• 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!

March 4, 2012 — Bryce Zabel, Peter Robbins, and Jennifer Stein


"What is the truth that cannot be told?" From the viewpoint of the silence group, it may be a little simpler than that. I think their mantra is, "Scientists, educators and other professionals: do not research the UFO subject. It will damage your career." As we've seen in the past, it may also end your life.

Have things changed in the last decade? Is instant Internet access to information and video frustrating the silence group? Is disclosure "happening every day," as Edgar Mitchell would say? I think so. Now, finally, there are too many voices to silence. Even the former Governor of Arizona says he witnessed the giant boomerang that flew over Phoenix in 1997. With a DSL wire attached to the back of our PC, we have the power to change minds around the world in real time. Viva la Paracast.

I think there is a promotional group. I think there are versions of the UFO myth that get promoted and encouraged by agencies and individuals who have used it to mask a wide variety of activities over the years. By careful manipulation of everything from the terms used to describe it to the infiltration of civilian organizations investigating it like NICAP, the public perception of UFOs seems to be at times intentionally diverted and channeled this way and that. The true motivation for this obfuscation is the subject of much speculation of course but it seems to be strategic in nature. A level of confusion and fantasy is actively maintained effectively diverting attention and energy from serious efforts to understand what are unarguably real world events involving real world objects of a highly mysterious and inexplicable nature to the public. The Internet, with its legions of hoaxers, would-be investigators, and deluded keyboard operators is just as much an impediment to that investigation as it is a boon. The Internet is an endless regurgitation of long-ago debunked nonsense that gets recycled and sent back through like some idiotic email chain-letter endlessly circulating the globe filing up disk drives with literal garbage. Just think Moonship UFO for an example of what I'm talking about.

The terrible secret that cannot be told could be something so reality breaking that the uninitiated have little chance of coping with it (such as we are the livestock of another species or some such) or it could simply be that the military and civilian government are powerless to cope with the UFO phenomena in any real sense and are shy about advertising it.
 
I think until such one for one copying could be invented, a close facsimile is all that is possible for a very long time. Of course, these things have a habit of jumping way ahead when you don't expect them too! Part of what makes science so exciting!

Even an exact copy down to the molecular level would still be just a copy and not the original. A transporter type device is a complete fantasy as it is generally presented and thought of in science fiction. It doesn't transport anything. It destroys the original and creates a duplicate in another location. Object A is not the signal, pattern, or data used to construct Object B on the receiving end. The whole idea of turning matter into some kind of energy (a total misuse of the term) then turning that energy back into the original matter is just fallacious at its core and a fantasy. At best you have a copy and not the original matter or configuration of matter.
 
Good show overall. My only gripes would be

1. the constant assumption that government agencies are hiding info for so-called "national security"

I think this assumes these people have our best interests at heart which I am not sure of. Second most things done in the interest of national security do more harm than good and third national security is often used as an excuse by agencies and individuals within government to cover up everything from infidelity to bribes to no-bid contracts, etc. as Wikileaks has revealed. The amount of documentation produced that is marked classified has been growing exponentially in recent decades as I understand it. So I think the guests were right, the trend is for the government to be more secret, but we also have mechanisms like Wikileaks to combat that will likely be the ultimate truth revealers or the phenomenon will reveal itself at a Super Bowl or similar. Frankly why anyone gives western democracies any legitimacy anymore I don't know, so I really don't care what they say.

2. Peter Robbins minor gun rant

He does realize of course that all studies I have seen show the gun legalization reduces crime and the areas with the harshest gun laws are those with the most crime? Is he suggesting that the organization that is hiding the truth from the public be relied upon without alternative to protect the public?
 
I think there is a promotional group. I think there are versions of the UFO myth that get promoted and encouraged by agencies and individuals who have used it to mask a wide variety of activities over the years. By careful manipulation of everything from the terms used to describe it to the infiltration of civilian organizations investigating it like NICAP, the public perception of UFOs seems to be at times intentionally diverted and channeled this way and that. The true motivation for this obfuscation is the subject of much speculation of course but it seems to strategic in nature. A level of confusion and fantasy is actively maintained effectively diverting attention and energy from serious efforts to understand what are unarguably real world events involving real world objects of a highly mysterious and inexplicable nature to the public. The Internet, with its legions of hoaxers, would-be investigators, and deluded keyboard operators is just as much an impediment to that investigation as it is a boon. The Internet is an endless regurgitation of long-ago debunked nonsense that gets recycled and sent back through like some idiotic email chain-letter endlessly circulating the globe filing up disk drives with literal garbage. Just think Moonship UFO for an example of what I'm talking about.

The terrible secret that cannot be told could be something so reality breaking that the uninitiated have little chance of coping with it (such as we are the livestock of another species or some such) or it could simply be that the military and civilian government are powerless to cope with the UFO phenomena in any real sense and are shy about advertising it.


