• 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

Free episodes:

Nope.

Actually, none of this will work. Very little works with respect to a real level of probability in favor of the ETH. For any proposition in question to be an actual hypothesis, it must first conform to scientific standards. Science is not built on mights and maybes concerning what we have never knowingly observed. Science is a mirror of nature, not a mirror of possibilities yet known to exist. Nor is it built upon probable correlations between chimpanzees and dolphins. If the matter came down to these types of over simplified generalities and comparative probabilities that you are alluding to here, we would still be living in the dark ages. By the logical reasoning that you are proposing, we should be routinely visited by highly advanced versions of ourselves and that's it. When looking at the data in documented reports, this is hardly the case. Instead they are filled with nonsensical events that in no way align themselves with space travel as we understand it, or ourselves as we understand ourselves to be.

What you are proposing here is belief system derived speculations, not scientific hypothesis. There really is no reasonable hypothetical grounds for the false comparisons that you're making. even stating that beings too advanced to be comprehensible to us is merely a false notion. It is not real because there is no logical grounds on which the premise can stand.
your understanding of what science is, is profoundly different than mine.

I'm offering the ETH as a logically consistent hypothesis based upon available physics.

I'm not proposing any new science, new age nonsense, or deus ex machina to make it work.

You don't need warp drive. You don't need evolutionary theory we don't see on earth. You don't need time travel, multiple dimensions, or spirit guides from the Pleiades. You don't need portals, hidden earthly civilizations, or a wing and a prayer.

What you need is what we've already got.
 
Last edited:
your understanding of what science is, is profoundly different than mine.

I'm offering the ETH as a logically consistent hypothesis based upon available physics.

I'm not proposing any new science, new age nonsense, or deus ex machina to make it work.

You don't need warp drive. You don't need evolutionary theory we don't see on earth. You don't need time travel, multiple dimensions, or spirit guides from the Pleiades. You don't need portals, hidden earthly civilizations, or a wing and a prayer.

What you need is what we've already got.

This is my understanding of science: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Precisely how is what you claim a legitimate scientific hypothesis based on "observation of the physical and natural world"?

Highly imaginative comparisons that result in speculation based projections do not equate to observations.
 
This is my understanding of science: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Precisely how is what you claim a legitimate scientific hypothesis based on "observation of the physical and natural world"?

Highly imaginative comparisons that result in speculation based projections do not equate to observations.
I just said how.

Maybe you could point out the flaw in my hypothesis.
 
Nope.

This is a variant of the "natives couldn't see Columbus' boats because they had no word for what they were" or "had never seen them before" myth, that's been debunked about a million times as apocryphal.

And it's pretty easy to debunk it yourself.

We see new things all the time. And still see them, and our brains deal with them reasonably well. In fact, there's a well-documented behavior that happens when our brains cannot match a pattern to things it knows -- curiosity.

Now, when we try to relate it as a narrative to someone else, we may use previous mutually shared experiences or objects as metaphor -- 'like two pie plates stuck together' is a good example.

Our minds are not just narrative engines. In fact, we existed quite well before there was any evidence of language. Buddhists explain this quite well -- concepts precede the naming of them is an example of this.

Another is existentialism: existence precedes essence.

The reason the ETH is so prevalent is that it is logical and quite internally consistent.

1. We see other stars that are like our sun.
2. There might be planets there where intelligent life evolved in a similar fashion as we did.
3. They might have the technology to visit us before we have the technology to visit them.

That's basically it. And for what it's worth, it works. You can wring your hands about alien sex and collecting rocks all you like, but that's behavioral stuff, and doesn't invalidate anything above.
Excellent post. There is absolutely nothing unscientific about the possibility of interstellar travel. I also suggest that it's time to differentiate between the Interstellar Hypothesis ( ISH ) and the ETH. The ETH is more of a catch-all term for anything off-world, which includes other possibilities besides interstellar, like interplanetary, nomadic spacefarers, intergalactic, and multiverses.
 
Last edited:
Nope.

