noted no perceptible sagging at all.
 
ufology said:
overhead wires can take a fair bit of weight,
Click to expand...


Nobody was suggesting a truck mirror would cause them to snap, just sag perceptibly. They concluded any model would've been made of paper.

and include at least one spot that might indicate a point of attachment
Click to expand...

Yeah the supposed knot. Not even Moody was impressed by that though.
 
Lol, so you think that's proven, and the mentally challenged Trents were experts at that? Besides other issues, analysis showed that "a distant object more naturally explains the data."
 
Back
Top