I have to disagree T.O on the secret being so terrible that 'the unitiated have little chance of coping with it'.
If we accept that there are some people who do know more than the rest of us, exactly who would these people be? I would guess some scientists, military, civil servants and maybe politicians. Oh, and some spooks.
So what enables these people to handle a truth the rest of us cannot? I studied physics, I was in military intelligence, I worked at the British NSA. I can guarrantee you that people working in these places are just people. There is nothing about them any different to you and I.
If they are not jumping off cliffs left right and centre, or going 'postal' on their families I have to think that the truth, however horrible, is possible to deal with.

The facts thus far seem to be that there is no overt alien (or whatever) invasion going on. People are not being farmed, and in the main, people are just living their lives then dying as they always have. I don't see what can be so terrible if it is not affecting the average person right now? I think it is more likely that the worldview of people would change and certainly issues regarding religion. It's not that we can't handle the truth, it's that those in power don't want us to know a different truth because that puts their status quo at risk?

I always think that if the religious of the world were shown unequivocally that religions are made up by man to control man, then they might indeed freak out a bit. Well, I could not care one iota about someone who's whole existence is based on a book and tradition. If the 'truth' shatters their world, then I think that is 100% their problem for putting all their eggs in one basket so to speak. I may add one half of my family is very religious and they may indeed suffer if they were to find out their religion was not what they thought. Again, as harsh as it may be, that's their problem for believing in fairies!
 
Some religions may find themselves adaptable to an ET presence. Hinduism more or less accepts life on other planets. Closer to home, the Vatican has officially welcomed the possibility of extraterrestrial life. If I'm not mistaken, the Mormons, Scientology and the Nation of Islam all accept interplanetary life in some form. I expect religious belief in general to just reform itself to accommodate aliens. And why shouldn't it? If God created the universe, why would He/She/It leave it mostly empty? As for the more reactionary sects, they would have no choice but to adapt. Religious belief seems to be a natural tendency of the mind. Accordingly, it reshapes itself in response to environmental pressures, as in the case of the advance of technology.

But even if I'm right, the powers that be may not see it this way and may desire to suppress information for fear of religious sentiments.
 
I immediately watched dark skies after the podcast. Quite a good show. It was almost like "watching" a paracast themed podcast! Betty & Barney Hill, Area 51, Roswell.....et al. I turned to my wife and said it's as if someone wrapped the "ufo phenomenon" in cotton wool and has started to unravel it through "fiction" (that's not to say it's been proven as real) on the unsuspecting public s' conscientiousness. Way ahead of it's time. The only thing that kinda irked me was the alien bug scenes, they had 40 million to work on the show and they failed miserably with the special effects for such an important aspect of the show.
 
Granted but i think in the mid 90's, decent CGI was still expensive and sparingly used in feature films, let alone a TV series. Nonetheless, an excellent show that cleverly weaved many classic aspects and legends of the UFO phenomena.
 
Before technology ever allows us to make perfect copies of humans, I think we will have nano tech that allows us to meld organic matter with electronic hardware so that humans will naturally "evolve"into technological form. Our concious forms will bit by bit become digital. Already tech exists to detect signals from human synapses and brain waves. Once humans are all hardware, its hard to say what consciousness will mean anymore...
 
A good thought experiment starts with assuming two identical brains in identical environments and identical histories etc. The obvious question is one of locus of identity. Perhaps nature simply doesn't allow this, so as to make the question invalid. Or perhaps self-awareness has no distinct location in space-time. Which is what we might expect in a holographic universe.

Peter Robbins is always an interesting and articulate interview. But I don't quite share his "classic" explanation for lack of disclosure as institutional fear of of societal breakdown. I think the answer is even more strange and complex. Assuming, of course, that governments are really in possession of "the goodies".
 
Governments are not in possession of 'goodies'.

But I am positive very small numbers within the military and civil servants do have some good stuff. Nick Pope (I am sure I need not explain who he is) is at a loss as to how Rendlesham documents 'disappeared' and no-one seemed to be taking it seriously. As one UK Admiral put it, 'Either something out of this world happened, or large numbers of US personnel at a nuclear-armed base were hallucinating on duty. Either way it is of the utmost importance'.
Stories abound of confiscation of evidence.

I am not convinced even those 'in the know' really know what is going on but I am sure they know that 'it' is going on and have a much better picture from which to make decent educated guesses.

I have personal experience of a Government lying about something very serious. I consider craft that can do as they please above nuclear bases in our airspace as more serious than the other matter. So would your and my governments lie about it? Of course.

It is politicians I think who are likely to be in the dark. Most of them don't hold top jobs for too long and the pool of people cleared for this stuff must be kept really small. I imagine a UK defence minister would only be told the full picture if something really big happened and it was unavoidable.
 
Governments are not in possession of 'goodies'.

But I am positive very small numbers within the military and civil servants do have some good stuff.

It would certainly seem so. But the baggage here is considerable. I guess one could answer that major world governments have plenty of baggage handling capacity.
 
Back
Top