Actually, none of this will work. Very little works with respect to a real level of probability in favor of the ETH. For any proposition in question to be an actual hypothesis, it must first conform to scientific standards. Science is not built on mights and maybes concerning what we have never knowingly observed. Science is a mirror of nature, not a mirror of possibilities yet known to exist. Nor is it built upon probable correlations between chimpanzees and dolphins. If the matter came down to these types of over simplified generalities and comparative probabilities that you are alluding to here, we would still be living in the dark ages. By the logical reasoning that you are proposing, we should be routinely visited by highly advanced versions of ourselves and that's it. When looking at the data in documented reports, this is hardly the case. Instead they are filled with nonsensical events that in no way align themselves with space travel as we understand it, or ourselves as we understand ourselves to be.

What you are proposing here is belief system derived speculations, not scientific hypothesis. There really is no reasonable hypothetical grounds for the false comparisons that you're making. even stating that beings too advanced to be comprehensible to us is merely a false notion. It is not real because there is no logical grounds on which the premise can stand.
Isn't that exactly what we see, though?

A bunch of morphologically varied reports?
 
Excellent post. There is absolutely nothing unscientific about the possibility of interstellar travel. I also suggest that it's time to differentiate between the Interstellar Hypothesis ( ITH ) and the ETH. The ETH is more of a catch-all term for anything off-world, which includes other possibilities besides interstellar, like interplanetary, nomadic spacefarers, intergalactic, and multiverses.
I'm down with that. ITH is where I'm at.
 
I'm down with that. ITH is where I'm at.
Ooops ... maybe we should make that the ISH or just the IH ... How did that "T" sneak in there anyway ... :oops: ... it's like for some unknown reason every hypothesis should end in "TH", it's like some kind of Freudian or "Fortean" slip ... lol.
 
Last edited:
Here's some more recent McMinnville-like UFO's;

5415-ec58a2bb5d56d231f99425f05c3e4905.jpg
5417-b6183259e0a916f6d973cdff2842d839.jpg
 
well i've seen a pair of UFO's, classic saucers as you know, and i certainly felt like we were under observation at the time. but i can't really tell you that the image that was in my head, that looked exactly like ET was coming down for a brief winter visit to northern ontario before zapping back up to the stars, was in fact ET. i'm a classic witness in the way you refer to the witness, but the more i've investigated the act of seeing and how the brain processes anomalous information, the less i'm able to verify for anyone that what i think i saw was exactly what was there. but if you take my case purely based on the information that i've provided it fulfills the basic ETH premise and in fact pretty much verifies it. however, i know that the virtual 3D event in my head was constructed for me by my neurons and my sociological history, giving me the best possible rendition of what my brain thought was up in the sky.

so i'm not devaluing all witnesses, otherwise i wouldn't bother wasting time talking about it if i thought there was nothing to this whole UFO thing, or that it exists only inside our heads. there is obviously some kind of external stimulus present that produces the many strange and common results that it does. i also have a soft spot for the witness and especially for the abductee claimant. these people have gone through something extraordinary and in some cases it was highly traumatic. however, i'm not prepared to make the leap that because of what their brains constructed for them it must be ET. i would argue that what the witness cohort presents is that it certainly appears that way, though there are an enormous amount of stories that point in much stranger directions, and if we are not going to recognize that the human being is involved in a co-creative event, between the stimulus and their biology and history then we are leaving out an enormous part of the equation.

what's even worse is we are making assumptions that the UFO is a saucer from outer space when in fact there is a specific process taking place: something strange in is the sky, or underwater, and the human being witnesses this and their brain does the best they can to create an image in their minds to match what is being seen. but what is being seen is anomalous, defies physics, and defies a lot of normal everyday processes that other common objects on this planet simply do not do. and i'm not trying to shuffle it all off into the psycho-social realm or as merely a figment of the imagination. what i'm suggesting is that we've been blindsided by an obvious choice for our era and it's wrong think imho. in an other era people saw horseless carts driving away from strange egg shaped objects that landed in a field (Chris Aubeck) but it wasn't a flying saucer or futuristic landcruiser, it was a horseless cart to that witness.

