• 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!

Kevin D. Randle, The Government UFO Files: The Conspiracy of Cover-Up


Forums New posts
wwkirk

wwkirk

Paranormal Adept
This must be a record in Paracast history. I've lost count how many good guests in a row.
A review on Amazon.com accused Kevin of being a debunker. But he is a true beliver in extraterrestrial visitation. This is not meant as an insult. he seems to have good reasons for his position.
 
This is the problem with online reviews. Some are just meant as personal attacks, while others convey false information to advance an agenda. I understand about having stalkers follow your every deed or published effort and advancing their garbage. It's why I suggested to Kevin that he just inform Amazon to investigate the matter and deal with that joker once and for all.

It's one thing to have a wide range of views about a book or other material. A free discussion is important. An author may receive bad reviews from people who just don't like the material. Those reviews should be published too. But the personal attacks have to go.
 
Kevin is some one working hard to find the truth. THANK YOU KEVIN. I thought the questions by the forum members brought out Kevin's thinking. I am glad they were asked.
 
Listened to this episode last night. Really enjoyed the entire show. I liked that Kevin at least digs for documentation on any particular case, before coming to any conclusions. Found it interesting that he knows of many folks(local apache,etc.) who went out in search for any signs/evidence of such a place as Dulce.
 
it seems like randle works really hard at this. i just dont know how he keeps going. the breakthroughs, the peaks vs the valleys whatever you want to call them seem to come so sporadically.

my own interest in this subject reaches back 20 years. over that time, my views have changed on the subject. i wonder if the same is true for randle? is there an evolution going on there for him or is he trying to put the square peg in the round hole? no offense intended by the way.
 
Great show and great guest, of course, though I have to admit every time Randall's on I feel like I need a nap after the program. He's got such a wealth of information stored up in that head of his I think he struggles to get it all out to make his points. I loved the point he made about another investigator coming in behind him and being able to find the same documents and find the same results as he does whether it's three days or three years later. This type of repetitiveness and validation is one of the key edicts of the scientific method and is certainly along the right track for solid investigative work.

One comment I wanted to make about the program, however, more involves the preamble rather than the interview; specifically, I think it's a little unfair and unjust to call out forum members on the show. Gene and Chris were defending last weeks guest who'd been attacked by a forum poster (Randal, no relation to this weeks guest), after that particular program. Now anybody who's been on the PC Forums for sometime knows how outspoken Randal (aka; Ufology) can be about his beliefs and opinions, and yes, perhaps he needs to be tempered a bit if he's being abrasive and abusive to guests on the forums, but doing so on the radio program I believe is a low blow. My issue is that Randal can't defend himself within that environment since he can't call into the show or come on the show as a guest. Here online in the forum, a debate can ensue in which all parties chime in, however when Chris called Randal out on the radio program, Randal has no opportunity to respond in-kind.

This isn't the first time a forum member was called out on the radio show, and not given the same opportunity or environment to respond; Chris called out Angelo a year or so back for Angelo's skeptical comments, also made here in the forums. Now I know that the PC belongs to Gene and Chris and they can do with it whatever they want, but these aren't just blow hard paranormal personalities they're calling out, here. Angelo and Randal are fans, not just of UFOs and the paranormal, but of the Paracast itself, so I think calling them out negatively on the show should be avoided. I'm not saying don't call out the pop-culture peeps like Billy Meier or such, just maybe temper comments about forum posters and fans even if you disagree with their comments or positions. Or at least engage them only in areas (online) in which they can respond.

My 2-cents.

J.
 
Gene & Chris,

This is clearly the golden age of the show. 'Nuff said.

I really liked your discussion about skepticism being considered as debunker-ism on this episode. Just because we question something means we're not open-minded for some people? Your skepticism has re-ignited my faith in paranormal research and phenomena, not damaged it.

Keep up the good work, and I can't wait for next week.
 
Many good points made Jeff, especially regarding the intersection of deep fans of the show (why else would we be here?) and their comments on the forum hitting the airwaves. I think there's a great depth to the fanbase and forum participants, who represent the complete Paracast package for me. I love it when opinions & questions of forum members are celebrated, investigated or when their voices get to be contributors on the show - big props to the hosts for facilitating such excellent audience moments. But critiquing us without response time, or while banned? Hmmm....not really a fair space there is it in terms of who holds the power. Still, it's their show not ours. Dialogue does not always go both ways.