to the individual doing the seeing their time and place matters immensely because their brain is processing the event according to their time and place. the further back in time the more likely you are to see dragons descending from the sky or chariots on fire. i'm not saying to remove weight from the witness, but if anything spend a lot more time with the witness to understand their own history and their connection to their time and place to better understand what might be extraneous constructions of an acculturated mind and see what might be leftover - the anomalous stimulus.



and i would call that the mythology that we have made and nothing more. it looks like aliens from space so, therefore, aliens from space. sure it seems totally reasonable if you're not going to bother to recognize that there is a specific process at work in the act of perceiving or believe that culture plays no role in shaping the really strange things people sometimes see. from a historical perspective you can say all anomalous things seen are part of a control mechanism (Jaques Vallee) but then you'd be involving yourself in the many myths of our eras from chariots, to dragons to gods to ET descending from the sky, who are busy changing it up to suit the times. i say that the times shapes what we see, and what's really there is probably something else entirely. the reason why we can't see it clearly and why we see it differently across cultural eras is because it's something truly beyond our limited perceptual capacities. we are looking at the symbols of things from different times and not the thing itself.

we obviously can't rightly see the thing itself, and perhaps we never will, so instead of chasing down ET and believing that radar & ground traces confirms anything except more anomalous data, or possibly a technology beyond our own capacities, we might do better to investigate the process of seeing anomalous stimuli first and the how's and why's of what different witnesses see. lumping it all together into the reasonable notion that it's ET is missing a big part of the picture. so yes be kind to the witness and do not shun them or discount them, but work better to understand them, their biology and their history. the real clues lie there, no just in the story they tell. that's just a picture that their brain made in their mind.

consciousness = natural spiritual human owned presence. Human being used to be an androgynous spirit who manifested into a lower state. Our origin is a natural light spirit. Remanifestation of deceased friends/family/animals provided the experience and witness to the ownership of human life.

Human life exists as data after animals...yet we are not personally the data of animals. Animals own their own spirit presence, procreate their own species and own their own data.

Procreation of the species the only reason why life continues to exist on Earth....if the sexual act stopped, life would eventually desist.

Atmospheric feed back advice notifying the human mind....alien comes from out of SPACE.

Space = removal of all conditions, light/gas/stone as a presence.

What condition exists on Earth that would give a human mind awareness of space....the removal of light/gas/stone?

Nuclear fuel creation, and its burning.

Alien = the manifested spirit image after all other bodies are attacked destroyed = alien comes from out of space and due to manifestation of UFO.

Human awareness states the UFO condition and the alien condition are artificial to the natural life on Earth. The mind awareness also states that both conditions are an attack upon the natural life of the organic nature and Earth's stone fusion.

Stone fusion and spirit = CHRIST spirit SION. Christ as a child is called the LAMB.

The alien condition is called the LAM......the B condition destroyed, not allowing for the constant continuance

The alpha beta constant or the AB biblical aware spiritual statement.....the spirit on Earth is being attacked and destroyed by the presence/manifestation of the alien.....by the removal/burning of the holy spirit as an act of crucifixion.

Crucible
  1. a ceramic or metal container in which metals or other substances may be melted or subjected to very high temperatures.
    "the crucible tipped and the mould filled with liquid metal"
    • a situation of severe trial, or in which different elements interact, leading to the creation of something new.
      "their relationship was forged in the crucible of war"
    The Christ child was born in a "stable condition"......the nuclear/metals of the B - east.....in the MANger of the beast.
LAMB, the holy condition spirit birth continuance of the cross +....north/south/east/west = metal/nuclear/magnetic balances

To crucify means to

  1. 1.
    put (someone) to death by nailing or binding them to a cross, especially as an ancient punishment.

  2. 2.
    informal
    criticize (someone) severely and unrelentingly.

    synonyms: condemn, criticize severely, attack, tear apart, tear to pieces, censure, denounce, arraign, lambaste, pillory, carp at, cavil at, rail against, inveigh against, cast aspersions on, pour scorn on, disparage, denigrate, deprecate, malign, revile, vilify, besmirch

The Christ became the condition of spirit review regarding the ALPHA MAN who was then crucified on the cross.

The 12 Apostles: Skinned, Stoned, Sawed, Burned and Beheaded

The Light condition of holiness in Earths atmospheric heaven = 12....the body of 12 was sacrificed as those that followed the Christ.

Matthew was burnt, the conditions to crucify and destroy is to burn.

The Christ holy heavenly body states heave is from to "hew", to cut and remove. Light as the holy body was therefore removed from the Heavenly state by its loss, its cutting/burning removal of the Head....the heavenly spirit surrounding the body of God....or the Head of God, Earth stone creator. Head of God, Holy Crown/King/Lord conditions (heavenly body returning). God the stone, God creator of the Heavenly body.

The biblical literature stated that in the manifestation of the alien presence LAM was the loss of the holy Heavenly body of light LAMB by its removal/loss/destruction/burning as a review of the occultist practice....converting the nuclear of stone.

The secret calculations of Matthew relate M = 1000 "at" + the cross it was destroyed (to hew/cut) as a holy spirit of MAN....the alpha state.

The holy light of 12 plus the Christ spirit were therefore destroyed/removed from the Holy Heavenly body as an act of destruction against the Law of God...stone's natural fusion. The Law of Stone = 40. Moses face burnt on Mt. Sinai (face blackened) in the burning attack and melting of the metal. Law of Stone (2 tablets).

O pi = II 2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)
 
Your argument that they couldn't fool investigators because they were simple minded is ludicrous. Ever see the two guys with a piece of wood with a rope attached to it fool all the hot shot "experts" & investigators regarding crop circles? Person + wood + rope fooled many people. What's your excuse for that?

I doubt that accounts for all crop circles, especially the highly intricate ones, worldwide. As for Trent, your own sources indicate he'd have had to do more than just use a fishing line with some object. He would've had to photograph it in a certain way to give the effect of a large distant object (and presumably, also effectively hide the putative "fishing line"). Investigators certainly didn't get the impression he was bright enough for that. But what if he really WAS bright and skilled? As I pointed out before, no hoaxer would've photographed a model just below wires. He would've put it somewhere so that it appeared in the sky with nothing above--maybe have his wife toss it. Or, at least, photograph it so wires (or whatever) above don't show.
 
Nowhere big enough to create a civilization capable of throwing miles-wide stuff into the sky that just hangs out for a while before taking off at multiples of the speed of sound.

Furthermore, it's not just a matter of where they'd live. It's also a matter of WHY. Given the obvious high degree of capability of the entities, why should THEY hide underground or under the sea?? They'd have taken the surface long ago, and WE'd be troglodytes. :)
 
I doubt that accounts for all crop circles, especially the highly intricate ones, worldwide. As for Trent, your own sources indicate he'd have had to do more than just use a fishing line with some object. He would've had to photograph it in a certain way to give the effect of a large distant object (and presumably, also effectively hide the putative "fishing line"). Investigators certainly didn't get the impression he was bright enough for that. But what if he really WAS bright and skilled? As I pointed out before, no hoaxer would've photographed a model just below wires. He would've put it somewhere so that it appeared in the sky with nothing above--maybe have his wife toss it. Or, at least, photograph it so wires (or whatever) above don't show.
I'm going to start addressing you as "I have an answer (excuse) for everything guy"
 
I'm by no means an image expert, but I have had to the opportunity to shoot photos with a number of various cameras over the years, including the Kodak Brownie that my mom's family had when she was a kid. All of the cameras I've used from the Brownie, a 110, a 35mm film, early digital cameras, my smart phone, and very nice Nikon SLR digital, is that they make relatively large and close objects appear further away in the camera viewfinder and subsequent image whether it be film or a digital file. I don't see this relativity at work in the Mcminnville photographs. which makes me inclined to believe that they are fakes.
 
well i've seen a pair of UFO's, classic saucers as you know, and i certainly felt like we were under observation at the time. but i can't really tell you that the image that was in my head, that looked exactly like ET was coming down for a brief winter visit to northern ontario before zapping back up to the stars, was in fact ET. i'm a classic witness in the way you refer to the witness, but the more i've investigated the act of seeing and how the brain processes anomalous information, the less i'm able to verify for anyone that what i think i saw was exactly what was there. .... i know that the virtual 3D event in my head was constructed for me by my neurons and my sociological history, giving me the best possible rendition of what my brain thought was up in the sky.