I've also enjoyed the latest string of guests and shows, but feel that the acronym discussion should be used as a pivot to explore bigger core, historical issues in ufology. That would have been a very fruitful follow up to Roe's position on the UAP'S and his organization's choice of direction. Randall did not need to be called out
 
For anyone wondering why there aren't many young people entering the field, look no further than tireless researchers like Kevin Randle. This man has put in decades of life and spirit and we are no closer to the truth than if he never entered the field. That has to be discouraging to anyone on the outside looking in.
 
I believe it was the beginning of this episode, where Gene describes Kevin as being "appropriately sceptical" -my wife happened to be listening, and couldn't understand the phrase. I tried to explain how one needs to be able to filter out the nonsense, and other fakery.
People who are not "current" -seem to think you must be on one of only two sides, "believer vs non-believer". I think many don't get the middle ground, or "being on the fence" regarding this subject.
 
This was a very informative episode. I particularly was surprised to learn that Isaac Newton was a con-man. I am hoping it doesn't throw his theory of gravity out the window. What a bummer!
 
We'll now we know what late Kenneth Arnold saw , no more to see folks move on and you would fly them over Washington state in broad daylight if they are top secret ? .Unless your foe or allies has some better gear:)
 
Jeff Crowell said:
Great show and great guest ... One comment I wanted to make about the program, however, more involves the preamble rather than the interview; specifically, I think it's a little unfair and unjust to call out forum members on the show. Gene and Chris were defending last weeks guest who'd been attacked by a forum poster (Randall, no relation to this weeks guest), after that particular program. Now anybody who's been on the PC Forums for sometime knows how outspoken Randall (aka; Ufology) can be about his beliefs and opinions, and yes, perhaps he needs to be tempered a bit if he's being abrasive and abusive to guests on the forums, but doing so on the radio program I believe is a low blow. My issue is that Randall can't defend himself within that environment since he can't call into the show or come on the show as a guest. Here online in the forum, a debate can ensue in which all parties chime in, however when Chris called Randall out on the radio program, Randall has no opportunity to respond in-kind.

This isn't the first time a forum member was called out on the radio show, and not given the same opportunity or environment to respond; Chris called out Angelo a year or so back for Angelo's skeptical comments, also made here in the forums. Now I know that the PC belongs to Gene and Chris and they can do with it whatever they want, but these aren't just blow hard paranormal personalities they're calling out, here. Angelo and Randal are fans, not just of UFOs and the paranormal, but of the Paracast itself, so I think calling them out negatively on the show should be avoided. I'm not saying don't call out the pop-culture peeps like Billy Meier or such, just maybe temper comments about forum posters and fans even if you disagree with their comments or positions. Or at least engage them only in areas (online) in which they can respond.

My 2-cents.

J.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your comments more than you know, and I could say a fair bit about @Christopher O'Brien's comments regarding the position I had taken with respect to NARCAP's image management strategy. But now I wonder if simply disagreeing and providing a reason will result in some other trumped-up infraction? Let's find out ( I'll comment specifically on Kevin's part of the show in the next post ): On one hand Chris seems to think that the public perception of the UFO phenomenon is a really important issue, and that we need a solid foundation to move forward. I couldn't agree more, yet in the next breath, the very premises upon which that foundation should be formed, including clearly defined terms for what we're talking about, is seen as trivia. How does that in any way make sense? Without clear terminology based on historical usage and logical analysis, those who take an interest in the subject are doomed to continue down the same path of confusion as so many others.

Chris proclaims that the word UFO is toxic, and although this isn't as big a problem as Chris seems to think, it's still a factor to be changed for the better. So what do I do? I defend ufology with a level headed website built on a solid foundation with examples of serious ufology. Meanwhile, while I'm out doing that, what does NARCAP do? It creates an insidious image management strategy that reinforces the perception of ufologists as crackpots and charlatans in order to help give itself more credibility, when in fact, they're investigating the same phenomena. The quality of their work notwithstanding, that's nothing short of the pot calling the kettle black.

Yet the Paracast sticks up for NARCAP on that issue, labels my responses to Ted's objections as "personal attacks" and "badgering" and then seems to allude to me as an "unelected representative for a particular term". That's all complete nonsense because anyone who looks objectively at the discussion can see that I took time to listen to the show carefully enough to transcribe relevant parts, and use those examples along with direct quotes from NARCAP documents to back-up my point. Simply because Ted didn't like that in no way qualifies as a "personal attack" or "badgering". The very idea of a discussion forum is to express ideas, and there shouldn't be any requirement that all participants have to agree.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top