How a blob of light turns into a silver metallic saucer in one's head is what I've been trying to argue as a function of human perception trying to make sense of a stimulus beyond our senses. And, according to my logic, any photo of a stimulus we can't fully perceive properly because of its unique properties is more likely to show up on film as a blob of light before it appears as a perfect Hollywood style metal craft, or toy train wheel, or garbage can lid etc.

Burnt, I’ve found your sighting really interesting, particularly your experience a few months after the UFO sighting of finding burn marks in the shape of the UFO on the roof of the garage above which the UFO was hovering. A location on the garage roof that could not be seen from the ground. Re-reading your December 2013 description of your sighting, it seems your views have changed. Back then it seemed you accepted the visual appearance of the UFOs as you perceived them, and as you drew them as a child. From your current comments it appears you question your perception of the UFOs. I’m curious, what are your current thoughts on the arc of burn marks which appeared to coincide with the shape of the UFO you perceived?
 
Last edited:
I just said how.

Maybe you could point out the flaw in my hypothesis.

The flaw is that your 1-3 isn't a scientific hypothesis by virtue of what is science. I guess you could say it's as good a guess as any, but not a good scientific guess in the least, that is, according to the working definition of science. And no, humanoids are are not a recognized scientific fact, so a hypothesis constructed of what is scientifically nonfactual elements is not a legitimate scientific hypothesis. What you need in order for your hypothesis to graduate to the theoretical is an acceptable scientific premise on which to base your theory. Humanoids do not equal such a premise anymore than pink unicorns do.
 
The flaw is that your 1-3 isn't a scientific hypothesis by virtue of what is science. I guess you could say it's as good a guess as any, but not a good scientific guess in the least, that is, according to the working definition of science. And no, humanoids are are not a recognized scientific fact, so a hypothesis constructed of what is scientifically nonfactual elements is not a legitimate scientific hypothesis. What you need in order for your hypothesis to graduate to the theoretical is an acceptable scientific premise on which to base your theory. Humanoids do not equal such a premise anymore than pink unicorns do.
sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
  1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Nowhere did I claim 'humanoids' or anything of that nature.

I claimed:
1. We see other stars that are like our sun.
2. There might be planets there where intelligent life evolved in a similar fashion as we did.
3. They might have the technology to visit us before we have the technology to visit them.

That is a working hypothesis that fits in current models of physics, biology, and planetary formation and discovery.

It is also testable. Given time, money, and discipline.
 
sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
  1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Nowhere did I claim 'humanoids' or anything of that nature.


That is a working hypothesis that fits in current models of physics, biology, and planetary formation and discovery.

It is also testable. Given time, money, and discipline.

Bullshirt! What the heck is the scientific method based on if not science?

*Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world (as opposed to imaginary worlds that aliens MIGHT be living on) through observation and experiment.

*This is the CONTEXT that you are leaving out in order to dodge the fact that what you are proposing cannot be definitively recognized as a scientific hypothesis, and without that context, it's NOT the scientific method apart to start with from pseudoscience.

Here is the way your definition of the scientific method reads when it is qualified by what is science as it's basic and most underlining premise on which to develop and base a scientific hypothesis.

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation of the physical and natural world, measurement of the physical and natural world , and experiment with the physical and natural world , and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses relating to the physical and natural world.

I claimed: and was wrong/flawed because:
1. We see other stars that are like our sun. Factual

2. There might be planets there where intelligent life evolved in a similar fashion as we did.
Nonfactual, therefore a non evidential sopposition on which we cannot base a legitimate scientific hypothesis, therefore this statement is speculation

3. They might have the technology to visit us before we have the technology to visit them.
Nonfactual, therefore a non evidential sopposition on which we cannot base a legitimate scientific hypothesis, therefore this statement is speculation

#1 starts out with a fact, and from there 2 & 3 quickly degrade into what is the realm of the imaginary based on maybes and mights. Maybe/Might = Non Quantifiable Scientific Premise.
 
Back
Top